An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Mexico City Legalizes Same Sex Marriage
City legislators passed the bill 39-20. Mexico City is the first Latin American city to legalize gay marriage. The LATimes:
The bill calls for changing the definition of marriage in the city’s civil code. Marriage is currently defined as the union of a man and a woman. The new definition will be “the free uniting of two people.”
The change would allow same-sex couples to adopt children, apply for bank loans together, inherit wealth and be included in the insurance policies of their spouse, rights they were denied under civil unions allowed in the city.
The city already had a civil unions law. Meanwhile, here in the U.S., New Mexico could be come the 32nd state to ban same-sex marriage.
80 Responses to “Mexico City Legalizes Same Sex Marriage”
Thanks, tidbits. Yes, I wore body armor, but I didn't walk up to the enemy and ask them to shoot me point blank. The condom comment was meant toward the “naturality” of homosexuality. Yes, we humans like to “hump” stuff. That does not make it the naturally occurring action. Homosexuality has been around for just about as long as human beings have been on Earth. But guess what? So has every other fetish – bondage, pedophilia, and the like.
I realize you don't share this opinion, and respect the libertarian approach you have on the matter. I really do. You've caused me to rethink my own self-described libertarian positions on many issues. But on the issue of making unnatural fetishes the accepted norm, I have to draw the line.
“Women who sleep only with women who sleep only with women are the very least likely to get STDs (or have an unwanted pregnancy, for that matter) “
Yes, and people who masturbate are even LESS likely. What's the main point here.
Merry Christmas, Stockboy!
The condom remark was toward the naturality of sex. If people were to accept and live by those pesky Traditional “rules” when it comes to sex and marriage, condoms would not be needed. Well, American society has decided that it does not want those tradional rules. Meanwhile, divorce skyrockets, STD's are through the roof, parentless children are at epidemic proportions, etc.
If you break a vow to your spouse and sleep with someone, you deserve what comes to you – God forbit you bring it home to him/her. Just because people cheat (as they have come to accept since “Free Love” in the 60's) doesn't mean that we should accept it as the “norm”.
You are right. But this is what we have been dreading. Acceptance of man-man or woman-woman unions will, as you said, lead to polygamy cases in the near future. Most folks on your side of the fence don't admit that, in fear of losing public support. I respect your candor, and agree on, at least, the consistency of both views.
High-handed? Well, I suppose that's one way of characterizing it, inaccurately. We live in a divorce culture. I'm not sure what “public policy” remedies there are when people are determined to see the grass on the other side of the fence as greener. I really didn't mean to get into a big discussion of this issue, except to say that my hat is off to those who make their marriages work, when it might have been easier to claim “irreconciliable differences.”
“Thank goodness for you, roro.
”
While I appreciate that, I must say that the first version of this story and picture I saw were here:
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/12/…
Very obviously, they're both men, and there's even a caption saying:
But really, just because the one dude has the very-common-in-latin-america feathered fabio mullet doesn't mean they look like women.
“What's the main point here.”
It was your point, JD. I was pointing out that it isn't, in fact, a point at all.
“condoms would not be needed”
Except those who want to satisfy their spouse's sexual needs while not getting pregnant. We both know that part of the “traditional rules” are that if women don't put out enough, men are allowed to request a divorce or go to other places for their needs. (Traditionally, women were neither allowed to request divorce for any reason nor to get their sexual needs met if their husbands weren't cutting it.) If you don't want to get pregnant (or if you've been told that another pregnancy could kill you), I guess you're just outta luck, eh?
“Just because people cheat (as they have come to accept since “Free Love” in the 60's)”
Do you think cheating started in the 60s? Holy cow, man.
“men are allowed to request a divorce or go to other places for their needs. “
You are turning this into a sexism issue for no reason.
Neither women NOR men should engage in infidelity. This is the case in most morality models.
And SOCIETY allowed divorce and infidelity, not the “rules”.
And yes, I realize that cheating did not start in the 60's. I would hope you didn't think I meant that.
What I meant was that the open ACCEPTANCE of it started in the sixties. This was followed shortly thereafter with the open ACCEPTANCE of divorce (no coincidence there). Prior to that time society would shun these people. Now all of the “enlightened” people wish to push the open acceptance of homosexuality.
The liberal open acceptances, thus far, have left our culture and society as a shallow form of itself with no social rules, no common moral code, and no consequences for your sexual choices.
my hat is off to those who make their marriages work, when it might have been easier to claim “irreconciliable differences.”
Let me ask you something, redbus. You have told me about the long marriages in your family, yours included, and you have told me that things did not always go smoothly but nevertheless you are still together. My question is this: Have you ever known anyone among your circle of friends, relatives, acquaintances, neighbors, co-workers, and co-religionists who is divorced — and if you have, did they decide that it was easier to claim “irreconcilable differences” than to make their marriages work?
“You are turning this into a sexism issue for no reason.”
No, I am not turning this into a sexism issue “for no reason”. Marriage has pretty much always been a “sexism issue”. It has always, until very recently, been a transfer of property (the bride) from one man (her father) to another man (her husband), with a transfer of other property and/or wealth in return. Much of this can still be seen in all of the traditions surrounding marriage. Marriage as an institution has also been linked to a set of rules that far benefit the husband to the detriment of the wife — bringing home the bacon, stay-at-home-mom as mandatory, cooking, cleaning, Stepford wife stuff, and yes, infidelity as well. Even Jesus said that divorce should never happen, EXCEPT in the case when the wife (yes, just the wife) cheats. If you think that infidelity has historically had similar consequences for men as it has for women, you really don't know what you're talking about. Not only was it illegal for a woman to request divorce because of her husband's infidelity (while he most certainly could and have it immediately granted), even once women were able to do this in our society, the husband would have full rights to the kids (they were his property, after all), she was left with no way to make a living after having done nothing but be a houseslave to her family, and since she was divorced, her chances of remarrying were nil. So it is not ME at all who is bringing sexism into the idea of marriage, and there is no way you're going to convince me that these golden old days were better than things are now.
And it should be desperately obvious to anyone paying attention that sexism and homophobia are close kissing cousins. Men and women are supposed to have these set “rules” according to their gender, and if they don't follow those rules, they are considered dangerous. The
backlash against this is at the heart of both feminsm and LGBT rights movements.
Now, my hope, and what I fight for when I fight for the rights of loving gay couples to marry, and when I got married myself, is that marriage has made great strides toward shedding its ugly past, and is moving toward becoming a willing partnership between two people who love each other, instead of an institution made for the benefit of straight men.
So roro, please answer this question: If you fight for “the rights of loving gay couples to marry”, does that mean only two people or would your fight extend to include say, three gay men who all wanted to wed each other, for example?
And if you won't fight for polygamy, why not if the underlying qualifyer for your “passionate” fight is “people in love with each other seeking a formal union”? Please explain in great and intricate detail your position on multiple-partner matrimony.
I'm typing this is disqus (not on the TMV site), and I see what Tidbits means. There's no edit button! One false click, one attempt to edit, and the whole thing disappears. T-Steel, can you tell Disqus about the problem? It's a pain.
I have a brother who divorced after ten years. He is now remarried. Yes, he and his wife essentially used a version of the “irreconciliable differences argument.” We're agreed, Kathy, that women (or men) trapped in abusive relationships should have a way to get out. Where I'm skeptical is whether many of the marriages that end up in divorce needed to do so. Who suffers most? The children of those broken relationships. For every one who is happy their parents broke up, how many more wish they would have stayed together? Just asking…
Where I'm skeptical is whether many of the marriages that end up in divorce needed to do so.
How would you propose to find out? Do you think this is a question you could ever answer accurately — which divorcing couples in America needed to do so and which didn't? And how do you define “needed”? How do you know that your definition of “need” would be the same as someone else's? I have no idea whether any other divorce other than mine “needed” to happen. There's no way I *could* know that unless I were a little elf flitting invisibly in their house from room to room, following them wherever they go.
Of course, there *are,* objectively, behaviors one can see from the outside that relate to the way a couple handles a divorce: for example, if children are involved, how you tell them, how you explain the divorce to them, how you handle custody arrangements, how you talk to each other in front of your children, how you respond to your child's emotional needs in the midst of and after a divorce. It's well-known by now which behaviors will help children and which will stand a good chance of harming them. Don't put your kids in the middle, don't ask your kids (directly or indirectly) to choose between parents (“If you love me, you'll tell me what he's doing”), reassure your children as often as needed that the divorce is not their fault, accept your children's feelings, whatever they are.
But these things have nothing to do with why a couple divorces — with the reasons for the divorce, why they decided they needed to divorce. That's something no one can know but them.
I am as certain as I am of anything in my life that my daughter is happier and healthier, emotionally and psychologically, because her father and I ended the marriage — because I know what the marriage was like, what the dynamics of it were, what the problems were, and how it affected her before we made the decision to divorce. These are things no one else can possibly know. I know how hard we tried to make it work and how impossible I had to finally acknowledge that it was to make it work anymore, and I knew why it was that way. No one else does, except those I have chosen to tell (exceedingly few), and no one else can ever know.
But at the same time that I know the divorce was ultimately the best decision for Maggie as well as for her father and me, I also know that it would NOT have turned out so well in the long run if her father and I had not committed ourselves to being responsible in the way we managed the divorce in relation to her. And I can tell you I was intensely aware of how important that was at almost every moment of my life.
Who suffers most? The children of those broken relationships. For every one who is happy their parents broke up, how many more wish they would have stayed together?
Maggie certainly wished for us to have stayed together for a significant time after the divorce. How could she not have? But my belief is that you have to take the long view and decide, using the adult knowledge that a child doesn't have, of whether this is likely to be the best decision for the child. Redbus, one of the reasons for the divorce (at least for me; I can't speak for my ex-husband) is what I could see the problems within the marriage were doing to Maggie. I am not going to be more detailed right now — maybe I will at some point in the future — but Maggie and her dad are the only ones who can rightfully agree or disagree with me, because they are the only other ones who know what was going on.
So, yes, Maggie did wish for us to get back together, for a long time. But those painful feelings evolved and changed over time. She eventually came to see (and told me, in conversations, with no hesitation) that it was better for all three of us this way. It took time, it was very gradual, but she did come to appreciate the after and look back at the before with recognition of how unworkable it was. Of course, that probably would not have happened if I (and her dad, too, but I just don't want to speak for him) had not made a conscious decision to do certain things and not do certain other things in very specific ways in regard to her. A bad marriage can be just as harmful for a child as divorce — and divorce can be disastrous for a child even if the marriage was also disastrous. It all depends on how it's handled.
Sil — Go back and read my at least two comments on the subject in this very thread. Or any of my other comments on the many threads on TMV on which I've commented on this subject. In addition, I might add that while I know probably 20 loving gay couples who got married recently in California in the few months it was legal, and many more who live in states where it's not legal, I've never met a successful triad that wanted to get married. I do believe they exist, but I've just never met any of them, so while I think the issue deserves some attention, it's not nearly as common, nor is it as personal for me.
Also: it's a stupid gotcha. It's not going to make anyone suddenly realize “OMG dude! She's right! Homos ARE like bovine mounting for sperm collection!”
“I've never met a successful triad that wanted to get married. I do believe they exist, but I've just never met any of them, so while I think the issue deserves some attention, it's not nearly as common, nor is it as personal for me.”~ roro
*******
I've never met any transsexuals either and I understand they are rare too, probably rarer than polygamists worldwide. Does that mean that the “T” should be dropped from GLBT? No. The polygamy issue isn't going to disappear because you're playing dumb about it. It is viable and I want to address why you are not as passionate about it as you are about other sexual arrangements getting seen as “normal” via marriage? You have skirted around the question. You have belittled the question. You have played down the import of the question; yet you have not satisfactorily answered why you lack passion for the polygamists [who many of which are deeply in love with their situation].
Please stop playing games and answer why you aren't behind polygamy. Saying “it doesn't work” is not a viable answer. Many lesbian and gay arrangements “don't work” either and end up splitting apart. By your “logic” should we lose enthusiasm for them too?
No, Sil, I have not “skirted” the question at all. I have answered it in so very many paragraphs in so very many threads. Since I know you are not being intellectually honest in asking it in the first place, I really have no impetus to repeat myself yet again.
The new question is, that you haven't answered: “why do you lack zeal for promoting the “love” of more than two people to wed”?
You haven't answered it without prejudice and I'm challenging you to do so because in courts it will also be challenged. I would like to see in advance what the arguments will be to suppress polygamy once “anything but heterosexual” is allowed between just two people..
Of course I'm being rhetorical, not 'intellectually dishonest”. I'm playing devil's advocate to force readers into a position of seeing the slippery slope. That's obvious. And that position of exposing the slippery slope is how YOU are being intellectually dishonest in evading it and then battering me for attempting to get you to expose yourself, ironically, by calling me what you are being…
How's that summation for “a two year old”?
I totally understand what you are saying about “marriage being an institution that benefits the husband”. That is a societal issue. People mistakingly attribute that to Christianity at times.
Within Christianity, women are to “subject” themselves to their husbands, and men are to treat their wives as Christ did His Church. Of course, most “Christians” misquote that and attempt to state that this means that the “man is the head of his castle and what he says goes”. That's not the case. Idealy, couples in a good marriage act selflessly, as Christ did/does His Church. I know that is off-subject a bit, but I don't want anyone else to try to place that line-of-thought onto Christians.
As far as “sexism and homophobia being kissing cousins”. I do not agree for the most part (I know you're shocked). Anything based upon hate is wrong, be it sexism, racism, or hatred of homosexuals. As I've said many times, I have not one ounce of hate toward any of my human brothers and sisters – none. When I meet homosexuals, I treat them as equals and with resepect. I make no apologies for my standing against the behaviors they embrace, as they are not to be “accepted” within my faith. At that point, many end the acquaintance there, and that's fine. But some, respect my opinion, and we simply do not bring it up. My homosexual friends know this about me, as I know about their feelings toward the issue. It's really no different than my being acquainted with atheists. I respect them as human beings, but we differ on faith and beliefs.
The “rules” you alludes to provide for well-defined roles within a society. It has been my experience that liberals typically don't like “roles”, where anyone can serve as anything they wish. That's an option, of course, but it breaks down a society because of the lack of a common moral model.
I agree that marriage should not be for the “benefit of men”. It should benefit men and women as a equal partnership (as the book I follow lays out – the Bible). My wife and I are equals. She acknowleges me as the head of the family, as do our children. I did not demand that, it was given; as she also is a faithful Christian woman. But truth be told, she runs the entire household. I guide the family, but she runs it. Sometimes she does my job(s) and sometimes I do hers. That's the way it should be.
But the bottom line for gay couples is that I cannot “accept” that behavior as the norm. I consider it likened to a fetish. It's your right to engage in whatever fetish you wish – this is America. But to demand that the rest of society embrace it is too much to ask. Yes, heteros have fetishes as well, but to the best of my knowledge, they are not out in the street asking for America to accept and/or celebrate their fetishes.
This may make me seem “backwards” in your view. That's fine. Just know that I have never shown hate toward homosexuals. I treat them with respect, as long as they respect me by not shoving their activities in my face, or worse, the faces of my children.
(To Redbus and Kathy)
I think we all agree that abusive relationships or those with infidelity should not be tolerated by women (or men). Most other marriages can, indeed, be salvaged but it takes a lot of work on both parties. The problem is that too many people begin a marriage with “me, me, me” – and that goes for both men and women. That translates into a selfish marriage. If both parties can actually humble themselves and admit their part in the selfishness; it can be salvaged. Love can actually phoenix into a greater love than was there before (that's actually the norm for those who go through it). This goes for friendships and just about every other relationship out there.
If both parties can actually humble themselves and admit their part in the selfishness; it can be salvaged. Love can actually phoenix into a greater love than was there before.
I agree.
JD, “If you break a vow to your spouse and sleep with someone, you deserve what comes to you…”
Sometimes bad things happen to good people. Certainly if you use bad judgement and sleep with someone who you know has an STD, you deserve what you get. But I don't think most people would knowingly sleep with someone who would pass an STD to them.
Your comments tend to be, “This is how people should act” and then you look at the resulting problems. I tend to believe that less preaching (after all 99.999999999% of Americans don't come to me for advice) and more understanding of how people act is better. People will always do stupid things. You can howl all you want about their immoral behavior, but it doesn't change anything.
Most people, especially non-Christians, won't change their behavior if you throw the Bible at them. However if you teach (without judgement) people the importance of using condoms, of not sleeping around and how it benefits them, then they'll respond more positively.
Sil, “The new question is, that you haven't answered: “why do you lack zeal for promoting the “love” of more than two people to wed”?”
I know the question is mostly directed to roro, but I'll provide my answer as well….
I do not support polygamy. It's not part of my religion. However I also believe that people have the right to practice their religion, so I would not deny polygamists their right to marry.
That's the short answer. However I'm not aware of any polygamist marriage movement and I do not know what they would want in a group marriage. Since you insist on talking about the the right for polygamists to marry and appear to know these details perhaps you can fill me in on these details. This will allow me to talk more intelligently about what it is polygamists do expect out of their marriage.
“The new question is, that you haven't answered: “why do you lack zeal for promoting the “love” of more than two people to wed”?
You know what I get to do, as a person, Sil? Decide what I am passionate about, and what areas, if any, I want to spend my time fighting for. There are lots of problems in the world, and I have time to do a limited amount of work for a limited number of them — so I choose what I care most about and put my time there. How dare you tell me how I should be spending my time?
Well, “I know you are but what am I” is closer to a 5 year old world view, so I do have to apologize by underestimating you by 3 years. So: sorry.
“However if you teach (without judgement) people the importance of using condoms, of not sleeping around and how it benefits them,”
I liked your approach to this one stockboy, until that last sentence. You are absolutely correct that you can't change behavior by “beating them over the head with the Bible”. I know that.
My main goal is to attempt to make people see (both Christians and non-Christians) that the “worldly” view of sex and relationships has a negative effect on our culture. It is true that adherance to Christian principles does decrease the likelihood of falling into that worldly view, and I'm sure several other non-Christian philosophies can acheive the same effect. But it it the humanist approach that says that the worldly view of sex and relationships is a good thing. The humanist approach is what I fight against and is the single most detrimental factor in our society.
As far as the condoms go, if you don't “trust” the person you want to be with sexually (or do not know their past without a doubt) then you should not be with them. I'm sure you'll ask, “can ANYONE know someone's past without a doubt?” In today's worldly view of sex, no you cannot. When virginity was a “given”, you absolutely could. This goes for both hetero and homsexual sexual relationships.
The typical humanist view is really against the science. The science of sex and child-raising solidly support the classic views, but I already covered that with roro80. In case you missed it, here's the link back to the thread with the studies that I could find on the sex & marriage.
http://themoderatevoice.com/54968/divorce-ban-i…
Thanks, ProfElwood! I'll keep that research in my “archives”. thanks
I remember that you once said that history showed liberalism proceeded the downfall of a nation. Since history is also part of science (knowledge) in my view, I was wondering if you could give me a good place to start searching. I want to make a blog entry on the subject, to show how much Atheism (the anti-religious type) really rejects science when it doesn't support their philosophy.
On that same thread, I also disputed the conclusions you made from those links, but you didn't address my points there. Oh well, I know you and JD think only marriage in the context of religion and two virginal spouses are “solidly supported” by the science, as if “science” were any part of those links — statistics and science are not the same thing. I think your assessment is incorrect, and I don't think the “science” really supports your views, but that's fine.
“I was wondering if you could give me a good place to start searching.”
You should start with ancient civilizations (Greek, Turk, Roman, and even Biblical Israel.) I have quite a bit of info on the subject, but it's on another computer at home – I'm not there now.