Gay unions legalized for first time in Mexico - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-10-2006, 12:51 PM   #1
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2Girl1978's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: At the altar of the dark star
Posts: 19,374
Local Time: 02:09 AM
Gay unions legalized for first time in Mexico

By Gunther Hamm

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Mexico City approved homosexual civil unions on Thursday, legalizing gay partnerships for the first time in the world's second-largest Roman Catholic nation.

The capital's municipal assembly, controlled by left-wing legislators, voted for the measure 43-17 as hundreds of rival protesters demonstrated noisily outside the building.

The move paves the way for same-sex civil unions in the city of 8.6 million people early next year.

The local congress in the northern state of Coahuila, bordering Texas, began debating a similar plan this week to legalize gay unions.

"These reforms are going to cause a snowball effect that no one will be able to stop," said David Sanchez of the left-wing Party of the Democratic Revolution, one of the few openly gay national congressmen.

The initiatives in Mexico City and Coahuila are modeled on France's civil code and call for property, pension, inheritance and even co-parenting rights. But they stop short of allowing full marriage or adoption of children.

In 2002, the Argentine capital of Buenos Aires legalized same-sex unions, a move hailed as a first in Latin America.

Outside the assembly hall, gay activists with rainbow-color flags and Christian opponents of the law exchanged barbs.

"It's anti-natural. They are descending into something that is against humanity. Societies have always fallen into decadence when there has been homosexuality and disruption in the family," said protester Humberto Muniz.

Arturo Valadez, 47, a gay musical composer dressed in a monk outfit who has been with his partner for five years, said the assembly's vote was a blow to a socially conservative bastion.

"It's a first step in an ultra-Catholic society that is badly informed and manipulated by right-wing groups and many in the media," he said.

Authorities in Mexico's powerful Catholic Church have condemned gay unions. Some 90 percent of Mexico's 107 million people are Catholics and conservative evangelical groups are also winning adherents. Only Brazil has more Catholics.

Gay union backers say the law does not undermine traditional marriage. They call it a legal contract between two individuals in a homosexual, heterosexual or even platonic relationship.

A spokesman for President Vicente Fox, a practicing Catholic, declined to comment on the Mexico City vote, saying it was a matter for local authorities.
__________________

U2Girl1978 is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 01:07 PM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,598
Local Time: 11:09 PM
Maybe W and the GOP should move that boarder fence down to Mexico City. We don't need anymore sinners.
__________________

deep is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 01:57 PM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
redhotswami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Waiting for this madness to end.
Posts: 5,846
Local Time: 02:09 AM
redhotswami is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 02:10 PM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BrownEyedBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Pedro Sula, Honduras
Posts: 3,510
Local Time: 01:09 AM
I was very suprised to hear this. I'm impressed.
BrownEyedBoy is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 05:42 PM   #5
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,226
Local Time: 01:09 AM
"See? Billy Idol get's it, why can't she?"
BVS is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 06:30 PM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 17,787
Local Time: 03:09 AM
Well 2/3 NAFTA countries got it right!
anitram is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 07:04 PM   #7
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,058
Local Time: 03:09 AM
I'm glad that Mexico City held an actual vote. A legitimate outcome - good for them. What about Massachusetts? Will the Mass Legislature hold a vote? Where does Deval Patrick stand?

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Nov...rriage,00.html
Bluer White is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 07:08 PM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
vaz02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: manchester
Posts: 7,447
Local Time: 07:09 AM
Congrats to mexico , maybe true equality can be the buzz word of the 21st century.
vaz02 is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 08:32 PM   #9
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 32,236
Local Time: 03:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Bluer White
I'm glad that Mexico City held an actual vote. A legitimate outcome - good for them. What about Massachusetts? Will the Mass Legislature hold a vote? Where does Deval Patrick stand?

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Nov...rriage,00.html


yes, because it's your opinion that should decide whether or not i am entitled to the same rights as you. civil rights have always been about popularity contests.

majority rules ... majority RULES!
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-11-2006, 08:30 AM   #10
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 26,383
Local Time: 03:09 AM
Deval Patrick supports gay marriage

Mitt Romney wants a vote because it suits his political aspirations-Mitt and a few desperate stragglers who insist on making it an issue. The majority of people in MA DO NOT CARE and support gay marriage and do not need or want to vote on it.
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 11-11-2006, 05:56 PM   #11
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,058
Local Time: 03:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
Romney wants a vote because it suits his political aspirations-Mitt and a few desperate stragglers who insist on making it an issue. The majority of people in MA DO NOT CARE and support gay marriage and do not need or want to vote on it.
It does support Romney's interests in the presidency. His position is similiar to John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Evan Bayh, Wes Clark, Barak Obama, and John Kerry. But I'm not really interested in that sort of inside baseball right now.

170,000 petitioners cared enough for the Legislature to vote on it, and ultimately for the people to vote on the issue in 2008.

Massachusetts' Legislature had the Constitutional obligation to take up this amendment, and 109 lawmakers chose to go into "recess" instead. The vote was constitutionally required.
Bluer White is offline  
Old 11-11-2006, 07:35 PM   #12
Blue Crack Addict
 
Varitek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: on borderland we run
Posts: 16,861
Local Time: 02:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Bluer White


It does support Romney's interests in the presidency. His position is similiar to John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Evan Bayh, Wes Clark, Barak Obama, and John Kerry. But I'm not really interested in that sort of inside baseball right now.

170,000 petitioners cared enough for the Legislature to vote on it, and ultimately for the people to vote on the issue in 2008.

Massachusetts' Legislature had the Constitutional obligation to take up this amendment, and 109 lawmakers chose to go into "recess" instead. The vote was constitutionally required.
Can we also bring up, in addition to the fact that civil rights shouldn't be put to a vote, that the groups collecting these signitures have in the past been shown to use very dubious (read: illegal and unethical) methods?
Varitek is offline  
Old 11-11-2006, 08:24 PM   #13
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,058
Local Time: 03:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Varitek
the groups collecting these signatures have in the past been shown to use very dubious (read: illegal and unethical) methods?
Could you please elaborate?

Also, how many of the 170,000 signatures would you consider to be illegitimate?
Bluer White is offline  
Old 11-11-2006, 09:14 PM   #14
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 17,787
Local Time: 03:09 AM
If everything was up to a vote, Rosa Parks would probably still be at the back of that bus.
anitram is offline  
Old 11-11-2006, 09:24 PM   #15
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 02:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
If everything was up to a vote, Rosa Parks would probably still be at the back of that bus.
Mercy.
maycocksean is offline  
Old 11-12-2006, 01:57 AM   #16
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,226
Local Time: 01:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
If everything was up to a vote, Rosa Parks would probably still be at the back of that bus.
I love your posts
BVS is offline  
Old 11-12-2006, 07:43 AM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
vaz02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: manchester
Posts: 7,447
Local Time: 07:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
If everything was up to a vote, Rosa Parks would probably still be at the back of that bus.
Isnt she dead now ?

I studied her in History class and it was remarkable.
vaz02 is offline  
Old 11-12-2006, 09:15 AM   #18
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 08:09 AM
Yeah, Rosa Parks died last year.

It's certainly true that most of the freedoms secured by the Civil Rights Movement were not won by putting them up for a vote at the local or state level, however, many of them were subjected to a vote federally (the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968, Voting Rights Act of 1965, 24th Amendment etc.). Obviously the federal government had to be nudged to vote on these (and even then enforcing them in the South required calling in the National Guard more than once), but nonetheless, they did still have to be voted on. In the case of federal guarantees for same-sex unions or marriages, the Defense of Marriage Act (1996) is currently standing in the way of Congress taking a stance on this issue--same-sex marriage is federally framed at this point as a question for states to decide.

The Civil Rights Movement also secured many victories through Supreme Court rulings (Brown v. Board of Education, Boynton v. Virginia, upholding Browder v. Gary--which resulted from the Montgomery Bus Boycott that Parks inaugurated), but again in the case of same-sex unions, the precedent set by Baker v. Nelson (1971; appeal dismissed by the Supreme Court 1972) is currently standing in the way of SCOTUS taking a postion on state court rulings on this issue.

So I can kind of see where both sides are coming from here--current federal law leaves the question of how to handle same-sex unions up to the states, and in the apparent absence of federal political will to change this situation via Congressional legislation or Supreme Court litigation, all that really leaves open is the state-level route. Perhaps the don't-put-it-to-a-vote argument simply means to say that state court litigation is the best way to go? I'm inclined to agree with that assessment, but given how many rights inherent in (opposite-sex) marriage pertain to federal law, it's hard to imagine that putting it up to a vote at the federal level isn't going to be necessary at some point.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 11-12-2006, 02:00 PM   #19
Blue Crack Addict
 
Varitek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: on borderland we run
Posts: 16,861
Local Time: 02:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Bluer White


Could you please elaborate?

Also, how many of the 170,000 signatures would you consider to be illegitimate?
I don't consider myself qualified to make an estimate of a number, but would you like me to cite a number less than 105k so you can come back and say the threshold was 65k? Anyway, only 130k or so of those signitures were validated; I hate when people use the higher number though many times it contains duplicates, non-residents, etc.

As for a source, you should look into the work done by KnowThyNeighbor and MassEquality on the legitimacy of the petitioners' methods.
Varitek is offline  
Old 11-12-2006, 09:05 PM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 17,787
Local Time: 03:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland


It's certainly true that most of the freedoms secured by the Civil Rights Movement were not won by putting them up for a vote at the local or state level, however, many of them were subjected to a vote federally (the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968, Voting Rights Act of 1965, 24th Amendment etc.).
Yes, but these votes came after (in some instances up to 10-15 YEARS) the Supreme Court "intervened" and participated in judicial review. That is an incredibly important, underlying point here. The judiciary's rulings are what gave rise to the subsequent votes, and not the other way around, which is what is being advocated on this thread.
__________________

anitram is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×