Those pesky Mexicans are at it again!

sustento · July 31, 2013

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/30/colima-mexico-civil-unions_n_3679604.html

Jingthing · July 31, 2013

All Mexicans may travel to Mexico City and get gay married.

Is this civil union thing for people without bus fare?

LeCharivari · August 2, 2013

Maybe they don't want to get "gay married" but they want a civil union.

Maybe their elected representatives are giving them what they WANT rather than what they and some self-appointed "representatives" think they SHOULD HAVE - unlike in the UK where that option is, rather strangely, only open to gays or in the US where it is has been made a lesser option (also only available to gays and only in some States).

In France, one of the few countries where such an option exists (New Zealand, Luxembourg, Andorra and the Netherlands are the others, as well as Tasmania) it is proving to be nearly as popular as marriage (over 95% of those se pacsing are straight) and if the trend since it was introduced continues it will soon be more popular there than marriage - there are already more than 4 PACS for every 5 marriages. In a traditionally Catholic country the tacit approval of PACS for straights and gays by the Catholic church, through the NCCFA (National Confederation of Catholic Family Associations) has probably gone a long way to make it both popular and more acceptable.

Jingthing · August 2, 2013

I would be a LOT of pesos los gays in Colima mostly want gay MARRIAGE equality but that wasn't politically POSSIBLE in their neck of the Mexican provincial woods.

Edited August 2, 2013 by Jingthing

Jingthing · August 2, 2013

This anti-gay website gives some clues about what gay people actually want in Colima and the reason they could only get the second rate thing ... for now.

Viva Mexico!

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/homosexual-activists-push-agenda-by-registering-marriages-in-mexican-munici

Now, in the state of Colima, a municipality run by the socialist Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) has begun to "marry" local homosexual couples in defiance of the governor, Mario Anguiano Moreno, who denies the validity of such unions.

In the municipality of Cuauhtemoc, mayor Indira Vizcaíno Silva has authorized at least five "marriages" between couples of the same sex since February and says she's going to continue the practice.

She says that she has received no official communication from the state government regarding the issue, but is warns that she will put up a legal fight to defend the "marriages" she has granted.

Governor Anguiano Moreno has stated that he might have recourse to the legislature to vote on the matter.

"I'm convinced that this is a good time to open the discussion with the people regarding this topic, and I'm sure that legislators are going to take into account the opinion of the majority so that they can, if necessary, make adaptations or a reformation of the legal ordinances," he told reporters recently.

Such a vote would be likely to result in a defeat for same-sex "marriages," given the state's strongly conservative and Catholic bent. However, if the Supreme Court's 2012 ruling is upheld in future disputes, homosexual "marriage" is likely to be imposed not only in Colima, but throughout Mexico..

Edited August 2, 2013 by Jingthing

LeCharivari · August 2, 2013

Your link seems to be faulty - mine was dated April 25, three months ago and so three months before civil unions were allowed, so there's no indication one way or the other as to whether the "dozens of additional requests for such "marriages," " would have been made if civil unions had been allowed as they are now as civil unions weren't available at the time.

The only "clue" I could find about "what gay people actually want in Colima" was in the paragraph after you're edited quote, which says that "the first couple to be granted a "marriage" by the municipality of Cuauhtemoc, who have only given their first names, Abraham and Jose, have told the press that they are "happy because this is an important advance from the legal standpoint, above all to vindicate our rights like any couple: social security, a guaranteed mortgage, pensions..." They also say they might want to adopt children in the future." That seems to indicate they would be "happy" with the newly approved civil unions as that's exactly what they get - no more and no less.

Maybe you should check the link as the one you gave doesn't seem to say what you said it does.

Jingthing · August 2, 2013

Links with partial quotes are standard. It is not allowed to include entire articles. No deception was intended regardless of any insinuation.

Your reading of the rest of the article seems very flawed and extremely biased towards supporting this fictional myth of the desirability of a SECOND RATE institution for actual gay people in Mexico. I'm not buying that fiction.

The municipality in question was indeed doing MARRIAGES against the will of the governor of the province. Yes this was BEFORE the province offered civil unions. Not marriage.

It was a gay activist PROTEST action. Can't you see?

Classic civil disobedience. The governor says no. The municipality says yes.

OBVIOUSLY I noted this article to support my contention which I absolutely believe that the majority of gay people in Colima AND all of Mexico want the right to MARRIAGE equality.

In the areas only offering the second rate option, it is clearly because they can't politically get gay marriage. In Colima OBVIOUSLY the governor would not be supporting gay MARRIAGE.

They were given something LESS. Yes indeedy, it is better than NOTHING. But the Mexican gay equality movement marches on.

LATER, it is predicted the Mexican supreme court will come to rescue and force all Mexican provinces to allow gay MARRIAGE. An interesting similarity to what's happening in the USA.

Again, Viva Mexico.

Edited August 2, 2013 by Jingthing

LeCharivari · August 3, 2013

Links with partial quotes are standard. It is not allowed to include entire articles. No deception was intended regardless of any insinuation.

Your reading of the rest of the article seems very flawed and extremely biased towards supporting this fictional myth of the desirability of a SECOND RATE institution for actual gay people in Mexico. I'm not buying that fiction.

The municipality in question was indeed doing MARRIAGES against the will of the governor of the province. Yes this was BEFORE the province offered civil unions. Not marriage.

It was a gay activist PROTEST action. Can't you see?

Classic civil disobedience. The governor says no. The municipality says yes.

OBVIOUSLY I noted this article to support my contention which I absolutely believe that the majority of gay people in Colima AND all of Mexico want the right to MARRIAGE equality.

In the areas only offering the second rate option, it is clearly because they can't politically get gay marriage. In Colima OBVIOUSLY the governor would not be supporting gay MARRIAGE.

They were given something LESS. Yes indeedy, it is better than NOTHING. But the Mexican gay equality movement marches on.

LATER, it is predicted the Mexican supreme court will come to rescue and force all Mexican provinces to allow gay MARRIAGE. An interesting similarity to what's happening in the USA.

Again, Viva Mexico.

"Your reading of the rest of the article seems very flawed and extremely biased towards supporting this fictional myth of the desirability of a SECOND RATE institution for actual gay people in Mexico."

They said what they said - what they wanted. The new civil unions give them (and anybody else) what those interviewed in your link wanted. End of their story.

"It was a gay activist PROTEST action. Can't you see?"

No. The mayor was performing marriages for same-sex couples - she (and they) didn't have the option of civil unions, which they now do. There were no gay activists and no protests involved - just people wanting to get hitched (and remain anonymous) and someone willing and able to do so.

You have no idea what "the majority of gay people in Colima AND all of Mexico want" and neither do I - all we have is information readily available in the media, such as the link you provided, which is of necessity limited and which in this case indicates that they would be "happy" with what they have.

That you consider civil unions a "second rate option" is your opinion - unlike in the USA, legally in Mexico and elsewhere it is an equal option and while you are entitled to your opinion your depicting it as something else other than in the USA is incorrect.

There are NO informed predictions that the Mexican Supreme Court will "force all Mexican provinces to allow gay marriage" - this is incorrect. Marriage in Mexico, as in the US, comes under State law and all the Supreme Court can do is make States recognize gay marriages performed in other States - something which is totally different from allowing gay marriages which is a State decision.

LeCharivari · August 3, 2013

The only "similarity to what's happening in the USA" is that the limitations of the Supreme Court and the federal legislature concerning marriage are similar - their actions are very different and Mexico is doing what the American Supreme Court and legislature COULD have done to support gays but didn't:

Mexico has recognised gay marriages performed anywhere (abroad and in any of its States) federally, across all States - the USA has not.

Mexico has given full legal equality to civil unions performed anywhere (abroad and in any of its States) federally, across all States - the USA has not, chose not recognise the civil unions performed in any of the 17 countries performing them, and no longer gives federal benefits/rights to those in civil unions in the five States still performing them which do not have gay marriage (unless they pre-dated the SCotUS ruling).

Mexico has chosen not to make civil unions a "second rate option" - the USA has chosen to make them "second rate".

Mexico has advanced gay rights for ALL its gay citizens - the USA has not, instead choosing to make it a political issue and delaying gay rights for the majority of its population.

Jingthing · August 3, 2013

The quote in the link from the anti-gay website couple was a couple who had just gotten "MARRIED". They hadn't entered a civil union. Their comment about how wonderful it was was in relation to gay marriage, not civil unions. We don't know what this couple would say if/when they later enter a civil union. They might do because I somehow doubt their marriage in Colima province was ever really legal in the first place. Not everyone is a lawyer, they were overcome with emotion about their MARRIAGE. Not picking apart the legal issues it might bring up considering at that time their province wasn't offering gay marriage OR civil unions. It's a distortion to suggest the quoted couple was talking about civil unions at all. They were not.

As far as the similarities between the USA and Mexico on gay marriage rights, I said similarities. I would hope intelligent readers understand the word similarities does not imply EXACTLY the same. The fact remains the role of the supreme courts in both the USA and Mexico have proven extremely important in their respective nation's civil rights struggle for gay marriage equality, and will likely do so as well in future, most likely in the direction of more total marriage equality in both countries.

BTW, USA people can all enjoy gay marriage with full federal rights but it would likely involve MOVING to one of increasing numbers of gay marriage legal states. Gay activists are working right now on expanding that number of states, and also setting up scenarios where a major supreme court case could mandate ALL U.S. states to legalize gay marriage.

LeCharivari · August 3, 2013

The quote in the link from the anti-gay website couple was a couple who had just gotten "MARRIED". They hadn't entered a civil union. Their comment about how wonderful it was was in relation to gay marriage, not civil unions. We don't know what this couple would say if/when they later enter a civil union. They might do because I somehow doubt their marriage in Colima province was ever really legal in the first place. Not everyone is a lawyer, they were overcome with emotion about their MARRIAGE. Not picking apart the legal issues it might bring up considering at that time their province wasn't offering gay marriage OR civil unions. It's a distortion to suggest the quoted couple was talking about civil unions at all. They were not.

As far as the similarities between the USA and Mexico on gay marriage rights, I said similarities. I would hope intelligent readers understand the word similarities does not imply EXACTLY the same. The fact remains the role of the supreme courts in both the USA and Mexico have proven extremely important in their respective nation's civil rights struggle for gay marriage equality, and will likely do so as well in future, most likely in the direction of more total marriage equality in both countries.

BTW, USA people can all enjoy gay marriage with full federal rights but it would likely involve MOVING to one of increasing numbers of gay marriage legal states. Gay activists are working right now on expanding that number of states, and also setting up scenarios where a major supreme court case could mandate ALL U.S. states to legalize gay marriage.

Yup, not just "USA people" (aren't they called Americans?) but everyone in the world can "enjoy" gay marriage - all they have to do is MOVE.

Jingthing · August 3, 2013

Yup, not just "USA people" (aren't they called Americans?) but everyone in the world can "enjoy" gay marriage - all they have to do is MOVE.

What's your point? Was that meant to deride people from nations without full marriage equality? If so, I think that is quite rude.

Gay marriage equality in Mexico, the USA, and MOST of the world is a work in progress.

For now, BOTH countries are doing rather well, offering at least SOME way for gay citizens to make gay marriage happen if they are motivated enough.

FAR from marriage equality, but great progress in the right direction in both countries.

I have great optimism that full marriage equality in all their jurisdictions will eventually be achieved in both of those great neighboring nations.

Perhaps I said USA people in the context of the topic being related to Mexico as Mexicans are also Americans, indeed they are also NORTH Americans.

Edited August 3, 2013 by Jingthing

ToddWeston · August 3, 2013

I think it's clear those pesky Mexicans want Americans to move there to enjoy full freedom wouldn't that be a twist.

Jingthing · August 3, 2013

I think it's clear those pesky Mexicans want Americans to move there to enjoy full freedom wouldn't that be a twist.

Mexico is the most popular destination for USA expats though I don't have any statistics on the gay marriage aspect of it. Mexicans are certainly welcome to gay marry USA people now and can receive equal immigration rights thanks to the supreme court and the proactive gay activism of President Obama.

In some ways, Mexico and the USA ARE married as countries. Considering they are both rather masculine countries ... hmm ... they could be said to be gay married.

Edited August 3, 2013 by Jingthing

LeCharivari · August 3, 2013

What is this obsession with getting "gay married"?

I thought the whole point of using the same terminology was to use the same terminology?

To ask your partner-to-be "will you marry me" or "will you be my Partner" or "veux-tu te pacser avec moi"?

"Shall we get gay married"? just seems ... wrong.

Jingthing · August 3, 2013

We are talking about gay marriage equality here. Please don't get all pedantic on us now. It is too tedious for words.

Gay married is just shorthand. In this context if you just say married you need to indicate you're talking about same sex marriage if that's what you're talking about. There are different ways to indicate that. Gay married is one of them. Next ...

Edited August 3, 2013 by Jingthing

sustento · August 3, 2013

What is this obsession with getting "gay married"?

I thought the whole point of using the same terminology was to use the same terminology?

To ask your partner-to-be "will you marry me" or "will you be my Partner" or "veux-tu te pacser avec moi"?

"Shall we get gay married"? just seems ... wrong.

It's just another way to remain different. If I ever get married (which looks increasingly unlikely) I shall simply say 'I'm married'.

ToddWeston · August 3, 2013

Well I'm married not gay married. I saw the term and wasnt sure if it was a regional thing or pc,

anyway I don't like the term and I have a licence that says I'm married.

I would have freaked if he said on that glourious day will you gay marry me.......

Jingthing · August 3, 2013

What a non-issue.

How are we supposed to refer to the fight for same-sex marriage rights in Mexico?

Would we say the fight for marriage rights?

Of course not.

Straight people can already marry (and now many gay people there as well).

Until the ENTIRE country has marriages rights, through language the issue needs to be spelled out.

Nobody is saying you should say you are gay married.

It's just for the discussion about a civil rights struggle -- for gay people.

OK, same sex marriage is probably a better way to say it. But its the same thing and the same issue when we need to TALK about something specific, as in this thread.

Maybe this is about people from countries WITHOUT patchwork marriage equality just not being able to comprehend countries with PATCHWORK laws like Mexico and the USA, by region/province. Not all of Mexico has legal gay marriage, not all of the USA either, so again we need to use that tool known as LANGUAGE to make our message known about exactly what we are talking about. If a country has full legal gay marriage, you can have the luxury of just saying MARRIAGE without any qualifier.

BTW, it's really funny how this thread got twisted towards this ridiculous non-issue of semantics after I proved my point about the interview with the couple in Colima who were gay married against the laws of their province, clearly an act of civil disobedience and political gay activist PROTEST by both the couple and the official that married them.

As that point was a home run, instead of dealing with that, the twist and dodge to an overblown NON-ISSUE that has nothing to do with the actual situation in Mexico. Typical really.

Edited August 3, 2013 by Jingthing

ToddWeston · August 4, 2013

A non issue for some, an issue for others. One would think in a gay forum there is no need to brand our sexual orientation to keywords such as marriage or civil unions. Far too many labels that are very old school IMHO.

And yes your post was as you call is a home run for marriage rights in Mexico, it will be interesting to see how it plays out legally, apologies I missed the importance of that but I'm finding some threads hard to follow as I only need to know where to buy the jumper not how to knit it.

onthemoon · August 4, 2013

We are talking about gay marriage equality here. Please don't get all pedantic on us now. It is too tedious for words.

Gay married is just shorthand. In this context if you just say married you need to indicate you're talking about same sex marriage if that's what you're talking about. There are different ways to indicate that. Gay married is one of them. Next ...

Weren't you the one who said "civil partnership" is not enough, we need to fight for "marriage" in order to be equal? In my opinion, it's just a word, I care for equal rights.

Now you use the expression "gay married" to make it unequal? I totally disagree. There is no such thing as "gay married". If you are married, you are married. Some people are married to people of the same gender, others are married to people of the opposite gender, or the third gender. Shouldn't make any difference.

So, the expression "to be gay married" is a huge step back in the equality fight.

Jingthing · August 4, 2013

I was referring to two people of the same sex getting married -- EXACTLY the same legal entity as two opposite sex people.

Civil unions, etc. are in all cases DIFFERENT legal entities.

In order to not play into this ridiculous new irrelevant game of pedantry on steroids, I will try from now on to explicitly spell it out (every time) with wording such as: