The following comes from a story published February 18 on BuzzFeed.com.
Denying same-sex couples the right to marry is unconstitutionally discriminatory, Mexico’s Supreme Court announced in a sweeping ruling made public Monday.
The ruling not only makes a strong statement about Mexican law’s treatment of equal protection guarantees, it also relies heavily on civil rights rulings handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court. Although several justices of the American court take pride in not caring what foreign courts say, any who read the Mexican decision will find the court makes an impassioned case for the United States to follow its lead.
Writing for a unanimous tribunal, Minister Arturo Zaldívar Lelo de Larrea invoked the U.S. cases Loving v. Virginia and Brown v. Board of Education to argue for marriage equality in a way that American activists would be overjoyed to see from a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
On Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws against interracial marriage in 1967, Zaldívar wrote (translated from its original Spanish):
The historical disadvantages that homosexuals have suffered have been well recognized and documented: public harassment, verbal abuse, discrimination in their employment and in access to certain services, in addition to their exclusion to some aspects of public life. In this sense … when they are denied access to marriage it creates an analogy with the discrimination that interracial couples suffered in another era. In the celebrated case Loving v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court argued that “restricting marriage rights as belonging to one race or another is incompatible with the equal protection clause” under the US constitution. In connection with this analogy, it can be said that the normative power of marriage is worth little if it does grant the possibility to marry the person one chooses.
Zaldívar also wrote that it would also be contrary to the principles of the 1954 school desegregation case Brown v. Board of Education to restrict same-sex couples to civil unions or domestic partnerships while barring them from marriage….
Despite its breadth, this ruling will have only a small immediate impact in Mexico.
Technicalities of the country’s legal system mean that only the three couples who brought this case will be able to marry right away. Mexico City is still the only jurisdiction inside Mexico where marriage between same-sex couples is fully legal; several more lawsuits will have to be brought before that right is available nationwide.
Unlike in the United States, it takes more than one ruling from Mexico’s Supreme Court to strike down a law—the court must rule the same way in five separate cases before a law falls. This ruling concerns three separate cases; it will take two more for any same-sex couple in Oaxaca to be able to wed easily, and then the process may have to be repeated in other states. But this precedent means this is a procedural issue, not a legal one.
For the lawyer who brought this suit, Méndez, the verdict is still a big win.
“Without a doubt, we have made history … in Mexico. The next step is to extend this experience to other parts of the country,” he said.
To read the entire story, click here.
If I remember correctly it was Our Lady of La Salette who foretold that the elect, i.e., people with lofty credentials like these higher court judges would lose all common sense and act without it. Seems like every day and every route we take along the way on our journey in life seems to be disrupted with madness. We are perhaps in the Twilight Zone for human life of earth as we know it. Pray the rosary for world peace. China, North Korea, and the whole middle east would love to anhialate US. As bad as the American continents are getting to be spiritually, that might be a good reason.
No, “elect” means those chosen by Christ, the first fallout from the elect being Iscariot.
Corrupt Mexican politicians!
VIVA CRISTO REY! The Mexican Courts were with the butcher Calles also!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Yes, Kenneth, “Viva Cristo Rey.”
To compare the black race to a behavior choice is not valid. It is to speak for the black race, many of whom strongly disagree to condoning this lifestyle. And, it’s truly reaching to try to defend a decision. Any good lawyer news this.
Race = innate. Sexuality = innate.
Hell = The destination of obstinate unrepentant sinners.
hey Catherine good one! : ) the truth is simple…
folks if you read some of the homosexual activists articles you will read some of the nasty reasoning that they have been able to fool many into. They have their own news and magazines from the gay and lesbian organizations. They do a great job at propaganda and they can persuade many of those afflicted with the disorder. Just be careful many of their material is rated x and explicit. They have many tactics and one of them is playing the victim.
There is a lot of promotional material on sodomy, illicit sex encounters and more. It is disgusting. They do not live a virtuous life that is for sure. You can feel the hairs on your arms go up due to some of the inappropriate sinful sex. (and that goes for any immoral sexual lifestyles not just homosexual ones) There is also a fine line when they indirectly lead to man/boy love…yuck. It’s not healthy and for any normal person it can leave you with nightmares. So for folks to defend gay agenda’s, they are not within reason.
ABeca, then they black mail any one who tries to leave the lifestyle if they gain any prominence.. We should tell our children and grandchildren, “Anything you do and say will be used against you at sometime in your life.” Hopefully they will understand and listen and be careful and keep out of trouble. Someone once sent me an e-mail, supposedly to discourage excessive drinking. it was of many young people in compromising situations after they had supposedly gotten drunk. I refused to send it on and e-mailed the woman back: “I will not send this out but delete it as these young people might have to live this downsome day, and who knows if someone did not spike theirs drinks with drugs so they could take such pictures.” Then I deleted it.
Yes, peter, natural law dictates that normal sexuality is innate but there exist some aberrations that rarely divert from the norm. That does not mean we have to accommodate the aberrations in lieu of the norm.
Drunks and serial killers are now determined to be born with an innate desire to do so but does that require society to accommodate those behaviors because they have been deemed as innate?
Drunks and serial killers are not innately evil, nor are sodomites: Every human being has free will to resist sin and do good.
peter, Catholicism is not founded on sexuality. It is irrelevant whether homosexual attraction is innate … If it is, then it is due to original sin consequences some of which are disfigurement of the soul, mind, body, heart. You and all sodomites have free will to choose good and reject evil … sodomy is evil. But you’d better hurry to reject sodomy before the devil has a final grip on your soul.
Poor Mexico, may your Martyrs blood win favor for you before our Lord
An old but true statement about Mexico……”So far from God, so close to the United States”.
Tick, tock. Tick, tock.
Slowly but surely, country by country ….
Tick, tock. Tick, tock.
So what is next in Mexico? Marriage of multiple partners? Marriage of a human being with his pet? Marriage with under age children? – all under the name of “equal protection” and “civil rights” just because someone wants to and hollars ‘freedom’?
People do not have the right to do whatever they want. This is chaos.
I don’t see any danger of pets and underage children as marriage partners.
Yes, there are people that want these things. But, children and pets lack capacity (they aren’t adults or even human beings, and generally aren’t considered capable of giving reasoned consent).
Multiple partners has a better chance, but then you run into a very real problem that rich individuals will “hog” spouses. That would create a very serious problem in that middle class and lower class people might then be excluded and BOY that will damage the stability of the state.
Consequently, most governments will ban it due to self-interest.
I do agree that people don’t have the “right to do whatever they want”. But, what is it that gives the state, or the majority the right to restrict that behavior?
Some will say God. Some will say people generally have the right to do as they please as long as their behavior does not create unjust risk of harm to others.
History has shown that using God as the unifying principle creates a problem when people have different ideas about God. Since the core doctrines of any religion are not able to be objectively proved (or else we’d have a science and faith would not be required), you will never get consensus on the nature of God with any large group of people.
The other problem with religion as the unifying principle of government is that often, the enforcers care little for the consequences to human beings. Thus, they can commit atrocities and then reply that they are just “following the will of God”. It can make governments numb to human consequences of their policies (see the Inquisition, or Islamic governments).
Certainly, governments that operate by the “objective harm” concept can commit atrocities. Heck, we can see that in the behavior of our government today such as the use of torture and unrestrained use of drone strikes (with way too much collateral damage). At least, however, this theory doesn’t also corrupt religion—which happens when you mix up religion and government in the blender.
What you do not see has already been done. The Emperor Nero was so crazy he “married” his horse.
While the emperors fiddled, the sodomites infiltrated all echelons of society.
Jurgensen, and the Caliphate took over Africa, the Middle East, Europe and the Americas and stoned to death those involved in sodomy. If they think they have it bad with Christians, just wait til later.
Poor Mexico, such evil has been visited upon them for so long, both from without and from within, yet the people keep seeking the light regardless of their corrupt and evil rulers . . . in their place, I could not keep so strong, so spirited, so determined . . .
God bless the long-suffering people of Mexico. Who can imagine what compounded evils they will have to endure now?
There is a difference between legal and moral.