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”
Wow. I don't know whether to cheer for Mexico City or be depressed that Mexico City is more advanced than most cities in the United States.
I was just thinking the same thing Kathy. Cheers for Mexico and congrats to them for raising the bar. May we one day emulate their example.
That “more advanced” sentiment explains the throngs of Americans pouring across the border to resettle in Mexico City.
Heck, they don't have to worry about police officers drawing their weapons in snowball fights either.
How come the woman on the left is dressed up to look like a man? How can the lesbian kissing her be attracted to a manlike figure like her?
*is confused and thinks they are too*
Let's hear it for ciudad Mexico, now their marriage is as confusing as the traffic down there. I'm sure the Holy See is giddy with delight.
Sil said, “I'm sure the Holy See is giddy with delight.”
The Holy See hasn't been giddy with delight since it was learned that molesting alter boys was a problem. Ooooh, but homosexuality between consenting adults is just so not acceptable.
Good for Mexico City, good for equlity, good for justice, good for fairness. Please import your tolerance to the US. Thank you.
“That 'more advanced' sentiment”
Just more misuse of language. [shrug] Nothing new.
Um…the two people kissing in the picture are both men, Sil. And the “why do lesbians dress butch and then like each other?” sentiment shows about as much understanding of the human condition as a 2 year old. Good work.
And, in fact, if you click through to the telegraph article, you'll see that the definition of “marriage” there is now much *less* confusing. They use the awesome definition: “the free uniting of two people”. Much less confusing than “one man and one woman”, particularly considering the fact that 1 out of 60 people are born with an intersex condition, and many others transition from one sex to the other during their lifetimes. In other words, if the very simple definition they're using is somehow “confusing” to you, I think it's time you admitted that your general confusion has nothing to do with Mexico or gay people or marriage or the obvious gender of people in pictures. It's just a general condition.
Hey Kathy, I'd vote for both cheering for our LGBT brothers and sisters in Mexico City and feeling depressed about the panty sniffers in this country who think that other people's sex lives and personal relationships are something we should all be involved in.
Tidbits, that's altar boy, and they would have to export their tolerance, not import it. Silhouette, I don't agree with all the arguments you use on this topic, but once marriage has been redefined from the “one man, one woman” definition, a simple, historic one in America, then as you've noted on multiple occasions, it can be redefined to anything. One Mexican city council doesn't get that. Thirty-two American states already have. Good for them.
“once marriage has been redefined from the “one man, one woman” definition, a simple, historic one in America, then as you've noted on multiple occasions, it can be redefined to anything”
redbus — I've heard so many people say this, but I don't understand particularly why so many believe it's the case. I mean, the definition of “marriage” has changed within our culture so many times just in the centuries since the founding of the US; most of these changes have happened in the past 60 years or so. In general, most people see the vast majority of those changes as changes for the better. Why would this particular change be one that brings the whole house of cards down? I guess what I'm saying is: why would allowing gay people to marry mean “it can be redefined to anything”, and what, in particular, are you afraid of? Is it that you think it would be cool if gay people could get married as long as there were never any further redefinition? I mock Sil because she drives me up the wall with her homophobia, but I'm actually asking you these questions in earnest.
Yes, Redbus, I saw the same typos after I posted. Unfortunately, I don't have an Edit button on that comment. For all who read, I would correct if I could.
As I recall, Redbus, your views, like Sil's, have a religious basis to them. I do not choose to denegrate anyone's religious beliefs. I simply come from a different perspective of tolerance, personal freedom and a decidedly libertine view of sexual conduct. My snarky response to Sil is based on her less than kind (I would say homophobic) views on the subject.
That man-woman-only has been the traditional view does not move me. The traditional view, also enacted into law in nearly every state, was once white-white-only. That something is “traditional” does not make it fair or just.
At this point I will respectfully disagree and move along before I make any more uncorrectable typos.
I've heard so many people say this, but I don't understand particularly why so many believe it's the case.
Roro, you're not getting into the spirit of the slippery slope argument. Asking precisely what's at the end of the slippery slope, and why its drawbacks would be catastrophic, and why those drawbacks couldn't be raised if it actually came under debate–well, it's like asking why the hook-handed psycho killer wouldn't use his good hand to open the car door.
The argument's truth is not literal as much as emotional, much like death panels. It's about fear. Fear of the world changing out from under you. Fear that the natural order you grew up with is being uprooted. Fear of people you can't relate to starting to run things, and when you call your doctor the voice prompt will demand you “press 1 for heterosexual…”
Roro80 –
It's possible that this whole issue will be decided by the SCOTUS in a few years' time, and this discussion will become a moot point. I sincerely hope, though, that they'll leave hands-off, and states will get to decide one-by-one on this issue. Then, we'll see for sure whether there will be “drift” on the marriage definition question. There is already a case working its way up through the system that challenges the prohibition of polygamy in Utah. Its legal grounding is the Lawrence v. Texas ruling that struck down anti-sodomy laws. So, the “slippery slope” argument resonates not just because of its emotional appeal — that's part of it, as Dr J has pointed out – but also because some seem determined to prove its validity, at least in this instance.
BTW, I'm glad the laws prohibiting black/white marriage were changed. Those laws never should have been on the books in the first place. Women marry men, men marry women; skin color is incidental. This is why it's so aggravating to the gay community that African-Americans have been largely opposed to gay “marriage” since they've benefitted from a more progressive stance in American culture. And so you get the strange charge of “bigotry” toward those who more than any among us have suffered from it. It's telling that President Obama has thus far refused to endorse gay “marriage,” but he has endorsed civil unions. I haven't heard anyone willing to call him a “bigot,” though in today's hyper-partisan atmosphere, such a charge may be forthcoming.
To answer your question, no, I don't think it would be “cool” if gay people could get married. (But are we forgetting Massachusetts? Seems like that's water under the bridge…) Apparently, there are a lot of others who think the same as myself and are willing to put up with the ad hominem attacks launched in return. That's O.K. If you can't have thick skin, don't bother to step into the public square.
Sil said, “How come the woman on the left is dressed up to look like a man? How can the lesbian kissing her be attracted to a manlike figure like her?”
I assume Sil, that you don't wear dresses (or corsets) all the time with bows in your hair. I also assume that you're not a “stay at home Mom”. In other words, I think you do work, wear pants and don't have a frilly hair cut. We all know that you speak your mind, that you're not a demure woman who agrees with men because it's the womanly thing to do. In which case how can any man be attracted to such a manly person as yourself unless he's gay?
That's weird, Tidbits! I have an edit button. I wonder if it has to do with which browser you're using?
Well, no, I don't believe in the “slippery slope” argument, obviously. But perhaps other people have actual reasons to think (a) there is a slippery slope here, and (b) that it would be a bad thing if there were. If redbus does, I'm more than willing to listen.
“press 1 for heterosexual…”
…this definitely gave me a giggle.
If you and I were so afraid of “things changing,” Dr. J, we wouldn't be having this conversation on one of the newest media, a blog (smile). Change can be a good thing, but let's be honest. That isn't always the case. For example, divorce laws changed to “no fault,” and now there are many more divorces. Unless you're a divorce lawyer, looking back, I doubt many would argue that a nearly 50% divorce rate was a positive change.
Of course, politicians know that “change” is a magic word to most voters, and so we get similar arguments on this gay “marriage” issue, that we need to “get with the times,” that change is inevitable, etc. We all favor positive changes, but a clear majority in our country are going on record to say that gay “marriage” isn't one of those positive changes — thanks, but no thanks.
Hey redbus –
Thanks for your reply.
“Women marry men, men marry women; skin color is incidental. “
Most did not think this was the case just a few decades ago. It was considered unnatural, against God, “think of the children” — all the same arguments we hear now against gay marriage. What, really, is the difference?
“This is why it's so aggravating to the gay community that African-Americans have been largely opposed to gay “marriage” since they've benefitted from a more progressive stance in American culture.”
This has been thoroughly debunked.
“There is already a case working its way up through the system that challenges the prohibition of polygamy in Utah.”
This bothers me for one reason and one reason only: the tradition of polygamy within the Mormon religion and its various sects is not one of willing adults coming together to be a family. It is a tradition where one powerful man gets as many wives, willing or not, of whatever age past menarchy as he wants. This is also the tradition of most polygamy, historically. The point behind expanding marriage laws to include gay couples is about consenting adults becoming families. It is not about the enslavement of pubescent girls to creepy old men for the purpose of being sex slaves and baby-makers.
“It's telling that President Obama has thus far refused to endorse gay “marriage,” but he has endorsed civil unions. I haven't heard anyone willing to call him a “bigot,”"
You're not looking in the right places. Trust me: the feelings of betrayal by the president amongst the LGBT activist community are huge, just as they were with Clinton.
“To answer your question, no, I don't think it would be “cool” if gay people could get married. “
Perhaps, then, may I suggest explaining why this is the case, instead of saying that it would lead to other redefinitions of marriage? When you speak only of slippery slopes, there is a clear implication that this step would be ok, if it wouldn't lead to others.
“the ad hominem attacks launched in return”
Please understand that the names I use for people like Sil are not ad hominem; they come directly from her obvious hate and disregard for the humanity of gay people. You don't seem to exhibit that same kind of hate, so unless you do, be assured that while I strongly disagree with your views on this subject, you won't be subject to such attacks, at least from me.
Hey Redbus,
It's actually weirder than that. I have an Edit button sometimes and not other times. I take comfort in knowing I am not alone in this problem as others who comment have had the same experience.
Redbus, at the start of that comment, you appeared to be denying you minded change. And by the end you were pretty much agreeing with me.
Anyway, opposing gay marriage with arguments about change in the abstract is not a rational argument, it's an emotional one. If you want to have a rational one, you have to show reasons why this particular change is in itself bad. If it's bad because it will cause something else bad, you have to identify the something else, show why it's bad, and show why it will be inevitable.
In the meantime, I sympathize with not wanting the change. Like many people, I resist change too. The familiar gives way to the newfangled…bah, I say.
Hey Stockboy — Exactly! A lot of gender presentation is an act we put on to conform; sometimes the act is important and wanted, and sometimes it's not. If I could get away with never shaving my legs again, I totally would. On the other hand, I love my long hair and the ritual of putting on make-up every day. The idea that only people who are “attractive” in the conventional, gender-normative sense sold to us by Hollywood are deserving of love and attraction by others is offensive not only to those who choose not to conform to gender stereotypes, but also to the 99% of us who are not supermodels.
Also, as I mentioned above: they're both guys. If you see the full picture, instead of this cropped picture, it's extremely obvious, particularly in the, um, groin area.
tidbits, Once someone (anyone) replies to your comment your ability to edit that comment ends. (i.e this reply to you will remove the “edit” button on your comment.)
Happy Holidays.
“For example, divorce laws changed to “no fault,” and now there are many more divorces. Unless you're a divorce lawyer, looking back, I doubt many would argue that a nearly 50% divorce rate was a positive change.”
Ouch, see now I realize that we just come from vastly different points of view, which I guess I should have surmised before. I find it highly unfortunate that half the people marry the wrong person, but I truly don't think it's a bad thing that bad or unloving marriages are able to end without the (figurative) bloodshed required in states that don't allow no-fault divorce. In fact, (and I know I've said this on this board before), I think that divorce is one of the best thing to ever happen to women. Obviously, I'm not talking about most individual divorces, but the fact that women are able to get out of an abusive or unfaithful marriage is, in my estimation, a very good thing. Men have essentially always been legally allowed to get a divorce if they were unhappy in their marriage. Women were not.
“feeling depressed about the panty sniffers in this country who think that other people's sex lives and personal relationships are something we should all be involved in.”
And aren't you doing the same thing in your celebration of gay sex lives? I guess you only call it “involvement” when someone is against it?
Tidbits….
Redbus does bring up that valid point about Polygamy (it was implied). In your libertine view, any “free uniting of two people” is discrimination against polygmists. I'm telling you, it will happen. Roro doesn't see it, but I do.
The uniting of mixed races is not (as I've said previously) a valid comparison. The last time I checked, 48 chromosomes are common to blacks, whites, and asians – and offspring are possible with each combination. It is biologically correct for those combinations. Homosexuality is not. It is a behavior choice that is learned, and resides in the portion of the brain that controls sexual arousal – not within your genetic code. It is the one thing that all fetishes have in common. You cannot (or should not) equate homosexuality with race.
You mean you intentionally and knowlingly disrupted my ability to edit my comment about not being able to edit comments? You @%^!*#)!!!
Thanks for the info. That explains it.
Now back to tolerance, justice, freedom and equality. As some on this site know, my Golden Retriever recently passed away. Here's the part that has not been told. My wife's niece is lesbian. She and her former partner stayed at our home for several days a number of years ago. A few months later, I recieved a call from her partner, who worked at a training facility for handicap assist dogs about a wonderful dog that could not be placed in a handicapped home because of a serious heart condition. I drove 450 miles to meet and adopt Steck…who far outlived all predictions and provided a lifetime of warmth and love in our home.
OK, it's a sappy story about a dog I dearly loved for many years. But, here's the point. A wonderful person who, God forbid, happened to be gay, made that possible. And if their is anything I can do to say “I value you as a person. I respect your sexuality. I believe that you are a person worthy of the same rights and respect as everyone else,” I'm going to do that. For her, for my wife's niece, and for anyone who faces discrimination or restricted opportunities because of hir [credit roro] sexual orientation, you are worthy of life, of rights, of the freedom to live your life as you choose and to marry if you wish.
Here's a litmus test:
If you need a condom when you have sex to prevent possible death, disease, or sickness – then the sex is probably not in your best interest – or society's for that matter.
Hi JD -
Thanks for replying. I was afraid that, after the dissertation on the illogic of the assumtption of monogamy, you might have tossed our friendly discussions overboard (Navy reference).
As to your comment “In your libertine view, any “free uniting of two people” is discrimination against polygmists.” That's not my position. I draw the line at children. Consenting adults can do as they please, polygamy included…no discrimination.
As for the condom comment, I'd want a parachute if I jumped out of plane, or a spotter if I was doing bench presses. Everyone takes risks in life, at least those who live life fully. You took risks when you served your country. Did you wear your body armor when it was appropriate? Would you advise others to wear theirs? Me too.
Merry Christmas.
Spain and Mexico, two incredibly religious nations with strong ties to the Holy See…
There's going to be same-sex weddings at the Basilica, too.
Like dominoes…
http://www.topnflnews.com/
Okay, that works for me!
I don't think Sil's views on homosexuality are based on religious belief.
Women marry men, men marry women; skin color is incidental
Yes, redbus, so we all believe now. But back in the times when interracial relationships much less marriages were prohibited, white people did not see it that way. They did not recognize skin color as an irrelevant factor in marriage.
JD, “If you need a condom when you have sex to prevent possible death, disease, or sickness – then the sex is probably not in your best interest – or society's for that matter.”
I take it your point is that sex should only be engaged in with a committed partner and that both have to be virgins. Everyone else, man/woman, man/man, woman/woman should wear condoms.
And even if you're in a committed relationship we all know that cheating in America among married straight people is fairly common, so even married couples should wear condoms.
So according to your litmus testy most Americans should wear condoms. I'm not sure of your point.
Hi JD, long time no talk. Hope all is well with you.
“I guess you only call it “involvement” when someone is against it?”
Well that's a little like saying it was ok to break and enter into your home because sometimes you have houseguests. Besides, “traditional” marriage has always been a celebration, as has love, as has sex — why would it be inappropriate for gay people to have the cake and the dance floor as well?
“Roro doesn't see it, but I do.”
You haven't been paying attention to what I've been saying, consistently, on the polygamy front. I think it's likely that once the system is set up to handle multiple partners (it's very much not now), that it would be fine. Again, the reason that polygamy is so universally feared (and for good reason), is that it has been limited historically to gross men taking multiple wives, often young children, without their consent, but with the support of their churches. This is, obviously, not the same as more than two consenting adults coming together to form a family.
“If you need a condom when you have sex to prevent possible death, disease, or sickness – then the sex is probably not in your best interest – or society's for that matter.”
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) other than complete celibates. Did you know that? So, really, the logical conclusion from your statement is that men having sex — with other men or with women, condomed or not — is bad for society. See how dumb that is?
Weird. Bizarre, Disgusting…..goofy.
[Women who sleep only with women who sleep only with women are the very least likely to get STDs...]
…But most likely to get the disease on their face….did you know that?
Speaking of dumb.
“Um…the two people kissing in the picture are both men, Sil. And the “why do lesbians dress butch and then like each other?” sentiment shows about as much understanding of the human condition as a 2 year old. Good work.”~roro
*********
Even furthering the confusion for two year olds…which is what I'm on about and have been since day one. Thanks for inadvertently letting that freudian slip out of the chute.
Meanwhile, Apple Pie [Jefferson Davis] summates the kernel of the homosexual [fetish] issue from a legal standpoint and a social one as well:
“The uniting of mixed races is not (as I've said previously) a valid comparison. The last time I checked, 48 chromosomes are common to blacks, whites, and asians – and offspring are possible with each combination. It is biologically correct for those combinations. Homosexuality is not. It is a behavior choice that is learned, and resides in the portion of the brain that controls sexual arousal – not within your genetic code. It is the one thing that all fetishes have in common. You cannot (or should not) equate homosexuality with race.”
******
Excellent words my friend.
True enough, but that taboo over time weakened because (in large part) people of faith realized that there's only one race, the human race. My point I guess was that looking at that history when compared to gay “marriage,” folks are saying: Apples and oranges. It's not that we haven't learned the lesson, it's just that in the current situation, we believe it's being misapplied.
Yes, let's nobody do anything that might confuse a two year old — or you. Empathy is said to develop among children at about the age of 7, so that's got to go, as does complex sentence structure and the addition of numbers such as 2 and 4. Science? Fuggetaboudit. Musical instruments beyond the three-pronged xylophone must also be banned.
I think that he's advocating monogamy, which I have to agree is the proper ideal, and I've got the stats to prove it. I'm not sure how the woman/woman condom thing would work, though.
Um…the two people kissing in the picture are both men, Sil.
That's what *I* thought when I looked at the photo, roro! I read Sil's comment, scrolled back up to the photo, hmmm, woman on the left dressed up to look like a man, lesbian kissing her, hmmm. What? I looked at it again. Am I missing something? Woman? That doesn't look like a woman. Lesbian kissing her? What lesbian? That looks like a man, too.
But of course, even though Sil was the one who had said this, I still second-guessed myself. “I just must be missing something. Maybe there's *another* person on the left kissing a lesbian that I'm not seeing.”
Thank goodness for you, roro.
and when you call your doctor the voice prompt will demand you “press 1 for heterosexual…”
I would do the acronym for laughing so hard that you fall on the floor and lose a certain part of your anatomy, but I think it might be against the TMV commenting rules.
Unless you're a divorce lawyer, looking back, I doubt many would argue that a nearly 50% divorce rate was a positive change.
I would, if the alternative is staying in a loveless or abusive marriage.
Do you really think it was better when people had to stay in terrible marriages because divorce was illegal?
Tidbits,
I am one who did *not* know about your golden retriever passing away. I was not even certain that the dog in your avatar was yours. He could have been just a generic dog photo because you love dogs, and it had never come up. In fact, I have had it in mind to ask you many times, and then forgotten to do so.
Now that I've gone through all that explanatory stuff, I just want to give you a virtual hug of sympathy and tell you how much I know the sadness you must be feeling right now. People who aren't animal-lovers or who haven't had pets don't always understand this, but I think the relationship between a beloved animal companion and a human being is in some ways the deepest and most meaningful one we will ever have. In my adult life, I have had to put one cat to sleep, and I lost another cat and a dog (the same week) when they died the week I moved into my new apartment. I have been in this apartment now for almost a year and a half, and although I miss both of them, the feeling of loss is especially strong for the dog. Maybe because his death, visually and physically, was so traumatic. I knew he was very sick but in the chaos of moving, hadn't been able to take him to the vet. I found him lying on the kitchen floor early in the morning, and I won't describe what he looked like, but I will never forget it. Here it is, over a year later, and I still miss him so much I can't explain it, and I feel a lot of guilt over the suffering he went through in the last few days.
Oh my god. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to turn this into something about me, but I just know on so visceral a level what this feels like.
[[[[ Hugs ]]]]
I think that he's advocating monogamy, which I have to agree is the proper ideal,
No, he's advocating more than monogamy. He's advocating abstinence from any sexual activity (virginity, iow) until you meet and marry one person of the opposite sex. I met my husband when I was 33, but since I was not a virgin, and since my husband wasn't, either, we used condoms except when we were trying to conceive. Unless you never have sexual intercourse even one time until you are married, you are at risk for HIV infection even if you and your opposite-sex partner are completely faithful to each other. And, as hard as this may be to believe, there are people who don't marry until relatively late in life, and there are people who never marry. Can you imagine that? I guess they should just resign themselves to never having sex even once, with anyone, in their entire life.
Thanks for the kind thoughts. They are appreciated.
gc
If your marriage is “loveless,” go see a marriage counselor. If that doesn't work, get a trial separation. We jump to divorce far too quickly these days. My wife and I will celebrate 25 years of marriage in June. I have two brothers who have already celebrated 25, and are going strong. One of my younger brothers is at 23 years. Not surprisingly, our parents have been married for 56 years. None of us have “perfect” marriages. All of us have had tensions. We deal with it, because staying together in almost every circumstance is the better decision. For the battered wife, divorce may be the only answer. A lot of those situations can be avoided in the first place if adequate premarital counseling is done prior to the wedding.
If your marriage is “loveless,” go see a marriage counselor. If that doesn't work, get a trial separation.
And you think people don't do that, redbus? You think that people just wake up one day and say, “Darn, the thrill is gone, gotta get a divorce.”?
It's pretty presumptuous to think you have a right to hand out generic advice like that to people in troubled marriages you don't even know. Still, as long as it's just high-handed advice from someone on a blog, it's probably harmless. And if you feel it's your place to give such advice, be my guest. But if you're talking about law and public policy, that's a whole 'nother fishtank. I hope you don't actually believe these personal prescriptions you are handing out to strangers should be codified into law. Because if you do, you have strayed rather far from any conservative ideas of small government and personal liberty that I'm aware of.