The identity of universal marriage.
Universal marriages before the state is a subject divorced from any political ideology. It solely permits some social nucleuses to bond to flourish in the measure of the particular necessities and aspirations of such. Hence, is rooted in the right every person has to have an identity and for protection before the law, and its regulations; this with equal potential and in equivalent conditions (id est, is “a right to have (tax, solidarity, inheritance, property, medical, migrational, intimate, privacy, personal data, labour, etcetera) rights”). Thus, we decided to analyse the American and Mexican Supreme Courts’ rulings in the subjects, to find, if possible refresh, as well as to potentially add valid arguments to the matter.
If there are zero reasons for subjectively discriminate persons, less there are for doing it objectively, since all are equal before the law and its legal and economical consequences, due to the fact that even the idea of family is ever evolving and can manifest in diverse ways (as is not the same an eight and a four siblings’ family, or, for instance, the right to self develop each of the members of a family, by means of each individual’s dignity, has).
In other words, if protection among persons juridically bond to a contract, exist, then the law cannot judge the particularities of those persons, since the law cannot force the obligation to procreate; it can protect the procreation, but cannot force it (and the moment when the procreation starts to have existence as that of a potential and conscious human being, is another subject, as it is, and should be, anything where life and habitat and persons and the blooming and multiplication of life are forced to correlate).
Yet the fact internal civil regulations of every state possess particularities, from the constitutional point of view, these regulations cannot transcend or neglect that right, neither in the United States of America, nor in Mexico. So, naturally, and logically, such agreement, universally exist.
And as it does, permeates the rest of the inferior regulations and laws, rooted in both constitutions.
But if exists in a universal way, we ask, why is it still obstructed in those local civil codes that must subordinate to the paramount laws of the lands? Sadly, the answer is not in the constitutions, the law, or in valid arguments whatsoever, but in “acts” of faith or “believes” of ignorance. Nonetheless, it can still be validly sustained as invalid before nature, history of civilisations and the mysticism behind the eternity of every person’s relativity.
The Russian Federation’s head of state, very “yang”, very “black jacket renegade”, presented before the people, claiming omnipotence to impose as universally valid before the anew God included in that constitution, solely the union of one woman and one man. In the realms of that psychic ambiguity, also claimed sentimental opposition to the people’s identities. So since the platform to persist in that elected position appears to be rooted in the distortion of the emotion that can emerge as the same propaganda used to damage foreign electoral systems and to restrict to paranoia standards the rights of the citizens, can be used for idem purposes; for those and other reasons, we take this opportunity to study and define the limits of what appears to be another fixed variety of ambiguity.
As first argument, this logic means all giraffes, lionesses, lions, ducks, dolphins (including those used for sabotage and espionage), as well as sea horses, etcetera; in sum, that all diversity that occurs and cannot be hidden in nature, will need to be cut from the territory under the jurisdiction of that constitution, so “that God” can effectively be there.
So we need to start by defining the difference between gender identities and sexual preferences, since can occur without being linked.
The gender identity permits a person to exist in accordance with what is in that person’s heart, psyche and spirit, for all the trascendental legal and regulatory consequences and purposes; the sexual preferences are more relative, since can vary not solely as the life of one person occurs, but also in measure of the relativistic consciousness of one person in a particular time, or the emotional and/or attractive development of a relationship (as the European Court of Human Rights ruled that universally two persons have the right and capacity to form and develop family life, in the measure they can have stable and committed relationships, as stated in the European Convention on Human Rights).
Not to say that the attraction someone develops for other person is not a choice; it solely occurs, disregarding any obstruction in the psyche that can distort the consciousness, disdaining if it develops neurosis or solely feelings anchored in complexes that can occur, but in a particular person’s brain, not, as there are abundant examples, in nature in general.
As the above mentioned will go against the equal protection guaranteed in the American (fourteenth amendment) and in the Mexican (first article) Constitutions; as is like that, the right to form such bond will be unfair if it could not be with the person selected by the other, and viceversa (as occurs, for instance, if any couple is (or was) discriminated for idem and/or analogical reasons).
Hence, the right to the alluded union in their wish to define themselves in their commitment to each other, universally apply with equal force, since every person has individual autonomy to form that two-persons’ agreement, unlikely any other in its importance to the committed individuals, in order to enjoy intimate association, as same-sex love being a (beyond absence of hospitality) criminal offence, was illogic, contra natura and contrary to constitutional liberties and rights. Meaning as well that such agreement cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate, since not all people want to have babies, plus, for the same reasons, the right to adopt must be universal and not discriminatory (even, if so, preferably, by solely one tutor).
So, in that regards, the Russian Federation, is not solely (and for invalid reasons, by the way), neglecting the right to form that for-a-common-life relationship for an affective union, because of sexual attraction, for inspiration, for identity, for solidarity, for love, for friendship, for compromise, etcetera; not solely is negating that right to the people, but invalidly discriminating the sexual preferences that occur in the privacy of those persons and their right to self identity, and is doing it so, by means of validly (and we must say, sadly), confusing both institutions; as cannot validly occur before neither the American nor the Mexican constitution.
The limits rooted in any of both institutions, for the same reasons, have absence of existence in both constitutions as well, besides in the measure a good or service (publicly or legally or generally) can cost. Yet in regards to public services, is obvious this limit fails to exist.
In regards to regulating necessities like public restrooms, the ideal solution potentially exists in the measure conducts that can affect each persons’ satisfaction, personal space and/or consent, are universal, not narrowed to a particular gender identity and/or sexual preference; but while reaching that posible vibrational level of understanding, a mandatory third, neutral, for any especial need amenity (or, by exclusion, for instance, just it), will be enough.
The limit each individual has before that liberty can find valid legitimacy in the willingness to pursue potential longevity, in the measure each person’s idea of life might be.