MEXICO CITY, 19 AUG. 2010 (ZENIT)
Mexico's Supreme Court has propelled the nation to one of the world's most liberal stances on homosexual "marriage" and adoption.
Mexico's high court declared last week that homosexual "marriages" performed in Mexico City (Mexico's capital district) have to be recognized throughout the nation. Then on Monday, the same court upheld the ruling that homosexual couples can adopt children.
ZENIT spoke with Jorge Traslosheros Hernández, historian and juridical expert from the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, about Monday's ruling and the supposed creation of a "right to adopt."
ZENIT: Did the Supreme Court "forget" the higher purpose of adoption?
Traslosheros: The Supreme Court has once again handed down an unjust decision backed by the canons of political correctness.
Rather than thinking of the higher interests of children, rather than conducting itself with the prudence called for by the case, as other courts around the world have done, far from embracing the wisdom that gives substance to justice, it put ideology first and created de facto the "right to adoption" as an exclusive privilege of homosexual unions.
ZENIT: But is adoption a "right?"
Traslosheros: A "right" that heterosexuals, single or married, those united or living together, have never had and that no one should have for just reasons.
A further step has been taken in consolidating the tyranny of alleged rights in Mexico, which is nourished by creating privileged groups that are an authentic caste of Brahmans.
ZENIT: The result now is that law becomes an instrument of tyranny, when law theory states altogether the contrary?
Traslosheros: The term "tyranny of rights" should be an oxymoron as, in theory, rights exist to protect the citizen against the authoritarian tendencies of those who hold power.
However, it has been proper to the culture of Mexican politicians to create special support groups, which they later adorn with privileges in detriment to the whole of society. It is a very old Mexican experience of which, for example, the corrupt union boss is a typical example, and the reason why the health and education systems languish in mediocrity.
Now, by decision of the Legislative Assembly of the Federal District, dominated by the Democratic Revolution Party [...], by the government of [Mexico] City and the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, a further step has been taken in deepening this pernicious tendency that has nothing to do with democracy and which has found in the so-called gender and gay ideology a significant stimulus.
ZENIT: They say that equity, equality and justice are being protected; that pure law is being applied. Do you believe this?
Traslosheros: In theory, law should create an ensemble of rights for the whole population, in order to guarantee conditions of equality, justice and liberty for any person based on two principles: that we are all equal in dignity and that the strong have the obligation to help the weak. By the same token, when someone finds himself in a vulnerable situation, special juridical conditions of equity must be created for the time necessary, even if they become permanent. Classic examples are the pregnant woman and the woman in labor, refugees, the handicapped, the sick and, especially, children.
The raison d'etre of this juridical culture is the person. Juridical culture centered on the person, as is easy to see, is the very opposite of one that creates privileged groups and which is proper to authoritarian regimes without distinction, no matter their color.
ZENIT: Isn't the centrality of the person being protected when the rights of homosexuals are protected? This is an argument often used today.
Traslosheros: When the centrality of the person is abandoned, then law is used to create statutes of privilege that, in turn, favor specific groups above the whole of society generating situations of injustice and, consequently, of violence. Obviously what is abandoned with this is the obligation to protect the weak, while confirmed is the law of the strongest. Such is what is now happening with the so-called right of adoption created allegedly to protect the principle of non-discrimination of homosexuals. The right of adoption, by this combination with non-discrimination, becomes an obligation to give children in adoption to homosexual couples who so request.
ZENIT: Let's return to the underlying topic, that a right is "being created" in Mexico.
Traslosheros: It is very important to keep in mind that the so-called right to adoption never existed in Mexico because it was well understood that children don't exist to satisfy the desires or needs of adults, no matter how legitimate or justified they might seem.
Because of the higher interests of the child, the adoption processes were governed by the logic that adults must be subjected to rigorous aptitude tests, where the factors of emotional, social, economic, marital or personal stability have played a very important role, among many other things.
Hence, adults have never in any way had the right to adoption. On the contrary, they have had to demonstrate in deeds that, beyond ideologies and any doubt, they are fit to take on a child with full responsibility.
Parenthood, as we well know, is a gift and a responsibility, it isn't a right in itself. In any case, it would be a consequence and always subject to the exercise of responsibility. As we can easily see, as the higher interest of the child demands, the right of adoption must not exist for anyone regardless of their quality, condition, religion, race, ethnic group or sexual preference. Children are not things to satisfy the needs of adults.
ZENIT: But it won't be like this from now on.
Traslosheros: Indeed. Homosexual couples will have the exclusive privilege of the right to adoption and whoever denies them this right can be accused of discriminating against them for reasons of sexual preference. Whoever does so could suffer criminal and administrative punishments; and, in this regard, laws are already brewing in Mexico City following European models.
This isn't science fiction. In several countries of the Old World it is already a reality. In England, to mention a random example, not long ago a child was removed from the care of his grandparents, who were exercising the child's right to a family, by the decision of a judge to give him up for adoption to a homosexual couple. Given their protests, the grandparents were threatened with the prohibition of visiting their grandson because they were promoting hate speech. With similar bad luck, private orphanages have had to close, as this right transformed an opposition to giving children to homosexuals into a crime, without being too concerned about the suitability of the applicants. The cases have multiplied. Let these examples suffice for now.
ZENIT: Is it possible to call this democracy?
Traslosheros: The tyranny of alleged rights, rooted in Mexican authoritarian political culture, continues to advance in our aching country. Added now to the many privileged groups that already exist are the homosexuals. These are unacceptable statutes of privilege in a society that aspires to democracy and justice. Here it doesn't matter if these groups are LBTTGI (lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, trans-gender, gay, intersexual), or trade unionists, politicians, religious, or any other group, since without exception, to the degree that they impose themselves on the rest of society, they generate a logic of force that hurts every person and all persons. A society with democratic aspirations must move away as far as possible from authoritarian logic and build a juridical culture centered on the person.
ZENIT: As on so many occasions in Mexico, we are placing the cart before the horse.
Traslosheros: Jesus of Nazareth well said that the sabbath was created for man and not man for the sabbath. Thus, in the same logic, we can state that rights must be at the service of persons and not persons at the service of rights.
The decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, which endorses what was legislated and decided in Mexico City, is very serious as it has placed law at the service of a privileged group. Against its obligation to safeguard justice, it has strongly contributed to the consolidation of the tyranny of rights in our country.