Connect with us

News

New Mexico high court rules for marriage equality

Decision makes state the 17th with same-sex marriage on the books

Published

on

New Mexico Supreme Court, gay news, Washington Blade, gay news
New Mexico Supreme Court, gay news, Washington Blade, gay news

The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled in favor marriage equality. (Photo public domain)

Capping off a year of historic victories, the New Mexico high court handed down a unanimous ruling on Thursday granting same-sex couples the ability to wed in the state.

The 5-0 decision is written by Justice Edward Chavez, who concludes the current statutory scheme of the marriage law violates the Equal Protection Clause under Article II, Section 18, of the state constitution.

“We hold that the State of New Mexico is constitutionally required to allow same-gender couples to marry and must extend to them the rights, protections, and responsibilities that derive from civil marriage under New Mexico law,” the ruling states.

The ruling, which takes effect immediately, makes New Mexico the 17th state with marriage equality on the books. It also retroactively affirms the same-sex marriages for couples who already wed after obtaining marriage licenses from county clerks in the state.

The parties in the lawsuit, Griego v. Oliver, were six same-sex couples as well as all 33 of the state’s county clerks, who sought clarification on whether the state law enabled them to deliver marriage licenses to gay couples. Representing the same-sex couples were the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, the national ACLU, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the law firm of Sutin, Thayer & Browne APC as well as New Mexico attorneys Maureen Sanders, N. Lynn Perls and J. Kate Girard.

Laura Schauer Ives, legal director for ACLU-New Mexico, said the decision represents a “historic and joyful day for New Mexico.”

“As a state, we have always strived to treat all families with dignity and respect, and today’s decision allowing loving, committed same sex couples to marry continues that tradition,” Schauer Ives said. “The more than 1,000 same-sex couples who have already married in New Mexico can now rest certain knowing their marriages will be recognized and respected by our state.”

Camilla Taylor, National Marriage Project Director for Lambda Legal, commended her colleagues in the LGBT advocacy community for leading the way to a favorable decision on marriage equality in New Mexico.

“This beautiful unanimous decision explicitly underscores the argument we and our sister organizations have long made: denying same-sex couples the ability to marry imposes significant emotional and dignitary harm and is discrimination, pure and simple,” Taylor said.

New Mexico Gov. Suzanne Martinez, who opposes same-sex marriage but didn’t actively defend the marriage law, said in a statement she’ll abide by decision, but wish it were settled differently.

“My personal views on this issue are well-known, and I’m confident that most New Mexicans believe, like I do, that it should have been settled by a vote of the people,” Martinez said. “Instead, the Supreme Court stepped in and rendered their decision. While there will surely be intense debate about this decision moving forward, I encourage New Mexicans to continue to respect one another in their discourse, as this is an important issue for many New Mexicans on both sides.”

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said immediate after the ruling he had no “official reaction,” but offered some thoughts.

“I would say that we welcome that ruling, and this is another example of the extraordinary progress that’s been made when it comes to equal rights for LGBT Americans in this country,” Carney said.

Justices make use of the June decision from the U.S. Supreme Court against Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, noting the decision leaves marriage equality as the only option for same-sex couples to receive the federal benefits and for the state to avoid a federal challenge to its state law.

“Interpreting our statutes to authorize committed same-gender couples to enter into civil marriage will grant them the rights and privileges available to opposite-gender married couples in approximately one thousand statutes and federal regulations that refer to a person’s marital status, thereby avoiding a constitutional challenge on that basis,” the decision states.

The decision is the culmination of a drawn-out process over the course of 2013. It started in March with Santa Fe Mayor David Coss introducing a resolution, later approved the city council, saying marriage equality was already legal in New Mexico because of the gender-neutral construction of some portions of state law. That’s the conclusion Judge Alan Malott reached in a decision earlier this year extending marriage equality to Bernalillo and Santa Fe counties.

Notably, the court rejects in its decision the notion that marriage is already legal under the current state statutory scheme, observing that the legislature has passed laws, such as one changing the marriage application forms in 1961, defining marriage in opposite-sex terms.

“Thus, we conclude that a mix of gender-neutral and gender-specific terminology in the domestic relations statutes does not mean that the Legislature intended to authorize marriage between same-gender couples,” the decision states. “On the contrary, we conclude that the statutory scheme reflects a legislative intent to prohibit same-gender marriages.”

LGBT groups followed up with the Santa Fe resolution by filing a lawsuit on behalf of same-sex couples seeking to wed in New Mexico. Attorney General Gary King issued an opinion saying he wouldn’t defend the marriage law against a legal challenge in court on the basis that the law was unconstitutional.

Prior to the ruling from the New Mexico Supreme Court, a total of eight county clerks were already distributing marriage licenses to same-sex couples either through court order as a result of the litigation or on their own volition based on their interpretation of state law. An estimated 58.5 percent of New Mexico’s population had access to marriage equality prior to the Supreme Court ruling.

Attorney General King and plaintiffs in the case were pushing the idea that gays and lesbians are a suspect class and laws related to sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny — a idea with which New Mexico Supreme Court concurs because of the history of persecution faced by the LGBT community.

“Therefore, we conclude that intermediate scrutiny must be applied in this case because the LGBT community is a discrete group that has been subjected to a history of purposeful discrimination, and it has not had sufficient political strength to protect itself from such discrimination,” the ruling states.

It’s possible the opponents of the decision could place a state constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2014 that would rescind the decision, but only by legislative referral, not by initiative petition. It’s unclear at this time what the legislature will do. Democrats hold strong majorities in both chambers of the New Mexico legislature.

Brian Brown, president of the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage, promised in a statement to pursue action to protect people in New Mexico who don’t support same-sex marriage.

“Once again, activists judges have thrown out the historic legal understanding of marriage in New Mexico,” Brown said. “This is a continuation of a very dangerous rush towards silencing people of faith who simply believe marriage to be the union of one man and one woman. The National Organization for Marriage will do everything in its power to protect believers of true marriage in New Mexico and around the nation from the fallout of radical judges who deny the truth of marriage.”

Marc Solomon, national campaign director of Freedom to Marry, said his organization is prepared to fight to make sure the New Mexico decision stays in place.

“We have a campaign that we played a lead role in setting up and are on the board of, New Mexico Unites for Marriage, to protect the decision and defeat any efforts to amend the constitution,” Solomon said. “We’ve hired a campaign manager and there’s a field and media team on the ground, lobbyists, and more. It’s cochaired by former Republican Gov. Gary Johnson and Congresswoman Michelle Lujan Grisham.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Baltimore

Charles Bowers, former owner of Baltimore gay bar the Hippo, dies

Prominent activist died at his Mount Vernon home

Published

on

Charles Bowers. (Courtesy of Cathy Bowers)

By WESLEY CASE | Charles “Chuck” Bowers, former owner of the storied Baltimore gay club the Hippo and a prominent advocate for Maryland’s LGBTQ community, died Tuesday. He was 81.

Bowers turned the Mount Vernon club — located at the corner of North Charles and West Eager streets — into a judgment-free refuge for queer and straight locals looking to find and express their authentic selves on a packed dance floor.

“He truly tried to make the Hippo a place for everybody — a safe space,” said an emotional Rik Newton-Treadway, who befriended his “mentor” Bowers at the club in 1979.

Bowers, of Mount Vernon, died Tuesday evening in Baltimore of natural causes, said his niece, Cathy Bowers.

The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

Being a female firefighter comes with unique risks, and rewards

Well-fitting gear can be a safety issue

Published

on

Connie Reid (Photo courtesy of Connie Reid)

Firefighters are known for running into danger to save lives, but they may face another danger after the fire is out. Studies on firefighter health point to rising concerns about cancer risk, mental health struggles, and exposure to toxic “forever chemicals” found in firefighting foam and protective gear. 

Nearly 40 percent of firefighters report “clinically significant levels” of anxiety or depression and 10 percent report this level of posttraumatic stress disorder, according to a national survey of public safety workers published last year in the journal Psychological Services. Lawmakers from several states are also pushing for stronger federal protections and compensation for firefighters exposed to hazardous chemicals on the job.

Female firefighters can also face a higher risk of injury, heat-related illness, and even greater carcinogen exposure due to ill-fitting equipment that wasn’t designed for their bodies. Their risk of psychological and workplace stress is higher, as well, due in part to the isolation of being in a slim minority in fire departments across the country. Only 5 to 9 percent of firefighters are women.

To understand the risks and rewards of being a female firefighter, Youthcast Media Group interviewed Connie Reid, a firefighter with the DC Fire and EMS Department. Meredith McQuerry, an associate professor of textile science at Florida State University who studies how to improve firefighting gear and other personal protective equipment to better protect women in the fire service, also responded to student questions via email. Reid’s and McQuerry’s responses have been edited for clarity and length. 

HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN YOUR CAREER, AND WHAT DREW YOU TO IT?

REID: I’ve been a firefighter for seven years. I wasn’t sure if I wanted to be a firefighter or police officer, but I do have uncles that were firefighters, so I leaned towards the firefighter side. So I’m happy I made that decision.

McQUEERY: During my PhD, a colleague and I realized we never saw any female firefighters come through our research center. We began looking in the literature and found very few studies focused on PPE for women in the fire service. 

DOES FIREFIGHTING GEAR ACTUALLY FIT WOMEN, AND DOES IT MATTER?

REID: In D.C., if you have an issue, you just send an email, and we have people who will properly size us. I don’t think any female that I know has complained about gear not fitting.

McQUERRY: Wearing protective clothing designed for the opposite sex can lead to restricted mobility, greater opportunity for thermal and particulate exposure, and a lack of functionality that can mean life or death, such as accessing a tool in a pocket that is completely closed off due to anthropometric differences. 

There is a culture in the fire service, and especially for women in a male-dominated field, that suppresses the likelihood of advocating for better-fitting gear. While not within our area of expertise, we have done our best to raise awareness for the need for properly fitting gear for women in the fire service and to champion their self-advocacy.

Female firefighters report the inability to throw a ladder, step onto the truck, or cinch their pants down adequately due to ill-fitting protective clothing and equipment. One example is the interference between the helmet and the self-contained breathing apparatus which prevents many female firefighters from looking upward to throw a ladder without first twisting their neck sideways to avoid the lid of the helmet knocking into the respirator bottle. This type of modification can lead to acute and long term injury.

ARE THESE PROBLEMS MOSTLY ABOUT COMFORT? WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF SAFETY RISKS OR DANGERS THAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN GEAR DOES NOT FIT PROPERLY?

McQUERRY: All firefighters need properly fitting PPE as the primary threats center around carcinogen exposure, musculoskeletal injuries, and heat-related illnesses. For example, you have to work harder to do the same task in ill-fitting, mobility restrictive gear, which leads to faster metabolic heat production and build-up in the suit, quickening the onset of fatigue and other HRI.

Our previous work led us to hypothesize that oversized gear for women allowed for more particulate ingress in the interface areas including the collar/hood, sleeve/glove, boot/pant, and coat/pant areas. A recently funded study is allowing us to quantify this by correlating the gear fit of women’s structural turnout gear with their cancer biomarkers collected via urinalysis pre- and post-live fire burns. 

HOW DO FIREFIGHTERS TRAIN TO STAY SAFE DURING DANGEROUS SITUATIONS?

REID: So we have trainings all the time. Safety is the number one priority of the job. They make sure they let us know all the time. We have annual trainings. We have quarterly trainings. We have online training if you need refreshers. 

We are both on a medical side and a fire side so as a D.C. firefighter, you come in, and they teach you. You bring a positive attitude and just determination, because some people really don’t understand it’s not just  physical, it’s mental. You have to be mentally prepared. 

WERE THERE ANY FINDINGS IN YOUR RESEARCH THAT SURPRISED YOU?

McQUEERY: Yes, we were surprised to find in our nationwide survey [of 2,000 people] a few years ago that 15 percent of U.S. structural and 21 percent of wildland female firefighters sometimes or always leave off an essential item of their PPE due to limited mobility. Specifically, the turnout coat and pants or wildland shirt and pants were the most noted for being intentionally not worn, which is very surprising and concerning.

HAVE FIRE DEPARTMENTS OR EQUIPMENT COMPANIES STARTED MAKING IMPROVEMENTS SINCE YOUR STUDY, AND IF SO, WHY DO YOU THINK FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT HAS TAKEN SO LONG TO ADAPT TO WOMEN FIREFIGHTERS?

McQUEERY: It wasn’t until the post-Me Too movement that our research in this area was able to gain traction and support. It is a decades (or centuries) old problem of there not being enough “market share” for the 5-11 percent of the fire service. However, we have seen tremendous growth and innovation in this area since we began our funded research in 2019. Now, nearly every single structural firefighting manufacturer offers women’s protective clothing.

When we began this research, only two manufacturers offered women’s turnout gear. Now, to our knowledge, all but one [seven out of eight] does, which is a significant advancement across the industry. There is still much work to do in fine tuning these designs to fit the specific anthropometrics of female firefighters. 

DO YOU WORRY ABOUT THE LONG TERM EFFECTS OF BEING A FIREFIGHTER?

REID: Do I worry? I wouldn’t say worry. I’m more mindful of it, because the material of today is different from years ago. It burns faster, and then there’s more chemically made things than like natural resources. So I’m aware of that. They also have training teaching us about things like that. And there’s smoke exposures, there’s a health risk like sleep deprivation or sleep disruption.

WHAT KIND OF EDUCATION OR TRAINING DO YOU NEED TO BECOME A FIREFIGHTER?

REID: So there’s a few routes to get onto the job. The cadet route would be … you have to be 18 to 21 years old, you have to be a D.C. resident, have a high school diploma from a D.C. school (public or private), or have a GED, and you have to have at least a learner’s permit at the time that you are applying for the job. To be a recruit, you have to be at least 18 years old, have a full driver’s license, (not just a permit), and you also have to have a high school diploma or GED. The third way [is as] a paramedic, and you have to come on the job with your paramedic license. 

WHAT’S YOUR ADVICE FOR YOUNG WOMEN CONSIDERING THIS PATH?

REID: I would say, welcome. Come on the job. We need females. I always think it’s awesome when we get young ladies that are interested in the fire side. A lot of females just only want to do EMS. There’s nothing against EMS, but the fire side is pretty cool, too. Don’t sell yourself short, just try to do both of them. It’s a very rewarding job. You have to also mentally prepare yourself and physically prepare yourself. But I think the job is a great experience. I wish I would have started younger myself.

Mariyah Matthews is in the class of 2027 at Bard High School Early College DC, one of Youthcast Media Group’s journalism class partners. Sarah Gandluri is a YMG intern who is studying political science and global studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Continue Reading

White House

Trump-appointed judge restores White House TV pool access 

Judge called in to question president’s justification of the ban

Published

on

CNN's TV booth sat dark on Sept. 21, 2026. (Washington Blade photo by Joe Reberkenny)

A federal judge ordered the White House to restore West Wing press credentials to three news organizations after President Donald Trump attempted to bar their access for unfavorable reporting.

Early Thursday morning, Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly granted a temporary restraining order brought by POLITICO, CNN, and MS NOW as part of a joint lawsuit. The lawsuit cites the imperative role of a “free press” and ordered the 78 journalists’ credentials returned to the three outlets for at least the next two weeks as litigation plays out.

In the eight-page ruling, the judge goes over a slew of laws that Trump may have violated in banning the three media groups — from stepping on their First Amendment rights to a free press to the Fifth Amendment right to due process.

The judge also questioned Trump’s justification for removing the outlets, originally saying it was a matter of national security.

“The court is skeptical — at least on this record — that defendants’ interest in safeguarding national security is the actual motivation for, or is even advanced by, the revocation of plaintiffs’ hard passes,” Kelly wrote in an 8-page ruling issued just before 1 a.m. ET.

“Nothing in the record that predates this suit suggests that the revocation of plaintiffs’ hard passes was motivated by national security concerns. Certainly, that is not what President Trump said when he announced that he was ‘banning’ plaintiffs from the White House — instead, he focused on the alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity of plaintiffs’ reporting,” the judge added.

The Washington Blade reached out to the White House press office asking if the administration would file an appeal to keep the journalists out of the West Wing but did not hear back before publication time.

Continue Reading

Popular