news@dailylobo.com
@ArdeeTheJourno
While arguments about the statewide legalization of same-sex marriage raged inside the New Mexico Supreme Court chambers Tuesday, religious groups proceeded to field their various views outside.
Father Duncan Lanum, director of the St. Thomas the Apostle Anglican Church in Santa Fe, said the court should dismiss same-sex marriages because it is against the Bible’s teachings.
“I think it’s a bad thing,” he said. “I know there can be two loving people regardless of sexual orientation … but I believe that God’s word should control absolutely. A man shall not lie with a man; a woman should not lie with a woman. That’s sinful and evil, and therefore to put their stamp of approval to this being a legal relationship is putting their stamp of approval on sodomy.”
Lanum, who served as a lawyer for 25 years before entering the ministry, said he believes marriage is not simply a social institution for procreation. Still, he said married couples should be able to have kids, and that this aspect should counter same-sex marriage in the state.
“I’m not saying that every single marriage should have to create a child,” he said. “But I do believe that God created us so that we would procreate. That should be considered a part of marriage.”
And despite the foundational American concept of the separation of church and state, Lanum said he believes God’s word should drive the Supreme Court’s decision on the matter.
“Many of our laws are based on religious foundations,” he said. “We say, ‘Thou shalt not steal.’ Why should we arrest somebody for stealing except for the basis that that would be God’s word?”
But the Rev. Brandon Johnson, a pastor at the United Church of Santa Fe, said he has been officiating same-sex wedding ceremonies since Santa Fe became the first county in the state to legally issue same-sex marriage licenses in August.
God accepts same-sex marriages, Johnson said.
“I think it represents the best about God’s love and inclusive character,” he said. “I can see the love between many of those couples. I affirm that. I believe God affirms that.”
Johnson said procreation should not be the basis of the court’s ruling regarding statewide legalization of same-sex marriage.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
“Procreation is but one of the many aspects of marriage,” he said. “I understand the legal arguments from the other side, but I know marriage comes in many forms. Family comes in many forms. I don’t think love hinges on procreation; I don’t think marriage hinges on procreation. It should be affirmed by the state regardless of one’s ability to procreate.”
Karen Schmiege, who married her long-time partner in Bernalillo County in August, said that although procreation is not irrelevant to marriage, the court should not decide based on this aspect.
“I never did it,” she said. “I never procreated. I don’t think it’s unnecessary, but I think we’ve gone a little bit past that in the society. We have all kinds of families now. (Procreation) doesn’t make those families better or worse than other families. Love is what makes a family, and that’s the most important thing.”
Schmiege and her partner, Patricia Catlett, became the first same-sex couple in Bernalillo County to obtain a marriage license upon its passage. She married Catlett after their being partners for 25 years.
And two months after her nuptials, Schmiege said Catlett and she are “still a boat on the same keel.”
However, Schmiege said they don’t plan to adopt a child.
“At this point in our lives — because I’m 70, and Pat’s 62 — I don’t think so,” she said. “Maybe if we were a younger lesbian couple we could make that decision, too.”
But Alma-Rosa Silva Banuelos, director of UNM’s LGBTQ Resource Center, said the Supreme Court should consider a more wide-reaching argument when deciding same-sex marriage legalization.
“The Supreme Court justices seem like they have an understanding of the discrimination the LGBTQ community has experienced over several years,” she said. “Their comments were positive (and) really reflected an understanding of the discrimination of the LGBTQ community. I am hopeful that they will rule in favor of marriage equality.”
Father Lanum said he doubts future court arguments would play a role in the Supreme Court’s decision.
“To me, it sounded as though the court had made up its mind,” he said. “I’m sure that there are maybe two or three who, months ago, had already taken a position. The hearing probably did not make any difference to them. It sounds as though the court would probably approve … same-sex unions.”
