Talk:Same-sex marriage in Mexico/Archive 2: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:39, 6 October 2021

This is an archive of past discussions about Same-sex marriage in Mexico. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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: 5 June 2024).

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: 5 June 2024).

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)

@@ Line 125: / Line 125: @@
 :Yes, I've updated the Oaxaca page, thanks!([[User:Robsalerno|Robsalerno]] ([[User talk: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 [http://periodico.hidalgo.gob.mx/ journal] (not yet done). I do not understand why some people are in such a hurry... [[User:Ron 1987|Ron 1987]] ([[User talk: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 ([[User:Robsalerno|Robsalerno]] ([[User talk:Robsalerno|talk]]) 19:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC))
+:{{yo|Ron 1987}} {{yo|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. — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 22:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
+::The law is not yet published, see [http://periodico.hidalgo.gob.mx/]. EDIT: Article 51 of the state [http://www.congreso-hidalgo.gob.mx/biblioteca_legislativa/Leyes/10Constitucion%20Politica%20del%20Estado%20de%20Hidalgo.pdf 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). [[User:Ron 1987|Ron 1987]] ([[User talk: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. — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|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 [[User:Kenohori|Ken]] ([[User talk:Kenohori|talk]]) 09:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
+:::::It was not published today, see [http://periodico.hidalgo.gob.mx/?tribe_events=periodico-oficial-ordinario-0-del-03-de-junio-de-2019]. [[User:Ron 1987|Ron 1987]] ([[User talk:Ron 1987|talk]]) 20:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)