Argentina gives gay couples right to marry

[t0dd]

Source: London Evening Standard


Crowds gather outside Congress on eve of the vote

Argentina today became the first Latin American country to legalise gay marriage.
Supporters of same-sex unions, led by President Cristina Fernandez, got over opposition from the Roman Catholic church and evangelical groups which led a 60,000-strong protest outside the country's parliament in Buenos Aires on the eve of the vote.

Senators debated the bill in a 14-hour session that went on late into the night, with the law being passed by six votes.

Supporters and critics of gay marriage spoke passionately about their views.

“Marriage between a man and a woman has existed for centuries, and is essential for the perpetuation of the species,” said Senator Juan Perez Alsina, who is usually a loyal supporter of the president.

Norma Morandini, another member of the president's party, compared the discrimination closeted gays face to the oppression imposed by Argentina's dictators decades ago. “What defines us is our humanity, and what runs against humanity is intolerance.”

Same-sex civil unions have been legalised in Uruguay and some states in Mexico and Brazil, but Argentina would be the first country in Latin America to give gay partners the same rights as heterosexuals.

The proposed law broadly declares that “marriage provides for the same requisites and effects independent of whether the contracting parties are of the same or different sex”.

“Nearly every political and social figure has spoken out in favour of marriage equality for everyone,” said Maria Rachid, president of the Argentine Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transsexuals. “And we hope that the senate reflects this and that Argentina, from today forward, is a more just country for all families.”

Read more: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23856314-argentina-gives-gay-partners-right-to-marry.do

[dmr]

1. Good for Argentina! Here's wishing we would do the same very soon!

:hi:

[ThatsMyBarack]

20. Amen!

:hi:

[LawnKorn]

2. K&R

[xchrom]

3. Awesome. nt

[No Elephants]

4. Brava, Argentina!

Sinverguenza, U.S.A.

[slackmaster]

5. Pretty twisted view of rights

I think gay couples have the right to marry. Argentina just removed an infringement on that right.

Governments can't create rights.

[Deep13]

30. There are a lot of govt.-created rights.

social security, medicare, public education, trial by jury, FOIA, driving etc. etc. etc.

If the govt. doesn't create a right, then where does it come from? Sure, you can say they are natural rights, but claims of being natural or unnatural have been used to justify granting rights we no longer allow (right to own slaves, husband's right to discipline his wife) and to oppose ones we favor. (Homosexuality being unnatural, the natural right of kings.)

[slackmaster]

34. None of those things were created by government, and not all of them are rights

Social Security, Medicare, and public education are ENTITLEMENTS, not rights.

Trial by jury is a process. You have a right to that process, but it does not depend on government for its existence. Jury trials have existed a lot longer than any government. The court system is a valuable function provided by government, to resolve conflicts.

FOIA is a law that codifies a right that you already had.

Driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right. Before we had driver licensing and car registration, anyone was free to drive a car anywhere that it could go (property owners permitting). The right to drive your car anywhere you please has been curtailed through due process of law.

If the govt. doesn't create a right, then where does it come from?

People are born with a full complement of rights. All rights exist save those that have been restricted or curtailed through due process of law.

Sure, you can say they are natural rights, but claims of being natural or unnatural have been used to justify granting rights we no longer allow (right to own slaves, husband's right to discipline his wife) and to oppose ones we favor. (Homosexuality being unnatural, the natural right of kings.)

Those are all cases in which government has performed its most valuable and original function, which is to settle disputes.

People who were enslaved always had the right to be free. Their right was infringed.

The debate about homosexuality being natural or not has nothing to do with rights.

Kings were usurpers of rights. That's why we got rid of them.

[Deep13]

38. Statutory rights certainly are rights.

They are legally enforceable and can only be denied for cause.

Trial by jury is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Again, legally enforceable and can't be denied and there is never cause to deny it in either a criminal or a common law case. Juries did not exist before the twelfth century. Governments did, however. And we certainly did not evolve from the trees with a right to access bureaucratic records. That right was created by and only exists because of an act of Congress.

Please explain the difference between a privilege and a right. I ask because the difference appears to be grounded in circular logic. A privilege is an expectation or benefit that can be taken away without cause. The state can cancel your license without cause because it is a priviledge and not a right. See? It avoids and real definition. And BTW, a driver's license can only be cancelled for cause. That makes it a right, not a privilege regardless of what your driver's ed teacher told you.

[slackmaster]

39. Try screaming "DRIVING IS MY RIGHT!" when they haul you into jail for driving w/o a license

Your right to drive anywhere you want, any time, any speed has been restricted through due process of law.

[Deep13]

40. Yup, it can be taken away for cause, just like most rights. nt

[slackmaster]

44. BTW, the jury trial system is actually a limit on the power of government to lock you up, fine you..

etc.

It's a floor polish AND a dessert topping.

I think everyone here is in agreement that any adult couple has the right to marry.

[NoProphetNYC]

48. Rights are a human creation

"Rights" are a human creation, imagined if you will, and adopted by societies who codify them into law. If "people are born with a full complement of rights" how come in so many places in the world they don't seem to have them? How come in this country we disagree on what they are? If you're standing in the jungle and a tiger charges you would you be content to hold your ground and say to the tiger "I have the right to life. And you have no right to infringe on that right."

The problem with adopting notions like "people are born with a full complement of rights" is you make yourself vulnerable to misinformation specialists who tend to be paranoid and disestablishment and isolationist. The nonsensical beliefs like "Jury trials existed long before any government" or "driving is a right that has been curtailed through due process of law" are designed to make one fear and resent "government".

How does the belief that "driving is a right" that has been infringed serve you in your day to day life?

No Prophet

[slackmaster]

56. Very simple, and allow me to point out a fallacy in your post

If "people are born with a full complement of rights" how come in so many places in the world they don't seem to have them?

A lot of people in this world have had their rights infringed. For example, women in Muslim countries.

How does the belief that "driving is a right" that has been infringed serve you in your day to day life?

That is a Straw Man. I didn't say the right to drive has been infringed. It's been restricted through due process of law, and I don't have any problem with those restrictions. Infringements happen when governments exceed their legitimate authority to to restrict peoples' freedom.

(Actually, I think it should be much harder to get a license than it is now, and that less forgiving vehicles like SUVs merit a tougher standard for licenses to drive them.)

In my opinion, the rights of women in Muslim countries have been infringed. Men and women have the same rights. I also believe that gay and lesbian people have the same rights as heterosexuals. Laws that prohibit same-sex marriage infringe on the right of same-sex couples to marry. I don't believe any government has the legitimate authority to impose those restrictions.

I don't see anybody here claiming that marriage exists only by the grace of governments that have "granted" to people the right to marry. I doubt that many people on DU Forums would agree with that position.

[NoProphetNYC]

61. Fallacy accepted, but...

You're picking apart morsels of my response rather than responding to the substance. Rights are imaginary. We, (and I will use "we" as a substitute for "man") we made them up, just like we made up our form of government, and codified the notion that rights hold authority over government for the purpose of redress.

If you believe that you have the right to drive how is that useful for you as a form of redress? If women in Muslim countries have rights then that should be a form of redress. But it will only be a form of redress if Muslim societies decide to codify rights into law, if they decide they want to replace their imaginary terms and forms with ours.

The point is that the notion of Rights has a purpose in our legal and social structures. There's nothing wrong, per se, of believing that government doesn't have the "legitimate authority to impose ... restrictions (on marriage)". If, for example, you are a homosexual living in Idaho (where gay marriage is not recognized) you certainly could still "marry" your partner, have a ceremony, get a friend to officiate, go on a honeymoon. And you could walk around Idaho for the rest of your life and tell everyone you were married and, frankly to the extent where you believe it and your network believes it, you would be. But your marriage would not be recognized under the law in Idaho and so you wouldn't be entitled to any of the rights and privileges of marriage. You would have no form of redress. You wouldn't have the right.

No Prophet

[slackmaster]

66. Who is infringing on my right to drive, and how?

Your hypothetical doesn't make any sense. Nobody is infringing on my right to drive.

If women in Muslim countries have rights then that should be a form of redress.

I assume you meant to write that there should be a form of redress.

Women in the US and the UK were kept from voting until 1920. If we can fix that problem, Muslim countries should be able to fix it as well. In our case, redress was handled via a Constitutional amendment, which were partly the result of mass protests. Citizens of Muslim countries will have to work it out in their own way. I'm confident that they'll get it right some day.

As for a gay couple in Idaho, their rights will probably continue to be infringed until the same-sex marriage issue is finally settled in Congress or in the federal courts. Some states, Idaho included, are not going to go along quietly. Superior authority will be needed to force them to stop infringing on the rights of same-sex couples.

[DutchLiberal]

75. Maybe you should watch this, before making ridiculous posts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F1Lq1uFcAE

It neatly sums up why the member you're arguing is right and you're wrong.

[X_Digger]

80. Horribly innacurate, but hey, it is comedy.

He's a great comic, but not so much a logician, and less so a philosopher.

Straw man piled upon red herring heaped on top of appeal to authority, topped with a post hoc ergo propter hoc.

[DutchLiberal]

90. All you offer is some mumbo-jumbo...

You throw me one intellectually-sounding term after another. But what does it *mean*? Your post doesn't *mean* anything. You discredit something without arguing *why*. You're just trying to impress people by showing off some terms you find while you were bored and browsing wikipedia.

[X_Digger]

93. All you did was provide a link..

I gave it the same consideration you did in presenting it.

Which portion of Carlin's monologue do you agree with?

1. Straw Man- "god would have given us more than ten rights"-- who says there are only ten rights? Perhaps he didn't pay attention to the one after the eighth- "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." * eta: such as the right to privacy- not mentioned in the bill of rights.

2. Red Herring- slavery. There never was a 'right' to own slaves. The fault lay in defining what was a person, who then has rights protected by the constitution.

3. Post hoc ergo propter hoc- "Germans only have X number of rights, Swedes only Y, why would god do that?" (The implication being that rights don't exist. That assumes the conclusion, piling on top of straw man- #1.)

4. Red Herring - Japanese Internment during WWII- On December 17, 1944 it was ruled unconstitutional (an infringement of the right to travel, the right to due process, the right of association, the right of free speech). What, if the government can infringe a right, even temporarily, then it's not a right? That's authoritarian bullshit, because the logical consequence is that the government can do no wrong- because it's the government.

5. Circular reasoning- Rights don't exist because government can take them away. If government can take them away, they aren't rights.


I doubt George wanted us to take his comedy routine as political philosophy. Sure it sounds good, and gets laughs and applause- that doesn't mean it's grounded in sound thinking.

[slackmaster]

85. First of all, as an Agnostic it is not my position that rights are God-given

Second, while I admire the late George Carlin and agree with his perspectives on many things, I think his cynicism went over many peoples' heads when he said the Bill of Rights lists only 10 rights. I am quite sure that he read and understood the document.

The First Amendment enumerates multiple rights, and the Ninth Amendment completely torpedoes the idea that the set of rights is closed.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Under our legal system, all conceivable rights exist by default. The people who wrote that document were thoughtful enough to know that situations would arise in the future that had no analog in their time. The Ninth Amendment was added to make sure that government could NEVER take a default position that people don't have the right to engage in a previously untried behavior, own a previously unknown thing, communicate in an unprecedented way, etc.

Carlin's trademark cynicism deepens with "Rights aren't rights if someone can take them away." Taking away peoples' rights (without due process) is called infringement. That fact that infringement occurs does NOT mean that rights that have been infringed never existed; it means that governments are out of control.

Carlin understood the concept of infringement of rights. "Every year the list gets shorter and shorter and shorter." The big picture, which apparently DutchLiberal missed completely, is that Carlin's rant was a wake-up call, a challenge to people to STOP the erosion of rights by oppressive governments.

George Carlin was a staunch libertarian. The point of his rant is that a list of rights doesn't mean jack shit if you aren't really free.

[DutchLiberal]

91. Carlin meant what he said: "Rights are imaginary. We made them up."

He asks us: if people were 'born' with rights, or were 'entitled' to rights, why are there so many people on earth who have no rights at all?

May rights (like that every person has a right to an education, a right to healthcare, etc.) were things most countries established well into the 20th century. They didn't exist before. We made them up because we thought they were important. Large parts of the population didn't have any rights (slaves, women) because we didn't provide them.

That's Carlin's point entirely: because we didn't make them up until then, they didn't exist. That has got nothing to do with 'infringement'. It just means that people like you, who take those rights for granted and think we are somehow entitled to them, are stupid to think so. Because if tomorrow we decide you no longer have some rights, you no longer have them. It's as simple as that.

You can argue until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't make you more right. In fact, yours is the dumbest post I've ever read on DU. (And that means a lot.) I didn't know people could be this naive and this stubborn all at the same time.

[provis99]

79. oh baloney. The only "natural" right we have is the right to eventually die.

All other "rights" derive from the acquiescence of government.

[slackmaster]

86. Acquiescing is something that sheep do

Not free people.

The Suffragettes didn't passively accept the infringements on the rights of women. Women in the US and the UK becoming able to vote was not the result of largess by benevolent governments that graciously granted them the right. It happened by force of logic and social pressure, from mass demonstrations right down to the level of individual families.

[Odin2005]

73. Rights are a creation of society.

[slackmaster]

89. Entitlements and obligations are creations of society

Rights are freedoms.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I doubt that it was ever illegal in Argentina for a gay or lesbian couple to stand in front of a group of friends and family, and publicly declare their commitment to live together and care for one another. The same could be said of Idaho.

What's changed in Argentina, is that gay and lesbian couples are now ENTITLED to purchase a marriage license, and to receive the tangible benefits that derive from that license.

They always had the right to marry. Now they are entitled to the same benefits as are heterosexual couples.

[theHandpuppet]

6. What an idiotic argument

“Marriage between a man and a woman has existed for centuries, and is essential for the perpetuation of the species"

No, marriage isn't essential for procreation, Senator Alsina. And I don't think the species is likely to go extinct anytime soon because gays can get married in Argentina. What a maroon.

[customerserviceguy]

7. My standard answer to the "perpetuation of the species" argument

has always been: "And straight young people will still continue to be attracted to one another, and will still procreate. Allowing people who might be outside of what you consider to the be the breeding population to marry won't stop that."

Anyway, congrats to Argentina!

[polmaven]

13. Yeah!

I have never understood the argument that somehow allowing gays to marry will threaten "traditional" relationships.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. I usually point out I have a 'normal' heterosexual marriage, and cannot reproduce.

What now? Want to revoke my marriage, since I cannot perpetuate the species?

[Capitalocracy]

59. I don't know if I can reproduce or not.

Haven't been given the chance to try. We're too poor.

Also, when they say marriage is a religious institution, it makes me wonder if they're not going to come after my marriage next. My wife and I are not religious and we did not get married in any kind of church, we got married down at our local registro civil across the street from the mall here in Buenos Aires. OK, everyone in Argentina technically gets married there, but the religious ones go do it again at a church afterwards. So if you can take away the right of same-sex couples to marry because the church doesn't like it, well, what's protecting my marriage from the whims of the church?

[AtheistCrusader]

65. Same here.

Though my Wife is a Christian Lite(TM), so I would probably get a pass on that one.

[Capitalocracy]

67. Yeah, they wouldn't take your marriage away.

They'd probably think there's still a slim chance they can leverage it to convert you.

[stevenleser]

70. Yep, you beat me to it n/t

[madrchsod]

10. there`s 4 or more billion on the planet.....

so i think humans have done a pretty good job in making babies.

[niyad]

24. it's over 6 billion, so yeah, they have done a really good job--too good, in fact.

[defendandprotect]

32. Pretty close to 7 BILLION right now . . .!!!

[JerseygirlCT]

19. Exactly

And does he think all those gay folks who can now marry would otherwise have entered into a hetero marriage and had children?

[dem mba]

35. slavery existed for centuries too

not so sure that's a great argument for its continuation into perpetuity.

And yes, marriage has nothing to do with procreation. In fact, marriage probably reduces the frequency of that act more often than not, LOL.

Females can get knocked up just fine without a shiny stone on their fourth finger. Nothing magical about that ring.

[Capitalocracy]

64. It's like the "traditional marriage" argument.

Yeah, um, if you know any history at all, traditional marriage is with underage women, with parents being the ones who chooses who you marry, usually as part of a monetary arrangement, and often with one man and multiple women who are practically slaves. Traditional marriage is already dying, and I dance on its filthy grave. Marriage between consenting adults who love eachother is a relatively new concept, and I for one am pretty excited about it.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. It's also existed for millenia, pre-dates the new testament

and probably the old testament too.

[AlbertCat]

50. Marriage between a man and a woman has existed for centuries, and is essential for the perpetuation

Essential for perpetuation of the species????


So do all those other species we share the earth with get married? Do the cockroaches under your sink get married? The flies in the stable? The rabbits on your lawn? Hell, even bacteria, viruses, algae, even aphids don't even need to have sex for "the perpetuation of the species". Levi Johnson and what's-her-name Palin didn't need to get married to perpetuation of the species!

What a stupid, unthinking bunch of bunk your argument is! Are you blind?

Marriage is and has always been about property. Nothing more. People who want to breed can do so without marriage. Marriage is only to make their issue legal and able to inherit their name and property.

Cheesus on a cracker!


P.S. Marriage between same sex couples (not to mention a man and several women) have existed for centuries too.

[jobycom]

51. Even if it were, no one is outlawing opposite gender marriage.

Honestly, I wonder about some of my fellow heteroes. They seem to think that the heterosexual attraction to procreation is so weak that if we are "allowed" sex with out own gender, we'll never choose the opposite sex again. That has not been my observation nor my inclination, and I'm surprised it even makes sense to anyone.

[stevenleser]

69. Yeah, as if heterosexual couples will suddenly stop wanting to have sex with each other...

I dont think these people ever stop and listen to themselves.

[demigoddess]

78. for a long time, into the middle ages, the church did not

recognize marriage and did not celebrate it. people forced them to bless the marriage after it was performed and the priests would only do it on the church steps. they would not do it in the church. So there! It is a relative new thing to catholicism, et al.

[fishwax]

87. and even if it were, gay marriage hardly threatens to end "opposite marriage"

It's a stupid argument on several different levels.

[Soylent Brice]

8. WOO HOOOO!!!

:kick:

RRRRRR

[Chulanowa]

9. A better title;

Argentina acknowledges gay couples' right to marry

[Jkid]

11. Another better title: Argentina acknowledges gay couples' right to marry.

Hetrosexists and Roman Catholics are told to DEAL WITH IT.

[Grateful for Hope]

12. This is excellent. K&R!

[RobertDevereaux]

14. Yes, indeed!

[happygoluckytoyou]

15. obviously inspired by the Cisco Kid's rendition of "The Gay Cabillaro"

[slackmaster]

27. Or the Beat Farmers' version

:hi:

[Amaril]

16. Congratulations, Argentina!

Here's hoping the US joins you in the 21st Century soon.

[AlbertCat]

52. Here's hoping the US joins you in the 21st Century soon.

Yes....now Argentina is ahead of the USA.

USA....what a 3rd world country! The government and teabaggers (and the companies that own them), are the only ones unaware of our lowly state.

[racaulk]

17. Excellent news!

Argentina is now the 10th country with nationwide marriage equality, and the third to enact such laws in 2010. Nations that allow full marriage equality for its citizens are now located on four continents: Europe, North America, Africa, and (now) South America. Come on, Nepal! :)

Congratulations, Argentinians! :hi:

K and a big hearty R! :woohoo:

[JerseygirlCT]

18. Here's what I don't get

Looking at the quote from Jan Perez Alsina.

Does he and people who think as he does really think that with a ban on marriage, gay people are going to marry someone of the opposite sex? Or that, should gay marriage be allowed, straight people will abandon a hetero marriage and opt to marry someone of the same sex?

It's like protesting ice cream because you like french fries.

[slackmaster]

29. Ice cream has no bones

Just saying...

[JerseygirlCT]

49. Hopefully

french fries don't either!

[pgodbold]

21. When I read something like this I want to flee our backward country. But that's just me. n/t

[defendandprotect]

33. Right wing fanatics in every country -- and often used by elites for their

own purposes --

whether religious fanatics - racists -- homophobes -- or misogynists

And often backed by elites/royalists --

GOP-sponsored fascist rally in 2000 to stop the vote counting in Miami-Dade County

and today's T-baggers which are sponsored by GOP -- Dick Armey -- and guided by PR firm --

Believe Dick Cheney when he tells you that the right "creates the reality and the left lives it" !!

[Bloofer_Lady]

22. Glad that there are progressive countries....

...that aren't influenced by the US.

[myrna minx]

23. K&R.

:woohoo:

[Beacool]

25. Good for Argentina!!!!

I love the place, flaws and all. I'll be in Buenos Aires for 2 weeks in September. I'm already licking my chops thinking about the delicious steaks I intend to eat. They have some of the best beef in the world. Great wines too.

I digress, congratulations Argentina for your progressive stand on gay rights!!!

[SocialistLez]

26. Woo hoo. Too bad for those who don't want to get married...

www.beyondmarriage.org

[closeupready]

28. Excellent.

:woohoo:

[defendandprotect]

31. Cheers and Congratulations to Argentina --

Remember when America claimed leadership in human rights . . .???

Long time gone --

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

36. WOOT!!

BBC also has it on their web page. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10630683

Now, I wonder how the MSM over here will try to hide this (great)news?

[AlbertCat]

53. I wonder how the MSM over here will try to hide this (great)news?

By doing what they have done for decades:

Pretending South and Central America don't exist.... except for Mexico and Venezuela on occasion.

(Psssst.... Africa doesn't exist either!)

[Jefferson23]

37. How completely fantastic is that! Argentina rocks!!!!!!!!!

[OllieLotte]

45. Just as long as you aren't dependant on that pension that

the government decided they needed more than you.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. What an embarrassment.

An expansive bill of rights. Supposedly the beacon of freedom in the west, and we can't get this done.

Over 200 years of representative democracy, and a relatively new country beats us to it.

[DutchLiberal]

92. Those damn socialists!

[NoProphetNYC]

46. Now Argentina can be added to the list at the end

Did you all catch the "How Dummies Protect Marriage" video posted by Joanne98 yesterday? It eviscerates the "marriage is an unchanging institution that we need to protect" argument. And does it in a fun and enjoyable manner:

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x484551>

Best,

No Prophet

[awoke_in_2003]

47. +1000...

what is this fascination with "the perpetuation of the species"? We are nowhere close to being endangered, and could stand a slow down of population growth.

[stopbush]

54. The NYT says the measure was passed by a narrow margin.

Since when is 55% to 45% considered to be a "narrow" margin?

Argentina Approves Gay Marriage
By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO
Published: July 15, 2010

BUENOS AIRES — Argentina’s Senate narrowly approved a measure early on Thursday authorizing same-sex marriages, making Argentina the first country in Latin America to allow gay couples to wed.

After 15 hours of debate, the Senate voted 33 to 27 in favor of the measure, which was sponsored by the government of President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. For weeks, she waged a bitter war of words with the Roman Catholic Church over the measure.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/world/americas/16argentinabrief.html?hp

[Capitalocracy]

57. 3 abstaining 9 absent

if it were a poll, it would be under the margin of error

It was pretty close. I'm glad it passed.

[Fearless]

55. Look who else we're behind now...

:banghead:

[Capitalocracy]

58. They finally got one right down here.

It was getting kind of frustrating, as the upcoming vote brought this issue out into public attention and a lot of people started clearly parroting the talking points used by the anti-gay anti-equal rights fascists in the U.S. You know the ones I mean, Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve, what's next, people marrying their dead dogs?, if gays can adopt won't they rape their kids?, kids need a male and female parent, marriage is all about reproduction, etc. (uh oh, my wife and I don't have kids yet! Maybe if it was possible to get a decent freakin' job that can pay for it!) How do they do that? Where do they get these talking points? Who hands them out?

But by and large, the media voices were mostly in favor. And I think there are probably pretty good numbers among the population as well.

Some interesting background on this: The first ones to allow marriage equality in Argentina were the courts. They said it was illegal discrimination not to marry same-sex couples, and a few same-sex couples were allowed to marry by court order. And as it went through the legal system, they had their marriage recognized, then taken away, then recognized again, a heartbreaking mess. And despite the court precedent, nobody was able to get married without demanding a marriage license and suing against discrimination and going through the court system. So I'm glad they passed this law. I hope they don't change their minds.

Oh, and on the same day they passed a law to protect the local glaciers. But there's a loophole in the law that environmental groups are saying will allow mining companies to remove glaciers (as long as they melt in the summer apparently is the loophole) and then do mountaintop removal mining underneath them, releasing heavy metal and cyanide into the local air and water. You win some, you lose some.

[UrbScotty]

60. That's ***Heavily Catholic*** Argentina. :-)

According to the World Christian Database, Argentines are 92.1% Christian, 3.1% agnostic, 1.9% Muslim, 1.3% Jewish, 0.9% atheist, and 0.9% Buddhist and other.<62> Argentine Christians are mostly Roman Catholic. Estimates for the number professing this faith vary from 70% of the population,<63> to as much as 90%,<64> though perhaps only 20% attend services regularly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina#Religion

[IndianaGreen]

71. The Catholic Church fought this tooth and nail

and they still lost!

[Love Bug]

62. If they can do it, so can we!

[Capitalocracy]

63. Oh, and the courts recently upheld the right to privacy over marijuana prosecution.

So um... that's still kind of a mess, it's still not clear what can or can't be prosecuted, but that seems like a step in the right direction as well.

[Bluenorthwest]

68. So wonderful! Argentina!

Here's to my pals in B.A. and points south! Put on some Nacha Guevara for me and celebrate!

[Odin2005]

72. YAY Argentines!

[DutchLiberal]

74. "Supporters of same-sex unions, led by President Cristina Fernandez..."

President Christina Fernandez de Kirchner and her husband, former president, Nestor Kirchner, have done *so* much for Argentina and its people. They saved the country after the severe economic breakdown of 2001; they've taken countless initiatives to elevate the conditions of the poor; and now they've led the fight for gay rights. When it comes to politics, I'm usually a cynic, but I love these people. To me, they're heroes. (And all those members of congress voting in favor also, of course.)

[DesertFlower]

76. good for them. wish we had it here.

[Freetradesucks]

77. And yet,

It's such a huge fucking deal here in the US. Why are we so behind the rest of the world, when we are told constantly we are the best?

[ruggerson]

81. because our leaders are generally political cowards n/t

[BolivarianHero]

82. Why was this so controversial?

Argentina's legislature consists almost entirely of left-liberal and social democratic factions (both the government and the largest opposition coalition), with the balance split between the centre-right and the far-left.

[liberation]

84. You mean that a country with a progressive legislature progresses? Whaaaa.....

... here in the US marketing is so good that a big chunk of the voting public is convinced that "progress" is actually a bad thing, unless it is in the form of gadgets... in which case it is cool.

[ProudDad]

83. K&R -- rare good news to wake up to this morning (n/t)

[fishwax]

88. congrats to Argentina! Hopefully we'll follow their lead one of these days

:bounce: