Last week in Mexico City, a somber ceremony and wreath laying at the Benito Juarez Memorial in Alameda Central Park marked the 135th anniversary of the Mexican leader’s death.

It’s not an anniversary known to most people, gay or straight, in this country, but the following day, in an international conference on diversity, sexuality and families held in the Mexican capital, Roberto Blancarte, a professor at the College of Mexico, noted the link between Juarez and the aspirations of today’s gay and lesbian community.

Juarez is rightly revered for his Herculean struggle to create a secular, democratic state in Mexico. In a life filled with triumphs in the face of overwhelming odds, his most lasting achievement was the passage of laws that separated church and state. The practical effect of that victory was that all people, regardless of religious belief and background, were given equal standing before the state.

Even to this day, Blancarte explained, the principles promulgated by Juarez are the cornerstone on which respect for the rights of diverse communities and individuals are founded in Mexico. This creation of a secular public institution, a “public space for all,” is a direct antecedent to today’s civil unions laws for gay and lesbian couples in Mexico, Blancarte said.

A century and a half later, in Mexico, the United States and around the world, religious fundamentalists still seek to impose their beliefs on the rest of society, with gay and lesbian people often bearing the brunt of those efforts. It is striking that 150 years after Juarez led his battle against the political power of clerics in Mexico, a question posed in the July 23 Democratic presidential debate in this country highlighted how far we still have to go.

The questioner, North Carolina minister Reggie Longcrier, noted that presidential candidate John Edwards has explained at length that his religious upbringing prevents him from supporting marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples. Edwards, Barack Obama and most of the other candidates say that because of their religious beliefs they can support civil unions but not marriage for our community.

But most Americans now agree, Longcrier said, that it was wrong that religion was once used to justify slavery, discrimination and the denial of voting rights to women.

“So why is it still acceptable to use religion to deny gay Americans their full and equal rights?” Longcrier asked.

It was a simple but powerful question, so much so that Edwards wavered a bit, finally declaring that while he still held to his beliefs—“I feel enormous personal conflict about this issue,” he said—he had to concede that it is “absolutely wrong to use faith as a basis for denying anyone their rights.”

We’ll take that as progress—for the moment. But when does the day come when we all realize that equality before the law is not a question of theology but one of simple respect for the beliefs and rights of everyone? Rather than being a threat to anyone’s religion, the guarantee of equality for all, including gays and lesbians, is the most perfect means for ensuring that no one’s beliefs are questioned.

Juarez himself, in a famous speech in 1867, said it well.

“Entre los individuos, como entre las naciones, el respeto al derecho ajeno es la paz,” he said.

Translated, it means, “Among individuals, as among nations, respect for the rights of others is peace.”

It’s a noble concept. One day, we hope, it will move from the realm of concept and become the basis for all our laws, including those that, for today at least, still leave some of us less equal than others.