Now, let's bribe the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in our favor too!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 5:46 AM GMT
    Roman Catholic Cardinal Sandoval Iniguez today accused Mexico City's mayor and international gay organizations, A.K.A. the omnipotent Gay Lobby, of conspiring and bribing with big money nine of the eleven justicess of the Mexican Supreme Court so they would vote in a quick succession in favor of the constitutionality of same sex marriage, the validity of these marriages in the whole country and the right of persons in these marriages to adopt if the local legislation allows for it (and it does in Mexico City). Hell, for good measure he even threw Spain's President Zapatero and global "big capitalists" into the whole mess.

    I mean, it would be laughable if it wasn't right down creepy that someone's existential certainty is so invested in gay people being without legitimate rights to form a family that he rathers see big international conspirancies. You see this might just be the fear that propels them to keep fighting viciously.

    Meanwhile, the soap opera begins. For the first time in the weeks since the Supreme Court began handing victory after victory to gay rights the issue is being not just mentioned in passing in the news but it is the main issue and thankfully the traditionalists are the one's losing their grip in the narrative with an outraged Mexico City's mayor demanding a public apology from the cardinal in less than 24 hours before suing him for slander; and also the full Supreme Court voting to censure the cardinal... yes, even the 2 justices that had consistently voted against gay rights are not happy.

    So now you know the "truth". We, the Gay Lobby, can bribe our way to our rights... we did it in Mexico. So what do you think is the U.S. Supreme Courts' price? Can you just make a deal with Justice Kennedy or you think you should as well buy Chief Justice Roberts for further legitimacy?


    I'll keep you updated.

    P.S.: Yes, we do have our share of corruption and bribery in Mexico. But this one is laughable even for Mexican standards. He might as well blame U.F.O.s or the devil... oh wait!

    Some sources:

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/epa/article/ALeqM5jRJeuRSt_oSEE0gj3fmsxbLRy04Q

    http://www.cronica.com.mx/nota.php?id_nota=525945

    http://www.cronica.com.mx/nota.php?id_nota=525888
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 6:21 AM GMT
    Thanks for this interesting news. The linked stories are all Spanish, which I can read well enough to understand most of it. But since I do not understand how your Mexican Supreme Court operates, some questions, please.

    The second article says 9 of the 11 justices also now support gay adoption, which I know was a secondary issue being considered, besides gay marriage. But is that now decided as law? Or have the justices merely expressed an opinion, that must be voted into law?

    Since I do not understand how your Federal & Judicial system work, this is not clear to me. What is the standing now of gay adoption in Mexico?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 6:42 AM GMT
    Wilton saidThanks for this interesting news. The linked stories are all Spanish, which I can read well enough to understand most of it. But since I do not understand how your Mexican Supreme Court operates, some questions, please.

    The second article says 9 of the 11 justices also now support gay adoption, which I know was a secondary issue being considered, besides gay marriage. But is that now decided as law? Or have the justices merely expressed an opinion, that must be voted into law?

    Since I do not understand how your Federal & Judicial system work, this is not clear to me. What is the standing now of gay adoption in Mexico?


    I am pleased to explain to the most of my knowledge but remember I'm no lawyer so I'll explain without the fancy terms:

    The ruling on adoption mirrors their first ruling on marriage equality itself: They are ruling wheter what Mexico City did is constitutional or not and wheter other states can do it too, not if they must do it too:

    SSM/Gay adoption is permissible under the Mexican federal constitution and any state (or the Federal District) may enact SSM and/or gay adoption without running afoul of the federal constitution but no state is compelled to enact marriage equality or gay adoption if they don't want to.

    However all states are to recognize SSMs performed in Mexico City (and eventually other states and foreign SSMs) but it seems they are adding some caveats to that: all states must recognize SSMs, but they can reserve from them rights NOT mentioned in federal law... among these: adoption. It might get complicated... social security, federal; adoption, state law; etc.

    There are lots of details still unaddressed because we don’t have the whole documents of the case yet. They don’t vote on the full "package" like the U.S. Supreme Court but vote on particular issues, add these to the package and then vote on the full package at the end.
    .
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 7:00 AM GMT
    From Volokh.com:

    Dale CarpenterWhile we've been focusing on whether proponent-intervenors have standing under Article III to defend a citizen initiative, gay marriage is taking hold in Mexico. Over the past few weeks, that country's supreme court has decided three important cases on the issue. On March 4, Mexico City's council voted to recognize SSM. In the first of its decisions, the supreme court agreed that Mexico City had the power to recognize SSMs under that country's federalist system. Second, it held that such marriages are valid throughout the country. Today, it held that Mexico City had the power to include adoptions by same-sex couples in its marriage law.


    http://volokh.com/2010/08/16/ssm-in-mexico/

    Just a few corrections: Mexico City doesn't have a city council but a Legislative Assembly (just a step away from an actual State Legislature) and it did vote to recognize SSM in November, 2009 and the law went into effect on March 4.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 7:25 AM GMT
    Engineer saidThere are lots of details still unaddressed because we don’t have the whole documents of the case yet. They don’t vote on the full "package" like the U.S. Supreme Court but vote on particular issues, add these to the package and then vote on the full package at the end.

    Thank you, that helps me to understand a little better.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2010 5:55 AM GMT
    You're welcome! icon_smile.gif