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 fail to be inclusive 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, exists, 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 and/or 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 and sexual preferences, since can occur without being linked.
The gender 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 vice versa (as occurs, for instance, if any couple is being, (or was), failed to be included, 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 gender love, being, a, (beyond an originally pointed, and/or claimed, absence of hospitality, latter conceptually perverted, to ignite, and/or to sickly manipule, or stimulate, the people’s fears, and the rest of their low vibrations, in forms such as hate, many times due to the projection of personally traumatized egos, and/or, even, as pathological expressions of neurosis); same gender sex, being, (as a form of love), alas, a criminal offence; that is (and has always been), illogic, contra natura, and contrary to constitutional liberties, and intimate rights, of the people. Meaning, as well, that such agreement cannot be conditioned on the capacity, and/or the commitment, to procreate, since not all persons want to have babies. Plus, for the same reasons, the right to adopt, must be universal, too, and not another failture to be inclusive (still, (existing abundant persons in need, who lack from an umbrella of minimal protection, better than the one the State can, hypothetically, and generally, provide); yet still, preferably, if so, 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 common identity, for solidarity, for love, for loyalty, for fidelity, for friendship, for compromise, for safe sex, for stability, for longevity, etcetera; not only is negating that right to its people, but, invalidly, confuses (and, subsecuently, again, for idem reasons, fails to be inclusive through such), the subject of sexual preferences, (which occurs in the privacy of the relativity of a particular person in a particular moment), and the right to self identity of its people; as cannot validly occur, before, neither the American, nor the Mexican, paramount, (and, thus, the rest of the inferior), laws of the lands.
The limits rooted in any of both institutions (universal marriage and the right to self identity (and the gender as part of such)), for the same reasons, have absence of existence in both the American, and the Mexican, 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 omnia.
In regards to regulating necessities like public restrooms, the ideal solution potentially exists in the measure conducts that can affect each person’s satisfaction, personal space, and/or consent, are universal, not narrowed to a particular gender, and/or sexual preference; but while reaching that posible vibrational level of universal understanding, a mandatory, third, neutral, for any especial need, amenity, (or, by exclusion, for instance, if impossible otherwise, just that amenity), will be enough, (as there is yet a personal space, and an intimately space, in most restrooms, so there is a clear distinction between what can be defined as gender-space and intimate-space).
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.
Onto commenting-clarifying, Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) Justice Gorsuch’s opinion, in the just ruled (failure to be inclusive, case), Bostock v. Clayton County, but related to universal marriage, as solved by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN), in the unconstitutionality action 2/2019, and by SCOTUS, in Obergefell v. Hodges; from the prism of the Constitution of Mexico, and the correct concept of “gender”, it can be said that is 100% possible to fail to be inclusive with a person for “having sexual preferences for persons of the same gender” and/or for “having a different gender than the one with which was registered”, without failing to be inclusive with that person, based on “sex”.
Is all a matter of “gender” being a more precise term than “sex”, so by old registrations being incorrectly linked to “sex”, there is a failure to be inclusive in regards to “gender”, as well as, (sex being an act), in regards to “having sexual preferences for persons of the same gender”; in both there is a failture to be inclusive, linked to “sex”, but the issue is the term “sex”, does not logically exist, and less exists, as pretended, as synonym of “gender”.
Attraction is not a choice. “Sex” is an act. An employer can validly fire an employee for having “sex” in the workplace, as will be failing to be inclusive with that same employee for not hiring, and/or firing, her and/or him, based in “having sexual preferences for persons of the same gender”, and/or based, in, her and/or his, “gender”.
So a failure to be inclusive (in law and/or in word and/or in action) to a person for “having sexual preferences for persons of the same gender” and/or for “having a different gender than the one with which was registered”, does not necessarily mean a failure to be inclusive with that person for traits or actions it would not have been questioned in members of a different “gender” and/or with different “sexual preferences”. The “gender” and/or the “sexual preferences” might play a necessary and undisguisable role in the failure to be inclusive; and, before the law, is 100% irrelevant if that person is conscious of being failed to be included for “having sexual preferences for persons of the same gender” and/or for “having a different gender than the one with which was registered”.
To these misconceptions refers Justice Gorsuch’s as intentionally-applied “sex-based rules” in failures to be inclusive, since “sex” and/or “gender” and/or “sexual preferences” are not synonyms, disregarding if a particular person knows their meanings, or not.
As even the dissenting opinions base their argumentation in the idea of “sex” being the concept that ruled when the legislation that was interpreted was issued, in regards the “sex” assigned at birth, but, later, to interpret the same norm, refer to the “gender” assigned at birth; like when the “horses” were named “cars”, or when the “cars” were called “airplanes”, or the “books” were called “iPads”, and so forth (and we say this solely with didactic purposes, as when the Neanderthals imagined the cinema when were painting the caves).
Not to say the evolution of the “concept” of “failure to be inclusive” in itself.
A failure to be inclusive with persons for “having sexual preferences for persons of the same gender”, “penalizes” men for being attracted to men and women for being attracted to women; a failure to be inclusive with persons for “having a different gender than the one with which were registered”, unavoidably signify failing to be inclusive with persons with one “gender” identified when registered, and another today.
So, in the hypothesis at study, any civil register, will, instead of avoiding, or eliminating, a failture to be inclusive, to both Hannah and Bob, by denying a marriage contract before the State, for failing to fulfill traditional gender stereotypes (to Hannah, a woman, because she is insufficiently feminine; to Bob, a man, for being insufficiently masculine); as for Hannah and Bob for “having sexual preferences for persons of the same gender” and/or for “having a different gender than the one with which were registered”; i.e., instead of avoiding a failure to be inclusive, in such a case, the marriages before the State, will be doubling it.
Article 1 of the Constitution of Mexico, applied to the present, is “simple but momentous”: a person’s “gender” (including the correct name, signature, picture, etcetera), moreover as a suspicious category, is “not relevant for the marriage to take place, for a particular person, disregarding if that particular person today has a different gender than the one with which was registered”.
So when the so-called Permanent Constituent chooses not to include any exceptions to a broad rule, “gender”, (as not linking the development, or not, of the sexual characters, with the most important gender-organ, i.e., the brain; otherwise, can reach the absurd of saying the menstruation defines an amenorrhean woman, or that an in-vitro fertilization will not stop the menstruation the same way when an egg actually becomes a chicken, or would have Julius Caesar not be born, or his mother not give birth to him, or either the fememine and/or masculine representations of Kuan Yin, will be absurd, or, (not to say all the species that switch gender and/or sexual characters); or that a butterfly (which suffers a metamorphosis that goes far beyond solely that of the gender); that a butterfly will always be a caterpillar in a cocoon); thus, when the Permanent Constituent choose not to include any exceptions to the broader concept of “gender”, a court (or, in this case, a civil register that permits, and/or organizes, the right to marriage); a court must apply the broader rule, (i.e., as stated in the Constitution of Mexico, working in favor of the broader protection of people at all times); furthermore when that same Permanent Constituent, aligned with all this, does particularize the concept of “sexual preferences”.
For informative purposes, is mandatory to mention the “gender” is 100% different from “sex”, as “sex”, with any “sexual preference” whatsoever, occurs as relativistically, as in an act, (otherwise, there could be a pre-judgment linked with a person “having a different gender than the one with which was registered”, as not long ago would have existed against President Obama, or Nelson Mandela, for their skin color, in regards, per example, to enter certain type of restrooms, or to take certain type of busses, or trains, or as occurred with Ruby Bridges, who was escorted by marshals to attend the school where solely one teacher, (Barbara Henry), acceded to teach her, all by herself, in one big classroom; or even, as occurred with, arguably the best, (but, nevertheless, in active), golf player, in history, Tiger Woods, to play certain tournaments, and have won, the so-called “Tiger Slam”; as would have been deprived to play in certain golf courses).
As legislated synthesis, we transcribe, [with precisions], for informative purposes, Law 26.743, of the Argentine Republic, that explains the concept “gender”, in this terms:
“Establécese el derecho [al] género de las personas.
El Senado y Cámara de Diputados de la Nación Argentina reunidos en Congreso, etc. sancionan con fuerza de ley:
Artículo 1º.- Derecho [al género]. Toda persona tiene derecho:
a) Al reconocimiento de su [género];
b) Al libre desarrollo de su persona conforme a su [género];
c) A ser tratada de acuerdo con su [género] y, en particular, a ser identificada de ese modo en los instrumentos que acreditan su identidad respecto de el/los nombre/s de pila, imagen y [género] con los que allí es registrada.
Artículo 2º.- Definición. Se entiende [por género] a la vivencia interna e individual del género tal como cada persona la siente, la cual puede corresponder o no con el [género] asignado al momento del [registro], incluyendo la vivencia personal del cuerpo. Esto puede involucrar la modificación de la apariencia o la función corporal a través de medios farmacológicos, quirúrgicos o de otra índole, siempre que ello sea libremente escogido. También incluye otras expresiones de género, como la vestimenta, el modo de hablar y los modales.
Artículo 3º.- Ejercicio. Toda persona podrá solicitar la rectificación registral del [género], y el cambio de nombre de pila e imagen, cuando no coincidan con su [género].
En ningún caso será requisito acreditar intervención quirúrgica por reasignación genital total o parcial, ni acreditar terapias hormonales u otro tratamiento psicológico o médico…”.
In our validly sustained, and validly arguably, opinion, as states the Constitution of Mexico, it all is a “gender” issue, as “sex” is solely an act, that can be active (to penetrate), passive (to bed penetrated) and/or neutral (to imagine); thus, when born, and, thence, if so, registered, there can be an approached “gender”, since might be impossible to know the psyche of the child, as this even occurs when the offspring is being developed, moreover if all offsprings are originally of feminine “gender”, notwithstanding that later, femenine, masculine and/or hermaphroditic, sexual characters, can be developed, in variable, and relativistic, measures, even to the point of parthenogenesis or hermaphroditic spontaneous auto-fertilization; not to say the certain possibility of universal pregnancy, the clonation, the massively practiced in-vitro fertilization, or the uterus that all persons have ((i.e., in such a case, prostatic utricle), which might be called, or appear to be (today, that the human brain (the primal gender-related organ); today that the brain is far from reaching its full potential); yet the prostatic utricle, might, this day, be called, a vestigiality, as, accordingly, the hair, the nipples, the body hair, the appendix, the coccyx, etcetera, are called, too.
In synthesis, the so-called duality, is something that solely has a relativistic existence, as cannot be linked, and/or fixed, to any chromosomic idea, since, in nature, “solely exist”, the ‘X’ chromosome (as, to start, all is relativistically fluctuating energy, and under the holographic paradigm, more relativistic, still); hence, the so-called ‘Y’ chromosome, is, (as an idea that pretends to be linked to science), an invention, and a delusion, generated by the human brain, with the purpose to try to explain energy, (but, especially, what makes you feel satisfied as a person). It all is a dance, and a mosaic, of hormonal, ideological, stereotypical, theological, and/or social, characteristics, and behaviors, all being complex mosaics of female, and/or male, characteristics, with persons having a different gender than the one with which were registered, or the same, occupying both sides of the extremes (as explained by Melissa Hines, in her book “Brain Gender”, yet under this optic, few, if any, persons, corresponding to modal female patterns, and/or to the modal male patterns, variations within each gender, being great, with all genders near the top, and bottom, for the distribution, of every characteristic, even for “sexual preferences”, as also occurs with things like visuospatial ability, or verbal skills, or with height, or strenght, or weight: “… In addition, some [persons] are born with an [intergender] appearance, that is, with external genitalia that are not clearly those of a typical female [approached gender] or those of a typical male [approached gender]…”.”); characteristics, and/or attitudes, among which (over time and/or experience), exists, active (to penetrate), passive (to be penetrated), and neutral (to imagine), expressions of “sex”. To be, I am. To be; I am. To be: I am.
And this is not new, is the quintessential teaching of the “‘X’ang-‘X’in”.
As what the people fear the most (most of it by means of social pressure (what might have objective basis in less developed States and/or regions (and what certainly has an impact in the legal documentation and social and legal consequences product of such (i.e., accessing to credit cards, to the financial systems, being referred to by the correct gender and pronouns by the authorities and companies’ personnel, identifications, documentation, socializing, etcetera)))); what people fear the most, to summarize it, is to be who they truly are, what, sadly, does have, masive impacts, in adiction to substances that can damage, in obesity rates, in crime, in personal, and general, happiness, and many other issues, related with public health.
Thus, pretending to link the public “gender” expression of all those characteristics (what can, then, generate attraction (and, if so, then, “sex”, and/or reproduction), but as a reaction, and as a universal intention, and a need to fructify, (to bloom, and to be loved, and to love) and reproduce (as universal pregnancy already exist as a possibility, as the in-vitro pregnancy is already massively practiced, and as beings have already been cloned (yet we are still dinosaurs, living in a Jurassic Park, for superior intelligences))); hence, is invalid to pretend to link the public “gender” expressions of the self (what can easily be done, according to the particular needs of each person, through hormonal, and/or aesthetical, treatments, etcetera); is illogical, therefore, to pretend to link the mostly intimate and/or public expressions of the self (i.e., “gender”), with the intimate and/or private sexual expressions of the self (i.e., the “sex” and/or the “sexual preferences”); as not less primitive, and unfair, will be, to pre-judge, persons (under the basis of hypothetical actions, that validly prove to be generally inexistent), for “having sexual preferences for persons of the same gender”, than for their skin color, than for “having different gender than the one with which were registered”, than for their religious beliefs, etcetera.
The idea of “sex”, thus, validly emerges, as is thought, as no more than an invalid conceptual creation, of, (and in), the human brain, since solely is the private-intimate expression of the self, in an active, passive, and/or neutral, form; as “gender” is not linked to it, as a cause, but, (if happens), as a correlated, effect; hence the maximum of nature developing through its own nature (as today we can fly by airplane, or move by car, or by train, instead of walking, or running, to The Moon, and/or to Mars); being invalid, (and, alas, impossible), to pretend to limit the fructifications and reproductions, in the sense that already exist more-developed-more-well-adapted-and-adjusted-to-the-changing-environments, species (i.e., dolphins, ducks, loneliness and/or lions, giraffes, fishes, mollusks, crustaceans, butterflies, etcetera); that, without us knowing what happens within themselves (but God-Nature, truly knowing it); abundant species exist, which change and/or evolve their external expressions (“gender”), and/or sexual expressions, of their selves (“sexual preferences” and/or “sex”); abundant species that can reproduce, express, sexually express, love, and adapt, in different, evolving, ways, exist. As judging any of those species will not solely be keen foolishness before what actually exist as a God-Nature expression, but, for that reason, will perhaps contradict the primal teaching of the Bible: the science of good and evil, if one wants to be in paradise, is God’s monopoly. To be, I am. To be; I am. To be: I am.
In addition, the term/prefix “trans-” is incorrect, i.e., that someone is a “trans-(whatever)” person, (which, coming from imprecision, yet the intention might be positive, impacts its negative connotation); as is idem person, who “discovers” her and/or him, to bloom; as we are all still in God’s womb.
So the correct way to say it, is: “persons who have a different gender than the one with which were ‘registered’ (as some persons are not even immediately registered, but long time-existence after were already born as persons, and/or are mistakenly registered)”.
This, because someone born as person with intergender apparence, demostrates the possibility for mistakes in the register of the approached gender; as someone registered as approached woman gender, who then is registered as man gender, demostrates the term can solely be “gender”, disregarding if someone removes all external genitalia, or later science provides with the certainly possible chance, to either develop, and/or to get a transplant of, a phallus.