BajaNomad - Same Sex Marriage Now Legal in Mexico and USA

Same Sex Marriage Now Legal in Mexico and USA

Ateo - 6-26-2015 at 07:54 AM

Mexico News:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/15/world/americas/with-little...

MEXICO CITY — His church turned him away, his family discouraged him from a public fight and the government of the state where he lives vowed it would never happen.

But it did. Hiram Gonzalez married his boyfriend, Severiano Chavez, last year in the northern state of Chihuahua, which, like most Mexican states, technically allows marriage only between a man and a woman.

Mr. Gonzalez and dozens of other gay couples in recent months have, however, found a powerful ally: Mexico’s Supreme Court.

In ruling after ruling, the court has said that state laws restricting marriage to heterosexuals are discriminatory. Though the decisions have been made to little public fanfare, they have had the effect of legalizing gay marriage in Mexico without enshrining it in law.

USA NEWS:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/supreme-court-same-sex-...

WASHINGTON — In a long-sought victory for the gay rights movement, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Constitution guarantees a nationwide right to same-sex marriage.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in the 5 to 4 decision. He was joined by the court’s four more liberal justices.

The decision, the culmination of decades of litigation and activism, came against the backdrop of fast-moving changes in public opinion, with polls indicating that most Americans now approve of same-sex marriage.

vgabndo - 6-26-2015 at 09:29 PM

It seems to me that Mexico, unlike the USA, clearly shows respect for the legal separation of church and state. This should help the people get a fair shake under the law. The level of entanglement between the supposedly secular US government and the government supported (tax free) churches makes that a lot harder here in "one nation under God". Today's ruling has many of my friends and loved ones absolutely giddy with joy. It has been sweet to watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYHuF9tIbpQ

bajabuddha - 6-26-2015 at 10:00 PM

You shoulda been raised in Utah-hah-hah-hah! The original Constitutional ideals of separation BETWEEN Church and State (both notarized with Capital letters) goes sooooo deep into State histories (plural) in the United States even before the Civil War is worth hours, days, and years of discussion. Mr. J. Smith was assassinated while his entourage (of personal bodyguards) were in Washington DC preparing his entrance to the City to (as The Donald just did) prepare his hat-throwing into the ring for Presidency under a THEOCRATIC nomination.

thank goodness, (not your god or mine or Perry's Not god, which I also totally accept) that freedom OF religion(s) is also freedom FROM religion(s))

THEOCRACY = Sharia = KKK = DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS = PEOPLE'S TEMPLE (Jim Jones) = TERRY JONES (burn the kuran) = ISIS(IS, ISIS, Al Queda, et al.)

Final statement to all who oppose:
Name one way, any way...... how can it possibly hurt you in any way, shape, or form? I've never yet heard one substantial answer to this, other than....... "it can bring down our society!!" Your society, like Sarah P's daughter with her 2nd illegitimate child? Hypocrisy missed the top 7 but is truly the 8th one.

I see a common bond of legal and spiritual bonding, even though it maybe ain't yours. NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Legal is legal, for Power of Attorney or any other SECULAR business.

Spiritually, it's your business and no others. If it's your church, don't marry nobody. If it's MY church, you can be sure nobody who doesn't like Monday Night Football WILL NOT be married on the SABBATH !!!!!!!!!! That's MY choice protected by MY religion. If you like Bastaball more than I do, FINE. Your freedoms stop on the end of my nose. Anyone, I challenge, how can gay marriage possibly upset your freedoms? Aside from quoting the Great Storybook, and the religious nah-nee-nah-nah's, how does it hurt YOU?

SCOTUS got it right, with the one CONSERVATIVE VOTER MAJORITY hit it on the head.

Let's move on.

4Cata - 6-27-2015 at 12:18 AM

If you have a chance, and you should be able to find Justice Kennedy's eloquent summary online or on the news or in the paper, read it. It was on Facebook today several times and it deserves framing. If I were better at the computer I would try to find it, copy and paste it but I'm not even sure that works here. I certainly can't seem to be able to post photos.

vgabndo - 6-27-2015 at 01:58 AM

Quote: Originally posted by 4Cata

If you have a chance, and you should be able to find Justice Kennedy's eloquent summary online or on the news or in the paper, read it. It was on Facebook today several times and it deserves framing. If I were better at the computer I would try to find it, copy and paste it but I'm not even sure that works here. I certainly can't seem to be able to post photos.

Copy and paste...this is the concluding paragraph...

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

Ateo - 6-27-2015 at 08:52 AM

And here's the fancy version floating around the Internet.

redhilltown - 6-30-2015 at 11:51 PM

And thank goodness!!! According to Pat Robertson and others, now all those stray dogs we all worry about in Baja will finally have a chance for a partner! Or two! Or three!! There is no stopping this now that marriage has been re-defined by the courts of Mexico and the United States! :bounce:

chuckie - 7-1-2015 at 03:37 AM

I have had three same sex marriages....all to the same sex, women....

Ateo - 7-1-2015 at 08:00 AM

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-rights-an...

The Fruit Loop. That’s what we cyclists called the circuit training ride we did each week through Los Angeles’ Griffith Park in the 1980s, and it wasn’t a nod to the breakfast cereal. The huge park afforded privacy for gays to meet and hang out during a time when even in a liberal metropolis like L.A. it was unacceptable for same-sex couples to publicly express their affections. The ribald expression, and my own unthinking use of it among the guys in the peloton, is now a distant and embarrassing blot on my consciousness which, along with that of most Americans, has been expanded over the decades by civil rights activists to include members of the LGBT community as deserving of the same rights as everyone else.

The 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States to make same-sex marriage the law of the land is another data point in the long-term trend toward granting more rights to more people in more places around the world. There are pockets of rights deprivation to be sure, and much work left to do, but the overall movement is in the right direction.

This trend is what Dr. King meant by describing the rights revolution he helped to lead a “moral arc” that bends toward justice, and why I chose to title my latest book The Moral Arc, because history really has progressed since the invention of rights during the Enlightenment in the late 18th century. As Coretta Scott King, hero of the gay rights movement and wife of Martin Luther King Jr. said in March 1998:
I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice. But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.’ I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to make room at the table of brother and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.

Same-sex marriage and gay rights in general are themselves the legacy of the rights revolutions that took off in the late 1700s when the idea of rights was invented and then demanded, first in the American Revolution (starting with the Declaration of Independence) and then in the French Revolution (with the Rights of Man). The result, in the long run, was the abolition of slavery, the eradication of torture, the elimination of the death penalty in all modern democracies (save America), the right to vote for African Americans, the right to vote for female Americans, children’s rights, women’s rights—and now gay rights.

Never in history have so many people enjoyed so many freedoms.

For the gay community the SCOTUS decision marks an especially stunning turn from 55 years ago (1960) when all homosexual acts in the United States were illegal. Illinois took a first bold step in decriminalizing sodomy in 1961, but at the time homosexuality was considered to be a perversion—even a mental illness—and if police caught a man engaged in “lewd” behavior his name, age and even home address could be published in the local newspaper (like pedophiles today). Bars and clubs where gays and lesbians were known to hang out were frequently raided; the police would barge in, the music would stop, the lights would go up, IDs would be checked and men who were suspected of masquerading as women could be taken into the washrooms by female officers and checked. New York’s penal code stated that people had to wear at least three pieces of clothing befitting their gender, or face arrest.

Then came the Stonewall riots, the legendary flashpoint that for many marks the true beginning of the gay rights movement. The Stonewall Inn was a grotty, mafia-owned gay bar on Christopher Street in Greenwich Village in New York City. On the night of June 28, 1969, several police officers descended on the inn to conduct a raid in the customary manner, but this time the patrons fought back. They stood their ground and refused to cooperate, becoming increasingly rowdy and taunting the officers with openly affectionate behavior and a chorus line of drag queens. It wasn’t long before a sympathetic crowd joined Stonewall patrons and, as the story goes, after one woman was dragged out in handcuffs and struck over the head with a billy club, the gathering erupted in anger.

A year after the uprising, on June 28, 1970, participants marched in the first gay pride parade on a route that went from the Stonewall Inn to Central Park; they were joined by supporters marching in Chicago, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Another big step came in 1973 when the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental illness. Officially acknowledging that gays and lesbians aren’t actually insane was a necessary first step in changing attitudes toward them, and attitudes most certainly have changed. In many parts of the world, homophobia is coming to be regarded as offensive as racism.

Other arenas also saw positive changes for LGBT citizens—including for personnel in the U.S. military. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” was the official policy of the U.S. government from 1994 until 2011, allowing closeted gay, lesbian and bisexual personnel to serve, but only under the constant threat of immediate expulsion if they accidentally slipped up and revealed their true identities. That’s right, gays had to right to go overseas and shoot people in the name of defending freedom, but they were not free to be openly gay. That changed on December 22, 2010 when President Barack Obama signed legislation that repealed the policy. Soon after, while campaigning for re-election, the president announced that his attitudes toward gay marriage were “evolving” and he was now in favor.

As with most rights revolutions, this one has been led by younger and less religious people. A 2013 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion and Public Life for example, found the percentage of those who favor same-sex marriage was highest among millennials (those born after 1981) and the religiously unaffiliated, and lowest among older Americans and white evangelical Protestants.
To be blunt, it is religion more than anything else that has driven people to harden their hearts, especially toward people of a different race or sexual orientation. Recall the now-shocking words of the trial judge Leon M. Bazile who convicted Richard and Mildred Loving in the case (Loving v. Virginia) that ultimately made its way to the Supreme Court in 1967 and overturned laws banning interracial marriage: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-rights-an...

bajabuddha - 7-1-2015 at 08:18 AM

Right now the 'pain' of the religious right is acute and there will be a lot of howling and backlash, same as the 'strange fruit' of the mid-20th century with the Negro vote being legalized, etc. Ten years from now it'll still be contentious, just like the current pervasive redneck-ism going on in South Carolina and surrounding areas; ignorance never dies, it breeds.

However, I challenge anyone in America to tell me how, if an LGBT couple get married for legal rights reasons as well as their commitment to each other, how it affects their own marriage in any derogatory way whatsoever. Tell me how it hurts your own 'traditional' marriage personally. Tell me what harm it caused you in any way, shape or form. I'm not talking about how it offends you, or defies your religious or spiritual beliefs, but what it does to you personally in the way of harm IN ANY WAY.

My Poli-Sci teacher in college taught us that "Freedom is the right to swing your arms any way you want to. Regardless of how different you swing your arms compared to how I swing mine, you have that inalienable right to do so. However, your freedoms stop.... on the end of MY NOSE." Well put analogy.

Queer Couplings

MrBillM - 7-1-2015 at 10:46 AM

The argument could be extended to ALL Bestiality laws.

WHY should (Arabs, among others) be penalized for their private interactions with consenting Goats ?

Lee - 7-1-2015 at 11:48 AM

Quote: Originally posted by MrBillM

The argument could be extended to ALL Bestiality laws.

WHY should (Arabs, among others) be penalized for their private interactions with consenting Goats ?

The only argument is in your head, Bill, oh, and the religious right. So, are you part of that ilk? Try to be honest.

Personally, middle easterners should NOT be penalized for their relationships with their pets. Is that a problem?

wessongroup - 7-1-2015 at 12:21 PM

Have to agree with Ateo ... as growing up in the 40's and 50's was a different place .. as it related to religion and what was correct

People were actually "judged" by some communities, if they did not attend "Church" on Sunday's ... and the "right" Church was something else again

As a old guy, and now looking back, It was something we® of our generation effected through: music, politics and social life style of the 50s and 60s ... Protesting became really big in the 60s

Find it strange that being supportive of all of those changes has resulted in my "classification" today as a "regressive" due to my age and skin color a bit disappointing, as I still support: Civil Rights for All, Social Programs to help those in need, Legal immigration of all into the United States, Public Education for ALL citizens ... through College, Laws and regulations to protect Health and the Environment and Laws and regulations to govern the "Financial Industry" ...

Was never "into" organized religion ... found the Ten Commandments a good enough set of moral "Guidelines" ... regardless of their source ... without out the need for interpretation from religious "leaders" of organized religions ...

Even Ben Bernanke stated there was a "Moral Hazard" within the Financial Industry which of course has significant implications to society and/or the Planet which we exist in and/or on

Will say I'm pleased that the Pope has put our current "life style" into a moral context ... certainly can't hurt IMHO .. regardless of your beliefs

Have fun youngsters ... I've been through the "drill" now it's your turn :biggrin:

[Edited on 7-1-2015 by wessongroup]

grizzlyfsh95 - 7-1-2015 at 01:52 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Lee

Quote: Originally posted by MrBillM

The argument could be extended to ALL Bestiality laws.

WHY should (Arabs, among others) be penalized for their private interactions with consenting Goats ?

What is in your head Bill. You know that only one point of view is acceptable here.

SFandH - 7-1-2015 at 02:05 PM

Re: the recent SCOTUS ruling, GOOD! One more major area of what was unnecessary legal discrimination outlawed. That's what it was all about.

[Edited on 7-1-2015 by SFandH]

Kgryfon - 7-1-2015 at 04:34 PM

Well, I supposed that as soon as you find a non-human that has the intelligence required for consent, the ability to communicate that consent, and the loving desire to be in a relationship with you, then you should, in fact, start petitioning for them to have the same right to marriage as any other intelligent being. Why not? Haven't you ever watched Star Wars?

Otherwise, comparing the marriage of two intelligent human beings to each other, as equal to the marriage of a sheep (or whatever) and a person is ridiculous. But you knew that already. Get a better argument; this one was lame the first time it was spouted and has just gotten silly since then. Ah, you can't, can you?

redhilltown - 7-1-2015 at 04:50 PM

Bill just loves trolling these posts... A grumpy old fart that relishes getting a rise out of people by saying stupid crap.

But with those six pack abs of his and those bulging biceps, he does indeed need to distance himself from the gays lest they mistake him for a pumped up Arabian goat.

Kgryfon - 7-1-2015 at 04:55 PM

Quote: Originally posted by redhilltown

Bill just loves trolling these posts... A grumpy old fart that relishes getting a rise out of people by saying stupid crap.

But with those six pack abs of his and those bulging biceps, he does indeed need to distance himself from the gays lest they mistake him for a pumped up Arabian goat.

Tee hee!

dtbushpilot - 7-1-2015 at 05:11 PM

I don't know why the government needs to be in the marriage business in the first place. Why should I have to get written permission from the government to marry the girl of my dreams, the guy next door or my yellow lab?

SFandH - 7-1-2015 at 05:19 PM

Quote: Originally posted by dtbushpilot

I don't know why the government needs to be in the marriage business in the first place. Why should I have to get written permission from the government to marry the girl of my dreams, the guy next door or my yellow lab?

True. That's Rand Paul's position.

Lee - 7-1-2015 at 05:29 PM

Quote: Originally posted by dtbushpilot

Because not all states allow marriage between same sex couples? No benefits like ''married'' people have? Govment isn't in the marriage business -- it's in the equality of marriage across the board business -- in ALL STATES. Het couples don't have a problem getting married and have never needed permission to be ''legally'' married. By the way, it's NOT legal to marry a yellow lab. This is an extension of the argument the religious right, and Bill, make. Are you part of the religious right?

A.I. and Liberals

MrBillM - 7-1-2015 at 05:49 PM

Equating Animal Intelligence with that of many Liberals is, of course, nonsensical.

The animals are generally superior.

But, I'm not a member of the Religious Right.

Simply RIGHT on every Social Issue.

And, 99.9 percent of the time on anything else.

Seriously, as a Mental Health issue, can't we all agree that there's something Deranged about Guys who shove their Dicks up other Guy's Anuses ?

Regardless of Religious belief, THAT is obviously contrary to Nature at any level.

dtbushpilot - 7-1-2015 at 05:56 PM

I was referring to all government, state, federal and otherwise.

Everyone needs a marriage license issued by a state, ie. permission of the state government to marry. The comment about the yellow lab was to show my tolerance for whatever blows your hair back, what business is it of mine or the government who or what you spend your quality time with. This argument doesn't have a thing to do with the religious right, it is about exactly what I said, it's about wtf do I need the government's permission to marry in the first place. Why do you think there was anything other than that in what I said?

vgabndo - 7-1-2015 at 09:37 PM

Quote: Originally posted by MrBillM

Equating Animal Intelligence with that of many Liberals is, of course, nonsensical.

The animals are generally superior.

But, I'm not a member of the Religious Right.

Simply RIGHT on every Social Issue.

And, 99.9 percent of the time on anything else.

Seriously, as a Mental Health issue, can't we all agree that there's something Deranged about Guys who shove their Dicks up other Guy's Anuses ?

Regardless of Religious belief, THAT is obviously contrary to Nature at any level.

Homosexuality is not a choice, troll, huge numbers of people are born that way, clearly that is not contrary to nature in any way. How they express themselves among themselves is none of your business. Although you seem to have a certain fascination. It wouldn't be that unusual for a homophobe to be found to be so verbal because they were trying to keep the closet door closed. :lol:

Lee - 7-1-2015 at 09:56 PM

Quote: Originally posted by dtbushpilot

…. I said, it's about wtf do I need the government's permission to marry in the first place. Why do you think there was anything other than that in what I said?

OK now I get it and you have a good point: why, indeed.

How about there are government benefits that go along with being legally (with the gov't blessing) married. Not common law but something else. Guess the gov't wants to know you both are OK. Technically, if those benefits don't have value to you, you can still call yourself married. It just won't be ''married'' in the eyes of the gov't and not considered legal. Probably not expressing myself correctly here but I understand your point.

redhilltown - 7-1-2015 at 11:40 PM

Quote: Originally posted by MrBillM

Well said Bill!!! Classy. Insightful. Brilliant!

You are well focused and as usual, 99.9% idiotically INTENT on what is really on your mind. Let it go. That guy doesn't even remember you...