By Mary Alice Murphy

With the topic of "Same-sex marriage? Did Love Win?" the Grant County Democratic Party and Western New Mexico MEChA hosted a forum at the WNMU J. Cloyd Miller Library on Thursday, July 16, 2015.

Mary Hotvedt, former Democratic Party chairwoman, moderated the event, which featured panelists Dr. Joe Saide, retired dentist and chairman of the Grant County LGBT Association; Rev. Tyler Connoley of the Silver City United Church of Christ; Alicia Edwards, The Volunteer Center executive director; and Father Anthony Basso, pastor of the Newman Center.

"How did the Supreme Court decision affect you?" Hotvedt asked the panelists.

Connoley was the first to speak. "I have been married twice to the same man. On Aug. 12, 2000, we were married in a religious ceremony. In 2013, we made it legal with a civil ceremony, once New Mexico allowed marriage licenses for same-sex couples."

He said there is a distinction between religious and civil ceremonies. "I don't officiate civil ceremonies, only religious ones." He cited some history of the UCC, as going back to the time of the Congregationalists and Puritans. "We've been at odds with some Christian denominations since the 1600s. Marriage then had to do with love. Because of the Puritans, divorce was allowed for many more reasons. My spiritual ancestors set us apart from other Christian denominations. In the 20th Century, it was easy for us to be at the forefront. Our General Synod called on the U.S. to recognize civil marriage, no matter the gender. In 2014, we were the first church to sue for the right in North Carolina."

"From a personal perspective, this particular (Supreme Court) ruling changed my life," Connoley said. "In 2010, I was offered same sex benefits. Rob (Connley, Tyler's spouse) was not legally my family because we weren't civilly married. I was working at Gila Regional Medical Center as a hospice chaplain and I finally got HR to agree to the benefits. My paychecks went up about $300. For three years, I was paying a gay tax on insurance."

Basso said he would give his perspective as a Roman Catholic priest. "Marriage has always been interpreted as between a man and a woman. We try to keep the sacredness of the sacrament between a man and a woman. It's not just religious, but also from natural law. We are created diversely as man and woman, but we join in a unit as a monogamous relationship with the other gender."

He said the subjectivity and the objectivity of the marriage is to bring children into this world. "Marriage has to be open to life and to diverse genders to come together."

Basso said he had done some research and questioned whether the Supreme Court decision might allow the interpretation of marriage as between only a man and a woman to be interpreted as hate speech.

"Do I have a civil right? Will I be permitted to talk about this? Will my church be required to perform same-sex marriages?" Basso asked. "In polyandrous unions, a woman and a woman can unite. In the future, can two brothers or sisters marry? What about three or four people in a relationship? Would I be legally accountable if I say marriage is saved for between only a man and a woman? Will I offend someone? It's about my civil rights. We must always have respect for people and another's rights in a civil sense. Will the interpretation of marriage be held up as a word? Its etymology is that it is between a man and a woman.

"At the base core, we are created as man and woman and that relationship is sacrosanct when they unite," Basso said. "Will my ministry be interpreted as bigotry?"

Edwards started her presentation by saying the day, July 16, was the 153rd birthday of Ida B. Wells, a strong suffragist and civil rights leader for African-Americans.

"I think I was born a feminist." She said the Focus on Family movement in Colorado to ban same-sex marriage "was a huge incentive for me to move from California. Colorado Springs had more churches and para-churches than anywhere. That damaged me and my views of Christianity. The Amendment 2 ballot issue was to determine whether the state constitution could be amended. When it passed, it made it impossible for homosexuals to sue for discrimination."

When Edwards served in the military, she lobbied for gay rights in her Navy uniform. "I protested in many protests and was a state delegate at the March on Washington. I was very active against pointed efforts by Christianity against gay rights. I became immersed in institutional racism based on gender." She cited a book by Bill Hooks that said feminists were much more interested in moving to the political center rather than deal with women of color on the margins.

"When it came to marriage equality, I couldn't be a part of it, because of the way I had been treated by Christians," Edwards said. "Marriage is patriarchal. My view is that marriage should be equitable for gays and lesbians, but I'm not necessarily in favor of it. I think marriage as an institution is damaging."

Saide said he and his husband Robert Wiedemeier married last September. "The Supreme Court decision didn't affect us much. As the chairman of the LGBT Association, when I heard that the Supreme Court was going to make the decision, Robert and I studied the judges. We thought six would be pro. We felt that there were other discriminatory things we had to turn to and be vigilant about, such as discrimination in housing, in employment, in public accommodations."

Wiedemeier said he never thought he would get married again and "find a liberal partner." In his 42 years of federal service, he said he listened to the McCarthy hearings and the witch hunt for homosexuals. "I knew I was one, but I could duck and cover well as a gay. It was 'ask, don't tell.' You did what you had to do. Where we are now with marriage equality hits home well. When I read the New Mexico Constitution and the New Mexico decision on homosexuality, I knew I was in a good place. I spent 30 years one way, and I wanted to be who I am. When I read the Supreme Court comments of Judge Kennedy, asking for equal dignity, it brought tears to my eyes. We don't ask religion to bless us. If your theology differs, keep yours."

Hotvedt said she had a horse in the race or a dog in the fight, as one of the original research teams to determine how children could be affected by lesbian households. "We used a tight T-test (which compares whether two groups have different average values) on heterosexual single mothers in a 10-state area with children aged 3-12. At the same time, two other studies were being done here and in England. We used some of the same measures. We included the amount of time that children spent with male role models, such as their fathers or uncles. The significance of the study was of no significance, because we found no differences. Very few studies have been done on men and their children. We thought it was a done deal to allow adoptions, but we saw a disturbing backlash with the Defense of Marriage Act. I think one of the most important aspects of the Supreme Court decision is that it protects the rights of same-sex couples in divorce. This right to marry has extended the popularity of marriage, which has been going down. I hope it will protect the children."

Edwards commented on the backlash. "There is a pattern. There is discrimination against women."

Connoley said, in reference to Basso's comments. "Our churches have disagreed for more than 300 years, but there is a much deeper issue. Is the purpose of marriage for procreation or for growth and love? Have you faced the discrimination on divorce? When my mother-in-law got remarried, the priest told her she could no longer take communion. She accepts it as a doctrine of the church."

Basso said if a couple is divorced or separated, and if they are not in another relationship with someone, they can take communion. "The escape route is annulment if there was a fault in the marriage that it was not a union to start with."

Connoley told Basso he would never force Basso to sanctify a second marriage after divorce. "I respect your church's laws. I would never force you to bless a same-sex marriage. My church recognizes second, third or fourth marraiges, but I can't imagine I would force you to do that."

Saide asked if the purpose of marriage was procreation, would Basso refuse to marry two 75-year-olds.

"No I would not refuse to marry two elders," Basso said. He said the issue is different in Florida where many older people live together out of marriage because of Social Security laws and not wanting to lose their incomes.

Hotvedt asked: "This is one decision toward equality. Where does the fight go now?"

"Social Security and the financial benefits of marriage," Edwards said. "It shouldn't have to be marriage. The institution of marriage discriminates against single people, including Social Security and property. Equity for everyone is what we need to focus on. We are still working on strengthening an institution that discriminates."

"Marriage as an institution has lots of problems," Connoley chimed in. "For 5,000 years it has been about property and women as property. I refused to use the term husband. I always said spouse. Husband is patriarchal. I have changed to using husband. We need equality for all people, especially for women. Same-gender marriages are equal-power."

Wiedemeier said he and Saide got married, and "now our relationship is welcomed in all 50 states. We go where we want and don't have to make apologies. It's very liberating."

Saide said he thought the backlash would be religious freedom.

Hodvedt asked what Basso's boss..., at which point Basso asked whether she was speaking about the heavenly one or the earthly one. She clarified: "Your earthly boss, the pope, is a reformer. Where is the right for equality?"

Basso opined that health care is a right. He said same sex couples in Poland cannot adopt and the Pope stayed with it. "He has recognized relationships between those for financial reasons, but marriage is still between a man and a woman."

An audience member said so many people are expressing about what is possible and what happens next. "I'm no longer a 'womb-man,' because of a hysterectomy. Is a threesome possible?"

Connoley said there are so many ways people create families, including families of choice. "Street people were Jesus' family. I want the government to recognize whatever families people want. I would like the government to get out of weddings. People choose who they are responsible for and to and it wouldn't matter how many, whether they have sex or not."

Hugh Epping, resident, asked about procreation. "When a couple is done having kids, should they still have sex?"

Basso said even in marriage there is always the reality that there are years of fecundity. The sacredness of the marital act is sacrosanct because of the co-joining for the rest of their lives. "Saint Paul was revolutionary. We are people of our time. In Jesus, there is no man or woman. All are equal. The purpose of marriage is to be open to procreation."

WNMU Professor Emeritus Felipe Ortego y Gasca teasingly pointed out to Basso that Mary and Joseph were not married when she became pregnant. Basso said it was the incarnate word of God.

Hodvedt let Basso off the hook on that one.

Gerald Schultz, area resident, asked if a group of Mormons, who practice polygamy were necessarily included in the Supreme Court decision.

Connoley said it was a "slippery slope even in his denomination. We are having discussions about poly-amorous unions. I would officiate at them, because people create families in different ways. I want to be open." But then he said he thought what are called poly-amorous relationships are really often child abuse. For example, if a 45-year-old man takes a 13-year-old, it's really rape.

"We should make sure people are consenting competent mutually agreeing adults," Connoley said. "Are these relationships loving and mutual and not coerced? We've been redefining marriage for as long as we've been around."

"The term slippery slope is always used when there is change," Edwards said. "It came up when interracial marriages began."

An audience member said the dictionary definition of marriage is an intimate relationship between two people in an old dictionary, but it was changed to man and woman in a Christian dictionary. "Since marriage changes, as an old maid going into my 70s, I think marriage is a pipe dream. Can marriage not be oppressive?"

Edwards suggested she create her own family and that she didn't need to have the institution of marriage. "Go out and have relationships. Don't get married."

A woman from the audience questioned Connoley's comments. "You are a pastor and you think this way?"

Connoley talked about the book he wrote: "The Children are Free," which talks about where the Bible blesses same-sex relationships. I think Paul was radical in how he thought about relationships. There are seven passages that should not be used against same-sex relationships. I think the law of love trumps them. I'm clear on why God blesses same-sex marriages."

Another woman said Gertrude Stein willed her extensive art collection to Alice Toklas, her partner, but the family challenged it because Stein and Toklas had no legal relationship.

Hodvedt said she is a marriage therapist. "Before this decision, I had all not legally married couples go through the legal ramifications, because there was no safety net. We need legal protections for the fight to be fair."

"Marriage is a commitment," Basso said. "What does the word commitment mean? Especially with children?"

Connoley responded by saying: "We're in a place in society where people have different ideas about what they are committing to. I committed to Rob for life. What is the level of commitment is the question."

Discussion continued over food among audience and panel members after the forum ended.