Controversy abounds regarding two proposed bills on this year's New Mexico legislative agenda - House Bill 21 and Senate Bill 12: Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities. The House version is sponsored by Representative Mimi Stewart and the Senate version is sponsored by Senator Cisco McSorley. The controversy centers around the definition of marriage and whether New Mexico ought to provide the same rights and responsbilities to "domestic partners", which could be same-sex or heterosexual partners, as are currently provided to married couples. Interestingly, neither version of the proposed legislation ever refers to law or specifically lists the rights and responsbilities to which married couples are entitled (or subjected), creating from the get-go a load of ambiguity that allows the courts to further define this law at a later time once the court battles over the explicit meaning of the legislation begin.

House Bill 21 can be found here: http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/_session.aspx?chamber=H&legtype=B&legno=%20%2021&year=09
and Senate Bill 12 can be found here:
http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/_session.aspx?chamber=S&legtype=B&legno=%20%2012&year=09

Both bills are the same. Apparently the powers that be are very gung ho about getting this thing rammed through the system this year. Here's the gist of the bill. A "domestic partnership" means a legal relationship that is not marriage that two domestic partners establish with each other according to the provisions and requirements of the Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act (the proposed legislation). Two persons who want to be recognized as domestic partners and meet the following conditions - adults, capable of consenting, not married or in a domestic partnership with someone else, and are not related by blood in certain ways - can sign an affidavit of domestic partnership, pay a fee, and register with the county clerk.

Here's the little "gotcha" - one that demonstrates the true motive for this legislation. The partners must "consent to the jurisdiction of the district courts of New Mexico for the purpose of a proceeding related to the domestic partnership". In fact, jurisdictional bounds for this handy little piece of legislation are much more restrictive than those for married couples with children. The bills state, "The district court shall have jurisdiction over any proceeding relating to domestic partnership, including dissolution, annulment and legal separation, and shall follow the same procedures as are used for spouses in a marriage." (Section 4) The language becomes even stronger as Section 4 continues, "In accordance with the consent acknowledged by the domestic partners in the affidavit of domestic partnership, if no other forum is available with comparable remedies to address distribution of assets, debts, support upon dissolution, annulment or legal separation as well as any other issues related to a domestic partnership registered in this state, the district court shall have jurisdiction even if neither party is a resident of, or maintains a domicile in, the state at the time the proceedings are filed."

This is much more restrictive than the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, current law that requires one of the parties or their children to reside in (for at least six months) or to have a "significant connection" to New Mexico for a court in New Mexico to obtain or retain jurisdiction over a case. The newly-proposed domestic partner legislation does include a statement saying that it should not be construed as granting jurisdiction in conflict with the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. (However, if the domestic partnership involves children, it in fact IS in conflict with the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.)

In short, this bill is a legal disaster. No specifics are given as to the "the same protections and benefits as are afforded or recognized by the laws of the state to spouses, former spouses, widows or widowers, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule or regulation, policy, common law or any other source of civil or criminal law" referred to in the bill. I guess we are all simply supposed to find out when actions start flying in Family Courts all over the state and cases go up on appeal for interpretation. This bill, in its current, undefined and vague state, could end up meaning anything, leaving total discretion in the hands of a few judges who have not particularly shown themselves to be very respectful of precedent or federal laws when it comes to their rulings. More importantly, it ushers in a whole new class of victims upon which the Family Court machine in New Mexico can feed - sucking in assets and spitting out heartbroken litigants and empty pocketbooks. No wonder Guardian ad Litem Cisco McSorley sponsored the Senate version of the bill - he stands to make a lot of money from this brand new class of victims.