Me, DOMA, and New Mexico

May 3, 2011 at 9:00 am 25 comments

By Cleve Jones

I’m at the airport right now, waiting for my flight home after 3 days in Albuquerque.  Yesterday morning, with the help of some Courage Campaign volunteers from New Mexico, we delivered petitions signed by over 1,000 New Mexicans to the offices of Senators Udall and Bingaman.

Me with Noreen Richards and Bernadette Koh

One thing I thought was interesting about these petitions was that they weren’t just signatures.  Each signature was accompanied by a short note to the Senators, which tended to echo common sentiments.  These folks had voted for them in the past and viewed them as supportive of Sen. Feinstein’s legislation to repeal DOMA, and were really expecting the Senators to sign on.

Each note also included the zip code of the person who sent it.  So, the Senators’ staff could easily see that with very little time, we had provided them with letters from 1,000 people who live, work, pay taxes and vote in the state of New Mexico.

Earlier in the weekend, on Saturday, I had spoken at the Albequerque AIDS Walk.  Later that night, at the biggest and most popular LGBT nightclub in town, over 1,000 flyers were handed out to urge people to make telephone calls to the Senators’ offices.

In short, with a little time on the ground and concerted effort, we were able to show the Senators that many of their constituents have very strong support for the repeal of DOMA in New Mexico. This is just a start to what may be a longer journey, but New Mexicans are prepared to take their concerns to their Senators — and to the ballot box.

Entry filed under: DOMA Repeal.

Cleve Jones and LGBT New Mexicans deliver DOMA repeal signatures to Sens. Bingaman and Udall Morning equality round-up, May 4th, 2011

25 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Alan E.  |  May 3, 2011 at 9:03 am

    Were the notes hand-written? Great idea and better than the prefilled forms you get online.

    Reply
    • 2. adambink  |  May 3, 2011 at 11:13 am

      Signers were asked to leave a message, and those who did (hundreds) were personalized.

      Reply
  • 3. Kathleen  |  May 3, 2011 at 9:04 am

    Reply
    • 4. Straight for Equality  |  May 3, 2011 at 9:41 am

      Reply
      • 5. Ann S.  |  May 3, 2011 at 10:33 am

        §

        Reply
    • 6. AB  |  May 3, 2011 at 10:48 am

      Hey Kathleen,
      This is off topic, but I have a couple of questions if you don’t mind:
      1. How was the Eisenberg amicus brief? I am interested in that argument. Was it strong? Thoughts?
      2. What did the “League of Women Voters” and the “Santa Clara County, Santa Cruz County, Oakland, Cloverdale, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Sonoma County” briefs argue.

      Reply
      • 7. AB  |  May 3, 2011 at 10:50 am

        Nevermind. I just checked your scribd page. Good stuff.

        Reply
      • 8. Kathleen  |  May 3, 2011 at 11:10 am

        I’m working on getting as many of these as I can. As soon as I obtain a copy, it goes up on the Scribd account. Hope that helps.

        Reply
  • 9. Lesbians Love Boies  |  May 3, 2011 at 9:11 am

    Albuquerque (you have an e instead of a u)

    Reply
  • 10. Sagesse  |  May 3, 2011 at 9:25 am

    For later. Well done, thanks for the effort.

    Reply
  • 11. Ronnie  |  May 3, 2011 at 10:18 am

    Subscribing & sharing…..

    Marc Jacobs for N.Y. Marriage Equality
    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/05/03/Marc_Jacobs_for_NY_Marriage_Equality/

    “Unveiled Tuesday, the display depicts a springtime wedding scene and includes text from Marc Jacobs and the Human Rights Campaign urging New Yorkers to support marriage equality.”

    (me) The window says “You’re Invited Marc Jacobs & HRC request your support for New York Marriage Equality”

    <3…Ronnie

    Reply
  • 12. Kathleen  |  May 3, 2011 at 12:10 pm

    UPDATE: Perry

    Letter to Chief Judge James Ware on behalf of Media Coalition’s Motion in Ninth Circuit.

    Reply
  • 13. Mackenzie  |  May 3, 2011 at 1:44 pm

    the Advocate presented this lovely video on their site. It was the first I had seen it. This girl has got guts and a good heart…So glad she is on our side!

    Reply
    • 14. Phillip R  |  May 3, 2011 at 7:20 pm

      Thank you for posting this Mackenzie. Honestly, I’ve had a horribly stressful week and have been a bit down (just typical life stress) and this cheered me up for some reason. It’s nice to see the younger generation and future leaders embracing full equality.

      Reply
    • 15. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  May 3, 2011 at 7:34 pm

      Awesome video….curious to know why she chooses the Republican party….I like the idea that all political parties will eventually be made up of persons like this : D

      Reply
  • 16. Kathleen  |  May 3, 2011 at 2:55 pm

    UPDATE: Perry

    Amicus Brief of Pacific Legal Foundation, et al, in support of Proponents:

    And check the Scribd account in case you’ve missed any. I’m uploading these as soon as I track down copies.
    http://www.scribd.com/ownbycatz

    Reply
    • 17. Cat  |  May 3, 2011 at 5:50 pm

      Thanks Kathleen.

      I just waded through the PLF et al. brief. They sure are using the phrase “settled law” a lot! You would almost think that they hope the repetition makes it true all by itself.

      IANAL, so I can’t really see if their arguments are strong or not. The plaintiff’s amici’s briefs seem to hammer on the difference between executive power and the right to initiative, indicating that once a initiative has passed, it is law, and falls under the executive power. They also stress that initiative proponents are not accountable to the people, so have limited power. If a group of people could litigate for the State, or force the State to do so, they would rob the State of it’s ability and duty to make choices in where and how to spend the money. Plaintiff’s side also stresses the proponents cannot show injury. IIRC the brief by the faith groups really ripped the earlier briefs apart that reference cases as proving proponents have standing, because they cover the initiative process itself, not defending the law after it passed.

      The proponent’s amici stress the political power of the people, and that initiative proponents have the right to intervene and the right to standing. No word about injury as far as I can see…

      It’ll be interesting to see what the court thinks of all this. Can’t wait!

      Reply
  • 18. Sagesse  |  May 3, 2011 at 6:02 pm

    Justices Sidestep Catholics’ Case Against San Francisco

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/03/justices-sidestep-catholi_n_857119.html

    Reply
  • 19. Sagesse  |  May 3, 2011 at 7:38 pm

    Clement Signs New DOMA Contract

    http://advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/05/02/Clement_Signs_New_DOMA_Contract/

    It’s similar to the old one.

    Reply
  • 20. John  |  May 3, 2011 at 9:22 pm

    Don’t know if people saw this.

    The nutcases are trying to pass an anti-equality marriage amendment in Pennsylvania: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/pennsylvania-republican-introduces-amendment-ban-gay-marriage

    I’m hoping it will take them long enough to get it through all the steps that by the time the voters see it, it’ll either be clearly illegal (I *HOPE* we have a good DOMA or Prop 8 decision by then) or voters will actually vote for a everyone to be equal. Same sex marriage is illegal in PA right now, but that’s just law, not constitution. Law is easier to fix.

    Reply
  • 21. Sagesse  |  May 4, 2011 at 4:21 am

    From the NY Times

    Fit to Rule on Same-Sex Marriage

    “The idea that a seasoned, Republican-appointed jurist was unfit to hear the case, and that his decision should be set aside on flimsy ethics grounds, is preposterous.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/opinion/04wed3.html

    Reply
  • 22. Sagesse  |  May 4, 2011 at 4:31 am

    Timely interview with Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye, Chief Justice of the CA Supreme Court. Among other things, she talks about the importance of diversity on the bench and the impact of funding cuts on the ability to provide service. I have not watched the videos yet, but there is a good summary.

    CA Supreme Court Chief: Bench Must Reflect State’s Diversity

    http://newamericamedia.org/2011/04/ca-supreme-court-chief-bench-must-reflect-states-diversity.php

    Reply
  • 23. Sagesse  |  May 4, 2011 at 4:48 am

    This is very disturbing to read.

    Lesbian murder hate crime: Human Rights Watch

    http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article1048502.ece/Lesbian-murder-hate-crime–Human-Rights-Watch

    Reply
  • 24. Sagesse  |  May 4, 2011 at 5:14 am

    Part II of this overview to come from Keen News

    Drama in the court: Judge Walker is called to ‘answer’

    http://www.keennewsservice.com/2011/05/03/drama-in-the-court-judge-walker-is-called-to-answer/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+KeenNewsService+%28Keen+News+Service%29

    Reply
  • […] Cleve wrote earlier, on Monday afternoon, he took an impromptu trip (he was in town for the New Mexico AIDS Walk) to […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

Get to know your fellow Prop 8 Trial Trackers on Facebook.

Please send tips to prop8trial@couragecampaign.org

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

Sign-up for updates on the Prop 8 trial, including breaking-news alerts.

Categories

TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,303 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...