[originaltext]Now, listen to Part Two of the interview.Ml: New Mexico is one o

Now, listen to Part Two of the interview.
Ml: New Mexico is one of only—one of a handful of states where county officials have taken matters into their own hands, citing the Supreme Court decisions of the last term as their basis for doing so, in defiance of their own state laws. Has this changed the battle?
M2: Well, that is happening in Pennsylvania, in North Carolina, in New Mexico. What it’s doing is kind of, I think, again, speeding up the process. It’s forcing the state supreme courts to realize they’re going to have to step in sooner, rather than later and kind of reconcile this inconsistency from county to county. So it’s a very interesting situation.(6)These acts of local defiance are going to speed up the statewide process.
Ml: Are they even expanding the map, taking the battle to places that are really not expected as hotbeds of this social question? I read that a lawsuit is moving ahead in Tennessee.
M2: Tennessee filed just today. Arkansas has a lawsuit.(7)There are two rival lawsuits seeking marriage rights in Virginia. So it is absolutely expanding the map. I think the goal is to get as many states as possible into this marriage camp, and then go back to the U. S. Supreme Court within a year, two years, and say, look, this is now the norm in the U. S. and much—it’s not a few liberal states, and have the Supreme Court reconsider the issue. And that’s going to happen, I think. It’s a question of how soon.
Ml:(8)With New Jersey joining the list, about one-third of all American citizens live in a state where gay marriage is allowed. Is it pretty much going to reach a sort of equilibrium point, where those states with constitutional amendments or specific bans pretty much stay in that column, and the ones that seem open to it or have it in process pretty much stay in that column? Are we reaching stasis in this battle?
M2: Yes, I think we are. I think, for example, Illinois is likely to join the same-sex marriage ranks as a populous state. Hawaii and Oregon are likely. So we could get close to that sort of half the country this, half the country that. And at that point, there’s going to be pressure on the Supreme Court, U. S. Supreme Court, to say to itself, as they did with interracial marriage, we can’t really have a country permanently with two systems of marriage. So, at some point,(9)there’s going to be pressure on the high court to figure that they are going to have to have a uniform marriage law for this divided country.
Ml: Quickly, why can’t we have two marriage laws, two marriage regimes across the country? Is that not sustainable over time?
M2:(10)I think a lot of legal experts would say it’s not sustainable over time. We’re a very mobile country-People move from one state to another. Companies have branch offices in different states. So we’re making due with that split system now. I think—long-term, I don’t think it would last in perpetuity.
Ml: David Crary of the Associated Press, thanks for joining us.
M2: Thank you, Ray.
This is the end of Part Two of the interview.
Questions 6 to 10 are based on what you have just heard.
6. According to the interview, what are the acts of local defiance in New Mexico going to do?
7. What do we learn about the expanding process?
8. What do we learn about New Jersey?
9. What’s the pressure on the high court?
10. According to the interview, what is the main concern of legal experts?