SCOTUS ‘rules’ marriage legal in Mexico

Timothy Kincaid

February 18th, 2013

Mexico’s legal system is complicated, especially when it comes to matters of civil rights. Earlier this month, we reported that the Supreme Court of Mexico had declared that same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights to marriage as heterosexual couples. Today they clarified the basis of their thinking.

Oddly enough, it was the US Supreme Court: (Buzzfeed)

The historical disadvantages that homosexuals have suffered have been well recognized and documented: public harassment, verbal abuse, discrimination in their employment and in access to certain services, in addition to their exclusion to some aspects of public life. In this sense … when they are denied access to marriage it creates an analogy with the discrimination that interracial couples suffered in another era. In the celebrated case Loving v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court argued that “restricting marriage rights as belonging to one race or another is incompatible with the equal protection clause” under the US constitution. In connection with this analogy, it can be said that the normative power of marriage is worth little if it does grant the possibility to marry the person one chooses.

As they address the Windsor and Perry cases this spring, let’s hope that the Supreme Court rules as wisely in the US as the Mexico Court has found its rulings to be in Mexico.


February 18th, 2013

Was going to correct you but I realize what the title means now.

So, there needs to be three more cases before it’s law throughout the land? I mean, as in you can get a license anywhere in Mexico, instead of just Mexico City and so on.

Ben in Oakland

February 18th, 2013


I thought we all had the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex, no matter how meaningless to us personally, no matter how demeaning to marriage it might be for someone to get married who actually have no interest in this sacred bond.

Statements like this are enough to make you Maggie and Bobbie’s arguments aren’t worth the reliquary they arrived in.


February 18th, 2013

I’m sure Maggie would be quite pissed if her time machine placed her in 1966 and she was told that she was perfectly free to marry the Caucasian of her choice and no right to marry her (Indian) hubby.


February 19th, 2013

Ben in Oakland: that argument, more than any other I can think of, shows what a sham the “defense of marriage” pose really is. Anyone who advances that argument is displaying contempt for the institution.


February 19th, 2013

But isn’t SCOTUS, The Supreme Court Of The UNITED STATES? Mexico ruled not the USA. Maybe I just didn’t get a subtly here.

Timothy Kincaid

February 19th, 2013


That’s the irony. Mexico’s court based their ruling on the logic in Loving v Virginia and Lawrence v Texas. Looking at those cases (and seeing the inherent universality of their wisdom) it was clear to Mexico that marriage could not be denied to gay people. (They also looked at a case in Chile).

But our courts have not yet done as Mexico has done and heeded its own wisdom.

Ben in Oakland

February 19th, 2013

My point exactly, hunter. It makes a sham of the meaning of marriage.

Richard Rush

February 19th, 2013

Ben said, “I thought we all had the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex . . .”

That’s my very favorite argument from our opponents. While all arguments against same-sex marriage are dumb*, some are dumber* than others, and I view this as the dumbest* one of all.

I’ve always wanted to ask someone citing this argument how they would feel about their son/daughter marrying an opposite-sex homosexual person. And then, after they stumble over an answer, I’d ask them: Wouldn’t the institution of marriage benefit by the full acceptance/equality of gay people in society so that substantial numbers of them no longer felt they had to deceive an opposite-sex person into marrying them as a means of surviving in a hostile world? Wouldn’t society benefit if they married each other instead of your straight son or daughter? These are not trick-questions; it is the story of what I’ve seen repeatedly during my lifetime.

*or possibly smart/smarter/smartest from the standpoint of the argument’s perpetrators realizing that it will be persuasive among their gullible followers.

Timothy Kincaid

February 19th, 2013

I agree that it’s among the dumbest – mostly because not only is it not true in realistic terms, it’s not true in technical terms.

The question I want to ask our opponents who make this claim is this:

“If I were to marry a foreign national woman just so she could get a green card, would that be fraud?”

And the follow up:

“In what way would marrying a foreign national woman differ from the marriage you say that I can have?”

Steve Kindle

February 19th, 2013

There is a misquote that materially affects the argument in your report. Your statement left out the NOT. Here is how it should read.

“In connection with this analogy, it can be said that the normative power of marriage is worth little if it does not grant the possibility to marry the person one chooses.”

It’s amazing how many online sources repeated the quote without the “not.”

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.


Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.