BERNALILLO, N.M. (AP) – Victoria Dunlap has made a habit of shocking her fellow Republicans.

At her swearing-in four years ago as county clerk, the landscape painter-turned-politician insisted on using Thomas Paine’s “Rights of Man” instead of the Bible, and she’s been wrestling with the system ever since.

But nothing quite prepared the local GOP for her latest foray into controversy: In February, she followed ultra-liberal San Francisco’s lead and issued dozens of same-sex marriage licenses.

The Sandoval County clerk claims she never expected such a fuss and that she is simply following the state’s marriage law, which she says is not gender-specific.

“I didn’t realize it was such a huge issue,” she said in a recent interview. “I was surprised that people hadn’t looked at the law.”

Dunlap decided to issue the 66 same-sex licenses eight days after San Francisco did. In that city, nearly 4,000 couples were married between Feb. 12 and March 11, when California’s Supreme Court suspended the policy pending legal challenges.

Similar efforts have since taken hold in several other states, and are in various states of legal limbo.

As New Mexico debates same-sex marriage, Dunlap is firmly at the center of the conflict – and often under attack.

Democratic County Commissioner Daymon Ely last month called her a “nut.” County spokesman Gayland Bryant complained that, “Vicky has a history. When she gets bored, she has a media event.”

The county GOP sought to censure her, a symbolic gesture expressing the party’s disapproval.

Dunlap fired back.

“Wow, I’m being excommunicated from the Republican Party. Don’t break my heart,” she said during a television interview.

Even some gay and lesbian couples, while thankful for the licenses, are a bit bewildered.

“Only Victoria Dunlap knows her motive for issuing the licenses,” said Dan Hawes, campaign manager for Basic Rights New Mexico.

Lisa Hardaway of Lamda Legal, a New-York based gay rights advocacy group, noted that unlike in cities like San Francisco, gay and lesbian leaders in New Mexico have never been consulted by Dunlap about her plans on same-sex marriage.

Hardaway suggested something other than gay rights may be at issue, asking: “Is there animosity between the (county) board and Dunlap?”

Indeed, the friction between Dunlap and the county board of commissioners dates back well beyond same-sex marriage licenses.

The county’s first Republican clerk since the early 1960s, Dunlap had promised to restore integrity to the office when she was elected. Since then, she has come to be known for her squabbles with other local officials and her string of short-term deputy clerks, including one who was 18.

Shortly after she took office, a feud flared when she blew the whistle on alleged open-meeting violations. After an election, she called in local prosecutors when ballots were allegedly removed from her office. In another instance, she said she was unfairly blamed for allowing a virus to infect a county computer.

While her decision on same-sex marriage caught most people off-guard, she insisted she was simply following the law.

As word spread, scores of gay and lesbian couples swarmed into sleepy Bernalillo to wed, lining up outside the courthouse along the main road. Within hours, New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid issued an opinion that the licenses were not valid.

Dunlap stopped issuing the licenses. But weeks later, she changed her mind, and on March 22 she said she would issue more. The following morning, the county building was again packed with same-sex marriage applicants. But with state and county attorneys down the hall drafting legal action against her, Dunlap told the crowd she would have to cancel again.

“They’re going to go after me,” Dunlap told the crowd.

Madrid has since asked the state Supreme Court to intervene and command Dunlap to desist. The court did so, pending a hearing in state court. A date is pending.

Dunlap disagrees that same-sex marriage is strictly a state issue. She also points to state statute – a copy of which she had marked with colored ink – to support her position that the state’s marriage law is not gender-specific.

“It’s not in the law. There’s nothing in the law that prohibits it,” she said.