Two more Mexican states have same-sex marriages
December 30th, 2013
Mexico’s position on marriage equality is a convoluted one. Same-sex marriages may be conducted in Mexico City and in the state of Quintana Roo, but are recognized across the nation.
One state bans same-sex marriage, a few others offer civil unions, and the rest are in a sort of flux.
A year ago the Mexican Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have the civil right of marriage. However, the amparo process is not that of a single universal decision; rather, it speaks specifically to each case and, absent any contrary decisions, eventually and cumulatively gains the weight of law.
Now two more states have contributed to that on-going process, Jalisco and Chihuahua (ai!). From CNN Mexico (with a miserable Google translation)
Zaira de la O and Martha Sandoval will give you the “I do” before a judge in Jalisco on Saturday, becoming the first gay couple in a civil marriage in this state.
The Jalisco Civil Code does not provide for marriage between same sex couples get married but after the fourth Civil District Judge Material, granted them under.
and Diario (equally bad translation)
Accompanied by family and friends, Marco Quiroz and Jaime Villaseñor Gándara Salcido, were married on Friday at 18:00 in the city of Chihuahua. Judge who married in the Registry Office of Chihuahua, explained that because District judge ordered an injunction that marriage promoted by the parties and by the authority conferred by the State, the said united in marriage. “With all the rights that the law gives them, but also with all the obligations that it provides for married “both nodded at each word judge and became the first same-sex marriage in the state of Chihuahua.
It appears that there are four more couples in Chihuahua who wish to marry. If I understand the process correctly (and I don’t claim to), if each is granted an ampara, marriage equality becomes law in that state.
Violence-Plagued City in Mexico Elects First Gay Mayor
July 18th, 2013
Voters in Fresnillo (pop: 110,000), in northern Mexico’s violence-plagued Zacatecas state, have elected a new mayor. Benjamín Medrano Quezada, of the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI), will become Mexico’s first openly gay mayor when he is sworn into office. He won on a campaign aimed at building a new wastewater treatment plant, ending the drinking water shortage, improving roads and basic services, and addressing problems with the city’s troubled police force. Those concerns are far more pressing than anything else right now:
He said Thursday he won’t challenge the Catholic church, or advocate for gay marriage or adoption. Medrano instead says he’ll focus on more pressing issues, like professionalizing and vetting the city’s police force.
“It’s not like I’m going to paint town hall pink,” Medrano said.
SCOTUS ‘rules’ marriage legal in Mexico
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.
Marriage update – North America
January 25th, 2013
It’s getting marriagey all over the place. And it’s also getting hard to keep track of what is going on where. So here is an update to help (which will probably be outdated by the time I hit “publish”).
Canada - Marriage has been equal since 2005.
Mexico - Marriage is equal in Mexico City, and marriages conducted there are recognize throughout the nation. However, in December, the Supreme Court unanimously found that an anti-gay marriage law in Oaxaca was unconstitutional. Due to Mexico’s complicated legal system, this means that marriages are highly likely to eventually be legal throughout the nation, but the process requires that five same-sex couples in each state file an amparo (civil rights claim) and that the court issue the same ruling on each. It may take some time for the legality of the state by state process to catch up, but the reality is that any Mexican couple wishing to marry probably can, either immediately or through petition.
United States - Several locales provide or have provided marriage equally:
- Massachusetts –
- California – 2008, but rescinded that year
- Connecticut – 2008
- Vermont – 2009
- Iowa – 2009
- New Hampshire – 2010
- The District of Columbia – 2010
- New York – 2011
- Washington – 2012
- Maryland – 2012
- Maine – 2013
In addition, two Native American tribes, the Coquille in Oregon and the Suquamish in Washington provide marriage equally to their members.
Current and upcoming movement on the marriage front includes:
* DOMA3 – several federal courts have found the federal prohibition on recognition of legally married same-sex couples – the Defense of Marriage Act, Section 3 – to be unconstitutional on several grounds. The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear one case, Windsor v. the United States, a case in which Edie Windsor was assessed in excess of $300,000 in inheritance tax from her wife’s estate, a tax that does not apply to heterosexuals. On Tuesday, the special counsel for the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (at the direction of House Speaker John Boehner) filed its arguments in defense of the law (I’ll try to get an analysis up soon). It argued that BLAG has standing to support the law, that only rational basis should apply to anti-gay discrimination, that the nation needs uniform recognition, and that states should be allowed to decline to offer equality if they so choose (thus, I assume, vetoing other states in the name of uniformity). Today Professor Victoria C. Jackson will, at the court’s request, filing a brief insisting that BLAG has no standing and on February 26th, Windsor’s team will present arguments as to why she should not be discriminated against. Oral arguments before SCOTUS will be on March 27th, and the Court will likely release it’s ruling in June. Whichever way it goes, it will probably only impact couples in states which allow marriage.
* Proposition 8 - this is the highest profile case, but it could end up having the least legal effect. In 2008, the California Supreme Court found the state’s law prohibiting same-sex marriage to be a violation of the state’s constitution. For several months, same-sex couples could legally marry, but in November the voters approved Proposition 8 by 52%, ending marriage equality in the Golden State. In May 2009, Ted Olson, one of the most prominent Republican attorneys and David Boies, one of the most prominent Democratic attorneys, teamed up to fight for the legal overturn of that proposition. In January 2010, though cameras were banned from the courtroom, the nation was captivated by the reporting about the case – a trial not only on the legality of the proposition but also on its merits. Federal Judge Vaughn Walker eventually found the proposition to violate the US Constitution on broad grounds. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision, but on much narrower grounds: that a state cannot provide a right to all citizens and then take it away from a select few. Last month the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal, but added the question as to whether the proponents defending the law (the Governor and Attorney General declined to do so) have standing. On Tuesday the proponents of the law filed their brief (I’ll try to get an analysis up soon). Olson and Boies have until February 21st to respond, and oral arguments will be on March 26th with a likely result in June. While the Court could find that the US Constitution guarantees marriage equality across the land, it could also choose to narrow its ruling to the unique issues of the case and only impact Californians.
* Rhode Island - on Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee unanimously approved the marriage bill. The full House voted in favor today 51-19. However, the Senate is less certain. Although Rhode Island is virtually a single-party state (the Senate has 32 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 1 Independent), the Senate President, Teresa Paiva-Weed, is an opponent to equality. She has said that she will allow a committee to hear the matter, but in times past she has made certain that committees were selected to prevent equality.
I have started a petition at Change.org to request that should Paiva-Weed obstruct or block the passage of this bill, that Rhode Island State Senators remove her from power. Please go sign this petition.
* Illinois - a marriage bill was submitted during the first week of the year in a lame-duck session. Due to difficulty in corralling members returning from holiday, the vote never took place.
After the new legislature was is session, the bill was reintroduced. Currently the status is a bit in limbo as the bill is yet to be sent to committee.
However, that does not mean that there is no excitement, just that it’s happening outside the legislature and in an unexpected arena. The GOP chairman has come out in favor of marriage, which has angered social conservatives in the state. Bit though they are demanding his resignation and threatening ouster, the party insiders are lining up behind the chairman. At the moment it seem like the prevailing position may end up, “we may not support equality, but we support those who do.” In any case, this latest public squabble serves our community well.
* Minnesota - fresh off a victory in turning back an anti-marriage bill in November, Minnesotans for All Families is fighting on and will present a marriage bill to the legislature next month. The political strategist who generaled the battle is staying on to finish the war.
Polls are breaking even in the state and the DFL (Democratic) party has a slim lead in each house, so they will have their work cut out for them. But I would be surprised if the state did not take some movement towards couple recognition.
* Colorado - supporters filed an everything-but-the-name Civil Unions bill which is pretty much guaranteed to pass. More than half of each house has signed on as sponsors. This is as far as that state can go at present, as there is a state constitutional ban on equality.
* Wyoming - out of pretty much nowhere and flying way below the radar, lesbian Sen. Cathy Connolly has file both a domestic partnership bill and a marriage bill. Both have significant Republican support.
They may not be attracting much buzz on these bills due to party power; Republicans dominate both houses by overwhelming numbers. But Wyoming Republicans are traditionally pretty libertarian in their thinking and local papers are mostly quoting the bills’ Republican cosponsors. It may be early yet, but so far there doesn’t appear to be any visible organized opposition. I would not be altogether shocked if one of the bills passed or, at least, got a decent vote.
* New Jersey - the legislature of this state has already passed a marriage bill which was vetoed by the governor. However there are the paths to equality that might be achievable.
One is to take it to the people. But though a supporter brought such a bill, it was quickly dismissed due to the inherent insult of voting on a minority’s civil rights. (Personally, I’d rather win at the polls that fight over whether its an insult to do so.)
The second path, the one favored by equality leaders in the state, is to continue building support one by one until we have the numbers to override a veto. That would require substantial Republican support and this would be held off until after the next primary to minimize conservative backlash.
The third possibility doesn’t appear likely, but it shouldn’t be written off. Governor Chris Christie is a politician, and politicians are susceptible to evolution.
Christie made his mark in the Republican Party by being hard nose on fiscal issues but being more progressive on social issues. He was the poster boy for supporting civil unions, a position that made him seem ahead of the curve. As the Party moves away from anti-gay hostility, he may find it necessary to move as well. It’s not a bet I’d take, but it’s not outside the realm if possible for the Governor to hold to his views but still find some way to allow marriage to become law.
* Hawaii - I’ve no idea why marriage hasn’t already become law.
I think it can be hardest sometimes in states in which one party dominates. In mega-red states, we have little hope (though i just made a case for Wyoming). But in all-blue states, its not always much better. There’s no reason for Democrats to show the voters the difference between them and Republicans, so they fell less pressure to live up to their potential.
I’m sure I’ve missed some state in there. And, of course, you have to always expect that something completely unexpected will happen.
Tomorrow I’ll try to provide an update for Europe and South America.
Yesterday, a state representative in Hawaii filed a bill for marriage equality. She had no cosponsors. Also yesterday, 15 representatives filed a bill calling for a constitutional amendment banning equality. It was also introduced in the senate. Additionally, a state senator filed a pair of ‘take it to the people’ bills which would have voters choose to either allow or ban marriage in the constitution (he’s an opponent of equality). All in all, it looks dire for marriage in Hawaii.
Making Sense of the Mexico Decision, Ctd. — What is an Amparo?, Ctd.
December 7th, 2012
The whole amparo thing is still baffling to us gringos. To get caught up, see Timothy’s post on Mexico’s Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage here, and my followup on what an amparo is here. I’m now hearing that for an amparo to become binding, it will require five consecutive identical decisions in a row in each state in order for the ruling to become binding for that state. My earlier understanding was that it only took five consecutive identical amparo rulings before it became binding nationwide. Based on this new understanding, Oaxaca needs two more amparos in a row before same-sex marriage becomes a done deal. Unless the legislature changes the law first, which this report (Google translate) indicates that process is now on a pretty good track.
Mexico has thirty states, plus the Distrito Federal, where Mexico City is located. Right now, the D.F. is the only place where same-sex couples can go to get married except for the three couples named in the Oaxacan amparos. Those marriages however are recognized nationwide. We learned yesterday that couples were trying to obtain marriage licenses in Toluca in the state of Mexico, with the aim of filing amparos if their request is denied. I haven’t heard the outcome of that attempt yet. The bottom line appears to be this: Mexico is now in a state-by-state process of providing marriage equality, much like the U.S. But since the process is going ahead with the national Supreme Court’s blessing, its possible that there may be somewhat fewer bumps in the road along the way.
Making Sense of the Mexico Decision, Ctd. — What is an Amparo?
December 6th, 2012
Not to contradict anything that Timothy wrote — he has explained the Mexican marriage decision far more clearly than I ever could — but I wanted to add an answer to a question that maybe some of you asked and others (like myself) didn’t know to ask: What is an Amparo?
It turns out it’s not just any kind of a court case, but a rather special one. Similar to a writ of habeus corpus, which protects an individuals physical liberty, a recurso de amparo – amparo literall means “protection” in Spanish — protects all other forms of liberty. (In fact, habeous corpus in Mexico is just one of five specific types of amparos, called an amparo libertad.) Amparos are a particular kind of constitutional human rights complaint challenging an action which conflicts with the Mexican Constitution and/or international human rights protocols. Amparos, as a legal device, were invented in Mexico in the early 1800s, and their use has spread, in various forms, through much of the Spanish-speaking world.
The couples in these three cases filed amparos charging that Oaxaca’s Civil Code was unconstitutional because it excludes gay couples from marriage and that the Congress of Oaxaca had failed to protect their families, a right guaranteed under the Mexican Constitution. Two of the amparos were denied at the lower court level, and one was approved. The cases were then appealed to the Supreme Court, resulting in that court’s granting of these three amparos.
As Timothy pointed out, these decisions apply only to those parties named in these amparos, in much the same way that a writ of habeus corpus applies only to the named parties in the U.S. Which, as I understand it, means that the decision so far applies only to Oaxaca. It takes five consecutive, identical amparos before the ruling becomes universally binding. Already, couples are going to the Civil Registry Office in Toluca requesting marriage licenses and are prepared to file amparos if their requests are denied. But, as Timothy also explained, many local officials may go ahead and begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples based on these decisions. But if two more officials deny a marriage license and those couples file an amparo, we may get the five decisions bringing marriage equality to yet another nation.
Making sense of the Mexico decision
December 6th, 2012
Unlike the United States’ judiciary procedures, in Mexico judicial decisions have more of a cumulative or consensus impact. While the exact details are still murky (to me) it seems that court decisions apply only to the case at hand. However, if five cases (amparos) of a similar nature have five identical conclusions (without any differing conclusions) then this becomes the law.
In the Oaxaca decision, there were three cases which reached identical conclusion. Which means that if two more cases are pursued and the same conclusion is reached (as is likely), then all state laws excluding same-sex marriages are invalidated.
And, also unlike the US court decisions, this process can be quite a swift one; the cases decided yesterday were filed in August 2011.
But it is also possible that the three cases may prove, in practice, to be sufficient. As the intention of the court is pretty clear (unanimous decisions can give that impression), local officials may wish to avoid the hassle of upholding a law that they know has no high-court support and thus will simply issue marriage licenses.
And states may wish to avoid the hassle and cost of fighting a losing battle and will change their state laws to match what is clearly the new national standard. In fact, as I write this Oaxaca’s legislature is in the process of changing their laws.
Also interesting is that this was not the result of gay-rights groups making a strategic decision based on timing and friendly lower courts and bringing their best and most experienced legal team. These suits were brought by a law student, Alex Alí Méndez Díaz, who bucked the advice of the established LGBT groups and found in the Mexico City ruling language that encouraged him to pursue the cases.
However, the greatest boost to the cases probably came from outside Mexico. (Salon)
Méndez got an unexpected boost on Feb. 24, 2012, while the cases were in process: a landmark ruling from the Inter-American Court that the American Convention on Human Rights “prohibits … any rule, act, or discriminatory practice based on sexual orientation.” It came in a case brought by a Chilean lesbian who was denied custody of her children because of her sexual orientation, Karen Atala Riffo y Niñas v. Chile.
Mexico gives weight to international court rulings.
All of this is to say that Mexico has not become the twelfth country to offer nation-wide marriage equality, but it certainly has taken a large step in that direction. As I see it (though with this issue you can always be surprised) the other major likely contenders for that position are Colombia, Uruguay, New Zealand, and the various UK countries.
UPDATE: Michael Levers, writing at the Washington Blade, has an article that helps explain the case. Meanwhile, additional couples are pursuing marriage in Toluca, in an effort that will set the ball rolling for additional amparos.
Mexico Supreme Court overturns state law restricting marriage
December 5th, 2012
Since 2010, same-sex couples can marry in Mexico City and have that marriage recognized throughout the country. But with a ruling from the Supreme Court today, such couples can now marry in the state of Oaxaca – and probably all across the nation.
La Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (SCJN) eliminó del Código Civil de Oaxaca el artículo 143 que establecía que el matrimonio sólo es entre un hombre y una mujer.
A partir de hoy, se sustituye con la resolución de la Corte, que implica matrimonios “entre dos personas”, por lo que no importa si son de distintos sexos o del mismo.
The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) eliminated Oaxaca Civil Code Article 143 which stated that marriage is only between a man and a woman.
Beginning today, is replaced with the Court ruling, involving marriages “between two people”, so it does not matter if they are of different sexes or the same.
Two years ago the Catholic Church went entirely nuts claiming that the court was bribed and threatened war. It will be interesting to see what absurdities they will claim about today’s unanimous decision.
Mexico City marriages get nationwide recognition
August 23rd, 2012
According to huffpo
Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that all 31 states must recognize same-sex marriages performed in the capital, though its decision does not force those states to begin marrying gay couples in their territory. In a 9-2 decision, the tribunal cited an article of the constitution requiring states to recognize legal contracts drawn up elsewhere. I thought they already we required.
Because they are. duh
Cancun equality on hold
January 12th, 2012
According to media reports, the Quintana Roo Secretary of State, Lois Gonzalez Flores, has ordered a legal review of the state’s marriage law. Until the state’s position is determined, same-sex marriages in Quintana Roo (home of Cancun) are put on hold.
Marriage equality comes to straightsville
December 29th, 2011
Is there a city on the planet that screams “drunk heterosexual American college student” louder than Cancun? But the (admittedly beautiful) Mexican party city is now seeking to expand its appeal. So, due to a quirk in the law, Cancun and its neighbors in Quintana Roo County will begin offering same-sex marriages. (Foxipoo)
Novelo said that this “is something very positive. Besides the social part there are many economic benefits because the gay community generates between 45 and 60 percent more income on top of conventional tourism.”
She said gay and lesbian marriages are possible in Quintana Roo, “thanks to a legal gap in the Civil Code,” which only makes mention of “people interested in getting married,” without specifying their gender.
However, this was more of an accidental tourist attraction. At first Cancun officials just assumed that the law did not allow for same sex marriage. (Latin American Herald)
“We were more than two months going through the procedures in different Quintana Roo Civil Registry Offices – in Cancun, Playa del Carmen, Chetumal and elsewhere – and none would allow us to register,” she said.
According to Novelo, in none of those cities would authorities allow the couples to present their legal arguments.
But in Kantunilkin, Judge Maria Rosalia Balam Caamal and other members of the Civil Registry Office decided to give them the chance.
After an initial refusal, and after several days of analysis, “they finally told us that the marriage was possible and that they had no legal arguments to deny it,” she said.
Marriages conducted in states in which it is legal in Mexico are recognized throughout the whole country.
Mexican Lawyer Faces 14 Months Imprisonment For Defending Gay Educator
September 13th, 2011
In 2009, a gay man, Agustín Estrada Negrete, was fired as head of a school for children of disabilities in the state of Mexico, just west of Mexico City. Jaime López Vela, a human rights lawyer with Agenda LGBT, agreed to help him. They set up a meeting with officials with the state of Mexico in Toluca. A group of supportive parents organized a protest in front if the state offices, when police came in and arrested López and charged him with “insult to police and obstruction on the road.” Other protesters, including, mothers and children, were beaten as they tried to prevent the arrests. López, who would later be the first to be married by the mayor of Mexico City when same-sex marriages became legal, was beaten several times during his detention and is still facing 14 months in prison for that incident. Estrada was also arrested and beaten, and he has since fled to the U.S. and is seeking asylum. And Paul Canning has the gory details.
Couple recognition in Latin America
August 10th, 2011
As it stands, much of Latin America either has some form of couple recognition or is in the process of doing so.
Marriage – Argentina 2010
Marriage – Mexico 2010 – marriage must occur in Mexico City but recognized throughout
Civil Unions – Uruguay 2007
Civil Unions – Ecuador 2008
Civil Unions – Brazil 2011
Proposed – Colombia 2011 – Court directed the legislature to draft law
Proposed – Chile 2011 – President proposed Life Partnership (Civil Unions) bill
Tensions Rise in Guadalajara
August 22nd, 2010
First off, let me begin by saying that I’m having trouble with the AP’s headline (“Mexican Catholics, gay rights protesters face off“) because more than three-quarters of all Mexicans identify as Roman Catholic, including undoubtedly a similar proportion of LGBT Mexicans. But tensions do appear to be rising in Guadalajara, home to Cardinal Juan Sandoval Iniguez, who accused the mayor of Mexico City of bribing the nation’s Supreme Court to find that Mexico City’s marriage equality law was constitutional. The Court then followed that with another ruling declaring that LGBT people cannot be discriminated against in adoption. As Timothy Kincaid noted, Iniguez’ head exploded, and claimed he had “proof” that the fix is in. But also in that LA Times story, we have this:
Cardinal Juan Sandoval Iniguez, archbishop of Guadalajara and one of the most senior prelates in the nation, in recent days made especially harsh comments widely seen here as offensive. His statement set off a firestorm in a country where, by law, the church is not supposed to get involved in politics.
Calling same-sex unions an “aberration,” he said, “Would you want to be adopted by a pair of faggots or lesbians?”
So that set the stage for Sunday morning’s march by LGBT advocates at the plaza next to Guadalajara’s Cathedral. According to the AP, they were met by a similar number of protesters opposed to the court’s decision. The AP reports that “One of them ripped up a sign held by a gay rights activist, prompting screaming by both sides.”
Writing for the blog for the magazine U.S. Catholic, Bryan Cones laments the Cardinal’s rhetoric, and called him out in particular for hurling anti-gay epithets. And for good reason:
Indeed, the Catholic side of this debate must tread carefully, for several reasons. First, there are many gay and lesbian people in the church, called by God into it through their baptism. Catholic conversation about homosexuality must always keep in mind that we are talking about members of the body of Christ here.
Second, there are more and more Catholic families with openly gay and lesbian children, many of whom are grown and have partners and families of their own. The blood of family being thicker than the waters of baptism, the participants in the Catholic debate about gay marriage must recognize that many Catholic parents long ago accepted the sexuality of their gay children, have come to love their partners, and treasure the grandchildren they have through them.
Cones cited the poll we discussed last month which found that Latino Catholics in California were more likely to vote for marriage equality than any other religious/ethnic combination surveyed, and said, “That’s the family dynamic at work.”
Update: According to this Spanish language report, another confrontation occurred Saturday afternoon between about 400 conservative Catholics and approximately 150 LGBT advocates. The war of words was rough, according to my rough translation:
En ese momento se desató una guerra de consignas: “¡guerra-guerra contra lucifer!” y “¡adopten un perro maricones!”, gritaban los católicos encarando a los grupos gay, quienes respondieron: “¡nos vamos a casar y vamos a adoptar, nos vamos a casar y vamos a adoptar!”
“¡Ustedes dense, pero dejen a los niños en paz!”, profirió un joven católico haciendo la seña del acto sexual; además, ponían el pulgar hacia abajo en señal de desaprobación, y en respuesta los integrantes de la diversidad sexual gritaban “¡pederastas!”
[That's when a war of words broke out: "War! War against Lucifer" and "Adopt dogs, faggots!" shouted the Catholics confronting the gay groups, who responded, "We're getting married and we're going to adopt, we're getting married and we're going to adopt!"
"Go ahead, but leave the kids alone," shouted a young Catholic while making a gesture of a sexual act, and then putting his thumbs down in disapproval. And in response, members of the sexual diversity groups were shouting, "Pedophiles!"
Second Update: My translation of "¡Ustedes dense" as "Go ahead" may be a bit off, according to commenters. I can usually handle straight-on Spanish, but idiomatic expressions often elude me. This one apparently has a crude sexual connotation as well, sort of on the lines of "Go f*ck yourselves." Classy people, aren't they?]
Meanwhile, the College of Catholic Lawyers of Mexico announced that will file a request for impeachment before Mexico’s lower House of Congress against the Supreme Court judges who ruled in favor of marriage equality.
Mexico’s Catholic Church threatens war
August 20th, 2010
You can’t always trust what you read on the often-nutty Catholic news source LifeSiteNews, but considering the wackadoodle craziness we’ve been hearing from the Catholic hierarchy in Mexico lately, it’s hard to put anything beyond them.
As we told you, Cardinal Juan Sandoval Iniguez of Guadalajara accused the mayor of Mexico City of bribing the nation’s Supreme Court to find that Mexico City’s marriage equality law did not violate the constitution. And he says he has proof.
Mayor Marcelo Ebrard filed a defamation suit against Iniguez. And it is in that context that LifeSiteNews tells us:
The spokesman for the Archdiocese of Mexico City, Hugo Valdemar, is coming out swinging against the socialist political establishment, which is threatening him, the city’s cardinal archbishop and the cardinal archbishop of Guadalajara, with punitive measures following comments condemning the city’s new pro-abortion and gay “marriage” legislation.
Denouncing the “new religious persecution” begun by Mexico City Chief of Government Marcelo Ebrard, which is motivated by “intolerance, hatred, and viscerality,” Valdemar warned that the actions of the mayor could “unleash a war in the country.”
If, indeed, the Church is declaring Holy War on the government, then this is actually becoming serious.