My use of polygamy was hyperbole, and probably a poor choice, since it is specified in our constitution. A better choice would have been nudists. Two nudists ask a wedding photographer to do their wedding photographs, and the photographer declines, claiming that she would be be offended by the nudity, and that public nudity was against her religion and spiritual beliefs. Now then, PC and the nudist agenda have managed to get some politicians to go along with legalizing public nudity. After all, we are genetically predisposed towards nudity. So the nudists do what all activists do when the opportunity arises, they sue. ...Could this happen? It hasn’t been so long ago that the good citizens of New Mexico would have been stunned at the thought of gay marriage. Certainly it was so far from the minds of our state constitution’s framers that they didn’t feel the need to codify against it. Too bad the Mormons weren’t into gay marriage. I doubt the framers were thinking about public, nude marriage either.
The real point of my point, so to speak, is that in any human endeavor, cultural, political, education, business, marriage, family, banking, religion and so forth, the values that come out are the values we put in. This nonsense won’t stop with homosexual marriage, and the existing laws won’t matter.
As painful as it is to contemplate, I think our laws already don't matter.
Already statutes which are contrary to the [State] Constitution (a) exist, and (b) are rather unchallengable.
As a practical consideration/example, consider NMSA 30-7-2.4 which makes it a crime for a university student to keep [or bear] a firearm on student housing. Contrast that with the following:
Art II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
Any time I brought the issue up with an official I got either redirected or dismissed out-of-hand; I never got a straight answer.
Furthermore, when I would bring up the issue there were a fair amount of people who would dismiss what I'd say on grounds of safety or common-sense or [federal] regulation, though I think most people were simply unaware that there could be such a conflict (perhaps even unaware that there are State Constitutions).