gay marriage effectively legalized in Mexico

[ag]

Effectively legalized throughout the country by the Supreme Court.

It is not quite that simple. The Court can, in general, only create binding precedent on request from the Congress, state legislatures or the presidency - and that has not happened. Individual citizens only have the recourse to the "writ of amparo" - habeas corpus analog - which rules on constitutionality in individual case, without creating precedent. However, there is an internal rule for the judiciary, that once the Supreme Court rules the same way in 4 or 5 cases in a row, this creates a precedent which all courts must follow. This, apparently, has happened in the gay marrige case. Once the collection of the decisions is oficially published in the next few days, every gay couple refused a marriage licence anywhere in the country is guaranteed that if it goes to court it will win an amparo, ordering the state to wed them. So, even though the man-and-woman statutes remain valid in most of the states, they no longer can be enforced. Gay marriage is effectively legal throughout the country: subject to the extra step of having to petition a court to order it.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Better than nothing...though hopefully it will be legalized in the same manner as straight marriage.

[ag]

Better than nothing...though hopefully it will be legalized in the same manner as straight marriage.

Well, that requires state-by-state legislative action. Gay marriage is fully legal in Mexico City and in the state of Quintana Roo (including Cancun). In several other states there is "civil union" legislation. Marriage is regulated at state level - so federal legislation is unlikely. And, unfortunately, Supreme Court decisions in amparo cases do not create precedent binding on the executive authority - that is the inherent difference with the US. The Supreme Court has created all the jurisprudence it can in this case. Unless, I guess, the presidency or the Congress ask for a a precedential ruling, there is nothing more it can do. And, gay marriage not being a major issue in local politics, and with every couple that cares about it already able to get married, there is unlikely to be enough pressure for that. What is more likely, that some of the other states, actually, adopt legislation to conform with the judiciary rulings. But, most certainly, there will be states where one would have to get an amparo for every wedding. It would not be very hard to get, though.

[ingemann]

Honestly do it really make a difference, if you legalise it one place and people see it doesn't end up with God going all Sodom and Gomorrah on that place (or the state forcing all people into gay marriages), people tend to be more willing to legalise it other places too.

[ag]

Honestly do it really make a difference, if you legalise it one place and people see it doesn't end up with God going all Sodom and Gomorrah on that place (or the state forcing all people into gay marriages), people tend to be more willing to legalise it other places too.

I have no clue what you are trying to say. Could you explain?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I had been under the impression that gay marriage was already effectively de facto recognized everywhere in Mexico altho you had to go to one of the few states whose laws allowed for recognition of same-sex marriage to get it recognized everywhere.

[ag]

I had been under the impression that gay marriage was already effectively de facto recognized everywhere in Mexico altho you had to go to one of the few states whose laws allowed for recognition of same-sex marriage to get it recognized everywhere.

Well, now you can register gay marriage in any state - in the uberCatholic Guanajuato, if you wish. You just need to sue the civil registrar - and the court will issue an order telling him to do it.

[ingemann]

Honestly do it really make a difference, if you legalise it one place and people see it doesn't end up with God going all Sodom and Gomorrah on that place (or the state forcing all people into gay marriages), people tend to be more willing to legalise it other places too.

I have no clue what you are trying to say. Could you explain?

Lot of people who are somewhat hostile toward SSM tend to become lukewarm supporters, when they discover that the adoption of SSM elsewhere haven't had disasterous effects.

[ag]

Honestly do it really make a difference, if you legalise it one place and people see it doesn't end up with God going all Sodom and Gomorrah on that place (or the state forcing all people into gay marriages), people tend to be more willing to legalise it other places too.

I have no clue what you are trying to say. Could you explain?

Lot of people who are somewhat hostile toward SSM tend to become lukewarm supporters, when they discover that the adoption of SSM elsewhere haven't had disasterous effects.

It is not that much of an issue here to begin with. Was not at all discussed in elections: and doubt will ever be. The entire debate, to the extent there is any, is within the tiny intellectual elite. The judges are part of that one, though.

[Famous Mortimer]

Honestly do it really make a difference, if you legalise it one place and people see it doesn't end up with God going all Sodom and Gomorrah on that place (or the state forcing all people into gay marriages), people tend to be more willing to legalise it other places too.

I have no clue what you are trying to say. Could you explain?

Lot of people who are somewhat hostile toward SSM tend to become lukewarm supporters, when they discover that the adoption of SSM elsewhere haven't had disasterous effects.

It is not that much of an issue here to begin with. Was not at all discussed in elections: and doubt will ever be. The entire debate, to the extent there is any, is within the tiny intellectual elite. The judges are part of that one, though.

There was no debate because everyone is against it?

[ag]

Honestly do it really make a difference, if you legalise it one place and people see it doesn't end up with God going all Sodom and Gomorrah on that place (or the state forcing all people into gay marriages), people tend to be more willing to legalise it other places too.

I have no clue what you are trying to say. Could you explain?

Lot of people who are somewhat hostile toward SSM tend to become lukewarm supporters, when they discover that the adoption of SSM elsewhere haven't had disasterous effects.

It is not that much of an issue here to begin with. Was not at all discussed in elections: and doubt will ever be. The entire debate, to the extent there is any, is within the tiny intellectual elite. The judges are part of that one, though.

There was no debate because everyone is against it?

Because most people are indifferent to it. There is an ultra-Catholic panista core that is against it, and some urban peredistas are in favor, but it is not what is driving the vote either way.

Remember: marriage in Mexico is a luxury good anyway. A lot of the poor people never register it with the state or the Church: they do not care about the official document, and they cannot afford a celebration. The government recognizes long-term unregistered unions on par with registered marriage. In fact, where we are going to need a precedent, is when a partner in a long-term gay relationship asks for alimony.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Better than nothing...though hopefully it will be legalized in the same manner as straight marriage.

Well, that requires state-by-state legislative action. Gay marriage is fully legal in Mexico City and in the state of Quintana Roo (including Cancun). In several other states there is "civil union" legislation. Marriage is regulated at state level - so federal legislation is unlikely. And, unfortunately, Supreme Court decisions in amparo cases do not create precedent binding on the executive authority - that is the inherent difference with the US. The Supreme Court has created all the jurisprudence it can in this case. Unless, I guess, the presidency or the Congress ask for a a precedential ruling, there is nothing more it can do. And, gay marriage not being a major issue in local politics, and with every couple that cares about it already able to get married, there is unlikely to be enough pressure for that. What is more likely, that some of the other states, actually, adopt legislation to conform with the judiciary rulings. But, most certainly, there will be states where one would have to get an amparo for every wedding. It would not be very hard to get, though.

You should post more Mexican happenings...it is so ignored and it shouldnt be.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

ag, are evangangicals gaining influence in Mexico to the expense of Papists, as they are in Brazil?

[ag]

ag, are evangangicals gaining influence in Mexico to the expense of Papists, as they are in Brazil?

To be a properly Mexican evangelical, you should call them not Papists, but Guadalupanos

To a degree. In places like Chiapas or Oaxaca, especially among the natives and the lower classes. Chiapas is down to, perhaps, 60% Catholic. This causes big tensions in the villages: traditionally, the local community is largely about festivities, many of which are renounced by the evangelicals as Catholic. Mexico City is still about 90% Catholic, and the Bajio heartland is even higher than that. And, a few upper- and middle-class evangelical churches notwithstanding, the elite, if it is religious at all, tends to be Catholic.

A couple of years ago, one of Brazilian evangelical "bishops" did book signing in the main bookstore in Mexico City. There was a huge line of faithful snaking all the way into the store parking lot - where, in fact, they put the table with the holy man and his books. Inside the store the usual "reading public" - including the store personnel - did their best to ignore the embarrassing event completely.

[ag]

In related news, AMLO has disappointed his leftists supporters by stating that "it is not very important" to pass laws on abortion (still illegal in most states) or gay marriage. The crestfallen representatives of the LGBT community now remembered, that AMLO did all he could to avoid pronouncing on either issue when he was mayor. At the time they hoped it was done for whatever "political" reasons - though, of course, it has always been obvious, that on these issues (as on many others) the guy is a traditionalist conservative Catholic (unlike, say, Ebrard - who is the Mexican politician most at odds with the Church).