NM Watchman Jose Vasquez: Do Not Retain Supreme Court Justice Edward Chavez

Elections should be about ideas and ideals, which in turn are based on one’s worldview.  The Judeo-Christian worldview and its ideals have been under considerable assault and nothing illustrates the issue more clearly than Supreme Court Justice Edward Chavez’s opinion legalizing homosexual “marriage” in New Mexico.

Judge Chavez begins his opinion by describing the homosexual community as having “inadequate political power to protect itself…”  Managing to force the issue of homosexual “marriage” before the Supreme Court of the United States and the New Mexico Supreme Court does not describe a community whose power is inadequate.

Judge Chavez then goes out of his way to set the boundaries of his decision within the confines of the rule of law, disallows any religious references, even though the Preamble to the New Mexico State Constitution reads:  “We, the people of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty, in order to secure the advantages of a state government, do ordain and establish this constitution.”

Judge Chavez lays out two arguments for the legalization of homosexual “marriage.”  His number one argument equates the prohibition of interracial marriage with the prohibition of homosexual “marriage.”  He argues that miscegenation, not allowing blacks to marry whites, is the same type of unjustifiable discrimination as prohibiting same-gender marriages.  We would suggest that they are two very different issues.  Marriage between a man and a woman has been universally accepted and has always existed as a separate entity from racial discrimination.  Miscegenation is also a universal phenomenon, not confined to the southern United States.  The fact that blacks couldn’t marry whites at one point in this nation’s history doesn’t mean that same-sex “marriages” are justified.

Judge Chavez’s second argument is that having children has nothing to do with marriage.  To come up with this argument Judge Chavez had to ignore an obvious truth.  Law is based on precedent, and in New Mexico’s history as in the world’s history, marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

Judge Chavez states “preventing the deinstitutionalization of marriage” … “cannot be an important governmental interest under the Constitution.”  Notice that Judge Chavez is creating new law, which destabilizes families by guaranteeing that one biological parent will be absent from the child’s daily life.  Furthermore, the entanglement of “whose child it is” has already emerged as problematic in our courts in proceedings related to homosexual “marriages”.

Judge Chavez states that religious institutions are protected from the new law he’s created.  “Our holding will not interfere with the religious freedom of religious organizations or clergy because (1) no religious organization will have to change its policies to accommodate same-gender couples, and (2) no religious clergy will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”  Judge Chavez made no reference to the multiple situations in whichchurches have been sued to require the use of their properties or venues by homosexuals for their “marriages.”

A Christian worldview, prescribed by Jesus himself, requires thatmarriage be between one man and one woman.  Marriage as an institution has always provided a safe haven for children and simple biology, the way we are made, requires marriage to be between a man and a woman.

You can make your views known on November 4, 2014, on theJudicial Retention question:  “Shall EDWARD L. CHAVEZ be retained as Justice of the Supreme Court?”  Since a Christian worldview obviously differs from the worldview of Justice Edward Chavez, we suggest that you vote “No.”

(Note that this question appears at the top left corner of Page 2 on the Sample
Santa Fe County ballot.)