Editor’s Note: Fast on the heels of my commentary about the impending “mutual commitment” registry for Salt Lake City residents, Mark Alvarez, our regular Mexico City correspondent, makes a strong case for clarity on the issue of marriage equality. I add my unconditional endorsement.

Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero made marriage equality an issue in his campaign to become the president of Spain in March 2004. In his inaugural address, Zapatero said:

“The moment has also arrived to put an end to the intolerable discrimination that many Spaniards suffer because of their sexual orientation. I will say it clearly: homosexuals and transsexuals deserve the same public consideration as heterosexuals, and they have the right to freely live the lives they have chosen. [I would have advised Zapatero to use slightly different words, but this is the translation]

“Owing to this, we will modify the Civil Code to recognize, in all equality, their right to marriage with all its consequent effects on inheritance, workers’ rights and Social Security protection.”

Despite fierce opposition from some sectors of Spanish society, Zapatero kept his campaign promise and lived up to the words in his inaugural address. Marriage equality became Spanish law in 2005. On March 9, 2008, Zapatero was reelected president of Spain.

Utah needs Zapatero-like clarity. The semantic battles Professor Roka referred to in “Mutual commitment registry tries to acknowledge ‘a very natural thing’” dominate the debate. Legislators, city council members and all of us argue “domestic partner registry” versus “mutual commitment registry.” Of course, law, procedure and the ill-thought Amendment 3 force such distinctions, but we should be careful not to let overly legalistic arguments smother the policy argument in favor of marriage equality.

As Zapatero observed, marriage has consequent effects on inheritance, workers’ rights and other areas. People should have the right to live their lives fully and freely. Frankly, most of the arguments presented against marriage equality should leave people cold if not make them recoil. The arguments are laden with ignorance and fear-mongering. Nevertheless, they are wrapped in titles such as “Defense of Marriage.” Defense? Defense against what? References are made to tradition. Tradition? Who is kidding whom? One need not go far back to find polygamy and miscegenation statutes.

So, put an end to politicians who want to play nice to everyone. Utahns realize their state is diversifying. Laws should be as dynamic as the culture. Marriage equality is the right policy. It should be said clearly.

In 1995 or 1996, I attended the gay marriage ceremony of a friend. It was held at Bar Claca in Valencia, Spain. The event and party were terrific, but obviously unofficial. Nice that the ceremony now could be done officially if the couple so desired. In April 1993, my brother and I attended the March for Gay Rights, held at the Mall in Washington, D.C., our hometown. There was great energy. I remember a woman said: “Hillary Clinton, finally we have a first lady we can f (think of a Dead Kennedys song or David Mamet’s favorite word).” Fifteen years later, and where are we now? It is pleasant to remember those times and to consider the words and actions of Spanish President Zapatero.

Marriage equality is closer than most of us think, but the argument needs to be made plainly, even in Utah. That written, I am glad to send this from Mexico City.