Mexico's Supreme Court unanimously strikes down law barring same-sex marriage

[Lief 🗽]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/06/mexico-gay-marriage-law-unconstitutional-_n_2249701.html

Looks like the United States is surrounded now.

[Simfan34]

Surprising. Reminds me of what happened in South Africa. Wouldn't be surprised if the Mexicans pass an amendment delegating it back to the states.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Surprising. Reminds me of what happened in South Africa. Wouldn't be surprised if the Mexicans pass an amendment delegating it back to the states.

Maybe, maybe not.  Mexico already had a de facto nationwide legality of same sex marriage.  It just was that the gays had to go to the one jurisdiction (Mexico City) that would register the marriage.

[Thomas D]

Can't believe Mexico got there first.

[Boris]

Looks like the United States is surrounded now.

So will Andorra, relatively soon. And Lesotho, of course.

[angus]

Can't believe Mexico got there first.

They didn't get there first.  This was a judicial action.  As far as I know, only a handful of societies have actually democratically decided the issue:  Maryland, Vermont, Netherlands, Argentina, etc.  Places like Massachusetts, Iowa, Israel, and Mexico have had it handed to them by the judiciary.

(Before a rain of Hellfire and Damnation befalls me, I am a proponent of allowing same-sex marriage.  I'd certainly vote in favor in a binding popular referendum, or in favor if I were an elected legislator.  I'm just saying that this situation is more like Iowa's and Massachusett's, and not like what Maryland or the Netherlands has, which was a free, righteous, and democratically determined path.  A few non-randomly selected Mexicans got there before a few non-randomly selected gringos would be a fairer way to describe the situation, if you insist on such a description.)

[Franzl]

Results matter (within certain boundaries). Gays can marry in Mexico but not in the majority of the US. Or Germany (where probably a 2/3 majority of voters have no problem allowing it.)

It's not particularly relevant whether a referendum allowed it or a unanimous court ruling.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

If North America were a sandwich, we'd be the straight meat in between the gay bread.

But good for Mexico.

[angus]

It's not particularly relevant whether a referendum allowed it or a unanimous court ruling.

Immanuel Kant would disagree.  So would I. 

My point wasn't to say that results don't matter, only that "Mexico got there first" is a very unfortunate description (on many levels, but I only mention one of those.)

[afleitch]

It's not particularly relevant whether a referendum allowed it or a unanimous court ruling.

Immanuel Kant would disagree.  So would I. 

My point wasn't to say that results don't matter, only that "Mexico got there first" is a very unfortunate description (on many levels, but I only mention one of those.)

Would you say the same on inter-racial marriage? I mean, that was a court edict; surely that was a good thing even if it wasn't a public referendum.

[angus]

I mean, that was a court edict; surely that was a good thing ...

Whether that was a "good thing" is beyond the scope of my post.

Probably so.  I lived in Mississippi, about 7 miles from the Alabama border, from 2004 to 2007.  The nearest big town was Tuscaloosa, which was maybe 45 miles away.  We went there frequently to get things.  I went there with my wife and my child (who is in fact the offspring of an interracial marriage.)  It's interesting that in November 2000, Alabama became the last state legislature to overturn a law banning interracial marriage.  That, I believe, was 33 years after the US supreme court ruled that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional.

Not that any of that is necessarily relevant to anything.  Just musing.  

As long as we're hijacking this thread, do you know why the US has capital punishment?  Because the US supreme court decided it was unconstitutional in 1967.  That's why.  Prior to 1967, polls show that support for capital punishment was on the wane.  Then, the court comes along and says it's illegal.  What happens?  Suddenly, support for capital punishment starts to grow.  Eventually, in 1976, a subsequent supreme court, in the David Gilmore case, decide that it was okay for states to execute people.  That day in 1967 was a sad day for opponents of capital punishment, because it ensured that capital punishment would be the norm in the US for a very long time.

Internalized values are strongly held.  They can evolve naturally over time, but they are not superficial.  Enforced values, on the other hand, are held only as long as they are enforced.  A society that decides its laws democratically is more likely to preserve those laws than a society that has laws forced upon it by appointed government officials.

[Barnes]

Surprising. Reminds me of what happened in South Africa. Wouldn't be surprised if the Mexicans pass an amendment delegating it back to the states.

Maybe, maybe not.  Mexico already had a de facto nationwide legality of same sex marriage.  It just was that the gays had to go to the one jurisdiction (Mexico City) that would register the marriage.

Yep. This was coming eventually, and it's not exactly revolutionary. Still though, this reaffirms how behind we are on this sort of thing as a whole.