Beat ya! Mexican Supreme Court one up on the US Supremes
(Update 7-January-2016). Having been “prompted to blog triumphantly” on this matter, according to Allen Wall, a writer for the white supremacist VDare dot com website (no way would I link to it), a few observations for those who may have come here from his link.
— Wall, and other anti-immigrants may not like it, but the dismissal of Mr. Crespo-Cagnant’s expedited removal order has to do with U.S. officials not following U.S. law, not any “fraud” on the part of Mr. Crespo -Cagnant.
— Wall has harped for years about “white Mexicans”. He’s always had a hard-on about Jorge Ramírez’ blue eyes, though out of jealousy or just to somehow discredit the respected television newsman’s role as a prominent spokesperson for Latin American immigrants is something I’ve never understood. Wall whines that because Crespo-Cagnant “bears a certain resemblance to Bush crony and former U.S. ambassador to Mexico Antonio Garza” he is somehow less worthy of protection by the U.S. courts than others. Which kinda makes his diatribe in a “white nationalist” publication all the more bizarre. But, then, Wall is of the bizarro-land theory that lifting the expedited removal order has to do with media perception: “MSM simply wants more Third World immigration—justified by any means necessary. […] As Crespo-Cagnant is a white, urban-looking Mexican, he could fit in quite comfortably in the powerful gay subculture of Mexico City, where gay marriage has been legal since 2010.
— What’s “urban-looking”? White-ish? A lot of “white” people live in the rural north, which is — alas — still a hotbed of resistance to GLBT tolerance. And, what is a “gay subculture” and where is it written that Mr. Crespo-Cagnant has any interest in being part of that “subculture”? What evidence is there that Mr. Crespo-Cagnant is from an urban family, or that his “well founded fear of persecution” isn’t true. Yes, we do have better tolerance for GLBT in Mexico than in the United States (something true of most “Catholic” countries), but to claim… as Wall does… that “hatred for the historic American nation and its traditional, Christian culture,” is the rationale for a judge’s ruling that even the Department of Homeland Security must follow the law.
Finally, I would add that comments are moderated. Claiming one’s “first amendment rights” might be abrogated holds no water with me. The U.S. Constitution forbids the GOVERNMENT to censor speech, not private individuals in their own publications. Secondly, this site is published in Mexico (and hosted in Canada), so I don’t give it a second thought if I decide to edit or censor your comments or — should I feel so inclined — to mock, deride, discredit said comments, as well as publishing your ISP and email address.
What I wrote way back when:
With the election, a “small” item slipped by the media this last week of some note… quite a bit of note, actually.
With no fanfare, and while its ruling has not yet been published (possibly held off until after the election), the Mexican Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex marriages are legal everywhere in the Republic.
When same-sex marriages were first legalized within the Federal District, several states (as in the United States) amended their state constitutions to define marriage as “one man-one woman” relationships. Two states (Quintana Roo and Coahuila) have since instituted same-sex marriage and the Mexican Supreme Court already ruled (without any real discussion, or dissent) that marriages in one jurisdiction within the Republic were valid in all jurisdictions… before anyone in the US was really even aware of the Windsor case.
Last week, the Court heard, and apparently has decided, that based on Mexico’s own “bill of rights” (articulo 1° in our Constitution) that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation (something added years ago, also without any real fights), that those “one man-one woman” restrictions are invalid.
The rules of the court require hearing five similar cases, before it can order states to change their constitutions to conform to the federal constitution, and — having already ruled on cases from Oaxaca, Baja California, Sinaloa, and the State of México — a challenge to Colima’s marriage laws (Colima had created a form of civil partnership, that was separate, but less equal to marriage) was heard by the court with only the briefest of discussion before being voted on by the magistrates.
While it can be expected that state legislatures will drag their feed in changing their own marriage laws, and one can expect some last-ditch resistance (perhaps, as in some US states, trying to build in some “conscience clause” for civil registrars who don’t want to do their job), judges throughout the Republic will have no recourse but to order registrars to perform their legal duty, and basically, the fight that was never a fight here, but some kind of crusade up there, is over.
Strange people north of the border… with their quaint folkways and resistance to joining the modern world.
(J. Lester Feder, “Mexico Appears To Have Crossed A Major Hurdle To Marriage Equality“, Buzzfeed, 5 June 2015)