Gov Martinez vetoes bill that would help gay vets, signs straight-only version

[Ban my account ffs!]

Martinez said the bill didn't adequately define what would constitute a domestic partnership.

Is she worried about roommates taking advantage of it, or...

As I pointed out, New Mexico has no legislation whatsoever relating to same-sex relationships.  At a bare minimum, if the state is going to offer benefits to veterans in same-sex relationships, it ought to have some sort of law applicable to everyone defining what it considers to be a same-sex relationship.

That's not the point, Ernest.  Surely signing such a bill into law could be seen as conciliatory towards the gays that served their country... in the way that we allow 18 year old soldiers to drink liquors and things.

While your point might seem reasonable on paper, this issue is rife with emotions.. and for a good reason.  So you just sound like you're either playing moderate hero or just defending a despicable action for no reason.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Martinez said the bill didn't adequately define what would constitute a domestic partnership.

Yeah, that's a joke excuse. That's what state administrative agencies are for: making such decisions. Better to just discriminate, right?

Crying bigotry every time someone doesn't sign onto a poorly thought out law is getting kinda old, you know?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Martinez said the bill didn't adequately define what would constitute a domestic partnership.

Is she worried about roommates taking advantage of it, or...

As I pointed out, New Mexico has no legislation whatsoever relating to same-sex relationships.  At a bare minimum, if the state is going to offer benefits to veterans in same-sex relationships, it ought to have some sort of law applicable to everyone defining what it considers to be a same-sex relationship.

That's not the point, Ernest.  Surely signing such a bill into law could be seen as conciliatory towards the gays that served their country... in the way that we allow 18 year old soldiers to drink liquors and things.

While your point might seem reasonable on paper, this issue is rife with emotions.. and for a good reason.  So you just sound like you're either playing moderate hero or just defending a despicable action for no reason.

Whether she was being reasonable or not depends on what she said about her pocket veto of the Senate bill, which the Salon article doesn't mention.  Frankly, since the Salon article did not give any information about her reasoning as to why she issued the pocket veto, it strikes me as intending to be purposely stirring controversy fo the purpose of increasing readership.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Considering that New Mexico doesn't even have civil unions, why should same-sex domestic partnerships be given benefits not available to unmarried opposite-sex domestic partnerships?  If New Mexico had some system in place for recognizing same-sex domestic partnerships, then I think they should be granted the same benefits as married couples. However, until New Mexico does have such a system, then creating an ad hoc measure that applies only to a small fraction of same-sex couples for only one program is not a good thing in my opinion.

Why would New Mexico need civil unions when there is nothing prohibiting same sex marriage?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Considering that New Mexico doesn't even have civil unions, why should same-sex domestic partnerships be given benefits not available to unmarried opposite-sex domestic partnerships?  If New Mexico had some system in place for recognizing same-sex domestic partnerships, then I think they should be granted the same benefits as married couples. However, until New Mexico does have such a system, then creating an ad hoc measure that applies only to a small fraction of same-sex couples for only one program is not a good thing in my opinion.

Why would New Mexico need civil unions when there is nothing prohibiting same sex marriage?

There is also nothing allowing same-sex marriage, and New Mexico does not issue same-sex marriage licenses.  In any case, my point was not that New Mexico needs civil unions, it was that it does not currently offer any form of recognition to same-sex couples and that until it does so, it is rather silly to offer benefits to something it doesn't recognize.  Basically, this bill tried to put the cart before the horse.  Once New Mexico recognizes same-sex unions (in whatever fashion it chooses to do so), the the benefits available to married couples, including the one in the version of the bill the governor did sign would naturally accrue to those couples as well.  Mine own agreement with Susanna on her choice of which bill to sign is because of that, tho whether that was her reasoning, I have no idea.