Part of the LGBT rights series
Legal status of same-sex unions
Marriage Andorra Argentina Australia Austria Belgium Brazil Canada Chile Colombia Costa Rica Cuba Denmark Ecuador Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Iceland Ireland Liechtenstein* Luxembourg Malta Mexico Netherlands1 New Zealand2 Norway Portugal Slovenia South Africa Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Thailand* United Kingdom3 United States4 Uruguay Recognized Israel5
Civil unions and registered partnerships Bolivia Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Hungary Italy Israel5 Latvia Monaco Montenegro San Marino United Kingdom:   • Bermuda   • Cayman Islands
Minimal recognition Bulgaria6 Cambodia:7   • 68 communes China:8   • Hong Kong9 India10 Japan11   • 468 jurisdictions Lithuania6 Namibia12 Nepal Netherlands:1   • St Maarten Poland6 Romania13 Slovakia6 South Korea14
See also Same-sex union legislation Same-sex union court cases Timeline of same-sex marriage Recognition of same-sex unions in Africa Recognition of same-sex unions in Asia Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe Recognition of same-sex unions in the Americas Recognition of same-sex unions in Oceania Marriage privatization Divorce of same-sex couples Domestic partnership Military policy Adoption Listings by country LGBT rights by country or territory
Notes KoN: Performed in the Netherlands proper (including the Caribbean Netherlands), as well as in Aruba and Curaçao. May be registered in Sint Maarten in such cases, but the rights of marriage are not guaranteed. NZ: Neither performed nor recognized in Niue, Tokelau, or the Cook Islands. UK: Neither performed nor recognized in six British Overseas Territories. US: Neither performed nor recognized in some tribal nations. Recognized but not performed in several other tribal nations and American Samoa. Israel: Registered foreign marriages confer all marriage rights. Domestic common-law marriages confer most rights of marriage. Domestic civil marriage recognized by some cities. EU: The Coman v. Romania ruling of the European Court of Justice obliges the state to provide residency rights for the foreign spouses of EU citizens. Some member states, including Romania, do not follow the ruling. Cambodia: Recognition of a "declaration of family relationship", which may be useful in matters such as housing, but they are not legally binding. China: Guardianship agreements, conferring some limited legal benefits, including decisions about medical and personal care. HK: Inheritance, guardianship rights, and residency rights for foreign spouses of legal residents. India: Courts have recognised guru–shishya, nata pratha or maitri karar–type contractual relationships, but they are not legally binding. Japan: Some cities and prefectures issue partnership certificates, but they are not legally binding. Namibia: Marriages conducted abroad between a Namibian national and a foreign spouse recognized for residency rights. Romania: Hospital visitation rights through a "legal representative" status. South Korea: Spousal health insurance benefits * Not yet in effect
LGBT portal
v t e

Same-sex marriages are not licensed in the state of New Mexico, which also does not provide civil unions or domestic partnerships. New Mexico law does not explicitly permit or prohibit same-sex marriage, and it is unclear whether the state would recognize such marriages established in other jurisdictions. As of 2013 it was the only state without a statute explicitly addressing same-sex marriage.^[1]

New Mexico Statutes §40-1 and §40-4 define marriage and the validity of out-of-state marriages:^[2]

• "Marriage is contemplated by the law as a civil contract, for which the consent of the contracting parties, capable in law of contracting, is essential."
• "All marriages celebrated beyond the limits of this state, which are valid according to the laws of the country wherein they were celebrated or contracted, shall be likewise valid in this state, and shall have the same force as if they had been celebrated in accordance with the laws in force in this state."

The advocacy group Freedom to Marry summarized the legal situation as of early 2011 this way:^[3]

Because New Mexico’s laws do not prohibit marriage between same-sex couples, there is no impediment to New Mexico same-sex couples marrying in Massachusetts (or other jurisdictions that allow same-sex marriages) and having their marriage honored in New Mexico. While Massachusetts' government directed that licenses could be given to New Mexico couples, the New Mexico state government has not taken action to ensure they will be honored.

In July 2007, when a Massachusetts court determined that New Mexico did not have a statute banning same-sex marriage and therefore same-sex couples resident in New Mexico were entitled to be married in Massachusetts, the ACLU of New Mexico noted that the decision would have little impact because New Mexico had yet to recognize same-sex marriages established in another jurisdiction.^[4]

On January 4, 2011, New Mexico Attorney General Gary K. King issued an opinion in response to a formal inquiry by State Representative Al Park, who asked, "Are same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions valid in New Mexico?" He concluded:^[5]

While we cannot predict how a New Mexico court would rule on this issue, after review of the law in this area, it is our opinion that a same-sex marriage that is valid under the laws of the country or state where it was consummated would likewise be found valid in New Mexico.

And in a press release issued the same day, King said, "A comprehensive legal analysis by my office concludes that valid same-sex marriages in other states would likely be valid in New Mexico."^[6] King's opinion, which does not have the force of law, has not been affirmed by New Mexico's courts or state legislature.^[7] A spokesman for Governor Susana Martinez responded to the opinion by saying, "Gov. Martinez made it clear during the campaign that she opposes same-sex marriage. It's important to note that no New Mexico court has ruled on this issue."^[8]

In January, domestic partnership bill HB 9,^[9] advocated by governor Bill Richardson as part of his legislative agenda,^[10] passed the state's House by a 33 to 31 vote and was sent to the state Senate, which took no action on it.^{[11][12][13][14]} A similar bill had been defeated in the 2007 legislature. House Bill 47, providing that marriage may only be between a man and a woman, and House Joint Resolution 3, proposing a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, both died when the legislature adjourned on February 14, 2008, without acting on them.^[15]

On February 27, 2009, domestic partnership legislation that would grant both same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples many of the same rights found in a state marriage was voted down in the State Senate by a 25-17 margin, with 10 Democrats and 15 Republicans opposing the legislation. Supported by Governor Bill Richardson, supporters vowed to take up the issue again sometime later in 2009.^[16]

On February 15, 2010, a domestic partnership bill sponsored by Senator Peter Wirth (D-Santa Fe) was defeated in a Senate committee, "[striking] a blow to Gov. Bill Richardson who made extending many of the same rights enjoyed by married couples to gays and lesbians part of his legislative agenda."^[17] A proposed constitutional amendment sponsored by Senator William Sharer (R-Farmington) that would have limited marriage to opposite-sex couples was defeated by another Senate committee.^[18]

On January 22, Representative Brian Egolf, a Santa Fe Democrat, introduced a resolution (House Joint Resolution 3), which would put a constitutional amendment allowing same-sex marriage to a popular vote in November 2014. He said, "This will be the law sooner than people think." The measure's co-sponsors include another Santa Fe Democrat, Representative Stephen Easley. It requires approval by both houses of the legislature.^[19] On January 31, the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee approved the measure in a 3-2 vote.^[20] On February 21, the Voters and Elections Committee defeated it on a 7-4 vote.^[21] On January 22, Representative Nora Espinoza, a Republican, introduced House Joint Resolution 4 which would put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to a popular vote in November 2014. The committee failed to approve it in a 2-3 vote on February 5.^[22]

On February 20, 2004, at the time of the widely publicized same-sex weddings in San Francisco, Sandoval County clerk Victoria Dunlap, a married Republican with two children,^[23] began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Dunlap had called the county attorney for input after receiving an inquiry about issuing a marriage license to a same-sex couple. He found that gender was only mentioned on the marriage license application form and advised her to consult the attorney general. She sought advice from several state officials for several days without success and decided to issue licenses to same-sex couples beginning February 20.^[24] She told the Albuquerque Journal: "This has nothing to do with politics or morals. If there are no legal grounds that say this should be prohibited, I can't withhold it.... This office won't say no until shown it's not permissible."^[25]

The Sandoval County courthouse was quickly thronged by same-sex couples applying for marriage licenses when Dunlap's decision was reported.^[26] Two local ministers officiated at marriage ceremonies for 26 couples on the courthouse steps on February 20.^[27] According a suit filed against Dunlap in July by the attorney general, 66 licenses were issued and by March 23 some 64 of the couples had married "as evidenced by the return and filing of licenses and Certificates of Marriage."^[28][29]

Later that day, New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid issued an opinion stating that the licenses were "invalid under state law", citing the license application form and several statutes and court decisions. The Sandoval County Clerk's Office stopped issuing them the same day.^[24] The Sandoval County Commission voted on February 23 to allow couples married on the 20th to register their marriages.^[24] A district court judge later issued a restraining order against Dunlap, prohibiting her from issuing any further licenses to same-sex couples for the duration of her term as clerk, which ended on January 1, 2005.^[24] Dunlap then filed a motion with the New Mexico Supreme Court for permission to continue issuing the licenses, but on July 8, 2004, the court rejected the motion. The restraining order was never lifted.^[30] County and state officials criticized Dunlap^[31][26][30] and the Sandoval County Republican Central Committee censured her and said she "brought disgrace to the party as a whole".^[24] Dunlap did not seek reelection.^[24]

The validity of the same-sex marriages licensed in 2004 is uncertain. In 2010, a New Mexico court approved a divorce for one of the marriages. On August 9, 2010, State District Judge Sarah Singleton ruled that the marriage license issued to one same-sex couple in 2004 was valid and subject to divorce proceedings, but she did not otherwise address the legal status of same-sex marriage in the state.^[32][33][34]

On March 19, Santa Fe Mayor David Coss, City Councilor Patti Bushee, and City Attorney Geno Zamora announced that a resolution recognizing same-sex marriages would be introduced at the next Santa Fe City Council meeting on March 27. Zamora released a legal opinion that "New Mexico's statutory definition of marriage is gender-neutral."^[35] Coss urged county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.^[36][37] Santa Fe County Clerk Geraldine Salazar said she would not issue them until the law was clarified by state courts or the legislature. Bushee said she expected the issue to reach the New Mexico Supreme Court.^[38] On April 24, 2013, by a vote of five to one with two abstentions, the Santa Fe City Council passed a motion recognizing same-sex marriage as legal in New Mexico and advising county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.^[39] On July 20, 2013, the Santa Fe County Commission approved a similar resolution.^[40]

On August 21, 2013, officials in Doña Ana County began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples at the courthouse in Las Cruces. The County Clerk, Lynn Ellins, announced the change of policy on the county's Facebook page, stating, " After careful review of New Mexico's laws it is clear that the state's marriage statutes are gender neutral and do not expressly prohibit Doña Ana County from issuing marriage licenses to same-gender couples. Any further denial of marriage licenses to these couples violates the United States and New Mexico Constitution and the New Mexico Human Rights Act. Doña Ana County is upholding New Mexico law by issuing these marriage licenses, and I see no reason to make committed couples in Doña Ana County wait another minute to marry."^[41]

On March 21, 2013, two lesbian couples in Albuquerque represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico and others filed a lawsuit in state district court challenging the county clerk's refusal to issue them marriage licenses.^[42] On July 3, in a single suit, Griego v. Oliver, four same-sex couples asked the New Mexico Supreme Court to order the Clerk of Bernalillo County (Albuquerque) to issue them marriage licenses and another two same-sex couples, already married in Canada and New York, joined them in asking the court to order the state to treat all their marriages on the same terms as the marriages of different-sex couples. They claimed that following the Supreme Court decision in Windsor the harms they suffered had "significantly compounded" in that New Mexico's refusal to recognize their marriages denied them access to such federal benefits as rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act, access to retirement benefits, options in filing tax returns, and spousal and survivor Social Security benefits.^[43]

On June 6, 2013, Alexander Hanna and Yon Hudson, represented by Egolf, Ferlic + Day, including Brian Egolf (who also serves as a State Representative), Kate Ferlic and John Day filed a similar lawsuit, Hanna v. Salazar, in district court against the Santa Fe County Clerk and the state attorney general.^[44] On June 27, following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Windsor, the lawsuit was withdrawn from district court and filed in the New Mexico Supreme Court.^[45] On July 22, Attorney General King told the court that "New Mexico's guarantee of equal protection to its citizens demands that same-sex couples be permitted to enjoy the benefits of marriage in the same way and to the same extent as other New Mexico citizens", but he argued that the court lacks the authority to order a county clerk to issue the marriage license as the plaintiffs have requested, which only officers of the state's executive branch can do. He warned the court that doing so could invite myriad lawsuits "concerning any dispute a party has with any local or county official". The court could also send the case to a lower court for trial.^[46]

In 2006, a study by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law concluded that allowing same-sex couples to marry would have a positive effect on New Mexico’s state budget. Allowing same-sex couples to marry would result in a net gain of approximately $1.5 million to $2 million each year for the State.^[47] This net impact will be the result of savings in expenditures on state means-tested public benefit programs and an increase in sales and lodging tax revenue from weddings and wedding-related tourism.

In April 2008, the Williams Institute of the UCLA School of Law, using data from the United States Census Bureau, issued a "Census Snapshot" that concluded, "While in many respects New Mexico’s same-sex couples look like married couples, same-sex couples with children have fewer economic resources to provide for their families than married parents and lower rates of home ownership."^[48]

Analyzing census data on same-sex unmarried-partner households, the report determined that:

• In 2000, there were 4,496 same-sex couples living in New Mexico. By 2005, the number of same-sex couples disclosing their partnerships to the census bureau had increased to 6,063.
• In 2005, there were an estimated 68,411 gay, lesbian, and bisexual people (single and coupled) living in New Mexico.
• There are more female same-sex couples (58%) than male same-sex couples (42%) in New Mexico.
• Individuals in same-sex couples are, on average, 42 years old, and significantly younger than individuals in married couples (48 years old) in New Mexico.
• Same-sex couples live in every county in New Mexico and constitute 1.2% of coupled households and 0.7% of all households in the state.
• 71% of individuals in same-sex couples are employed, compared to 60% of married individuals.
• The average household income of same-sex couples is $53,720, compared to $59,692 for married couples. The median income of both same-sex and married coupled households in New Mexico is $47,000.
• 66% of same-sex couples in New Mexico own their home, compared to 83% of married couples.
• 27% of same-sex couples in New Mexico are raising children under the age of 18.
• As of 2005, an estimated 3,624 of New Mexico’s children were living in households headed by same-sex couples.
• 9% of New Mexico’s adopted children (or 1,056 children) live with a lesbian or gay parent.

A June 2011 Public Policy Polling survey found that 42% of New Mexico voters thought that same-sex marriage should be legal, while 48% thought it should be illegal and 10% were not sure. A separate question in the same survey found that 68% of New Mexico voters supported legal recognition of same-sex couples, with 37% supporting same-sex marriage, 31% supporting civil unions, 30% opposing all legal recognition, and 2% not sure.^[49]

A December 2011 Public Policy Polling survey found 45% of New Mexico voters thought that same-sex marriage should be legal, while 43% thought it should be illegal and 12% were not sure. A separate question in the same survey found that 67% of New Mexico voters supported legal recognition of same- sex couples, with 42% supporting same-sex marriage, 25% supporting civil unions, 32% opposing all legal recognition, and 2% not sure.^[50]

• Links to PDF copies of court documents relating to the 2004 Sandoval County same-sex marriages

• Opinion issued by Attorney General Gary K. King on January 4, 2011, regarding recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages (PDF, 5 pages)

• Pinello, Daniel R. America's Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage, Cambridge University Press, 2006. (ISBN 9780521848565) (Chapter 1 contains interviews with Victoria Dunlap and couples who participated in the Sandoval County marriages)