Councilors approve support of same-sex marriage

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Related YouTube Video

Posted: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 8:00 pm | Updated: 9:52 pm, Wed Apr 24, 2013.

The Santa Fe City Council chambers erupted into applause and cheers Wednesday night after the council passed a resolution supporting marriage equality for gays in New Mexico.

A couple of dozen opponents of the measure remained in their seats.

Subscription Required

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login Now

Need an online subscription?



You must login to view the full content on this page.

Thank you for reading 5 free articles on our site. You can come back at the end of your 30-day period for another 5 free articles, or you can get complete access to the online edition for $2.49 a week. If you need help, please contact our office at 505-986-3010 You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login Now

Need an online subscription?



Rules of Conduct

  • 1 No Alias Commenters must use their real names.
  • 2 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 3 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. and please turn off caps lock.
  • 4 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.

Welcome to the discussion.


  • Steve Salazar posted at 10:37 am on Wed, May 1, 2013.

    Steve Salazar Posts: 871

    What's the proper share, 18%, like the President paid?

  • Samuel posted at 1:04 pm on Tue, Apr 30, 2013.

    Samuel Posts: 3

    Every human should be allowed to marry whomever they choose. It is the business of nobody else, but their own. Conservatives want their noses in everybody elses business; women (birth control), gays and lesbians (marriage), the poor (medicaid), but, they absolutely hate when somebody tells them to pay their proper share of taxes or back universal background checks. You all stay out of everyone 's business and I'm sure everyone will stay out of yours. Congratulations on marriage equality in Santa Fe!

  • Doug Smart posted at 6:03 pm on Sat, Apr 27, 2013.

    SantaFeResident Posts: 13

    To the 5 Councilors who voted YES, Thank you.

    To the 2 abstentions and the 1 NO vote, you each mentioned your religious beliefs, which I suspect sounds noble to you. But your logic (excuses?) is counter to the Constitution of the U.S. The Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, included a clear separation of church and state. To you 3, I don't see any evidence you are wiser (or nobler) than Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, and the other members of the committee who wrote the Constitution.

  • Steve Salazar posted at 12:29 pm on Sat, Apr 27, 2013.

    Steve Salazar Posts: 871

    Liberals are already trying to force religious organizations, including the Catholic Church, to purchase health plans that cover abortive procedures and drugs. You must know that these procedures and drugs are totally against their faith.

    So what makes you think that if same sex marriage is ever legalized that these same liberals won't try to force the Churches to perform these marriages?

    This has nothing to do with living and loving, it's a liberal power grab.

  • Donald Sure posted at 10:46 am on Sat, Apr 27, 2013.

    Older and wiser Posts: 86

    If it is non-binding, how does it positively effect anything? Also, Apples and oranges in terms of this issue and the need for additional law enforcement.

  • ernest green posted at 8:38 am on Sat, Apr 27, 2013.

    ernest green Posts: 20

    I'm fine with the process and the need for staff to pull together figures and estimates. What I'm not fine with is folks tasked with fiscal oversight proposing ideas absent the determinant of cost, or in Dimas' proposal, a partial accounting of what would be a recurring annual cost. That's either naivete, ignorance, or willful misrepresentation. Compare that deliberation to the current one: would there be a public cost to voting on a non-binding resolution that positively affects some of the residents in his district? No, not one cent. Whether the Council should be spending time on non-binding issues is another matter, but the fact is that it did, and the man balked at taking a position for the benefit of his constituents rather than a position benefiting himself.

  • Yeb Beirta posted at 6:17 am on Sat, Apr 27, 2013.

    Yeb Bierta Posts: 1

    Gay couples are paying taxes, contributing to our state, raising and adopting children that were neglected by us straight people....why shouldn't they have the opportunity and freedom to get married? It's a civil marriage with a license given to them by a clerk. Has nothing to do with religion, nor will religious leaders be forced to marry gay couples. This is about equal rights and freedoms. No one's faith should dictate other people's rights....otherwise, we're no better than some of the militant regimes in the middle east. And I resent that this church protesting this tried to represent families. My gay friends in loving, committed relationships raising children they adopted are just as much of a family and deserve the equal access we're all afforded to that marriage license. Stop judging, start living and loving.

  • Donald Sure posted at 8:51 pm on Fri, Apr 26, 2013.

    Older and wiser Posts: 86

    Mr. Green,
    I can take or leave Counselor Dimas, but you too need to understand how the city council works. It is very similar to the legislature in that the party sponsoring legislation relies on the staff of the state or city to provide the cost analysis.

    When a legislator wants a road built, he doesn't get his pencil and eraser, he asks those who do this for a living to provide the dollar and cents figure.

    I think counselor Dimas did have a point in that the council should consider focussing on issues that they have direct control over.

  • Donald Sure posted at 8:42 pm on Fri, Apr 26, 2013.

    Older and wiser Posts: 86

    Marco, you need to get your facts straight. Magistrates only have jurisdiction over offenses charged as 1st, 2nd or 3rd DWI. A ninth offense as you allege would have been before a district court judge as a felony.

    I am not sure if any of the DWI charges against this person were dismissed or otherwise adjudicated, but if Judge Dimas hadthe case you allege, it was a misdemeanor, and my guess would be you don't have any clue about the plea the DA offered or the potentially weak case they may have had that resulted in the plea.

  • Mark Ordonez posted at 11:24 am on Fri, Apr 26, 2013.

    marcoordonez Posts: 657

    You are right about his bad judgement. One more reason to oppose Bill Dimas, former Judge. He was the overseeing Judge on John Paul Chavez's 9th DUI. Dimas sentenced him to 365 days, suspending all but 3 days, and I believe a $250-500 fine. Within the year, "John Paul Chavez , in aa 2002 incident, hit Colorado tourists Michael and Helen "Elly" Cote as they crossed a street near the Plaza. Chavez dragged the woman under his truck for several blocks and left her with physical and mental limitations that remain to this day." SFNM

  • ernest green posted at 9:56 am on Fri, Apr 26, 2013.

    ernest green Posts: 20

    I was unimpressed with Councilor Dimas before this vote. Now I'm questioning his purpose as a voting member of the Council. He pushed an increase in safety officers without preparing or presenting any of the necessary cost analysis (including future pension costs), but he considers the right of some Santa Feans to have a family (many in his district), to be below the threshold for debate. His excuses were many. At least Ives had the fortitude to declare concrete reasons for his abstention. This is not the decision making process I want to see in a member of public office. You will be opposed on election day Mr. Dimas.

  • Red Orgreen posted at 9:54 am on Fri, Apr 26, 2013.

    Red Orgreen Posts: 14

    We should just do away with marriage altogether, it no longer means a thing! People are having kids out of wedlock already, cities are collecting fees for licenses, this city should move on to more important issues.

  • remeyGUI posted at 11:20 pm on Thu, Apr 25, 2013.

    remeyGUI Posts: 2

    Decades ago, marriage has been a sacred thing to most believers. But because of changes which is really inevitable today, the context of union of opposite sex has been opposed. This is due to same sex relationship that us we all see are accepted now by the society. Perhaps, the Catholic Church might not convince by the idea but as we all know the state and the church is completely separated . In fact, Former President Bill Clinton is appealing to the Supreme Court to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which he signed into law, essentially barring federal recognition of same-sex marriages by defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I read it here: Bill Clinton on same sex marriage

  • John McAndrew posted at 6:53 pm on Thu, Apr 25, 2013.

    John McAndrew Posts: 15


  • Steve Salazar posted at 2:49 pm on Thu, Apr 25, 2013.

    Steve Salazar Posts: 871

    I would choose commendation any old day

  • John McAndrew posted at 2:14 pm on Thu, Apr 25, 2013.

    John McAndrew Posts: 15

    Remind me again what Jesus said about gay marriage, or homosexuality in general.

    Nothing. He said nothing. And if you want to cite the Hebrew Bible's pronouncements on the subject, you open up an entire can of worms.

    The truth is, you believe as they did in Animal Farm, that "some . . . are more equal than others." Frankly, I don't care what your holy book says any more than I care what the Quran says on the matter. You are welcome to live by your own lights, but don't try to make those who don't believe as you do live by your beliefs. You don't get to do that.

  • John McAndrew posted at 2:09 pm on Thu, Apr 25, 2013.

    John McAndrew Posts: 15

    "HOW, How can one say, "it is O.K. to marry a person of their own gender, woman/woman, man/man???"

    Easily, if you believe that the most important thing, the one essential component to marriage, is love, and the commitment that implies.

  • Steve Salazar posted at 12:12 pm on Thu, Apr 25, 2013.

    Steve Salazar Posts: 871

    If people are going to use an alias, they shouldn't link their login to facebook, just sayin'.

  • Xipe Totec posted at 9:39 am on Thu, Apr 25, 2013.

    Xipe Totec Posts: 1

    Dimas's excuse suggests he needs some education on the law. While it may not be a city issue, the Supreme Court is not relevant to the powers of New Mexico to provide marriage equality. The Court will not forbid it, and is extremely unlikely to mandate it under the US Constitution. But that doesn't bear on the issue here. It is a state question, and if you agree with the city attorney, state law permits it now. What we need next is to clean out the religious control of the city council. It is so tiresome to hear these pompous pious Catholics. Grow up, guys.

  • Steve Salazar posted at 9:02 am on Thu, Apr 25, 2013.

    Steve Salazar Posts: 871

    You mean imposing their "right' on those photographers and florists, by lawsuits.

  • Steve Salazar posted at 8:32 am on Thu, Apr 25, 2013.

    Steve Salazar Posts: 871

    I just drove by the county clerks office, you better hurry and get into line for your same sex marriage license.

  • torqueflite posted at 7:46 am on Thu, Apr 25, 2013.

    torqueflite Posts: 1

    Congratulations to Santa Fe, and thank you for supporting marriage equality.

  • MartinFlores505 posted at 7:38 am on Thu, Apr 25, 2013.

    MartinFlores505 Posts: 41


  • MartinFlores505 posted at 7:36 am on Thu, Apr 25, 2013.

    MartinFlores505 Posts: 41


  • sfobserver posted at 6:54 am on Thu, Apr 25, 2013.

    sfobserver Posts: 63

    IMO this resolution isnt worth the time or money spent on it. Besides the fire dept, we taxpayers also paid overtime to at least 3 police officers who were stationed at city hall that evening. Where was the paid Peso Chavez security guard who although the contract was supposed to be temporary until last Dec is still roaming city hall during the day?

  • sfobserver posted at 6:52 am on Thu, Apr 25, 2013.

    sfobserver Posts: 63

    I agree with your assessment. As for Coss not voting based on religion why did he then want a change to the nudity laws when some small percentage of Catholics signed a petition saying they were disgusted by the almost nude bike riders who were against oil?
    As for the reporter, she needs to get her head on straight. Abstenions are not votes against--they are abstenions. That means the vote was 5-1 with 2 abstentions...

  • John McAndrew posted at 11:15 pm on Wed, Apr 24, 2013.

    John McAndrew Posts: 15

    Those who claim religious justification for opposing this should be ashamed of themselves. They are doing nothing more noble than using their religion aas lipstick on the pig of their bigotry.

    Life is hard, and the last thing any god worthy of the title would be interested in doing is denying love - the best thing for making a hard life, or any life, worthwhile.

    "If you have not love, you are but a clanging cymbal." Denying the validity of someone's love is like denying them the right to air or water – or the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It's unAmerican, and certainly, unequivocally unChristian.

  • CraigO posted at 9:37 pm on Wed, Apr 24, 2013.

    CraigO Posts: 3

    Awesome!! Santa Fe City Council for President in 2016!!

  • Art Encinias posted at 9:16 pm on Wed, Apr 24, 2013.

    NativeSon Posts: 1

    While I admire the City's stance on marriage equality, I wonder how the resolution can have any practical effect. County Clerks don't answer to any city authority, much less Santa Fe's. And I wonder why the City Attorney issued an opinion on this issue in the first place, since it doesn't seem to bear on any traditional city function. And how come it came up -- not out of any city committee -- but at a press conference? I can't help but consider one councilman's observation that it's all political grandstanding by politicians with one eye on future office and the other on a hot political trend.

    I think marriage equality will be a reality in this country sooner, rather than later and, like most Americans, I'm in favor of it. The City's recent action won't advance that one bit - except symbolically -- and, meanwhile, the day-to-day work of the city waits while we hold pep rallies and protests in the City Council chambers on an issue the City can't do anything about. Color me puzzled.


Follow The Santa Fe New Mexican

Today’s New Mexican, July 24, 2014

To view a replica of today's printed edition of The Santa Fe New Mexican, you must be a subscriber. Get complete access to the online edition, including the print replica, at our low rate of $2.49 a week. That's about the price of a cup of coffee. Or get online and home delivery of our print edition for $3.24. Click here for details.