Redefinition of Marriage Rejected in Mexico

Wedding Bible Credit Nat Arnett-compressed(Christian Institute) Proposals to legalize same-sex marriage across Mexico have been struck down.

President Enrique Pena Nieto’s plans for nationwide legalization were rejected by 19 votes to 8 in the Lower House of Congress.

Same-sex marriage is currently allowed in Mexico City and several other states, but the president had called for it to be legalized nationwide.

Continue reading this story >>


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • meamsane

    Good for them! Unfortunately for the US, we had 5 black-robed dictators usurp powers that they don’t have and usurp the political process and the rights of the states to decide the issue based on their personal or political preferences.
    Opinions are only opinions.

    • Grace Kim Kwon

      Yes, God’s truth is forever and forever-established. The West will need to ban the Holy Bible and Christianity altogether to pursue their quest for sexual decadence, just as all other evil empires did. Godless USA is 2,000 years backwards today.

      • Kyler Phoenix

        Examples?

    • james blue

      So limiting freedom is okay so long as it’s done locally?

      • Amos Moses

        No one ever stopped any homosexual from actually getting married …….. and since homosexuals want a marriage license i guess they support miscegenation …..

        George Washington was married without a marriage license. So, how did we come to this place in America where marriage licenses are issued?

        Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal.

        Blacks Law Dictionary points to this historical fact when it defines “marriage license” as, “A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry.” “Intermarry” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as, “Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages.”

        Give the State an inch and they will take a 100 miles (or as one elderly woman once said to me “10,000 miles.”) Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws.

        So by getting a “marriage license” ….. you SUPPORT the limiting of freedom …..

        • Kyler Phoenix

          Odd drivel.

          • Amos Moses

            odd HISTORY ……

          • Kyler Phoenix

            Stop. Do not respond to me with drivel.

          • Amos Moses

            judging by your other responses ….. it seems that is all you understand ….

          • Kyler Phoenix

            Really Sandi? Shall we compare our levels of education?

          • Amos Moses

            has nothing to do with education ….. has to do with your responses …….

          • Kyler Phoenix

            Care to elaboratte? Oh, and your level of education? Current reading list?

          • Kyler Phoenix

            What are you doing Sandi?

        • james blue

          It should just be a contract recognizing the union for legal purposes. Be it spousal benefits, visitation rights, power of attorney etc.

      • meamsane

        It depends on what you define as freedom?

        • james blue

          With the caveat that your rights end where mine begin and vice versa.

          The personal liberty to live by your own values and not have to live by the values of others. In this case it would be you wishing to limit marriage rights. If you don’t want to marry someone of the same gender…don’t.

          • meamsane

            Where is the “power” that the Constitution gives to the federal government to rule on marriage?

          • james blue

            That returns me to my original question “So limiting freedom is okay so long as it’s done locally?”

            Do you view the constitution as a document to protect freedom or a document to justify limiting it? whether that be at the state or federal level.

          • meamsane

            Show me some evidence that justifies, other than 5 members on the SC deciding this policy by fiat, that homosexual “marriage” is a right?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            What “evidence” would you like us to show you? The Constitution doesn’t apply only to things explicitly mentioned by name in it.

            The “evidence” that equal access to marriage is covered by the Constitution is that the Supreme Court was asked if it did, and they said “yes.”

          • james blue

            So you are okay with limiting freedom as long as it’s done locally??

            What right do you have to deny it to them? There are many things I disapprove of, but that doesn’t mean I should prevent you from doing them. If you don’t like gay marriage don’t marry someone of the same gender. If John and Steve get married my life isn’t affected one jot.

          • meamsane

            This is about Federal Constitutional authority, not about me.
            To say that no one is affected by the gay marriage ruling is grossly inaccurate. When the state (the feds) proclaim it a “right” then they are duty bound to protect such a “right” even against other people’s rights, and against all evidence to the contrary of it ever being a right or normal or that suddenly the SC found it buried in the 14th A somewhere, has obviously caused problems already in our society. And they knew that it would!
            I won’t go back and forth with this, we clearly are in disagreement and use different criteria in our conclusions.
            Thanks.

          • james blue

            Do you agree with limiting freedom as long as it’s done at the state level?

            I haven’t been affected by gay marriage one jot. How have you? What right have you lost?

          • meamsane

            Your questions show a serious misunderstanding of the US Constitution and freedom. With that flawed premise, your questions appear quite absurd!

          • james blue

            Why don’t you just answer the question? Do you agree with limiting freedom as long as it’s done at state level?

    • Ambulance Chaser

      I’m confused as to what you believe the Supreme Court did wrong. They were asked to decide a question of constitutional law, specifically, whether 14th Amendment’s due process and equal protection Clause is applied to same-sex marriage. SCOTUS answered that they did. I get that you don’t like this ruling, but I don’t see how it’s any different from any other ruling you disagree with.

      • meamsane

        I am not surprised!
        Where in the 14th Amendment did SCOTUS find “marriage”?

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Equal protection and due process.

          • meamsane

            Citing these two clauses of the 14 a. does not answer the question as to how the SC has jurisdiction to rule on “marriage”. Neither by the text of the 14th or it’s original meaning is marriage found. No where in the Constitution is found a power granted to the federal government to interfere in marriage. It was always a states rights issue.
            I recall the 10th A.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Now you want to move the goalposts and ask where SCOTUS obtained jurisdiction? Fine. Article III, Section 2 begins, “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution…”

          • meamsane

            I didn’t move the “goalposts” at all. See my original post. It was always about the SC jurisdiction question as you put it, “under the Constitution”. Nothing in the Constitution gives them authority to define or re-define marriage. They said so themselves when they declared that DOMA was un-constitutional. A few years later they decide that they, the Supreme Court of The United States can re-define marriage when they say that the Congress cannot?
            Irrational and Incoherent is what I call this.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            What do you mean “nothing in the Constitution gives them authority to define or re-define marriage?”

            They were asked to decide a question of law, and they answered it. Is the Supreme Court not empowered to decide questions of law?

  • robertzaccour

    I think the government should stay out of marriage in the first place. People will always have their unions as they see fit, so if Chrisitans want to get married, great. If gays want to have a “marriage” ceremony, then they can do that. I believe in Biblical marriage, but I don’t believe in government being involved in marriage because they really don’t belong in the marriage process in the first place. It’s a union between people, not people and government.

    • Miss Chrissy Vee

      Agreed.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Good for Mexico! The nations who suffered stay normal. The Western nations have been too well-fed and being bored from having everything for the longest time on Planet Earth. No submission to rich Western pervs. Westerners had a common sense only when they respected God and adhered Christianity. Truth and morality first.