Lessons from Houston: What the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance Showed Us

The City of Houston, Texas on Tuesday, November 3, 2015, overwhelmingly rejected the city’s ordinance to allow men in women’s bathrooms.  The Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO) was veiled as an equal rights bill for a number of groups, including transgenders.  The bill would have allowed men who “feel” like women to access women’s bathrooms.

Several realities can be taken from the success of this anti LGBT campaign.
They are as follows:

  1. A pro-“gay” agenda will always be well organized and well-funded
    The homosexual community managed to raise approximately $2.1 million to promote Houston’s Proposition 1 which included celebrity endorsement and pro-“gay” clergy support. The church community spent approximately $247,000 against the ordinance.  (Reports on amounts vary.)
  2. Sodomy as sin was preached from the pulpit, focusing the argument.
    The question most Christians answer “no” to is, “Have you ever heard a sermon describing sodomy as sin or abortion as murder?”  Ed Young from Second Baptist Church, Houston, reached national prominence by simply declaring from the pulpit that sodomy is sin.
  3. The overreach of the LGBT Community cannot be counted on for success in the future.
    The Mayor Parker and the LGBT community were reduced to insist that men in women’s bathrooms would never be a problem.  The ad portraying such a scenario was most effective.  (See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYpko86x6GU)
  1. The fight will be ongoing – The Boycott Houston attack began immediately.
    The LGBT community has called for a boycott of Houston. The boycott is comparable to the boycott of Indiana when that state passed a Religious Freedom Restoration Act earlier this year.  The same people have asked the NFL to punish Houston by canceling the Super Bowl scheduled for Houston for 2017.
  2. The Obama administration will use the power of the Federal Government to support the LGBT community to include men in women’s bathrooms.
    At the same time voters in Houston were rejected the notion, the Obama administration mandated a Chicago area school district MUST allow a transgender boy into girl’s bathrooms and locker rooms. The 12,000 student school district must accommodate one very disturbed 12 year old boy by allowing access to all males into women’s bathrooms.
  3. God Answers Prayer
    Thank you for your prayers in support of a godly Houston.

Please pray for the City of Houston, Mayor Annise Parker, and President Obama and his adminstration.  Pray that the Lord’s grace will draw them to Him.

New Mexico Watchman
November 5, 2015

“Houston We Have a Problem” Texans Vote on Religious Liberty 11-13-15



The Issue:
Tomorrow, Tuesday, November 3, 2015, the city of Houston, Texas will decide the question, “Can a man, wearing a dress, legally use a women’s bathroom?

Lesbian Mayor Annise Parker, Houston’s mayor since 2010, has managed to push the homosexual agenda on Texas’ largest city.  The ordinance entitled the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO) has had the effect of giving superior rights to persons with gender identification issues, practicing homosexuals and transgenders

Mayor Parker has used the power of the ordinance to subpoena the sermons and private communications of Houston pastors who might be in opposition to her agenda.  A petition to recall the ordinance gathered 50,000 signatures.  Mayor Parker simply ignored the concerns and personalized the issue by stating that opposition to the ordinance “is about me.”

Not until the Texas Supreme Court required the Mayor’s compliance with the petition, was the issue put on the ballot.

The Ordinance:
The ordinance requires and allows the following:  1. Men in women’s bathrooms, shower rooms, and locker rooms – places of public accommodation.  2. Disallowance of any “religious or moral conviction” in serving the LGBT community.  They require, you comply – regardless of what you believe.  3. Criminalization of any anti-homosexual or transgender utterances (preacher sermons were subpoenaed under this aspect of the ordinance).  4. Not hiring or renting to a homosexual may result in legal prosecution.

America has always been defined by its moral core, its free markets and its religious freedoms.

If the City of Houston votes to end religious liberty in the heart of Texas it will be a bellwether for all Bible-believing churches across this great land.

Please pray for the defeat of the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance and salvation for Houston’s Mayor Annise Parker.

New Mexico Watchman

“…deliver us from evil.”
Matthew 6:13

The Making of an Amoral Society:  The New Mexico Supreme Court and Physician Assisted Suicide


The issue before the New Mexico Supreme Court yesterday, October 26, 2015, should have been  “Should New Mexico become the killing field for the terminally ill?  Instead, the question appeared to be “How can New Mexico become that killing field?”

The ACLU and the Disabled Rights Legal Center have asked the New Mexico Supreme Court to hold harmless any physician who makes available a lethal dose of medication to a mentally competent, terminally ill patient who is physically able to administer the death inducing potion themselves.  That is Physician Assisted Suicide.

Never considered by the court was the concept of a natural death.  A God-centered concept of life as a gift from God was not considered.

The New Mexico Supreme Court accepted the case of an Albuquerque cancer patient, Aja Riggs, who appeared healthy and invigorated at the hearing.  She is seeking the right to prematurely end her life with the help of her physician should her cancer, now in remission, return.

In January 2014, Albuquerque Judge Nan Nash sided with Riggs, writing, “This Court cannot envision a right more fundamental, more private or more integral to the liberty, safety and happiness of a New Mexican than the right of a competent, terminally ill patient to choose aid in dying.”  In other words,  “make yourself happy, kill yourself.”

Judge Nash’s decision was successfully challenged by then-Attorney General Gary King.  Heard by the State Court of Appeals, that court found that the ruling “Violates the doctrine of separation of powers by legalizing conduct that is designated to be a crime by the legislature.”

The Hearing:
The State’s lawyer, attorney Scott Fuqua, early relinquished any argument for life, stating that “Keeping the terminally ill alive is not in the interest of the state.”  Mr. Fuqua drew a laugh from the court when he admitted that he was there only as the result of his “former employment” with then Attorney General  Gary King.  His only argument in opposition to the Court’s action was a reiteration of the lower court’s argument that the issue should be legislated by the New Mexico State Legislature and not by the high court.  What followed was a discussion of “how to” as delineated in the states of Oregon and Montana, which have legislated and ruled in favor of physician assisted suicide respectively.

Comparisons were made to abortion and the States disregard for fetal life.  The State cares nothing for life in the womb, why should it care about the terminally ill?  The argument is that the State has proven disinterested in life at conception, why should it be concerned about life at its end?

The court room was packed with “right to die” advocates; outside experts came from out-of-state to help with the court presentation; the Justices appeared compliant; and the ACLU lawyer was animated and prepared but the State’s lawyer appeared lackadaisical, disinterested and unprepared.

Will we have suicide providers as we now have abortion providers?  

Once again New Mexico is on the precipice of allowing death to define our state.


Please pray that the New Mexico Supreme Court Justices will us give us a godly decision regarding Physician Assisted Suicide.

New Mexico Watchman

Thou shalt not kill.
Exodus 20:13

New Mexico Suprem e Court to Consider Physician Assisted Suicide, Oct 26


The New Mexico Supreme Court will hear oral arguments regarding physician assisted suicide, next Monday, October 26, 2015, at 8:00 a.m.   New Mexico is already the destination for the termination of life between its beginnings at conception and at birth, at our abortion clinics.

Now the Supreme Court will decide if ending life ‘whenever’ is a viable option with an assisted suicide.  The argument for assisted suicide is that it is compassionate to terminate a life when someone is suffering and death is thought to be inevitable.  The argument against is that only the giver of life, God himself and He alone, has the right to be the taker of life.

We ask for your prayers as the New Mexico Supreme Court hears oral arguments this Monday.  If you can be in attendance in support of life, your presence would be most welcomed.  Doors open at 8:00 a.m.  The Supreme Court building is located at 237 Don Gaspar Avenue at E. Alameda.

Can we expect anything different from the New Mexico Supreme Court besides forcing assisted suicide on New Mexicans?  Yes we can.

Prayer Changes Things.


New Mexico Watchman





The fear of the Lord is the beginning of widom…
Proverbs 1:7 a



                                                         Coming to America

                                                         September 18, 2015

According to Breitbart News, between 2001 and 2013, one and a half million people
from Muslim countries were admitted into the United States.  About a quarter million
are added each year.  In 2013 alone, two years after 9-11, 280,276 persons were admitted.  These numbers comprise the population size of Des Moines Iowa, Lincoln Nebraska or Dayton Ohio. (The legal limit for total US immigration is 70,000.)
The Obama administration is now poised to bring in quarter million plus more than 10,000 additional Syrian refuges.  The administration is being urged by congressional Democrats make that number 10 times larger.
The refugees are given free flights to the United States, placed as permanent residents within 30 – 90 days, given free medical care, welfare, employment counseling and
English-as-a-second-language instruction.
The influx presents an evangelistic opportunity for the Christian church.  The link below
is a example of a former Koran teacher’s coming to Christ as the result of reading theKoran.
Please pray for the Syrian crisis and for an opportunity to present the Gospel to
the Muslim people already here and to those coming to America.  Pray for their understanding of God’s truth.
God bless America.
New Mexico Watchman
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
Mathew 5:9

When the Rainbow Flag Replaces the Cross:

The End of the American Church Following Supreme Court’s Same Sex Decision

July 15, 2015


The Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court’s decision to legalize homosexual “marriage” transfers moral and legal authority from one group, namely from the church – to the homosexual community.

The moral choices presented the church today are similar to those faced by the German protestant church in 1933 and 1934.  The question then was:  Should the church support the Aryan Paragraph and the Nazi Party?  Should it remain silent?  Or should it oppose its own government?  (More on that below.)

By legalizing same-sex “marriage” nationwide, a new era of legitimacy is afforded deviance a legal status that subjugates those holding a Christian worldview.  The suppression of the Christian church as the result of this cultural shift continues and can be expected to escalate.  Dozens of examples of biblical worldview suppression currently exist in every aspect of our society today.  (See “*Examples” below.)

The result is a “post natural marriage” America.  Much as the Nazis enacting what was called the Aryan Paragraph in 1933, elevated the Aryan race, so todays court’s ruling elevated the homosexual community.  The losers in Germany were the Jews, in America, the losers are Christians.

The Aryan Paragraph

With the Nazi Party’s rise to power in 1933 came their plan for the elimination of the Christian Church in Germany and its replacement it with Nazi ideology, propaganda and symbolism.

The Third Reich’s Reichstag Fire Decree was enacted shortly after their government takeover.  The law contained the Aryan Paragraph, which disallowed Jews holding public office and allowed only “Aryans” in those positions.  What followed were another 400 decrees and regulations that eventually lead to the “final solution” and the annihilation of the Europe’s Jewish population.

Church’s Response to the Nazi Regime

In 1943 the Protestant German Christian church faced critical choices.  The options were:
1. Siding with the Nazi Party and with the subjugation of the Jews, 2. Remaining silent, or
3.  Standing in opposition to the regime.  The responses were as follows:

Of the 65 million Germans, 45 million considered themselves Protestant Christians.
Of those only 150,000 were willing to stand against the Nazi Regime and help the Jews.
Out of every 100 Christians in Germany in 1934, only 3 were willing to stand up and declare the Aryan Paragraph wrong.

A small group in opposition created the Confessing Church (based on Matthew 10:32) and the Barman Declaration of Faith.  Protestant pastors in Germany in 1934 numbered 18,000.
Of those 3,000 stood with Hitler and the regime (16.6%).
Another 3,000 vehemently opposed the Nazi party and stood on Christian principles (16.6%).  The majority of pastors, 12,000, were neutral and unwilling to take either position (66.6%).

The Church in America

Despite efforts to declare homosexuality anything other than a sin, a clear biblical analysis of the issue concludes that the practice of homosexuality is a sin.   A Supreme Court decision does not change the fact that homosexuality is in opposition to God’s law.

The church in America today now faces worldview choices similar to those faced by the German church in 1933.  Conservative governmental leaders have already abandon the issues declaring homosexual “marriage” to be “the law of the land” and assuming no further responsibility in addressing the issue.

As in German in 1933, the church today has the same three choices:

  1. To comply with non-biblical principles and essentially abandon the faith;
  2. Act as if nothing has changed and remain silent on the issue; or
  3. Maintain biblical principles and stand in opposition to the state.

To date the following major Protestant churches have gone against biblical principles and have endorses same-sex marriage:  the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the United Church of Christ.

Christian Churches that maintain a biblical view on marriage are:  the Roman Catholic Church, American Baptist Church, Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, Southern Baptist Convention and United Baptist Church.

What we can expect to follow

Marriage in the homosexual community is merely a starting point of the homosexual agenda.
To truly achieve the goals of the agenda, all opposition must be eliminated and indoctrination, especially of children, must occur.

Dominance of the media and censorship have already occurred.  Only positive images and narratives of homosexuality are allowed.  The following can be anticipated:

  • Manipulation of language – discontinuance of the use of mother/father, husband/wife;
  • Indoctrination of children (sexual deviance portrayed as normative and acceptable, especially in public schools though Common Core);
  • A wider dissemination of homosexuality as normative in mainstream media (increased displays of homosexual behavior, talk shows, even more explicit dramas displaying homosexuals as only proper and accepted or as sympathetic victims);
  • Further promotions as civic leaders (in Santa Fe, NM the mayor is homosexual, two of the city councilors are homosexual and a county commissioner is homosexual);
  • Increasing news coverage of homosexual events such as Gay Pride parades, society page events etc.;
  • Government endorsement of all things “gay”;
  • Public displays of homosexual behavior
  • Castigation of the church and biblical principles.

To maintain a biblical worldview in this climate will result, at a minimum, in an escalating ostracism.

Survival of the Church Today

The onslaught of homosexual “marriage” comes at a time when church attendance is diminishing, church influence is minimal and biblical principles have been compromised.
A few church leaders have begun the process of addressing the issues and some churches are taken a stand.  The Presbyterian Church (USA) for example has developed an internal “Confessing Church Movement.”  The Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission has issued “Here We Stand: An Evangelical Declaration of Marriage.”  A broader campaign calling for civil disobedience of evangelicals and Catholics can be found at www.DefendMarriage.org.

But because of the enormous political and social pressure, many in the American churches will remain silent.

During the Nazi era, Detrick Bonhoeffer, a theologian, provided leadership to the Confessing Church.  He was active as a double agent in the Nazi regime, developed an underground seminary, participated in attempts to assassinate Hitler and eventually paid with his life for his stance against the regime.

The need today is for such a church and for such men.  The Bible believing Christian church will survive but at a cost.   The Bible believing church  must be willing to sacrifice and maintain its stance against an oppressive government.  The “techniques” are very simply those that have sustained the church through the ages: love, prayer, steadfastness, agreement and God’s grace.

In Conclusion

It is not surprising that many applaud the Supreme Court’s decision to redefine marriage.  With overwhelming media inducements, hate speech laws etc., a small but dominant subgroup comprising 2% of the population has been given moral and legal authority over our society.  The issue divides families, divides the church and divides the nation.

The issue now falls to the creation and the moral authority of a confessing church in America.  The question facing the church today is what option will it take.  Will we see the church acquiesce and will all sanctuaries be used for the performance of homosexual “marriages”?  Or will the church oppose and display acts of civil disobedience.  The stakes are very high.

May God bless America. 

The New Mexico Watchman

Santa Fe, New Mexico

*Examples of Christian Repression

Obamacare requires religious organizations to provide abortifacients to employees despite moral objections.  A Federal Court in Denver CO ruled against the Catholic non-profit Little Sister for the Poor.

Not providing services to homosexuals has resulted in fines:  New Mexico photographer, Oregon and Colorado bakers.

Contributing to a pro-traditional marriage cause results in loss of employment:  Mozilla Founder and CEO Brendan Eich, Police Chief Kelvin Cochran, Atlanta.

Not providing services to homosexuals results in the closing of social agencies;  Catholic Charities adoption agency – Boston and San Francsico

Death threats result for opposing the homosexual political agenda;  Senator Bill Sharer, New Mexico State Legislator.

Dismissal from the military for the Bible verse “No weapon formed against me shall prosper. (Isaiah 54:14).

Silencing of military chaplains and the disallowed sharing of the Christian faith.

Cancellation of TV show featuring Christian brothers Jason and David Benham by Home and Garden Television.

Homosexual Houston Mayor Annise Parker subpoenaed speeches, presentations and sermons of pastors who collected signatures opposing Houston’s Equal Rights Ordinance she successfully passed.

California, New Jersey and Washington DC have made it illegal to counsel children on the issue of sexual orientation claiming it is not a freedom of speech issue even though speech is involved.

There are examples of traditional values surviving an onslaught of anti-Christian bias; the Supreme Court’s finding in favor of Hobby Lobby, the success of Phil Robertson remaining on Duck Dynasty and Chick-Fil-A’s president’s refusal to abandon of Christian  principles and remaining in business.

Legislative Prayer Project 2015

Join us in prayer for the New Mexico State Legislature 2015


9:00 a.m.

DIAL (712) 432-0232

Code  659553#

Please come into agreement with us as we pray for our

Legislators, Legislation and Process of Governance.



“I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,”

Matthew 5:44

Pro-Life Legislation to be Heard Friday, Feb 20

We are forwarding an email from the New Mexico Alliance for Life regarding tomorrow’s hearing at the Round House.  Please pray and join us in Santa Fe.

NOTE: The meeting room has been changed.  These bills will be heard in
ROOM 307
From: New Mexico Alliance for Life
Date: February 19, 2015 
Tomorrow, Friday, February 20 in the House Regulatory & Public Affairs  Committee will hear the Late-Term Abortion Ban Act, HB 390 sponsored by Rep. Yvette Herrell (R, Alamogordo) and the Parental Notification of Abortion Act HB 391 sponsored by Rep. Alonzo Baldonado (R, Los Lunas).
This is a historic moment for New Mexico.  Pro-abortion activists are working furiously to discourage our leaders from supporting these bills.  Pro-abortion activists are so out-of- touch, they are actually fighting to keep elective abortion legal until the day of birth and seek to protect abortion doctors over our girls by opposing HB 390 and HB 391.
Here’s what you can do:

1)  Contact these House Committee members.  New Mexicans want to see both HB 390 and HB 391 pass to protect our girls, women and innocent unborn children.

Yvette Herrell

505 986 4416
Bob Woooley
505 986 4454
Deborah Armstrong
505 986 4435
Nora Espinoza
505 986 4852
Wonda Johnson
505 986 4435
Patrica Roybal Caballero 505 986 4221
James Smith
505 986 4840

 2) Attend tomorrow’s committee hearing:  Be there early. The abortion industry and  their paid activists plan to be out in full force to try to kill these common sense protections. Plan to be at the hearing early, by 12:30 p.m. as hearing will start promptly at 1:30 p.m. in Room 307. * Note the room has changed to Room 307.  Plan on getting there an hour before to ensure you get a seat in the committee room.

3) Be prepared.  Both bills address common sense protections for our girls, women, and innocent, unborn children– protections that currently do not exist in New Mexico. Please use the  FACT SHEET HERE provided by New Mexico Alliance for Life for both HB 390 and HB 391 which you can print out.  Take these key points to committee hearings, use when contacting legislators, talking to friends, speaking to groups, writing letters to editor, calling a radio talk show.  We encourage you to stay on message, be short and concise.  The majority of New Mexicans support these common sense protections which are winning issues for the pro-life cause.

 4) Forward this email to friends and family. Invite them to attend the committee hearings for HB 390 & HB 391.


New Mexico Alliance for Life


“If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.”

Matthew 21:22


Pro-Life Legislation to House Committee 2-20-2015

New Mexico House Pro-Life Legislation has been scheduled for its first hearing in theHouse Regulatory and Public Affairs Committee.  The hearing is scheduled for nextFriday, February 20, 2015 in room 315.  This committee is scheduled to meet at 1:30 or a half-hour after the floor session ends.

Committee meetings are often are late getting started but because nature of our bills and the limited room capacity, room 315 fills to capacity prior to the hearing.

The bills to be heard are as follows:
“HB 390 Late-Term Abortion Ban.”  Representative Yvette Herrell (R) Alamogordo

“HB 391 Parental Notification of Abortion Act” Representative Alonzo Baldonado (R) Los Lunas

Please pray for the bill sponsors, Representative Yvette Herrell and Representative Alonzo Baldonado and for the success of the legislation.

House Regulatory and Public Affairs Committee member are:

Chair RepresentativeYvette Herrell (R)
Representative Bob Wooley (R)
Representative Deborah A. Armstrong (D)
Representative Nora Espinoza (R)
Representative Wonda Johnson (D)
RepresentativePatricia Roybal Caballero (D)
RepresentativeJames E. Smith (R)

You can contact these Representatives by calling the switchboard (505) 986-4300.
Individual offices and emails can be found at the Legislative websitehttp://nmlegis.gov.

Passage in the committee is not guaranteed.  You participation via communication and attendance is both vital and appreciated.  Please pray that New Mexico will reflect the will of God and thus choose life.

New Mexico Watchman


If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.”

Matthew 21:22

Pro-Life Legislation Introduced – Marijuana Bill Blocked

                    February 4, 2015

Marijuana Bill Blocked

The mechanics of getting of getting legislation through the New Mexico State Legislature often depends on who’s in charge.  Both houses generally assign two committees to a piece of legislation.  Additional committees, given the constraints of the legislature, are a death sentence and the leadership in each chamber assigns the committees.

Senator Joseph Cervantes (D) a lawyer from Las Cruces has introduced “SB 383 Decrease Marijuana Possession Penalties.”  The bill would make pot possession punishable by a $50.00 fine.  The newly elected House Speaker Donald Tripp has assigned the bill to five committees.  In 2013 House passed a marijuana bill.  The new bill is awaiting its first hearing in the Public Affairs Committee on the Senate side.


First Pro-Life Legislation Introduced

Senator Craig Bryant (R) from Rio Rancho has just introduced “SB 437 Physician Admitting Privileges for Abortions.”  The bill would require abortionists to have physician admitting privileges at a hospital in the area.  It has been assigned to the Senate Public Affairs Committee.  It has not been scheduled for a committee hearing.

At least two additional pro-life bills are expected;  the Parents’ Rights bill (parental notification of a minor’s anticipated abortion) and the Woman’s Right to Know bill (women’s informed consent).

 The deadline for filing legislation this session is February 19, 2015.


Please keep our legislators and their legislation in your prayers.  Asked the Lord to provide these men and women with godly insight and decision making.


New Mexico Watchman



 I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers,
intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people-
for kings and all those in authority,
that we may live peaceful and quiet lives
in all godliness and holiness.

1 Timothy 2:1 

Do NOT Retain Supreme Court Justice Edward Chavez Nov. 4


Do NOT Retain Supreme Court Justice Edward Chavez Nov.4

Elections should be about ideas and ideals, which in turn are based on one’s worldview.  The Judeo-Christian worldview and its ideals have been under assault and nothing illustrates the issue more clearly than Supreme Court Justice Edward Chavez’s opinion legalizing homosexual “marriage” in New Mexico.

Judge Chavez begins his opinion by describing the homosexual community as having “inadequate political power to protect itself…”  Managing to force the issue of homosexual “marriage” before the Supreme Court of the United States and the New Mexico Supreme Court does not describe a community whose power is inadequate.

Judge Chavez then goes out of his way to set the boundaries of his decision within the confines of the rule of law, disallows any religious references, even though the Preamble to the New Mexico State Constitution reads:  “We, the people of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty, in order to secure the advantages of a state government, do ordain and establish this constitution.”

Judge Chavez lays out two arguments for the legalization of homosexual “marriage.”  His number one argument equates the prohibition of interracial marriage with the prohibition of homosexual “marriage.”  He argues that miscegenation, not allowing blacks to marry whites, is the same type of unjustifiable discrimination as prohibiting same-gender marriages.  We would suggest that they are two very different issues.  Marriage between a man and a woman has been universally accepted and has always existed as a separate entity from racial discrimination.  Miscegenation is also a universal phenomenon, not confined to the southern United States.  The fact that blacks couldn’t marry whites at one point in this nation’s history doesn’t mean that same-sex “marriage” is justified.

Judge Chavez’s second argument is that having children has nothing to do with marriage.  To come up with this argument Judge Chavez had to ignore the obvious truth.  Law is based on precedent, and in New Mexico’s history as in the world’s history, marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

Judge Chavez says that “preventing the deinstitutionalization of marriage” … “cannot be an important governmental interest under the Constitution.”  Notice that Judge Chavez is creating new law, which destabilizes families by guaranteeing that one biological parent will be absent from the child’s daily life.  Furthermore, the entanglement of “whose child it is” has already emerged as problematic in our courts in proceedings related to homosexual “marriages”.

Judge Chavez states that religious institutions are protected from the new law he’s created.  “Our holding will not interfere with the religious freedom of religious organizations or clergy because (1) no religious organization will have to change its policies to accommodate same-gender couples, and (2) no religious clergy will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”  Judge Chavez made no reference to the multiple situations in which churches have been sued to require the use of their properties or venues by homosexuals for their “marriages.”

A Christian worldview, prescribed by Jesus himself, requires that marriage be between one man and one woman.  Marriage as an institution has always provided a safe haven for children and simple biology, the way we are made, requires marriage to be between a man and a woman.

You can make your views known on November 4, 2014, on the Judicial Retention question:  “Shall EDWARD L. CHAVEZ be retained as Justice of the Supreme Court?”  Since your Christian worldview obviously differs from the worldview of Justice Edward Chavez, we suggest that you vote “No.”

(Note that this question appears at the top left corner of Page 2 on the Sample Santa Fe County ballot.)

New Mexico Watchman