The New Mexico Supreme Court heard oral arguments today regarding homosexual “marriage.” Mr. Daniel Ivey-Soto represented New Mexico’s county clerks, who are being sued by lesbian couples for not issuing homosexual “marriage” licenses. Mr. Ivey-Soto yielded the majority of his time to Ms. Maureen Sanders, who argued in favor of homosexual “marriage.” Mr. Jim Campbell of Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal organization, represented the defense.From the start, the Justices, led by Justice Charles Daniels and Justice Edward Chavez, grilled Mr. Campbell, interrupting his presentation repeatedly and questioning his various arguments.For example, Mr. Campbell asserted that the intent of New Mexico’s founders who wrote the Constitution should be critical in assessing constitutional matters. Mr. Campbell referred to the state’s prohibition against polygamy. Judge Daniels countered that polygamy should be assessed in view of modern norms and cultural changes.Remember that this is the same court that ruled against Elaine Huguenin, the Albuquerque photographer, finding her guilty of violating the civil rights of lesbians by refusing to photograph a same-sex “commitment” ceremony.
The court’s final decision has been postponed.
Note that a constitutional amendment could be passed by the legislature and put before the voters.
Please continue to pray for the Justices and the lawyers and for a godly outcome to these proceedings.
The entire session can be viewed at the following website.
God bless New Mexico.
New Mexico Prayer Connect
For more on Today’s hearing at the NM Supreme Court go here: https://fggam.org/no-time-table-for-nm-state-supreme-court-to-make-decision-on-same-sex-marriage/
Mr. Ivey-Soto is a New Mexico State Senator and a Democrat at that.
Seems if he was sincere in representing the county clerks, he would have done so, rather than yield to an attorney known to be representing the gay marriage faction.
Stranger than fiction. Is there a conflict of interest hidden under the “ivey,”
How very unchristian of you! Aren’t you supposed to be loving to all? Shame on you! You are the ugly face of christianity!
I am curious what you mean by “un-Christian”. I still love a person without accepting their choices. It is actually anti-Christ to leave such sin unopposed. Once again why do we join the behavior to the person. We can oppose the sin and still be loving to the person. This accusation of hatred is just a tired tactic that holds little truth.
-Pastor Paul
I disagree wholeheartedly. You focus on their private life only. We are not all christian (I left the church many years ago due to this kind of hypocrisy) and you lot insist we should all live our lives as you dictate. I will fight to the bitter end for equal treatment of my gay brothers and sisters. Denying other humans their rights because you have an issue with their sexuality is hate, no matter what terms you care to use to justify yourselves.
Then you would agree that we are not discussing Christian vs Un-Christian, but something else entirely. You are certainly within your rights to argue a different paradigm for marriage, but you would have to agree it is not a Christian paradigm. However, it is not hypocrisy for a Christian to oppose a pagan definition of marriage when Jesus Himself plainly affirmed marriage as between a male and a female.
Denying the commands and standards of God is the hypocritical act. What the states are doing now is determining how we define a marriage, using the Christian or the pagan definition.
It should also be understood that marriage is not a human right, it is a human privilege that even Christians (so called) do not honor as they should. The human right argument is a hypocritical euphemism employed to justify their behavior. Which is fine for the non Christian who does not believe God has a right to demand anything. It is not hatred to share that people prefer the darkness to the light. Just as it is not hatred on your part to believe that I do not have any light to share.
Well put Pastor Paul. You can love & care for a sinner but that does not mean you love the sin he or she commits. I personally love ME, which does not mean I love the sins I am or have committed; one of the main reasons I attend church on a REGULAR basis. If TBP were to speak & discuss the issue in a non-inflammatory manner I could find it easy to discuss with him but the hate he mentions is obvious, and where it comes from is also obvious, and I’m in concern for this person that he or she holds such contempt. TBP will have my prayers for him or her over this. Recently, A REGULAR CHURCH MEMBER in my congregation who openly admitted being gay is more than accepted by the entire congregation. I sincerely believe this person attends in attempt to come to resolution in this matter with themselves & with GOD. This person is accepted openly and honestly without conflict in our congregation and we pray together weekly. After the revelation of my cancer recently and discussions following Pastor Dewey’s recent visit to our church she, in testimony, referenced that visit & my cancer together and we are actually close friends at this point in time; which does not mean I (or GOD) condone this persons sexual preferences. Doesn’t mean she isn’t committing a sin in GOD’s eyes as it doesn’t mean we don’t care for her and want to help whichever road she chooses to take, although I admittedly hope and pray she could change such preferences. If we go back in time, as it appears in history to me, the only reason the ‘state’ became involved in ‘marriage licenses’ in the first place was for health reasons (long ago) & for TAX purposes! It is GOD who justifies a proper marriage; not the ‘state’. My goal is to reach eternity in heaven, not to appease the tax collector! It is GOD I answer to! A gay (including TBP) is as welcome in my home as well as anyone else as long as we can discuss such issues with civility and respect.
As for the court and the lawyers involved I can only pray! I can only continue to keep repeating Pastor Dewey’s new favorite phrase: America, Praise GOD !!!