Marriage and adoption by homosexual couples
By: Geraldine Gonzalez de la Vega *
On 21 December the Mexico City made history. Do not exaggerate or dramatize. The number of cities or countries where gay people get married they have the fingers. The fact that my city I'm proud to be inclusive. It scares me that some in the name of "morals and good customs" seek to exclude. friends makes me happy that are excluded from society, everyday life and the right, from March 4 to express their identity, their decision and their love. The 21 approved an amendment to the Civil Code (art. 146) that allows two people to marry, regardless of sex, gender, right or condition. That same day, the PAN deputies wanted to reform a separate article (art. 391) to prohibit same-sex marriages could take. The reform was not, the article was as it was. Marriages in general, whether gay or heterosexual, may adopt.
By Federal Government, the Church and conservatives who follow them, they do not liked it, thought the City would become the Sodom of the XXI century, the divine punishment perch on legislators and governors to approve those reforms, and homosexuals who practiced contrary to nature, would from now in mortal sin "c omo Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which in the same manner as those having sexual immorality and gone after vices against nature, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire. "(Jude v. 7)
Well, sort of said representatives of the Church. The federal government eased a bit and tried translate that terror in secular arguments. A month and a couple of days later, the Attorney General's Office (PGR) surprised us with the presentation to the Supreme Court an action of unconstitutionality against (sic) amendments to the Civil Code of the City then in cascade, some governors were organized, yes yes, also of PAN, to bring Constitutional Controversies paths against the reform on the grounds that a breach of its rules.
Between that January 27 and February 23, the Court has been rejected as inadmissible Disputes submitted by states, since the Constitution is clear in regard: Article 121 provides that acts of civil status held in another entity under valid laws must be taken as valid in all other states and want will be subjected to some other entity determines the validity of legal acts to be agreed in Mexico City, is to forget the Federal compact. Ay! Again, the PAN does not understand very well of the powers of a Federation. More on that below.
February 23 presented representatives of the Federal District Legislative Assembly (ALDF) and the Federal District Government (GDF) to the Supreme Court, in reporting that respond to the constitutional claim presented by the PGR. These two documents that call and IGDF IALDF respectively.
A. Unconstitutional Action
In Unconstitutional Action (hereinafter AIPGR), the PGR denounced as contrary to the Constitution reform 146 and 391 do not reform, both the Civil Code of the City, considering that violate the third paragraph of Article 1, 4 first, sixth and seventh, 14 second paragraph, 16 first paragraph and 133 of the CPEUM. Based on these Articles, is AIPGR analyze two types of questions:
I. Social issues such as marriage, family and adoption by same-sex marriages. These issues are to a court of law because the rules give meaning to constitutional reform as Attorney viola. Democratic constitutions usually contain standards of openness, as the governing "family" precisely to allow this concept be given content by the legislature every time I concretized in an ordinary law. Set in the Constitution a meaning closed, static, tied to organized state under this rule to live by models or opinions of our ancestors. This is sometimes Well, it is a limit to political power, but to give practical social concepts as family, marriage and parenthood should be attended to empirical data, research and studies and not personal opinion on what should be family or marriage, let alone what was in the past. This is because otherwise the rules are out of step with reality and thus lose regulation. I think this is obvious and need not dwell on it. On these issues, the PGR alleges violations of articles 1 and 4.
II. Legal issues such as the alleged violation of the principle of legality and motivation of the reform in question and the alleged violation of the integrity of the Mexican legal system with the entry into force of the Civil Code reform. In these legal issues argued by the violations of Articles 14, 16 and 133. For an authority to act, there must be a rule that grants this power or competence, that is it gives substance to that act. Under the rule of law applies the principle of legality to the acts of the authorities in the sense that they can only do what the law authorizing them, by contrast, individuals can do whatever the law does not prohibit. The PGR ALDF argues that despite having competition, not state its reasons why it amended the Civil Code. And that for the authority to intervene in the sphere of rights of citizens requires not only having a foundation (standard), but a reason.
I. Issues Marriage, Family and Parenting in the AIPGR. In general, the PGR's argument is quite regrettable, are not relying on the law and supports scientific truth, but the vast majority based their arguments on moral standards and moral their prejudices. The positions and views of the Solicitor are truly authoritarian and homophobic. Social issues are argued based on his perception and their conceptions of what should be in no way compatible with a democratic constitution and intended to be equally as Mexico's, much less with the reality of the family in Mexico. To support their concepts of family, marriage and parenthood, does not refer to a single study or investigation, no judicial decision, not even a scientific opinion or experience of such authority of the DIF. It merely cites the Family Law of the Italian Civil Cicu Antonio (1879-1962) for, based on this, define their concept of family and argue that the Constitution protects only an ideal model of family, this being formed by a father, mother and children.
The PGR has a concept of family getting an antique Through method of interpretation of the Constitution, whose "election" never justified. Based on the Branch called Spiritualists Reviewer Attorney argues that the introduction of protection of the family as constitutional protection in 1974 was based on the ideal family model, totally ignoring the historical context of the reform during the Echeverria, as evidenced in its report on GDF. Still, the cultural transformation that has occurred in Mexico in recent treinta y cinco a ños no puede ignorarse y no puede el Procurador pretender que siga vigente un concepto de familia de una época en que la revolución sexual seguía siendo reprimida, en que liberalización de la mujer apenas comenzaba, y de una época en que todavía ser homosexual no sólo era condenado socialmente, sino que en algunos países, como Estados Unidos, era un crímen. Apenas en 1973 la homosexualidad se suprimió del Manual Diagnóstico y Estadístico de los Trastornos Mentales . Además olvida el Procurador that the constitutional narrative introduction of the third paragraph of Article 1 of the Constitution which prohibits discrimination on the basis of preferences (among others), after the reform was the 4th: it was in 2001 during the government of Vicente Fox It follows that, if instead of opting for the spiritualist interpretation, Attorney opted for objective and consistent interpretation and follow the principles of constitutional Interpetación (unit, functional, integration, consistency and force of law) perhaps they would arrive at the conclusions of the District Federal. But the preferred PGR torture concepts, authors and standards for after biting them eyes, say that the marriage is same-sex adoptions by gay couples are unconstitutional.
The narrowest concept of the family of Attorney leaves out the fundamental protection to all families are not composed of a father, mother and children. According to the Attorney a single parent family is not worthy to be constitutionally protected, neither is the widowed father with children, much less one composed by a homosexual couple with biological or adoptive children (yes, if you can) want to ignore or forget which has always homosexual individuals and, since 2006, gay couples in domestic partnership together may adopt. These, according to the Attorney, are not worthy of constitutional protection for families. Attorney says it recognizes that there other types of families, but the ideal is the only thing protecting the Constitution and therefore, gay marriage, unable to procreate and raise a family have no place. Yes, in his argument the Attorney denies marital status to married couples who are unwilling or unable to have children, for reasons of age, biological, psychological or physical. These, unable to procreate are not marriage and "the family is created based on marriage to have offspring "are not either, family. Go! I am glad that Mr. Chávez Chávez Attorney is not Secretary of Public Education or charge of DIF.
In one passage, the Attorney speaks of "natural principles" The same right impels the constitutional and ordinary legislature to organize and regulate the domestic partnership legally to protect and guarantee their basic structure and determine all those aspects which are not defined by natural principles. (Page 17 AIPGR)
In its reasoning, if the kernel the family is marriage, it is clear says, this should be heterosexual because it is the only one who can procreate, therefore, gay couples do not have to access an institution that can not participate, and this is the Companies Coexistence. Attorney then clear from the concept of family, the concept of marriage, which he said should therefore also to protect the Constitution. And is that the Constitution nowhere is talking about heterosexual marriage. Well, even if they want to twist rules at their convenience, even Article 30 paragraph B fraction II speaks of the marriage should be between a man and a woman because the O is a disjunctive condition that supports various combinations between the separate elements true to the O. And nowhere is that marriage should be between a man and a woman, the Attorney must extend his argument to talk about the ideal marriage, but in fact this issue has no place in a constitutional debate in Mexico .
As far as the second sociological concept, parenting or the ability to adopt homosexual marriages, the PGR on a presumption: that a child is adopted by a homosexual couple because one day not the child and placed a potential disadvantage compared to other children in families ideals, and would therefore be discriminated. Literally says that with the adoption by a homosexual marriage can empower "children adopted n or find more suitable environment and suitable for development, thereby generating the one adopted a position of inequality or discrimination against others adopted by married couples made up of a man and a woman. "(pp. 85, 86 et seq AIPGR)
However, reading the AIPGR not clear why arrive this conclusion, extra ñamente the Attorney General's Office no evidence. His argument is based on demonstrating that the Mexican government is obliged to ensure the interests of the child, via Article 4 of the Constitution and through international treaties, rules have been further developed and clarified through the interpretation of the Court, whose thesis provides the AIPGR. The AIPGR is a chair on the purpose of adoption and the importance of taking into account the interests of the adopted child, the importance of respecting the rights of or Nas and children and adolescents, but never proves why the Prosecutor believes that living with a family homoparental may involve or damages, much less why a child to integrate a family homoparental may involve not take into account interests of the adoptee and that this is a disadvantage or discrimination.
I think no one has made argument that children come before the desire to adopt an individual or couple (homosexual or heterosexual). The ALDF has started from the idea of \u200b\u200bopening up possibilities for orphaned children that allow gay marriages can also apply to adopt. Also forget the Attorney two things 1) to adopt must be submitted to the applicant (individual or couple) to a strict screening process, which certainly prevails in the best interests of the child and 2) be adopted by an individual or couple is heterosexual guarantee the lowest per se.
Starting from the assumption that it would be disadvantageous, discriminatory or harmful to a child live with homosexual parents, only by parental sexual preference, is in itself discriminatory. Attorney forgets that there are many children in families homo, but intends to legally conceal homosexuality.
II. Questions about the principle of legality and integrity of the legal order. On the legal side shows the Attorney confusion in the understanding of the need to justify or warrant the objective reasonableness of the issuance of a standard. Attorney that the legislature intended to justify how he did not enjoy a right necessitates the introduction of a permissive rule. That is, in the case, the Attorney said that the reform to 146 of the Civil Code is unconstitutional because the ALDF " not establish that fundamental right is restricted to people with guidelines or preferences for others of the same sex before the reform. Nor does it demonstrate how the normal law of the Federal District of reform generated by discrimination, violence, prejudice, exclusion or cancellation of equality. " (page 33 AIPGR)
The PGR confuses the principle of proportionality for review in interference with fundamental rights, they say, that the ALDF does not comply with it by allowing same-sex marriage. The test of proportionality or reasonableness that includes a detailed analysis of the legitimacy, constitutionality, necessity, appropriateness and proportion to other goods or rights reform applies only when it has intervened in a right and not when it is extended, as is the case for reform of the Civil Code, which materializes the same art 1 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with 4 on the equality of men and women before the law to ensure equal tod @ s before the law. Motivate the need for reform in the sense of justifying an invasion of rights measure, is a basic principle of the rule of law. The adoption of proportionality or reasonableness test demonstrates that the measure adopted by the legislature is not authoritative (Übermaßverbot) but even when intervening in areas of constitutional rights protected, it is legitimate, is based on a standard is necessary, appropriate and proportionate to the end. In this case it is understandable if the Attorney is the reform as arbitrary or if he believes her rights are violated. I do not see how a reform that includes, violates rights, and instead find themselves on the reasoning of Attorney arbitrariness in wanting to limit rights of some people for their preferences without any constitutional basis. In any case must be the PGR who apply the principle of reasonableness of their claim, as we've made repeatedly by the German Constitutional Court in its interpretation of the marriage institution as collateral protected by the Constitution and which excludes same-sex couples.
In that sense, it is illogical to ask the legislature or, where appropriate, the reviewer branch of the Constitution, to make a test of reasonableness when extending rights to individuals. It would be as absurd as it would have required the Power Reviewer and President Fox to demonstrate why should not discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation (amendment to article 1 of the Constitution in 2001). Still, it seems that the PGR was read or not the preamble or the opinion of the reform commissions to 146 of the Civil Code as in both documents largely explains why the exclusion of gay couples is discriminatory.
One aspect worth mentioning is that over the AIPGR the Federal Public Ministry, relieved of the burden of proof of negative facts (obviously impossible) to ALDF. He asks that encourages such non-reform of Article 391 (ie, motivation something that did not) and claims it did not establish that adoptions by gay couples does not harm children. Instead, as I said above, the Attorney does not provide hard data only not a single evidence of the existence of injury to children who presumed, but not shown.
Finally and so does the integrity of the legal order is applicable to a large extent the reasoning of the Minister disposing Valls Disputes submitted by states because 1) the civil matter is a local matter and therefore the ALDF can define marriage as deem best, and marriage is not a constitutional institution and the concept of family is open 2) the Constitution resolves the conflict rules laid down in Article 121 of civil acts valid under state law, it shall in all others.
In conclusion I believe that no legal arguments AIPGR to be sustainable in a constitutional state that is serious about its Constitution.
According to Article 64 of the Regulatory Law of the fractions I and II of Article 105 of the Constitution (Act which regulates the action of unconstitutionality and the Constitutional Controversies) the legislative body which issued the rule, ie the City Legislative Assembly (ALDF) and the executive body that issued, ie the Government of the DF (GDF) shall submit a report containing the reasons and foundations designed to support the validity of contested the general rule or inadmissible of unconstitutionality.
February 23 The two reports were filed in the Supreme Court's:
B. Report of the Federal District Legislative Assembly
The report is flawless in its structure is very clear. I think it's a must read for anyone interested in the issue of sexual freedom, gender and rights and constitutional law. The document is very well supported with modern literature, scientific studies, decisions of other courts and opinions of professionals. Is divided into three parts:
I. Permissible to the challenge to Section 391 of the Civil Code of the City The ALDF considered irrelevant to review the constitutionality of Article 391 as not being modified on December 21, 2009, the time to check their conformity with the Constitution and has expired (this rule is in force since May 2000). The ALDF is estimated that there is no normative relationship between Article 146 and 391, which is why it was established that a rule could be revised even if the deadline for review had expired. ALDF argues the absence of a regulatory system between the two articles. It is clear that the ALDF would have to argue the expiration of the term for the revision of this standard. However, there is a theory of jurisprudence of the Court said that to integrate a system must have a direct relationship between them inseparable. ( UNDER LAW AGAINST. TO CHALLENGE LEGAL SYSTEM AS NECESSARY TO CONSTITUTE A TRUE UNIT. 2a. / J. 100/2008. 04/06/2008) In it, could strip the Court the reason for revision.
II. Constitutional basis for the reforms at issue. This is one of the richest parts of the report because it is the presentation of the theoretical framework of discrimination against gay literature with a strong battery.
a) Discrimination. Explains the three ways in which discrimination: law enforcement, and concealment of pathologizing homosexuality. The repression is primarily concerned with the criminalization of preferences with imprisonment. In Mexico, pursued in the early twentieth century by way of "attacks on morality and decency." Pathologizing terms of its classification as a disease or psychological disorder, which consequently leads to stigmatization. The declassification of homosexuality as a disease began in 1973, the WHO did in 1990. It makes clear that homosexuality is a sexual behavior. The cover is defined as a consequence of stigma and homophobia, as these prejudices are brought to standard. Homosexuality presents a false narrative in popular and legal and that creates discrimination. Later contest the main prejudices against homosexuals, "which can not form stable relationships," "are not good parents" or "spill over to children." The ALDF believes that the claim Attorney with AIPGR is homophobic, authoritarian and seeks to cover up the homosexuality legally denying them the right to marry and form families, before it puts forward a strong argument: " The PGR expect the Court to declare that families and couples homo Homosexuals are forbidden by the Constitution or at least that the Constitution does not value or protect them, including the Constitution seeks their marginalization in the interests of aclanzar the ideal family model. The attempt to marginalize homosexuality is the way that homophobia aims to move when it has not been deleted. "
b) Right to equality. It is argued that reform is inclusive. Do not allow same-sex couples to marry, and therefore excludes discrimination and this is contrary to the Constitution.
c) Freedom of expression. Here I think it has one of the strongest arguments of the ALDF for gay marriage. It is argued that marriage is a form of expression. E l reasoning is that if it is acknowledged by the Court to have the right to self determination and from there, the right to identity and from this follows the right to sexual identity, marriage appears as an act symbolic, performative, as a form of expression allows me to express my sexual identity and also the legitimacy in the public domain. The assumption is that gay people not only want to marry so involved (rights and obligations) but for what it means socially (legitimacy). " Marriage is expressive conduct. This extension is important because of its link with the values \u200b\u200bof the free development of personality, diversity and equity ... [And] given the importance that society attributes to marriage and its consequences in our culture, to deny gay couples are denied their right to self-definition. To recognize marriage between same sex, the state validates their legitimate senders and their message. Therefore not be extended to same-sex couples, limited their freedom of expression. "
III. Response to the concepts of invalidity raised by the PGR. The ALDF refutes the arguments presented in the AIPGR for violation of various articles of the Constitution:
a) Article 16 and the drive for reform. The ALDF argued that the reform does not intervene, transgresses, limited rights, on the contrary, expands, why do not need to justify the reasonableness of the reform. The ALDF disputes the idea that the PGR should have demonstrated why the fact that same-sex couples could marry was discriminatory and therefore why it was necessary to reform the Civil Code. Shows that the concept of marriage and family filed in AIPGR is wrong, because "l characterization to make marriage and family is exclusionary, discriminatory and places the state above the people. Reproductive ability is not necessary or sufficient condition to form a marriage or family, or partner or marriage is a necessary condition nor sufficient to raise a family. "In sum, says the ALDF, the extension of rights is constitutional and does not require proof of their necessity. With regard to Article 391, if there was no change, how is that intended by the prosecutor that the ALDF "generate arguments for not changing a rule that was changed?"
b) Article 4 and the concept of family. The ALDF rejects the concept of family with the AIPGR arguing that it is based on dubious constitutional interpretation. The PGR's approach to reform violates the concept of family is protected by Article 4 is unfounded, says the ALDF, as the Attorney offers an interpretation of it unsubstantiated. The ALDF blemish this interpretation of authoritarian and based on ignorance of the characteristics of Mexican society. "The concept of family in the Constitution and therefore marriage must conform to the prohibition of discrimination, so the Civil Code reform, the FD is valid."
c) Articles 1 and 4 and adoption. Demonstrates the falsity of the allegation that the Attorney General the possibility of gay couples to adopt, would represent an affront to the rights of boys and girls or So says the ALDF, part of presumptions. The ALDF believes that the arguments made at the AIPGR attempting to impose a family and are based on prejudice, and that does not make a single test of this. "The Attorney is to place the highest court in a false debate because he never specified what the conflict of laws." The ALDF explained that Article 391 (and 390) are the mechanism designed to ensure the suitability of candidates to act adoption, being hetero rules (ie, by their own force does not cause injury to occur until the first application of the law) will be case by case decision where the interests of the child by judges and administrative authorities. "The interest of the child must be weighed case by case basis and no budget through identification with an ideal model of family, otherwise it would no longer consider precisely the interests of each child." Justifies the ALDF Civil Code reform as a concretization of the third paragraph of Article 1 of the Constitution, is seeking to achieve equality of all before law, and explains that if there had been differential treatment in respect of adoptions, yes it would have been unconstitutional. The ALDF concludes "By express constitutional mandate is not admissible to presume" prejudice "on the suitability of an individual to be based parent in his sexual preference ... Until proven otherwise, neither the legislature nor the right applicator can boast a lower fitness gay couples to care for a child. "
d) Legal certainty. The penultimate concept of constitutional violation is referred to the principle of certainty. In the AIPGR is argued that the entry into force of the reform will cause a state of legal uncertainty constitute a conflict of laws between the contested rules and other legal provisions of acts of civil status. The ALDF reject this argument ñalando constitutional Article 121 where provides expressly that the legal acts of an entity should be recognized in others. It also explains the ALDF, there are theses of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence establishing that violate rules while others, the actions of each entity will be completely valid, since they are based on valid laws, and that those laws are valid, the legislature must be competent to issue them. The ALDF demonstrates the competence to legislate in civil matters (art. 122).
e) Article 133 and drive the legal system. The latter concept refers to disputed the interpretation of Article 133, which provides the hierarchy of sources in the Mexican legal system. The PGR believes that by altering the composition of the marriage and allow gay marriages to take the ordinary legislature overrides the Power Reviewer, it deviates from the family model that Attorney believes that the Constitution imposes. The problem is that unconstitutional the PGR wields depends on the acceptance that there is a family model imposed by the Constitution, so that, according to AIPGR, any deviation is an affectation to art. 4 CPEUM, which is false, as demonstrated in the Report of the ALDF. The Mexican Constitution does not have any closed concept of family, leaves him open to interpretation. A democratic state should make use of dynamic interpretation of the Constitution, it allows the inclusion, pluralism and tolerance, thus only a Constitution than the passage of time.
C. Report of the Federal District Government.
The Report of the Head of the Federal District IALDF complements, is a longer document that is based on two basic themes: family and marriage.
I. Concepts controversial. The IGDF presents information to rebut fully supported the concept of "ideal family" and marriage argued in AIPGR. The report presents statistical and scientific data on the integration of families in Mexico. shows that the concept is not unique within the different rules in the states of the Republic and that the concept of family has had a dynamic transformation especially in the last three decades, since 1975 to date, is when you have given the biggest changes in the family in Mexico and the world. The variety of family homes and the diversity of establishing personal relationships within de ellos supone una alternancia muy diferente a las formas familiares tradicionales, por lo que estima el GDF que la apreciación de la PGR sobre los modelos de familia y matrimonio son incorrectos. El IGDF argumenta que “la homogeneidad anterior [de la familia patriarcal], derivada de la ausencia de libertad podía tranquilizar las conciencias de los bienpensantes pero ni por un momento suponía un nivel ético superior al de las actuales relaciones familiares presididas por la libertad y la tolerancia...[Pues] Como en los sistemas dictatoriales, las familias autoritarias también dan apariencia de ser más tranquilas. ” Por lo anterior, explica el GDF, hablar de familia contemporánea se trata de hablar de la twenty-first century family, not existed when the process began institutionally revaluation of women (1974). " The reform of Article 146 of the Civil Code for the Federal District to establish the right to marriage between persons of the same sex is a matter of civil rights and equal citizenship." He explained that e No reason for the family is central in the life of societies, it is transformed, too, when those companies are unchanged. According to the National Survey of Family and Vulnerability, 2007, prepared by the National System for Integral Family Development and the SSA, the number of households increased quickly, but with a membership shrinking and increasingly constituted by single parents, blended families and sole proprietorships. This is because the raison d'être of the modern family is not mere survival or protection of its members, but the pursuit of personal fulfillment and happiness. Therefore, the estimated GDF l to reform is conceived as an action against discrimination and the recognition that families formed from the union of two persons of the same sex, enjoy the same rights as those families consisting heterosexual couples. "It is a reform that recognizes a right to those who until before you were denied, which formalizes exclusive situations and serves to integrate the different realities statistically more frequent. Represents a step forward in our social and democratic growth even if it involves a change in historical traditions, precisely because some of these traditions are those that exclude or deny rights. Recognition of the right to marry for same sex is legal or social nature, which aims ensure the full exercise of the rights and obligations governing the relationship and coexistence between people of same sex with the same requirements and effects as pre-existing marriages between people of different sexes. "
The IGDF explains the context of the reform of article 4 of the Constitution, is that even in 1974 you would think that the "ideal family" was the traditional family, the fact is that the idea of \u200b\u200bregistering at the constitutional level protection of the family sat in the family policy (CONAPO, Family Planning), Government of Luis Echeverría had a more liberal court that the Attorney seeks to read the preamble to the reform. GDF makes clear that the Constitution is a living document that must be construed in accordance with the times so that it does not lose its regulations. In this way, in a long argument shows that it is false that there is only one type of family is true that the Constitution protects only an ideal type of family, leading to discrimination or leave unprotected all that are different from the one formed by a father, mother and children. Explain why it is true that the Constitution talks about that marriage should be between a man and a woman and it is false that only through heterosexual marriage to form a family that is not true that only through marriage and family form a it is false that the purpose of marriage is procreation.
GDF clear that no international instrument defining the concept of family much less than marriage, but obliges signatory states to not affect the principle of nondiscrimination. concludes that there is no constitutional foundation for claiming that a family can only be established through marriage between heterosexuals.
II. legal concepts. With regard to the concepts of strictly legal violation, the GDF argues in the same direction as the ALDF so no point in repeating the arguments here. rejects the violation of the principle of law in section 3 of the document and rejects the arguments of violation of the principle of legal certainty and to Article 133 in Section 5. should be added that to show that they are trying to a social relationship that claim to be legally regulated, and GDF l l argues that to the exclusion of homosexuals from marriage is an element of stigma, inequality and restriction of rights against a population group. "Reforms for the recognition of marriage between same-sex couples legal rights to social sector so far excluded. Therefore, sufficiency is justified the redefinition of marriage, that upsets the other legal institutions derived from it and contrary to what the Attorney said in the legislative process was credited to sufficiency of the implied prohibition to same-sex couples to marry, implied rape the fundamental right of non-discrimination on grounds of preferences. "He concluded:" if the legislation was challenged as a reason to carry generator full practice the principle of nondiscrimination, the reform does not exist due to no protection of rights under the union between same sex, but that people who favored such unions were being denying access to the specific figure of marriage, because domestic partnership is a different shape designed for other purposes, so both can co-exist for individuals to choose: marriage is designed to share life as a couple where both are reserved sex to the other; the domestic partnership is designed to protect relationships of familiarity and solidarity.
III. Adoption and interests of the child. A fourth point, the GDF refutes the arguments AIPGR against the possibility of adoption by same-sex marriages. GDF refutes the presumption of AIPGR that the mere fact that a homosexual couple adopts a child will cause injury, and does so by presenting results and data from various studies homopartentales families in several countries. In all concluded that there is no harm to children and youth and on the contrary, studies generally show positive results in training and personal development of children raised by homosexual couples. "The large majority opinion is that there is no scientific study to show any disadvantage on psychological development the child .. Boys and girls from families homo no different from those raised with heterosexual parents. The belief [that causes harm to the child] is intended to support the need for both figures for boys and girls can buy their sexual role, but studies show that society tends to reduce the traditional dichotomy of male / female and reality is that of father and mother as a rule is limited. The division of male / female is also undergoing transformations. "
The GDF concludes that no single empirical study that shows some disadvantages in the development of the children of homosexual couples. The way the State to better ensure the child's best interests will be reviewed case by case basis the adequacy of the couples who make an adoption application, it must pass the strict scrutiny of the authorities and that is what guarantees the welfare of the child and the prohibitions and prejudices. And, says GDF, "is as has been done so far, first the interests of the child and in all cases a judge will ultimately determine. Not ensure the child's interest through general rules that exclude people. For all the foregoing, the fears surrounding the promoter in relation to the issue of adoption by same-sex couples is unfounded. "
My Conclusion:
married is a right. Marriage can not be exclusive to heterosexual couples because it has the purpose of procreation, but a host of other reasons that spouses decide: the company and affection, mutual interest and also, procreation and the founding of a " ideal family. " That one is the right to self determination. That's what freedom is all about. Marriage is a performative act is an expression, and thus is related to the exercise of various freedoms, including that of expressing identity. Imply the possibility freedoms exercised or not, without hindrance, while not hurting others. Then wonder what's wrong with a couple of women or married men?
On the other hand, any type of family, traditional or modern, nuclear, extended or recomposed, heterosexual or homosexual is guaranteed a priori, a good upbringing. What is required is that the parental figures rather exercise their duties of care and education. It is the task of the state and families, especially parents and schools, to participate in including everyone and responsibility to eliminate the discrimination that people could be gay and young members of a gay or lesbian parents. If we really want to ensure the best interests of children, we must teach them to respect differences and not discriminate or permit discrimination against anyone. Children are not born prejudiced, they are taught by adults.
With regard to the decision by the Court is important to note that before the constitutional court is not a winner and a loser, as well as decided by the Constitutional Court, does-what to do, on behalf of the Constitution. The Court, as part of the political process, also charge and is influenced by him, and she in turn, will influence, for the purpose of the Constitution is the political community (Peter Häberle). The Court did not rule in favor of the City or on behalf of the Attorney General ruled in favor of the Constitution.
Data:
In First National Survey Exclusion, Tolerance and Violence in Public Schools, SEP 2008, 52.8% said they hate to share classes with non-heterosexuals.
According to the National Statistics and Geography, in 1990 75% of Mexican families were traditional (father, mother and children) for 2000 were 69%, and in 2005 had decreased to 68%. In contrast, single-person households have increased since 1990 although they were not counted in 2000 represented 6.3% of households in 2005 made the leap to 7.5%.
Data National Population Council (CONAPO) of 2009 show that just over 52% of families are nuclear or traditional, shaped by both parents and children, 9% of them are kind of parent, and say, made up of children and one parents.
(Data from El Universal 07/02/2010)
Between 2007 and 2010 held 753 s Coexistence Societies, of which 418 were pairs of men, 297 women and 38 for men and women (GDF). On March 4, the reform entered into force to 146, 19 gay couples had their marriage application to the Civil Registry. (El Universal 05/02/2010)
* Geraldine Gonzalez de la Vega is constitutional and essayist. She is the author of the blog Gera's Place. Has been devoted primarily to issues related to fundamental rights and the theory of the constitution. She has taught at the National Institute of Criminal Sciences at the Universidad Anahuac del Sur, Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Mexico and Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez. Currently done postgraduate studies in Germany. Twitter: @ geraldinasplace
