Hi.
I may not be gay, and I may not be a Yank, but I'm very happy for the Yankee gay community:
The United States is now the 6th country in America to legalize gay marriage(After Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Mexico and Uruguay).

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/supreme-court-affirms-right-to-gay-marriage-122495807066.html

Honestly, I'm surprised that nobody before me opened this discussion.
Well, opinions, anypony?

If anybody wishes to discuss "Gay Marriage and Adoption", I'm opening that discussion in the Group "Stories about Adoption":
http://www.fimfiction.net/group/205887/stories-about-adoption/thread/188721/gay-marriage-now-legal-in-the-usa

4500018

The United States is now the 6th country in America to legalize gay marriage

You learn something new everyday.

4500018 well it should have never been a topic to discuss to legalize in the first place as it is america where we can practice what we want

4500070
I agree, but it's kinda hard to do that with all the zealots running around screaming that not being heterosexual is a crime against the natural order and other such nonsense. It's even worse with the more radical people inflicting unnecessary harm because they aren't heterosexual.

Quite simply, the zealots believe that tolerating those who aren't heterosexual is a sign of the apocalypse.

4500094 which can be stupid

I'm just glad the court ruled this way. It's about time.

4500031
There are many people who consider North America and South America to be a single continent. Judging by the countries they referenced shortly thereafter, NachoTheBrony is one such person.

As for the actual topic, while this is great, it is in no way surprising. The four liberal Justices and Justice Kennedy (the "Swing-Justice," as it were) all voted the same way that they have in every Supreme Court case related to same-sex marriage. I understand the jubilation (as much as any heterosexual person can, at least), but this really wasn't that hard to see coming.

4500018

Oh, we're just behind Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina in terms of marriage equality. So, despite our massive wealth and technological advantages, not to mention military might and political influence, we got beat by a fragile and corrupt state teeming with drug cartels and refugees, a corrupt oligarchy and semi-police state, and a super corrupt (and also oligarchic) dictatorship, respectively.

That's really pathetic. We shouldn't be getting kudos for being the most powerful nation on Earth and taking this much time to enact such a basic cornerstone of human rights.

4500412 Americans just need a little more time to accept basic civic rights, that's all. Give America a few more years decades, and you may even see the concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay being closed down.

4500018 Living in a very Catholic country which now has one of the most progressive law concerning LGBT, I will say this to the US:

About time!

4501848
Cut us a break; it's hard to get enough people to agree on anything in a country of this size.

4501859 Now I'm also waiting for Russia to do the same. Though considering how orthodox they are, it will definetely take a while.

4501865
I think it'll take Russia a while not due to Orthodoxy, but because, despite the Cold War ending, it's government still holds a heavy hand of power over the people's opinions. So in places like that (and more so China where the Communist Party rules totally) public opinion won't have as heavy an impact as the U.S.

4500018

As a 'Yank', I thank you for starting this thread.

4500018 America is more than one country?

4501955

Well, technically, the U.S.A was supposed to be . . .

4501781
4500412

Americans just need a little more time to accept basic civic rights, that's all. Give America a few more years decades, and you may even see the concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay being closed down.

I'll say centuries. That being between their partial theocratical state, and them not having limitations on the civil rights that they do possess. I take particular issue on three things:

1) Their gun control laws looking like jaywalking.

2) Being the only country in America that doesn't incorporate the Juarez Principle into their Bill of Rights: "Among the people and Among the Nations, the respect to the others' rights equals peace." This principle basically limits free speech against the existence of hate groups, but has been interpreted throughout the continent as a reasonable limitation against freedoms of speech, press, association, et al; has pushed forward civil right movements (like the fact that in Mexico, gay marriage was legalized without opposing groups having the right to say that something was wrong) and moulds the foreign policy of most countries in the continent.

3) Apparently not having a federal ministry overseeing education, and their educational laws apparently being too weak to make quality education into a universal right.

4501865
4501873

Now I'm also waiting for Russia to do the same. Though considering how orthodox they are, it will definetely take a while.

Curiously enough, I don't see Russia's heavy-handed approach on homosexuality as related to religion. Since the fall of the Soviet Union their law indeed liberalized in this issue (decriminalizing homosexuality in 1993 and allowing legal sex change in 1997). Nevertheless, it's been baby steps all the way with gay rights, especially with how they just banned gays from driving:

HOMEWORLD
Russia Bans Gays, Disabled, Short People From Driving
Rio Rose Ribaya13 JANUARY, 2015

REUTERS
Heavy traffic routinely clogs roads in Moscow.
Russia has amended its road safety laws that ban those with certain disabilities from driving, hoping it will reduce fatalities from traffic accidents.

Signed by Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, the new decree on road safety prohibited limb amputees, people with hereditary eye diseases, and those with a height shorter than 150 centimeters, or five feet, from driving.

Gambling addicts and kleptomaniacs may also be denied driving licenses under the new rules.

But in a bizarre amendment, Russia also announced that licenses won't be issued to citizens who are suffering from "personality and behavior disorders" including "disorders of sexual preference."

In fact, the new road safety law listed transsexualism and transvestism among the health conditions that could prove dangerous to drivers. Thus, transsexuals and transgenders were barred from driving.[...]
http://www.christiantimes.com/article/russia.bans.gays.short.people.the.disabled.from.driving/50292.htm

And their also recent ban on "Homosexual Propaganda".
Now go to Youtube and search "Driving in Russia" and tell me if gays have anything to do with their general mayhem.

In short, it is all about Russia falling back to Soviet ultra-conservative mentality.

4501859

Cut us a break; it's hard to get enough people to agree on anything in a country of this size.

Try legalizing quality education, then come back to the issue twenty years later.
Besides, what's up with your electoral system of proportional votes? It made sense three centuries ago, but frankly, it stopped making sense in the 1900's.

4501955

America is more than one country?

America is composed of 35 countries and 25 territories.

4501960
Nowadays only a few American countries keep a name of "United States", like "The United States of America", "The United Mexican States" and "The Plurinational State of Bolivia" (and I don't really know how to count the couple of Commonwealths), but I do remember that quite a few where originally named like that (like Colombia having been "The United States of Colombia").

4502198

Nowadays only a few American countries keep a name of "United States", like "The United States of America", "The United Mexican States" and "The Plurinational State of Bolivia" (and I don't really know how to count the couple of Commonwealths), but I do remember that quite a few where originally named like that (like Colombia having been "The United States of Colombia").

That's good to know, but I'm not sure what that has to do with my statement.

America is composed of 35 countries and 25 territories.

Honestly, I always thought it very strange that both a continent, and a single country within that continent were both referred to as 'America', but there are enough people, both American and not, that do this, that it's worth putting up with the annoyance of making that distinction from the get-go. This is why people tend to refer the land masses as 'North America', 'South America', and 'The Americas'.

4502227

That's good to know, but I'm not sure what that has to do with my statement.

I wasn't really sure what were you trying to say, so I tossed a wild guess.

Honestly, I always thought it very strange that both a continent, and a single country within that continent were both referred to as 'America',

That fault lays in Washington for never officially declaring a short name for their country.

...but there are enough people, both American and not, that do this, that it's worth putting up with the annoyance of making that distinction from the get-go.

Actually, the only problems come when you go overseas. Within the continent, all other countries refer to the States as "The United States", and their people as "United Staters" "Green-growers (gringos)", "North Americans" (which greatly annoys both Mexicans and Canadians) or something similar. The only ones who blur the lines are the Canadians, who refer to Yanks as either Yanks or Americans, and this last one being derisive, on the basis of their country being confused with the States.

4502162 Just noticed this.

(like the fact that in Mexico, gay marriage was legalized without opposing groups having the right to say that something was wrong)

This would not work in the US and I personally oppose actions like this. Freedom of Speech allows each person to voice their opinion and beliefs. To tell even a hate group that they no longer have the right to oppose something opposes this right and even the right to vote. Honestly, as long as the group doesn't commit acts of violence or tries to use their views to sway others, they have the right to oppose whatever goes to vote. This kind of action sounds good but basically stacks the vote in the favor you want. You deny a person the right to oppose a view, whether they are right or wrong in their view, all because they oppose your view.

This would be like if we had denied groups like the Ku Klux Klan the right to vote during Civil Rights votes all because they were racist. They were, and are still, wrong in this view but you cannot deny someone the right to vote and speak just because they are part of a group that actively oppose something. It would be their individual actions as part of the group not their beliefs that would cause them to lose that right, such as violence leading to an arrest and prison time.

At least, this is how the US Constitution is set up. Even if a person is perceived or is in fact backwards or wrong in their beliefs, they get the right to state that view and vote against views that oppose theirs. The established laws of Civil rights do not allow them to discriminate or harm anyone. Freedom of Speech cannot be infringed and as long as they don't act on their views against the law, discrimination or violence, they can voice said opinion all day long.

4500018 The similarities between this and the Civil Rights movement during the 50's and 60's is astounding. Especially how people are reacting to it, give it a few decades, people will get over it.

4501960
And I'm glad it's not.

I saw this on twitter. Awesome pic.

4502550
I may have not explained myself enough.
You can sure as hell stand in opposition against injustices. Thing is, you don't have the right to oppose somebody's freedoms unless you can argue that they are infringing against your own. And as everybody has the right to a peaceful life and to pursue their own happiness, saying "I don't want to have gay neighbours" is not a valid argument. And to oppose because you say that the Bible says so? Well, you could say that inside a church, but you could get arrested if you actually try to push against the separation of Church and State.
And yes, hate groups are illegal. Opposition and Debate are encouraged, but hate is not even tolerated. And do remember that Mexico is a Third World country, so you could be disappeared rather than arrested for crap like that.

And you also seem to forget that stopping a hate group only once they resort to violence still allows for plenty of harrasment. Are you telling me that you actually defend the practice of burning crosses on people's lawns?

4503399 No, you can't infringe upon rights and freedoms. Nor can you prevent someone from doing something they are allowed by law. My point was to say that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and opinions. Hate groups, in the US at least, even gangs known to commit violent crimes or regularly break the law are not illegal. Their actions of violence or injustice is illegal but the group in and of itself is not illegal. A person cannot be arrested for being a member of a street gang or a racist group such as the KKK or Aryan Brotherhood for two examples.

To use them for example, the Neo Nazis or Aryan Brotherhood are actually allowed to protest, organize rallies, and makes public speeches as long as they remain peaceful and do not break the law. Such a member cannot discriminate in hiring for example as that is illegal. But they are still allowed to voice their racist views and even vote against integration should such a thing go to vote.

The Westboro Baptist Church for another, and more on topic example, can still make protests, rallies, and speeches of their own against homosexuality so long as they do not harm anyone or do anything that infringes upon the rights of anyone. They can protest gay marriage ceremonies if they wanted as long as they just stand on the street, out of the way, and don't impede the ceremony or attack anyone. Unless the new law made said acts illegal which they won't because this would still violate the Freedom of Speech.

As for harassment. That is illegal. Burning crosses on another person's lawn would be illegal as this would fall under trespassing, invasion of privacy, disturbing the peace, property damage. And to harass a person would be illegal in business or other public places and perhaps even assault if it went far enough. But, for sake of an example, I could burn a cross on my own lawn if I so chose. It is my property. Certain areas would not allow this for fire safety but unless I ended up making someone feel threatened, not illegal. It would be less prevented out in a rural area.

I don't know how things run in Mexico and hate the idea of anyone being oppressed, much less kidnapped or murdered, for their views. Regardless of what side of the fence they stand on. But my whole point was to say that such a prevention of a person's right to vote would not work or be allowed in the United States. And I personally don't like the idea of keeping a person from being able to vote or oppose a decision, even if they are wrong in their views. Not a vote without opposition. This is more along the lines of a totalitarian government than a Republic, much less a Democracy.

4502589

Ditto. I highly suspect that living in Missouri would be closer to being like living in a third-world country if it was it's own nation.

4502365

I wasn't really sure what were you trying to say, so I tossed a wild guess.

Ah, okay. Now that I think on it, my post is probably very confusing

Stiggerz' comment just reminded me of the fact that my country was originally supposed to be more like several different countries loosely connected to each other, and the original constitution reflected that. It was a massive failure.

4503453

No, you can't infringe upon rights and freedoms. Nor can you prevent someone from doing something they are allowed by law.

Well, just like people cannot infringe upon each others rights and freedoms:

Mexican Constitution, Article 6: The manifestation of ideas will not be object to any judicial or administrative inquisition, except if they attack the moral, the rights of others, provoke illicit activity or incites public disorder. The right to information will be ensured by the State.
Mexican Constitution, Article 7: It is inviolable the freedom to write and publish under any subject. No law or authority can establish prior censure or demand payment to authors or publishers, nor limit the freedom of press, which has no limits outside the respect to private life, the moral and the public peace.
{...}
[And here I could add that I happen to own a copy of Mein Krauft.]
Mexican Constitution, Article 8: Public officials will respect the right to petition, as long as the petition is presented in writing, in a pacific and respectful fashion. {...}
Mexican Constitution, Article 9: There will be no limitation upon the right to associate or hold assembly under any legal objective, although only Mexican Citizens will hold this right for political matters. No armed assembly has the right to {speak up or hold vote}.
It will not be considered illegal, and will not be dissolved, an assembly or meeting that has the objective to present a petition or perform protest {for something} to an authority, as long as they don't employ {insults, violence, threats (real or implied)} to try to force a decision.

Hate groups, in the US at least, even gangs known to commit violent crimes or regularly break the law are not illegal.

In Mexico, the Penal Code categorizes that as "criminal association" (which equals them to the mafia and the drug cartels) and automatically adds several years to prison sentences. Any crime of conspiracy to commit a crime also automatically receives the "criminal association" charge.

And I personally don't like the idea of keeping a person from being able to vote or oppose a decision, even if they are wrong in their views. Not a vote without opposition. This is more along the lines of a totalitarian government than a Republic, much less a Democracy.

Well, if you are interested on seeing how things actually went in the vote for gay marriage in Mexico City, it was a 39-20 vote inside the Congress of the Federal District. Prior to the vote, some 340 petitions were filed and read to the Assembly, and apparently all petitions against were ruled as unconstitutional due to them all being iterations of "I don't want gay neighbours".

4506777 I see similarities to the US Constitution in yours. The US Constitution is a bit more broad on a few things but there.

n Mexico, the Penal Code categorizes that as "criminal association" (which equals them to the mafia and the drug cartels) and automatically adds several years to prison sentences. Any crime of conspiracy to commit a crime also automatically receives the "criminal association" charge.

Honestly, I could get behind this. Here, they don't get charged with association unless they are with members who actively commit a crime. Outright membership is not illegal but all other activities in the group are.

apparently all petitions against were ruled as unconstitutional due to them all being iterations of "I don't want gay neighbours".

I really only see this as a dumb reason. I find it hard to believe every one of them were deemed unconstitutional. A few unspecific reasons or disrespectful ones (going by Article 8) but to say every single one was unconstitutional seems ridiculous.

4506860

I see similarities to the US Constitution in yours. The US Constitution is a bit more broad on a few things but there.

Well, the real text of Mexican Constitution is actually so chockfull of minutiae that it is nearly unreadable. Article 6 alone comprises 37 paragraphs.

I really only see this as a dumb reason. I find it hard to believe every one of them were deemed unconstitutional. A few unspecific reasons or disrespectful ones (going by Article 8) but to say every single one was unconstitutional seems ridiculous.

Let me translate Article 1st, unabridged:
(Paragraph 1) In the United Mexican States, every person will enjoy the human rights recognized in this Constitution and in the international treaties of which the Mexican State is part of, as well as the warranties for their protection, whose exercise cannot be restricted or suspended in other than the cases and under the conditions defined in this Constitution.
(Paragraph 2) Norms relative to human rights will be interpreted in conformity with this Constitution and with the international treaties on the subject at hand, favouring to the individual the broadest protection possible.
(Paragraph 3) All authorities, within the scope of their competences, have the obligation to promote, respect, protect and warranty the human rights, in accordance with the principles of universality, interdependence, indivisibility and "progressivity" {accordance to the current day and age}. Therefore, the State will prevent, investigate, sanction y repair the violations to human rights, in the terms defined by the law.
(Paragraph 4) Slavery is forbidden in the United Mexican States. Foreign slaves that enter into the national territory will earn, by the simple fact [of entering Mexican territory], their freedom and full legal protection.
(Paragraph 5) All forms of discrimination are forbidden, whether based on ethnicity or national origin, gender, age, disabilities, social strata, health conditions, religion, opinions, sexual preferences, marital status or any other [reason] that may harm human dignity and may have the objective to nullify or lessen the rights and freedoms of the persons.

And from Article 3 (which defines the right to having an education):
(Paragraph 4) [While Article 24 defines the freedom of religion], education will be secular, therefore devoid of any religious doctrine.
(Paragraph 5) The ruling criteria behind {impartable} education will be based on scientific progress, and will fight against ignorance and its effects: serfdom, fanaticisms and prejudices.

So, from Article 1, Paragraph 5, it is unlawful to discriminate against something that doesn't adversely affect you or the society (as seen in Article 6), and due to Article 3, paragraphs 4 and 5, scientific literacy is actually very high in Mexico and scientific evidence cannot be cooked up (like "Creation Science" and "Intelligent Design"), so any argument that having gays creates promiscuity // more STDs // more gays falls overboard. And Article 24 says that Religion has absolutely no voice in politics, so religious arguments cannot even be presented.

So yeah, every petition against gay marriage fell through the cracks. And thanks to "progressivity" (Article 1, paragraph 3), the argument of "immorality" also fell through the cracks with the current generation.