Those pesky Mexicans are at it again!

[LeCharivari]

Just using a different word makes it not entirely the same. So thus, ALWAYS different by definition.

Of course the degree of variation between marriage and the other things varies.

Again civil unions in Mexico are inferior to marriages.

Just as civil unions in the USA are inferior to marriages.

So in those cases, different AND inferior.

The focus of the gay civil rights struggles in the USA and Mexico is focused on the institution that is both the SAME and EQUAL.

Different might be OK. Inferior is not good enough. Gay people want to be FIRST CLASS CITIZENS. At least sane ones with self respect do.

That goal in both countries is MARRIAGE EQUALITY.

The job won't be finished in both countries until there is full marriage equality in all jurisdictions.

But the great news is, there IS such equality at the FEDERAL LEVEL for both countries.

Ummm ... you said "Civil unions, etc. are in all cases DIFFERENT legal entities".

Your choice of words. Your shouting (capitals).

"Again civil unions in Mexico are inferior to marriages."

See my previous post - if your "research" is limited to the USA's immigration policy words, for once, fail me.

"Just as civil unions in the USA are inferior to marriages."

The Obama administration's CHOICE - this was not a decision by the legislature (like the electorate, they have never been asked) or the courts (SCotUS left that option open) but was a CHOICE.

[ToddWeston]

No, Mexican civil unions are clearly inferior.

For example when applying for USA visas the Mexican gay couple that is MARRIED will be treated equally to all married people, but the civil union couple might as well not even know each other.

Marriage equality remains the goal in the USA and Mexico. Don't be deceived.

Clearly people who remain obsessed about civil unions are on the wrong side of history, at least in the USA and Mexico.

The USA and Mexico have already made massive FEDERAL progress on MARRIAGE equality. There is no going backwards.

Next ...

Very poor example saying civil unions are inferior for travel purposes it's the USA that is the bully not accepting civil unions legally recognised in Mexico.

[Jingthing]

Look at a gay rights MAP of Mexico.

MARRIAGE (of same sex couples) is recognized almost ALL OVER Mexico.

This obsession with civil unions is illogical when Mexico is so close to almost total recognition in the entire nation.

The future (and present) in Mexico is clearly about MARRIAGE equality. Again, look at the map.

Yes, the USA is trying to influence the world with its civil rights values, separate but equal or close to equal does NOT mean real equality according to American core values.

I applaud Obama for making this principled stand for COMPLETE equality in the USA and as a global message of leadership. Obviously all countries are sovereign. So consider it a suggestion.

Edited August 4, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

Look at a gay rights MAP of Mexico.

MARRIAGE (of same sex couples) is recognized almost ALL OVER Mexico.

This obsession with civil unions is illogical when Mexico is so close to almost total recognition in the entire nation.

The future (and present) in Mexico is clearly about MARRIAGE equality. Again, look at the map.

Yes, the USA is trying to influence the world with its civil rights values, separate but equal or close to equal does NOT mean real equality according to American core values.

I applaud Obama for making this principled stand for COMPLETE equality in the USA and as a global message of leadership. Obviously all countries are sovereign. So consider it a suggestion.

"The future (and present) in Mexico is clearly about MARRIAGE equality. Again, look at the map."

You mean like this map? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Mexico,_gay_rights.svg

I can't find any others, so maybe you could give a link to yours so I can look at this map which shows how "The future (and present) in Mexico is clearly about MARRIAGE equality."?

As far as I can see "the future (and present) in Mexico is clearly about" GAY RIGHTS and how to give them to the most people in the shortest time in the most effective way, regardless of political interests - the reverse of what is happening in the USA.

Edited August 4, 2013 by LeCharivari

[LeCharivari]

.... (edited)

Yes, the USA is trying to influence the world with its civil rights values, separate but equal or close to equal does NOT mean real equality according to American core values.

I applaud Obama for making this principled stand for COMPLETE equality in the USA and as a global message of leadership. Obviously all countries are sovereign. So consider it a suggestion.

"Yes, the USA is trying to influence the world with its civil rights values ..."

For once you made me smile ...

"I applaud Obama for making this principled stand for COMPLETE equality in the USA and as a global message of leadership. ..."

Maybe I've misunderstood ... the country he's leading is already decades behind many others in terms of this particular issue (gay marriage) and looks like being left even further behind in the general field of gay rights and gay rights/anti-discrimination legislation as there is none, so far, at federal level unless you're a postman or in the military ...( and this is the GAY Forum so presumably we're talking about GAY issues). Many other national leaders have been far more effective and made far more far-reaching progress in their respective countries over gay rights ... what sort of "global message of leadership" is that?

[Jingthing]

That separate but equal is not equal.

That's a basic AMERICAN civil rights lesson we learned from the black civil rights movement.

You know and I know the USA has not been a leader in speed RESULTS.

That isn't the point. This is about Obama's leadership for the PRINCIPLES of REAL equality.

Again, American values: separate but equal (or less) is NEVER equal.

That's how we roll and I think it's a good message for civil rights movements globally.

Edited August 4, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Look at a gay rights MAP of Mexico.

MARRIAGE (of same sex couples) is recognized almost ALL OVER Mexico.

This obsession with civil unions is illogical when Mexico is so close to almost total recognition in the entire nation.

The future (and present) in Mexico is clearly about MARRIAGE equality. Again, look at the map.

Yes, the USA is trying to influence the world with its civil rights values, separate but equal or close to equal does NOT mean real equality according to American core values.

I applaud Obama for making this principled stand for COMPLETE equality in the USA and as a global message of leadership. Obviously all countries are sovereign. So consider it a suggestion.

"The future (and present) in Mexico is clearly about MARRIAGE equality. Again, look at the map."

You mean like this map? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Mexico,_gay_rights.svg

I can't find any others, so maybe you could give a link to yours so I can look at this map which shows how "The future (and present) in Mexico is clearly about MARRIAGE equality."?

As far as I can see "the future (and present) in Mexico is clearly about" GAY RIGHTS and how to give them to the most people in the shortest time in the most effective way, regardless of political interests - the reverse of what is happening in the USA.

Other people who haven't already made up their minds. Look at the map.

All of the LIGHT BLUE areas show parts of Mexico where MARRIAGES between persons of the same sex are fully recognized.

Also the FEDERAL government of Mexico recognizes all marriages of persons of the same sex in Mexico.

The LIGHT BLUE area as anyone with clear eyes and an open mind can see comprises ALMOST ALL THE LAND OF MEXICO.

Yes the parts of Mexico where people can actually enter these marriages of persons of the same sex is very limited.

HOWEVER, Mexicans may travel to their capital district and marry persons of the same sex and in almost ALL of the country their marriages will be fully recognized.

It's totally obvious Mexico is almost there as a MARRIAGE equality country.

There may be countries where the civil union path makes more sense like Thailand.

But Mexico is already WAY beyond that!

It already has two pro marriage equality supreme court judgments.

Anyone who bets against the future of gay MARRIAGE equality in Mexico just isn't paying attention.

As far as Colima is concerned, clearly gay activists in that state wanted Colima to perform gay MARRIAGES. But their governor, certainly not a gay activist, insisted on civil unions only for Colima. BUT, Colima recognizes all marriages done in Mexico City.

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/06/mexican_supreme_court_rules_for_marriage_equality/

Edited August 4, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

Other people who haven't already made up their minds. Look at the map.

All of the LIGHT BLUE areas show parts of Mexico where MARRIAGES between persons of the same sex are fully recognized.

....All of the LIGHT BLUE areas show parts of Mexico where CIVIL UNIONS between persons of the same sex are ALSO fully recognized.

The whole "map" argument is moot.

[Jingthing]

The right side of history ain't moot.

Again, two supreme court decisions in Mexico ALREADY fully supportive of legalizing gay marriage.

This is a silly argument.

Again, for the most part, Mexico is already there ... on gay MARRIAGE.

This "debate" would be more relevant years ago.

Again, back to Colima, those renegade gays entering MARRIAGES against the will of their governor. They were doing an act of protest and doing what they WANTED to do the MOST. What was that? DUH. It was MARRYING. They were NOT doing a civil union which ALSO was not supported in their state at that time. Do the math.

Look at this another way. If you had a million dollars to bet and your two choices were:

1. In 20 years Mexico will have legal gay marriage in all states (it's ALREADY recognized in almost ALL states)

or

2. In 20 years Mexico will have gone BACKWARDS, no legal gay marriage but instead nationally available civil unions

Which is the logical choice?

Edited August 5, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

.... It's totally obvious Mexico is almost there as a MARRIAGE equality country.

There may be countries where the civil union path makes more sense like Thailand.

But Mexico is already WAY beyond that!

It already has two pro marriage equality supreme court judgments.

Anyone who bets against the future of gay MARRIAGE equality in Mexico just isn't paying attention.

As far as Colima is concerned, clearly gay activists in that state wanted Colima to perform gay MARRIAGES. But their governor, certainly not a gay activist, insisted on civil unions only for Colima. BUT, Colima recognizes all marriages done in Mexico City.

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/06/mexican_supreme_court_rules_for_marriage_equality/

Agreed: "It's totally obvious Mexico is almost there as a MARRIAGE equality country."

What they haven't done, though, is to penalise those with civil unions as second class citizens, denying those gays with civil unions equal GAY RIGHTS by choosing to make those civil unions a second rate option - they've kept both options open on their way to becoming a "MARRIAGE equality country" and maximised GAY RIGHTS for ALL their gays by doing so - the opposite to the situation in the USA, with none of the ill-effects US "gay activists" are using to excuse the Obama administration's discriminatory policy.

There is NO civil unions vs gay marriage "argument" in Mexico - there, they are both equally important steps in GAY RIGHTS progress. Steps the Obama administration has chosen to ignore.

[LeCharivari]

... As far as Colima is concerned, clearly gay activists in that state wanted Colima to perform gay MARRIAGES. But their governor, certainly not a gay activist, insisted on civil unions only for Colima. BUT, Colima recognizes all marriages done in Mexico City.

Fortunately for gays in Colima "gay activists in that state" have either chosen not to rule out civil unions or they have been unsuccessful in ruling them out, allowing GAY RIGHTS to progress rather than stagnate while waiting for the electorate to age and die.

[onthemoon]

No, Mexican civil unions are clearly inferior.

For example when applying for USA visas the Mexican gay couple that is MARRIED will be treated equally to all married people, but the civil union couple might as well not even know each other.

Marriage equality remains the goal in the USA and Mexico. Don't be deceived.

Clearly people who remain obsessed about civil unions are on the wrong side of history, at least in the USA and Mexico.

The USA and Mexico have already made massive FEDERAL progress on MARRIAGE equality. There is no going backwards.

Next ...

Clearly it is not a Mexican problem, but it is the US not understanding that a civil union has equal rights.

There is no goal for "marriage equality". The goal is for equal rights. It is the US that refuses this right.

That said, the US made their fist important step. They'll get there eventually.

[ToddWeston]

No, Mexican civil unions are clearly inferior.

For example when applying for USA visas the Mexican gay couple that is MARRIED will be treated equally to all married people, but the civil union couple might as well not even know each other.

Marriage equality remains the goal in the USA and Mexico. Don't be deceived.

Clearly people who remain obsessed about civil unions are on the wrong side of history, at least in the USA and Mexico.

The USA and Mexico have already made massive FEDERAL progress on MARRIAGE equality. There is no going backwards.

Next ...

Clearly it is not a Mexican problem, but it is the US not understanding that a civil union has equal rights.

There is no goal for "marriage equality". The goal is for equal rights. It is the US that refuses this right.

That said, the US made their fist important step. They'll get there eventually.

Exactly it is great news for Mexico either way, if US doesn't like it tough cookies - even being legally married in my country I wouldn't tell the US Immigration that I'm married - no way never ever. Edited August 5, 2013 by ToddWeston

[Jingthing]

No, the goal in Mexico is marriage equality. They are quite close. Probably closer than the USA. Also, USA visas ARE a concern for many Mexicans. We're NEIGHBORS. Just read the Mexican supreme court rulings if you don't believe me. You can bet the house Mexico is well on the way towards full MARRIAGE equality.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

No, the goal in Mexico is marriage equality. They are quite close. Probably closer than the USA. Also, USA visas ARE a concern for many Mexicans. We're NEIGHBORS. Just read the Mexican supreme court rulings if you don't believe me. You can bet the house Mexico is well on the way towards full MARRIAGE equality.

I have NO problem with "the goal in Mexico" being "marriage equality", just as I have NO problem with that being "the goal" in the USA.

I am sure that Mexico is going about it the right way - maximising GAY RIGHTS for ALL gay couples along the way by using every option open to them: the legislature and the courts, civil unions and gay marriage.

I am equally sure that the USA is going about it the WRONG way - concentrating solely on gay marriage, and not only ignoring civil unions but DELIBERATELY DENYING THEM RIGHTS THAT ARE MORALLY AND LEGALLY AVAILABLE TO THEM.

The Constitutions and the Supreme Court rulings are surprisingly similar. The political and religious opposition are surprisingly similar. Demographic support/opposition is surprisingly similar. The ultimate goal is the same. But because the Mexican administration has decided to support GAY RIGHTS while the US administration has only decided to support GAY MARRIAGE gay couples in Mexico are getting their rights NOW, not at some unknown time in the future.

[LeCharivari]

Apparently this criticism of the US is unjustified: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/658121-new-us-visa-rules/page-3#entry6691408 post # 74 refers.

[Jingthing]

Apparently this criticism of the US is unjustified: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/658121-new-us-visa-rules/page-3#entry6691408 post # 74 refers.

Not nearly that cut and dried as the House Bill touted in that post almost definitely will NOT become law.

[LeCharivari]

Apparently this criticism of the US is unjustified: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/658121-new-us-visa-rules/page-3#entry6691408 post # 74 refers.

Not nearly that cut and dried as the House Bill touted in that post almost definitely will NOT become law.

The criticisn was based on your claim that "Obama ... the Democrats ... the majority of American gay rights activists ... mainstream Gay Americans ... the vast majority of gay Americans " etc, etc were all supporting the same "DIRECTION" and that they considered civil unions "HISTORY ... a historical relic ... " etc, etc, and had no interest in them and were not supporting them.

That the Bill is under consideration and has bi-partisan (mainly Democrat) as well as HRC and ACLU support shows beyond any doubt that THEY do not consider other ways to gay rights "HISTORY" even if YOU do.

Whether the Bill passes or not is completely irrelevant to this criticism - which, for some reason I cannot fathom, you seem to be deliberately and unjustifiably encouraging.

[Jingthing]

One word HINT: domestic. The civil unions ARE a historical relic IN the United States.

[LeCharivari]

One word HINT: domestic. The civil unions ARE a historical relic IN the United States.

Maybe I've misunderstood things again ... isn't New Jersey IN the United States? ... don't immigrants live IN the United States?

[Jingthing]

One word HINT: domestic. The civil unions ARE a historical relic IN the United States.

Maybe I've misunderstood things again ... isn't New Jersey IN the United States? ... don't immigrants live IN the United States?

Yes you have. This game playing is tiresome.

There are now four U.S. states with civil union laws.

Five have ALREADY upgraded to marriage.

The existing four will inevitably also upgrade to marriage.

There will be no NEW U.S. states passing NEW civil unions laws.

There are now THIRTEEN U.S. states with gay MARRIAGE equality, which has rapidly grown in the last few years. The current goal is increase that to a MAJORITY of states as soon as possible, and also to attack at the COURT level (state and supreme) to move the issue quicker towards a 50 state marriage equality result.

You might not LIKE the direction the American marriage equality movement has taken, but that is the direction it has taken, and there is no going BACKWARDS now. (Yes, Virginia, civil unions is going BACKWARDS just the same as it would be in the UK now.)

Edited August 7, 2013 by Jingthing

[onthemoon]

One word HINT: domestic. The civil unions ARE a historical relic IN the United States.

Sorry to hear that. So universal equal rights are not the gold standard, but the religious terminology "marriage" is?

Sad, sad state of affairs.

[Jingthing]

One word HINT: domestic. The civil unions ARE a historical relic IN the United States.

Sorry to hear that. So universal equal rights are not the gold standard, but the religious terminology "marriage" is?

Sad, sad state of affairs.

Marriage is not religious terminology in the USA. CIVIL marriages are available in all 50 states with 13 also offering civil marriages to same sex couples. In other words, no need for any kind of church. We're not Europeans. We don't have a STATE religion. We SEPARATE church and state. I hope that's OK with y'all. If not, tough cookies. BTW, there is NOTHING sad about it. Not to people who understand what it means.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Jingthing

[ToddWeston]

Civil means a union - in a city hall or ANY venue performed by a reeve, mayor, judge, clergy or anyone licenced to perform such ceremonies.

Marriage means a union - same same as above.

It's a shame we share the same laungage but so many things have a different meaning and this is not exclusive to Europe.

I terms of Church and State my money doesn't say in God we trust, I know Americans love to say there is a divide between them - the USA has many religions that influence politics, they may not have a state religion because either it's not PC or melting pot doctrine. There is more religion in America and it's politics than most countries.

[Jingthing]

We'll stick with marriage as an option for ALL citizens, thank you very much. Only four states with the relic and all of those are in process of dumping that over time. I don't get this obsession with pushing the USA into a two tiered system. It's not wanted.

[ToddWeston]

We'll stick with marriage as an option for ALL citizens, thank you very much. Only four states with the relic and all of those are in process of dumping that over time. I don't get this obsession with pushing the USA into a two tiered system. It's not wanted.

JT you keep using the term "relic" it's becoming offensive. A union is a union, in my heart of hearts I don't see the difference. The other buzz word(s) you like to use is "the right side of history" it isn't a race and if it was the USA is still in warm up mode or do I dare say "catch up mode" do I wish them parity of course but it' doesn't matter which form it comes in.

[Jingthing]

We'll stick with marriage as an option for ALL citizens, thank you very much. Only four states with the relic and all of those are in process of dumping that over time. I don't get this obsession with pushing the USA into a two tiered system. It's not wanted.

JT you keep using the term "relic" it's becoming offensive. A union is a union, in my heart of hearts I don't see the difference. The other buzz word(s) you like to use is "the right side of history" it isn't a race and if it was the USA is still in warm up mode or do I dare say "catch up mode" do I wish them parity of course but it' doesn't matter which form it comes in.

The goal in the USA is MARRIAGE equality. Do you still not understand that? Marriage. That's it. In the USA anything other than marriage like civil unions, etc. is by fact a historical RELIC which you would understand if you just followed recent history and most states with those relics DROPPING them already in favor of MARRIAGE. Catching up in the USA is not defined as embracing a relic, propping up a relic, adding any new states to the list of four stuck with the relic ... rather the goal is to convert those 4 states to FULL marriage equality and also of course the remaining 37 states with no options for legalizing same sex relationships YET. The CLEARLY FOCUSED defined goal is marriage equality, and the goal is well on target. For ALL 50 states. I have no idea what your problem is anymore. Marriage equality means the EXACT SAME option for ALL citizens, and any religious involvement in your marriage is 100 percent OPTIONAL. What's the problem?!? You say you're offended? Makes no sense. Offended that I am describing the state of the marriage equality movement in the USA accurately, that civil unions are FADING AWAY, have already MOSTLY gone the way of the DODO bird? Maybe grow a thicker skin and consider different countries, different systems.

To be clear, relic used here in the context of the AMERICAN marriage equality movement. OTHER countries embrace civil unions, that might be all they can ever have. In THOSE countries, that's their thing. It is NOT the future of the USA, which is absolutely MARRIAGE equality.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

One word HINT: domestic. The civil unions ARE a historical relic IN the United States.

Sorry to hear that. So universal equal rights are not the gold standard, but the religious terminology "marriage" is?

Sad, sad state of affairs.

OTM, bear in mind that what is posted here, unless it's supported by anything else, is only one person's "OPINION".

Whether some people like it or not, the "FACT" is that civil unions are still an option in some States, still being pursued in Congress by both Democrats and Republicans with the Uniting American Families Act, and still very likely to be supported by the Republicans (who won nearly 50% of the popular vote in 2012) in the next elections.

Whether any of those options come to fruition is a different matter, as is speculation on when genuine equal rights for gays will become any sort of reality in the US - at the moment around 30% of American gays have marriage-equal rights at federal level, but very few even have the most basic protection at federal level against discrimination. The danger for American gays is that the "marriage equality" movement is drowning out the "gay rights" movement and the "goal" is being forgotten by some - but fortunately, and demonstrably, not by all.

[Jingthing]

You are confusing AGAIN the domestic STATE marriage laws and recognition of FOREIGN institutions. Not the same thing. As far as tactics, yes the tactics in the USA are gain majority support for gay marriage DONE, then win federal recognition of existing gay marriages DONE, then work to convert all non-marriage states to marriage within a reasonable number of years (IN PROGRESS), at the same time continuing to elect DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS (supreme court picks), at the same time pushing for an ideal SUPREME COURT CASE that will decide the marriage equality question once and for all for ALL 50 states.

[LeCharivari]

You are confusing AGAIN the domestic STATE marriage laws and recognition of FOREIGN institutions. Not the same thing. As far as tactics, yes the tactics in the USA are gain majority support for gay marriage DONE, then win federal recognition of existing gay marriages DONE, then work to convert all non-marriage states to marriage within a reasonable number of years (IN PROGRESS), at the same time continuing to elect DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS (supreme court picks), at the same time pushing for an ideal SUPREME COURT CASE that will decide the marriage equality question once and for all for ALL 50 states.

As I said: the danger for American gays is that the "marriage equality" movement is drowning out the "gay rights" movement and the "goal" is being forgotten by some - but fortunately, and demonstrably, not by all.

"Gay Rights" don't even warrant a mention.