Talk:Same-sex marriage in Mexico/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Morelos

And on the same day as Michoacán, Morelos has approved marriage equality. However, Morelos' act is a constitutional amendment now requiring further ratification by the majority of the ayuntamientos, local councils, in the state's municipios.

Zona Centro Noticias: Aprueba Congreso de Morelos Matrimonio Igualitario Fortguy (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It is premature to include Morelos on the list of states and territories that fully recognize same sex marriage. Unlike Nayarit, Campeche and Michoacán, Morelos isn't legalizing marriage through "legislative statute" (a term that would suggest a change in the state's civil or family code); instead, they are seeking a "constitutional amendment" to change the law. http://www.reforma.com/aplicacioneslibre/preacceso/articulo/default.aspx?id=847187. Constitutional amendments require ratification by the state's municipalities, not just a simple Congressional vote. Until the second part of atification is completed, Morelos should not be on the list. Once it is listed, however, the legalization method should make the distinction that this was a constitutional amendment and not merely a piece of legislation. Andrew1444 (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The official count so far is 15 municipalities against and 11 in favour. Unofficially, there are 18 in favour. Cuernavaca, Axochiapan, Tepalcingo and Tlayacapan didn't vote on it in time (most likely on purpose) and so they tacitly approved the bill. The council of Ocuituco has until July 3 to vote. See https://www.launion.com.mx/morelos/avances/noticias/91469-preparan-protestas-integrantes-de-la-comunidad-lgbt-también-se-trasladan-a-ocuituco.html Ken (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Same-sex marriage in Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Effects of Constitutional sentences on State laws

For a reader who does not know, it is not very clear what is going on in Mexico. I tell you what I understand: marriage ban needs 5 rulings to be struck down (amparo) in each state and then what? From the article, it seems that nothing happens even after an amparo. Aren't states forced to follow the ruling and pass same-sex marriage legislation? And what happens to same-sex couples who want to marry after an amparo? Do they need to go to courts? Or state officials who grant marriage licenses are free to ignore same-sex marriage bans and grant same-sex couples their marriage licenses? Why was same-sex marriage legalises in some states after judicial rulings and not in other states? I think the clarity of the article would greatly improve if the summary explained in more detail the intricacies of the Mexican judicial/legislative process. Many thanks, Finedelledanze (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Finedelledanze I don't find the article problematic. I've re-read the text and it seems accurate based on sources and covers all of your questions. Legal jargon is never easy, but in a nutshell here's what's going on.
There is no federal law governing marriage proceedings in Mexico. Each state creates their own civil code to address who may marry under what specifics. 5 injunctions in any jurisdiction set a legal precedent for someone to challenge the state law and attempt to overturn laws which bar same-sex marriage. Arriving at 5 does not mean that someone will challenge the state law, nor does it mean that the state legislators will change the law. It simply means that there is a legal basis to challenge the law.
The Supreme Court of Mexico did not strike down state laws governing marriage, it only said that if an amparo is applied for, it must be granted. A constitutional amendment proposal to federal statues to compel states to perform same sex marriage failed, so existing state laws remain in play. The federal government cannot force states to change without a federal constitutional amendment or Supreme Court ruling striking down all existing marriage laws. Officials must follow whatever the state laws are in the jurisdiction in which they serve; they cannot just ignore the law. If a state court has ruled that a particular state's laws are invalid, then the law is not valid in that jurisdiction. It does not apply to any other jurisdiction.
An amparo is an individual court injunction which compels registration officials to ignore laws prohibiting same sex marriage of a specific couple, allowing that couple to marry. It applies to no one other than the named litigants. To my knowledge, there is no time limit on how long after the injunction is issued that they must marry. Once the couple has the amparo, like any other couple, they must apply for a license and meet whatever requirements that jurisdiction has to perform marriage, i.e. provide copies of birth and residence records, proof they are not already married, proof they are not close relatives, etc. The amparo only overrides the barrier to same-sex, so if the couple has other issues which would prevent them from marrying, they might never be married. Once the documents are approved, which can take as much time as the officials require, and a license issued, a state official performs the ceremony. All marriages in Mexico are civil ceremonies, performed by a civil registrar in a government office. If a religious ceremony is wanted, it is completely separate and done at a later time and place. SusunW (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
thank you for the explanation, now everything is clearer. However, after the Supreme Court ruled 'jurisprudentially' in 2015 that state bans are unconstitutional, how is it possible, legally, that state bans are unconstitutional and valid? Isn't it nonsense? Is there any chance the Supreme Court will step in again and declared state bans invalid once and for all? thanks Finedelledanze (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Finedelledanze what the Supreme Court ruled was that to deny people the right to marry was a violation of their rights under Mexico's anti-discrimination law. Basically, they said enforcing a ban to same-sex marriage violated federal discrimination statutes. The case did not have anything to do with whether existing marriage laws were valid, only whether they were discriminatory. Finding that they were discriminatory, the federal government ordered district judges to approve individual injunctions if state law barred same-sex couples from marrying. As I said before, that doesn't change the state law or any other prerequisite for marriage in a particular state's law. The case(s) ended up in the Supreme Court to begin with because District Courts were denying applicants. Unless a court defies the order to approve injunctions, I can't foresee why it would go back to the Supreme Court, unless a case was elevated on another basis. I have no crystal ball, but I think it will be a state by state change over time, unless somehow federal legislators are successful in making the marriage codes come into federal jurisdiction. SusunW (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
SusunW Ok, interesting. Then I understand that the SC didn't find state laws against the Federal constitution but only against anti-discrimination statutes. This would explain why state laws were not declared invalid. However, I still see a lot of discrimination: if LGBT couples need to resort to a lengthy judicial process in order to get marriage licenses, while straight couples can simply go to a civil registrar, well, these citizens are not equal under the law as long as those state laws are not changed or struck down. I think that is where the Federal SC could step in and solve the issue. Finedelledanze (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Finedelledanze I don't disagree, but someone would have to be willing to pursue it to that level. That takes time and more money than applying for the amparo. SusunW (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Map out of date/inaccurate

The map accompanying this article is out of date an misleading. Can someone edit it? I don't know how.

Specifically, the following should be updated:

1. Same-sex marriage is now legal in Chiapas 2. Same-sex marriage is not completely legal in Guerrero 3. A new color category should be created for states where same-sex marriage is legal in some jurisdictions: Guerrero, Queretaro, Puebla, and Tamaulipas. 4. The "5+ amparos" category is misleading and inaccurate. All other states should be the same colour. Please refer to journalist Rex Wockner's explanation here: https://wockner.blogspot.ca/2016/06/mexicos-wild-ride-to-marriage-equality.html Basically, it's not enough that 5 amparos are granted; they have to be five separate, consecutive decisions of the second-level federal appeals courts or the First Chamber of the federal Supreme Court, using the exact same language. Thus far, Chihuahua is the only state that has reached this level, in February 2017 (although SSM is already legal by executive decision there, the law is still unchanged). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robsalerno (talk • contribs) 17:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It's fully legal in Puebla as of today, but I have no idea how to change the map or all the various templates. SusunW (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hidalgo

Hidalgo now has reached eight separate amparos: Planean estrategia a favor del matrimonio gay en Hidalgo Fortguy (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Same-sex marriage in Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Sinaloa and Aguascalientes

Debates in legislatures as of Feb 1, per [1] — kwami (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Oaxaca

Does this and this mean that SSM is generally available in Oaxaca?

I rv'd an inconsistent edit that it is available, pending some discussion here. — kwami (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the above links quite clearly confirm that same-sex marriage is available in all the offices across the state (especially the second article, which cites 142 offices statewide). Other editors/contributors seem to be misreading local reports of same-sex weddings as implying that they're only being conducted/allowed at those local offices. This is incorrect. The sources cited in the article are simply announcing local same-sex weddings that are happening in those cities because they're newsworthy (either the first public LGBT weddings, or participants in a mass wedding, etc.). Here's a professor at the Iberoamerican University in Mexico City on the status of SSM in Oaxaca: https://twitter.com/JoseLCaballero/status/1131702690847838208 He's lumping it in with Chihuahua as a state where marriage is available statewide although the statutes have not yet been updated. (Robsalerno (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC))

@Robsalerno: Thanks. That's quite clear. It seems to be mostly the English-language press that's representing it as city-by-city. Part of the problem is probably that "Oaxaca" is ambiguous -- the city or the state? I'll start or restore some of the updates, but could you take care of Same-sex marriage in Oaxaca? — kwami (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I've updated the Oaxaca page, thanks!(Robsalerno (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC))

Hidalgo 2

Same-sex marriage will become legal in the state once the bill is signed into law and published in the state journal (not yet done). I do not understand why some people are in such a hurry... Ron 1987 (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Mexican Governors do NOT sign/approve/veto bills the way US state governors do. That's not a thing in Mexican law. The law takes effect when it's published, which happens within a week of the bill being passed by the legislature. We're now 11 days after the legislature passed the bill. It's done. I don't understand what other proof you need. Please see https://wockner.blogspot.com/2018/06/mexicos-wild-ride-to-marriage-equality_11.html (Robsalerno (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC))

@Ron 1987: @Robsalerno: Since you agree that it takes effect when it's published, I'd think we just need a link to that.
In our SSM in Hidalgo article, the only ref makes no mention of the govr and says, ahora las parejas podrán pasar al Registro Civil sin recibir un trato discriminatorio o un amparo, which contradicts the claim that the law has not yet gone into effect. We might not be able to take that statement at face value, but we have no ref there that the law is awaiting anything. — kwami (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
The law is not yet published, see [2]. EDIT: Article 51 of the state constitution says that the Governor have 10 working days to sign or veto the bill. The legislature can override veto by 2/3 majority (article 52). If the Governor do nothing within this period of time, the bill is considered approved (article 53). Ron 1987 (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Is a "working day" a weekday, or a day he's in his office? If the former, there's only a couple days left, though I don't know how we'd know if he did nothing. — kwami (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Most likely will be published on Monday, see https://www.criteriohidalgo.com/noticias/esperan-la-publicacion-de-decreto-sobre-bodas-igualitarias Ken (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
It was not published today, see [3]. Ron 1987 (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Mexican population.

Population • 2019 estimate 126,577,691[4] (10th) not 119,530,753. Best regards Jacques Jac34000 (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Yucatan

SSM is not legal in Yucatan. That state had made it illegal twice: contrary to the marriage law, and unconstitutional. The latter has now been overturned, but not the first. So Yucatan is now like the other 10 states where SSM is against the law. We can add Yucatan to the list of legal states when the law is changed or officially ignored. — kwami (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

It looks like what you are saying is not correct, see link and link.--Baronedimare (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Lots of sources reporting that, but the law hasn't changed.[4][5] Give it a few days, and the reality should filter out.
The legislature played it up with the announcements. Certainly this needed to be done. Next they might take up the family code, but CRYSTAL.
It's possible that clerks will now ignore the law and issue SSM licenses, as they've done in several other states, but again CRYSTAL. — kwami (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
you're right, article 49 of the Civil Code seems to be still in place and needs to be modified (the vote was on the constitution only. Item K: http://187.157.158.150:3001/documentosGaceta/sesiones/uploadCey/3f89a4_ORDEN%20LINK%2025%20DE%20AGOSTO.pdf) https://www.poderjudicialyucatan.gob.mx/digestum/marcoLegal/03/2012/DIGESTUM03009.pdf Let's wait for the publication of the August 25 law.
This clarifies it once and for all: "Si bien se reformó ya la Constitución yucateca, quedan pendientes dos pasos para que el matrimonio igualitario sea una realidad: el primero es que el gobernador Mauricio Vila Dosal publique la reforma en el Diario Oficial del Estado de Yucatán para que entre en vigor; el segundo es que el Congreso modifique el Código de Familia en menos de 180 días. Además, queda pendiente saber si el Registro Civil de Yucatán comenzará a tramitar matrimonios de personas del mismo sexo a partir de la publicación de la reforma –en virtud de la supremacía constitucional sobre los Códigos de Familia– o si se esperará hasta las adecuaciones secundarias." Congress has 180 days to amend the family code after the governor's signature of the constitutional reform (https://gatopardo.com/noticias-actuales/matrimonio-igualitario-en-yucatan-al-fin/). Finedelledanze (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Robsalerno left a link on my talk page,[1] after I kept reverting his claims that SSM is already the law in Yucatan, which reports deputy Milagros Romero Bastarrachea saying something rather different than your ref:

En espera de que publiquen cambio
Pocos pendientes en el matrimonio igualitario estatal
Apenas el gobernador Mauricio Vila Dosal publique en el Diario Oficial del Estado las recientes reformas a la Constitución aprobadas para permitir el matrimonio igualitario, la ciudadanía podrá hacer uso de estos derechos, se podrán casar personas del mismo sexo e inscribir los concubinatos que existan en esas mismas condiciones, afirmó ayer Milagros Romero Bastarrachea, diputada sin partido, como una de las promoventes de estos cambios.
... Sobre lo que sigue de estas reformas promovidas por las diputadas sin partido Silvia López Escoffié y Milagros Romero, esta última declaró que solo falta esperar que el gobernador lo publique en el Diario Oficial y a partir de eso ya entra en vigor, “la gente puede hacer uso del derecho que se aprobó ayer (por el pasado miércoles), tanto de casarse como de inscribir su concubinato”.
También, continuó la legisladora, a partir de su publicación el gobierno del Estado tiene 180 días naturales para que se ajusten todas las leyes secundarias, por ejemplo en todo lo referente a las prestaciones que les da derecho este cambio, como el seguro social, ver por su pareja si contrae Covid-19 y no era familiar, en fin, ajustar todas las normas legales que se requieran.
... Milagros Romero comentó que lo que quedó pendiente y puede ser parte de la actualización de las leyes secundarias, pero eso ya le tocará a los nuevos diputados que integrarán la LXIII Legislatura a partir de la próxima semana, son las reformas que en ese mismo sentido presentó el Poder Judicial del Estado como complemento del matrimonio igualitario.— DAVID DOMÍNGUEZ MASSA
“El Tribunal Superior del Estado metió una iniciativa, que no se alcanzó a aprobar ahorita, con cambios al Código de la Familia y otros temas relacionados con el matrimonio igualitario, creo que ahora en esta Legislatura que está por iniciar lo retomarán y, ahí mismo incluirán los cambios que vengan y sobre eso terminarán de completar todo el espectro de leyes”, manifestó.
“Pero que no quepa la menor duda de que apenas se publique en el Diario Oficial entran en vigor los cambios aprobados, así lo dice la ley, y tampoco se requiere reglamento alguno porque es un cambio a una definición en la Constitución y punto, y con eso se aplica a todo lo demás”, afirmó.

We'll soon see if his interpretation/expectation is correct. — kwami (talk) 04:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ En espera de que publiquen cambio, Diario de Yucatán, 27 agosto 2021, Merida

Ah, looks like the have 180 days to amend state law.[6] — kwami (talk) 04:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Can someone please resolve this? Kwami, you keep removing references to the constitutional change in Yucatan, which removes all context of what has happened in Yucatan, what is pending, and what Mexican media are actually reporting. It's like you didn't even read my edit, which adjusted for the context you said was needed. YOU are the one engaging in an edit war with your constant undoings here, removing all context and information from the Yucatan section. Before you undo this edit, seek some other consensus or comment from other editors. This is ridiculous. Robsalerno (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Please look up WP:EDITWAR. You don't seem to know what the term means.
If you weren't insisting on falsifying information, you'd have an easier time of it. I tried compromising with you, violating CRYSTAL to do so, but you rejected the compromise. We do not know that SSM is legal in Yucatan, so we cannot say SSM is legal in Yucatan. That's pretty elementary. Reports are that it is being legalized, but per CRYSTAL we can't report that it *is* legal until it is. The governor could order licenses to be issued -- he could have done that before the constitution was changed -- but he hasn't. Congress has 180 days to legalize SSM, and maybe they will -- but are you really going to insist that a future political decision is already in force? Who knows who might get stubborn and drag their heels, in which case it goes back to the federal SC to straighten out. We just don't know what will happen, and we can't say it has happened until it has actually happened.
Here is the evidence I myself would accept for a claim that SSM is freely available in Yucatan:
  • The governor orders the clerks to start issuing SSM licenses
  • The legislature passes legislation legalizing SSM
  • People start getting married without an amparo.
If any of those things were to happen, I'd be happy to change my stance. But until they do, you're trying to read the future. — kwami (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Sonora

I am unable to find references indicating promulgation or publication of the act passed by congress. If neither has happened Sonora should be listed along with Querétaro as pending. Andrew1444 (talk) 12:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

There was a news story about a couple getting married in Sonora.[7] But no confirmation that they were able to register it. Maybe they just thought they could? If that hasn't gone through, then I agree Sonora should go back to 'pending'. — kwami (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Queretaro

Change the colour of the state. It should be green like Yucatan. Amparos are still needed for same-sex marriage there. The sources:

- Today: https://www.alertaqronoticias.com/2021/10/05/amparos-para-matrimonios-igualitarios-seguiran-hasta-que-se-publique-la-ley/

https://elqueretano.info/trafico/municipio-de-queretaro-espera-publicacion-de-matrimonios-igualitarios/

- 5 days ago: https://www.eluniversalqueretaro.mx/politica/en-pausa-ley-sobre-los-matrimonios-igualitarios-aun-esta-en-el-congreso-de-queretaro

- One week ago: https://www.diariodequeretaro.com.mx/local/urge-rectora-a-publicar-la-nueva-ley-de-matrimonios-igualitarios-7260732.html

https://www.diariodequeretaro.com.mx/local/exige-morena-publicar-ley-de-matrimonios-igualitarios-7268277.html

https://rotativo.com.mx/2021/09/28/noticias/metropoli/queretaro/gobernador-incurre-en-delito-por-no-publicar-ley-de-matrimonios-igualitarios-929350/

Aleqc (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

It hardly seems worth the effort, when it will just change back in a few days. But if that doesn't happen, agreed, we should correct the map. — kwami (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

You should correct the map:

https://www.diariodequeretaro.com.mx/local/no-hay-prisa-para-matrimonio-igualitario-7364106.html

"NO HAY PRISA". They want to hear religious groups, something that hasn't been done in any other state. Yucatan has already started to change the secondary laws. Meanwhile, Querétaro is, as we say in Spanish, 'dando largas'. Aleqc (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The map is located at Wikimedia Commons. (CC) Tbhotch™ 03:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. I figured this would be done within a week. Striped as before, because AFAIK it's still available in some municipalities. — kwami (talk) 06:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Querétaro update:

Today was the dateline for the publication of the law by the governor. It didn't happened, so the legislative power will publish soon the new law. We are still waiting.

https://codiceinformativo.com/2021/11/lamentable-que-no-se-haya-publicado-aun-matrimonio-igualitario-dice-mauricio-ruiz-olaes/

https://plazadearmas.com.mx/bodas-gay-y-les-dieron-las-10/ Aleqc (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

¡Por fin! Local lawmakers have said that the new law will be completely legal tomorrow. So the map can be changed.

https://elqueretano.info/trafico/publican-diputados-ley-de-matrimonios-igualitarios/ Aleqc (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Concubinage -- form of civil union?

Since Queretaro also legalized concubinage, does this not qUalify as legalizarion of a form of "other types of partnership" or perhaps even "civil unions?" I don't want to make an edit without a consensus. Andrew1444 (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_Mexico/Archive_2&oldid=1118646962"