On March 21, 2013, four women (two couples) appeared at the Bernalillo County Clerk's Office in Albuquerque, New Mexico, seeking marriage licenses. The clerk turned them down, acting under the guidance of a previous state attorney general's opinion. The couples brought suit that same day in New ...
read more >
On March 21, 2013, four women (two couples) appeared at the Bernalillo County Clerk's Office in Albuquerque, New Mexico, seeking marriage licenses. The clerk turned them down, acting under the guidance of a previous state attorney general's opinion. The couples brought suit that same day in New Mexico state court, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of New Mexico, the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), the Albuquerque law firm Sutin, Thayer & Browne, APC, and local cooperating attorneys. They argued that the marriage statute did not bar a same-sex marriage, and that they have a constitutional right to marriage equality under the state constitution's equal protection clause, due process clause, and other clauses.
On August 29th, 2013, the court (Judge Alan Malott) granted the plaintiffs an injunction against the clerks of New Mexico's Bernalillo and Sandoval Counties. And, on September 3rd, 2013, the final declaratory judgment was issued by the court. This judgment favored the plaintiffs, and announced that current state laws do not prohibit same-sex marriage, the defendants shall not deny marriage licenses to otherwise qualified same-sex couples, and that each party shall bear its own fees and costs. Griego v. Oliver, 2013 WL 5768197 (N.M. Dist. 2013).The judgment included the reasoning that though the writers of New Mexico's gender neutral marriage laws may not have considered same-sex couples when choosing the language of the statute, the state constitution of New Mexico prohibited discrimination based on sex.
On December 19, 2013, the New Mexico Supreme Court upheld the district court decision in Griego v. Oliver, 316 P.3d 865. The Supreme Court held that the state's statutory scheme prohibited same-sex marriage, but that the statutory scheme violated the state constitution equal protection clause.
An administrative order of closure for this case was issued on June 16th, 2014.Margo Schlanger - 03/21/2013
Megan Dolan - 07/10/2014
Andrew Junker - 12/09/2014