04 March 2010

A tale of two cities

Gay marriage came to Washington DC and Mexico City this week. The latter is a particularly important beachhead since it is, to my knowledge, the first jurisdiction in all of Latin America to take this step -- and is already inspiring others throughout the region.


Blogger mendip said...

Hopefully, both measures will stick. But DC is effectively ruled by Congress (and to some extent, federal courts); there is still plenty of mischief and reaction to contend with in both places. It is an old tradition for conservative legislators to stick it to the citizens of Washington as a cheap and risk-free method of establishing reactionary bonafides at home.
One gratifying thing has been to see the churlishness and hatred from many of the established churches and religions in the area to gay marriages, particularly on the part of Catholicism. (A quick search of the Post should reveal some nice reactions). The trumpeted charity and love of jesus seems to be unable to swim across the Anacostia River....

04 March, 2010 05:55  
Blogger Infidel753 said...

Too true. Multnomah county, where I live, legalized gay marriage a few years ago, only to have it overturned by a statewide referendum. (That's part of why I take such an interest in the issue -- I've seen the mean-spiritedness of the knuckle-draggers up close.) But I hope we're in a rather different time now -- even in Mexico.

04 March, 2010 06:33  
Blogger Holte Ender said...

I have thought for a while that biggest obstacle to legalizing gay marriage was the words "Gay Marriage." Those words stick in the head of people with no tolerance, no original thoughts and no compassion. A change of language might move things along, "Civil Union, Civil Partnership" would give the gay community, what I think, they want and that is Civil Rights. The right to care for and visit a sick partner in hospital, property rights, acceptance in all legal rights that pertain to hetro couples. The word marriage paints a picture of a bride and groom, whereas Civil Union is more generic in nature but nonetheless legally binding.

04 March, 2010 07:39  
Blogger Infidel753 said...

It's true that civil unions have more support, but the fact remains that it's a separate concept and in many cases doesn't involve all the same legal privileges and rights that marriage does. Simply extending the existing institution of marriage to include homosexuals covers everything at a stroke.

Having a separate institution also raises "separate-but-equal" issues, of course.

I support civil unions as a temporary solution in jurisdictions where actual marriage isn't yet possible -- but where it is, why settle for less?

04 March, 2010 07:53  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home