Mexico: Five judges (and no argument) suffice to re-define marriage

cint-nac4Is it important that by nature only a man and a woman can jointly be parents of a child? – Not at all.

Is it best for children to be raised by their natural father and mother? – Who cares?

Does marriage have to do with procreation, or with creating the best possible environment for children? – Apparently not.

Mexico’s Supreme Court of Justice has issued a statement declaring that every State Constitution in Mexico that recognizes marriage as between one man and one woman is unconstitutional. This happens just a few days before the Supreme Court of the United States is expected by many (and eagerly hoped by some) to make a similarly erroneous decision.

“Any state law which considers that the purpose of marriage is procreation and/or that defines it as being celebrated between one man and one woman, is unconstitutional,” reads the declaration issued by the Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación.

Furthermore, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court opines that it is “discriminatory” to link “the requirements of marriage to sexual preferences,” as this “unjustifiably excludes homosexual couples -who are in similar conditions as heterosexual couples- from marriage.”

Finally, it also believes that the purpose of marriage is not procreation: “To consider that the purpose of marriage is procreation is unsuitable. The only constitutional purpose this case law obeys to is the protection of family as a social reality.”

This is the full text of the declaration as we have found it on the Supreme Court’s website:


Considerar que la finalidad del matrimonio es la procreación constituye una medida no idónea para cumplir con la única finalidad constitucional a la que puede obedecer la medida: la protección de la familia como realidad social. Pretender vincular los requisitos del matrimonio a las preferencias sexuales de quienes pueden acceder a la institución matrimonial con la procreación es discriminatorio, pues excluye injustificadamente del acceso al matrimonio a las parejas homosexuales que están situadas en condiciones similares a las parejas heterosexuales. La distinción es discriminatoria porque las preferencias sexuales no constituyen un aspecto relevante para hacer la distinción en relación con el fin constitucionalmente imperioso. Como la finalidad del matrimonio no es la procreación, no tiene razón justificada que la unión matrimonial sea heterosexual, ni que se enuncie como “entre un solo hombre y una sola mujer”. Dicha enunciación resulta discriminatoria en su mera expresión. Al respecto cabe recordar que está prohibida cualquier norma discriminatoria basada en la orientación sexual de la persona. En consecuencia, ninguna norma, decisión o práctica de derecho interno, tanto por parte de autoridades estatales como de particulares, pueden disminuir o restringir los derechos de una persona a partir de su orientación sexual. Así pues, bajo ninguna circunstancia se puede
negar o restringir a nadie un derecho con base en su orientación sexual. Por tanto, no es factible hacer compatible o conforme un enunciado que es claramente excluyente.

The court’s ruling is considered a “jurisprudential thesis” and does not invalidate any state laws. Same-sex couples denied the right to “wed” would still have to seek individual injunctions. However, the ruling standardizes the procedures for judges and courts throughout Mexico, requiring them to approve all applications for same-sex marriage, and made the approval mandatory. Some have suggested the ruling “effectively legalises” same-sex marriage in Mexico, though without legislative change, civil registrars are still bound to follow the state constitutions.

Regarding the substance of this “thesis”, it appears that it is a compound of mere affirmations, and it is not discernible from them on what kind of “arguments”, if any, they are based. But it is very easy to see that they completely miss the point. No law or constitution has ever excluded anybody from marriage on grounds of his or her “sexual orientation”, a neologism that was completely unknown when the existing marriage laws were made. At issue is only the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation. This is not what same-sex couples want for themselves – but does it follow that it is not allowed to exist as a separate and specific institution? The Mexican Supreme Court’s thesis is tantamount to saying the game of chess must be prohibited because a noisy minority does not want to play chess, and to instead rebaptize table tennis, the minority’s preferred game, into “chess”.

In any normal country, it is precisely this purpose of creating the best possible environment for the next generation (i.e., a stable environment in which they can be cared for, and educated, by both their natural parents) that justifies the state’s interest in the institution of marriage. If this is not the purpose, then one does not see why the state has to meddle at all. It already is a questionable point of view to consider the relationship between two Sodomites, which is by nature sterile, dishonours the human body, and leads to the spreading of venereal diseases, as morally acceptable – but to put it on a par with the honourable  relationship between  a man and a woman upon which the entire future of a society is build is just unspeakably silly and self-defeating. This decision shows where judicial activism ultimately leads to: the dictatorship of all-powerful judges who rule at will and destroy the basic institutions of society at a whim.

In the 1920s Mexico managed to resist against the masonic dictatorship of President Plutarco Elías Calles. We hope and are confident that ultimately will overcome also this current dictatorship.