¡Dios mio! The L.A. Times reports that marriage has been redefined in Mexico City. Three times the size of Texas, this Catholic-yet-left-leaning city is about to accept marriage as a “free union between two people” when Mayor Ebrard signs the bill this week.
Following the tiny but important step forward in D.C. marriage equality and the less heartening, large-scale setbacks elsewhere, I have to ask: what is it that makes D.C. different from California? What is happening in one district that isn’t in another?

Here’s one: Mexico City has had civil unions in effect since 2007. There wasn’t much coverage leading up to the redefinition of marriage because—frankly, it took baby steps for La Ciudad to get to full equality. Yes—couples were denied inheritance rights, joint loans, and join adoption under the civil unions, but guess what: they have marriage and most of us do not. Maybe we should spend some more time examining the Mexico City strategy.

I am as self-righteous and equality-driven as the next ‘mo. But every day that goes by where I’m one…abstract…step…closer to full marriage equality…is a day that won’t lower my tax bill, or lower my partner’s independent health insurance bills. All or nothing never worked in this country. Something, then something more always has.
What if Maine had expanded the rights within their civil unions instead of passing gay marriage? Would marriage equality be as daunting of an achievement in 2010 if the “marriage” addition was a mere formality? What would have happened in New York if the legislature voted on unions first? How many states would be likely to pass a civil union law today compared to a true marriage equality law?
Alright; gay apartheid is not my ethical ideal. But in the most Catholic of Catholic countries, in an enormous Latin American city, gays just made it from point A to point B. All in two measly years. Maybe the way to the end is the long way around.
- Login or register to post comments
- Comments [11]
- Share [+]
Tweet















Comments [11]
I don't mean to be a
I don't mean to be a nay-sayer, but the UK has had civil unions since '05 and no sign of gay marriage yet. I think it takes a lot of different things coming together to make a change in law like that.
I hope to see those changes though, because as long as the "big world leader" country next door is still largely against gay marriage then our own marriage rights are that much less secure. People in Canada and elsewhere can argue that we "just got carried away" and this isn't really going to last here. I want to see that change, for your sakes and my own.
Same here, in NZ
I predict it will never happen ... even our staunchest pro-gay rights (and rumoured gay) politicians have settled for the Civil Union olive branch.
Mexico?
really?
So Christian and Mormon groups will go to the other side of the world, to spread their hate towards the gays, but this is going ahead right next to the States and barely a word is said?
I guess Catholics have their flag so firmly planted in that country, that other denominations decided to not interfere ...
How much did the Catholic church fight for Prop 8 in California, in comparison to other religious groups?
Excellent question!
The Roman Catholic Church, through the Knights of Columbus, was every bit as active as the Mormon Church, and put up a tidy sum of money themselves. Rome is just more adept at controlling the media spin to keep themselves out of the spotlight, whereas the Mormons loved all the free publicity for their religious sect.
Evangelicals came in a distant third.
Your "Faith Based Initiative" tax dollars at work!
It's really not that complicated...
I agree that we are not going at this in the right way! While civil unions are not what we ultimately want - they are a POSITIVE step in the right direction - they are WINS! They are also what politicians and the voting public are willing to concede at this point in time. As is, we are waging a battle that cannot be won - over and over and over again to the tune of 31 to 0! Why in the world are we continuing to trudge in this direction? What I personally saw in Maine, as far as the campaign goes, is an antiquated system funneling money into a losing cause. I think we're going to have to clean house at a high level of campaign management before we can move in a positive/winning direction. Right now, we've got an overload of chiefs that are unwilling to change the process. We had better find some leadership willing to observe, learn, and change or we are going to set ourselves back for years.
We can do this - win our civil rights - but we are going to have to be intelligent and strategic....it has to be a combination of local, state, and federal wins.
Winning our rights is going to be just like winning an argument with a lover....get what you want by making it all their idea!
Twitter Time @kdhales
everything but
We should start by using what the Court gave us in the Prop 8 ruling — everything but the word marriage. That particular implication slipped by almost everyone.
"When you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will." ~ Pollyanna
The name matters not to me
Call it civil unions, marriage, shacking up, whatever. So long as we have the same rights as others, the label assigned becomes unimportant.
Funny thing...
If you look at all the various laws passed and failed, it occurs to me that the label doesn't really matter to evangelicals either. Seems all they want is to keep us unequal, less than what they suppose themselves to be.
"Winning our rights is going
"Winning our rights is going to be just like winning an argument with a lover....get what you want by making it all their idea!"
I really need to try this...
I think you're right Tex...
Didn't Obama say that he supported 'civil unions' during his campaign? Didn't he say he supported them on the federal level - with full rights and responsibilities? We should be approaching it from that angle...He said it, and used it to get himself elected, now we should hold him - and every other democrat that has made the same statement, to their word...
The state by state method is proving to be useless. And, that method affords us no federal protections... i.e. full tax rights as a couple, adoption rights, parental rights, etc.. These rights need to cross state lines - with a guarantee that they can't be taken away, or they mean nothing.
I'm with you.
You're probably right that most states would've readily passed civil unions thinking that would be the end of it. Then, slowly, quietly, we could have gone to the courts and pushed the separate and unequal argument which pretty much always wins in those scenarios.
Won't you be my neighbor? @theKELword
I would wager that the Mormons
Don't give a flying fuck about Mexico City. I could be wrong, but I think that might be a rather large denominator. I also think that in DC at least some of the politicos hesitated to interfere because it would then look, to at least some of us, like it had become a national issue rather than a local one. And the fact is, national is the real road to winning this thing, so that's the last way the haters want to see it go.