Jump to content

Talk:Same-sex marriage in Mexico/Archive 1

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

Civil unions, or same-sex civil unions?

This is an article entitled "Civil unions in Mexico." As it's not called "Same-sex civil unions in Mexico" — because opposite-sex civil unions do exist — should it not then cover both same- and opposite-sex civil unions? - Emiellaiendiay 20:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

302 couples register in Mexico City —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.12.171.218 (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Map?

With laws becoming more complex in Mexico, it would seem that a map, similar to the one for the US and Eurpe, may be needed. 140.90.131.108 (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

D.C.

In the opening it says 6 us states but it is teally 6 jurisdictions as D.C. is not a state The truth maker (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

So changed. Czolgolz (talk) 01:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Foreign Same-Sex Marriages

The Supreme Court ruled based on a Full Faith and Credit-equivalent clause that the whole country has to recognise SSM's performed in Mexico City, but does this mean foreign SSM's are also recognised?----occono (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to know this as well. Can anyone fluent in Mexican Spanish analyze this? 174.58.137.241 (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Quintana Roo

I don't see sufficient evidence to claim that same-sex marriage is can be legally performed (as opposed to be legal as an import from Mexico City) in the state of Quintana Roo. This Wiki article cites the website of a advocate lawyers group that claims that a loophole can be exploited to allow people to legally marry (the Spanish language source is a retelling of that source). I checked for a reliable source and found a story by the news agency EFE, which is the basis for the Hispanically Speaking source, but which does not specify the legality of the unions but merely cites what an activist proposes. We know that no same-sex marriage law was passed by the state legislature, only by the legislature in Mexico City. I think we need better evidence to substantiate the claim that same-sex marriages can be legally performed in the state. Hekerui (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the guy who added Quintana Roo. My main source was an article from Quintana Roo al Día located here (http://www.quintanarooaldia.com/noticia/quintana-roo-segundo-estado-en-mexico-que-legaliza-matrimonios-gay/11720). It's in Spanish, but you can glean all of the information from that article if you use Google Translate. I included the lawyers group's commentary because it provides a nice English-language summary of how these same-sex marriages were recognized, and I suppose I could replace the Hispanically Speaking News source with the Fox News one if need be. I included that because it cites the phrase "people interested in getting married" from Quintana Roo's civil code, which is precisely why "no same-sex marriage law was passed by the state legislature"—the authorities of Quintana Roo's civil registry decided to interpret the civil code differently after two same-sex couples repeatedly filed for marriage licenses. The Fox News link also demonstrates that this is not just a one-time event and that more same-sex couples are planning to marry in the state. Xnux 01:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
The EFE source does not actually demonstrate the legality and only discusses future marriages, not those that were already performed. You must agree that the claim that a loophole allows the legal performance of marriages when no legislation to that effect was enacted needs substantion, but all the information we have for that is from the lawyer website, which is not a reliable source, and from quintanarooaldia.com, which only cites one of the supposedly married people for the claim. We need an independent reliable source, preferably in English, for the legality of the performed marriages. Changing all the templates and articles is a bit premature when this could be just a stunt. Hekerui (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
The claim that "a loophole allows the legal performance of marriages when no legislation to that effect was enacted" is substantied by the Fox News article, which states that "gay and lesbian marriages are possible in Quintana Roo." That's about as straightforward as it gets. I don't know why the title of the article is "Cancun Plans to Pass Gay Marriage Bill to Attract Tourists," because there is no such claim in the body of the article itself. Xnux 01:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, I found an article from CNN México (http://mexico.cnn.com/nacional/2011/11/30/sin-hacer-una-reforma-legal-quintana-roo-realiza-sus-primeras-bodas-gay) Xnux 06:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I hesitate to accept this as broadly true because it's only few people who got married so far and then only by carefully picking public officials who agreed with their reasoning. If it was actually legal for any couple in the state at any time and had to be performed by civil officials, a lot more people would do it a lot sooner. Right now it seems like one of the Brazilian cases where a judge allowed marriage for a very few couples, but no bigger legal change followed. In this case, a few public officials from one city in the state allow SSMs, but the consequences for the state are unclear. Hekerui (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
That's a fair point, but Quintana Roo differs from Brazil in certain aspects. In Brazil, judges are selectively allowing civil unions to become marriages, whereas in Quintana Roo, a civil registry official named María Rosalía Balam Camaal went on record as saying that there is no legal impediment for any same-sex couple to marry (see another article from CNN México titled Dos matrimonios homosexuales se casaron en un municipio conservador, here on Google Translate, where Calaam "explicó que cuando se analizaron las solicitudes de matrimonio y no encontraron impedimento legal para dar fe del matrimonio" (she explained that when the marriage requests were analyzed, they didn't find a legal impediment to giving faith to their marriage). This is functionally equivalent to when New Mexico Attorney General Gary King issued an opinion that New Mexico must recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages. Also, there is evidence that marriages are happening outside of Lázaro Cárdenas Municipality—the Fox News article says that eight couples have already planned to marry in Cancún in January; Cancún is located in Benito Juárez Municipality. This also addresses your concern that "a lot more people would do it a lot sooner"; that's about as soon as it gets. As Trinidad García Argüelles, the mayor of Lázaro Cárdenas, noted in the CNN México article, "Ya será competencia del Congreso trabajar sobre el tema, si busca o no modificar la ley para prohibir estos matrimonios" (it will be up to the congress [of Quintana Roo] to work on the subject, to see if the law should be modified to prohibit these marriages). Thus, unless Quintana Roo's congress passes a bill to the contrary, same-sex marriage has been de facto legalized in Quintana Roo. Xnux 18:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
The question we should ask is this: can a same-sex couple get married anywhere, anytime in the state? Legislation that allows that is absent, so people have to pick and choose registrars that are willing to go along with the "what's not forbidden is allowed" argument. This is not enough to write "same-sex marriages can be legally performed in the Mexican state of Quintana Roo" in this encyclopedia, which has to be the standard for chaning templates and maps etc. Hekerui (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
It's definitely a very uncertain situation, although I feel like there is enough evidence of same-sex marriages happening (perhaps not universally across the state) to at least include some mention of it in the article. We don't have to update the maps yet, if you don't want to do so, although I'm not sure what kind of evidence we'd need to say with a high level of confidence that same-sex marriages are possible anywhere in Quintana Roo. There will be the eight marriages that are supposed to happen in Cancún come January, although this conclusively demonstrates SSM's legality only in Benito Juárez and Lázaro Cárdenas Municipalities. Should we just say that some jurisdictions in Quintana Roo are offering SSM and wait for future developments? Xnux 20:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to stick my nose in here and suggest this should probably be spun off into its own article. Perhaps Same-sex marriage in Quintana Roo? Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Although it's not really my expertise in determining what topics deserve their own articles, the situation in Quintana Roo is somewhat uncertain (as I noted above), so perhaps it would be better to wait until we can make a conclusive statement on SSM's legality in Quintana Roo before worrying about making a new article about it. Xnux 20:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree. It may or may not be 100% legal, but the article can document all that. There are articles like this for areas where it isn't legal. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Examples: Same-sex marriage in Australia & Same-sex marriage in Scotland. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying that there isn't enough information, I just want to wait until I can reach a compromise with Hekerui about what information about SSM in Quintana Roo we should present, because there's some disagreement there. Xnux 20:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I decided to be bold and create the article anyway, with a copy and paste of this section. Feel free to edit it once you have a compromise. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Can we please wait with creating articles and changing templates that affect dozens of other pages until we have confirmation that same-sex couples can legally marry in the state? Not sometimes with some people under some public officials, but the way it's done in other states and countries that allow SSMs. I think it's best to redirect the new article, right now this is okay as a subtopic but not as its own article. Hekerui (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I redirected the forked article. We can't discuss the basic factually accuracy of duplicate material on two article talk pages at the same time. How about we come to a consensus before we make new articles? Hekerui (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to be willing to compromise, and from what I have seen, that isn't happening. The factual accuracy has been established with CNN and other reliable sources. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Hekerui:

  1. Copying and pasting is perfectly acceptable. It happens all the time. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
  2. It is acceptable to create the article, because even if same-sex marriage isn't legal there, it can still chronicle what is going on. Examples: Same-sex marriage in Australia and Same-sex marriage in Scotland.
  3. No one owns the article, and all are welcome to edit it. In reality it needed its own article so the topic can organically grow. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
You must have failed to read the conversation above. You take a disputed text, create a content fork, leaving out that the content is disputed, and present it as facts? And then you refuse to acknowledge that discussing the same thing in two different places may be redundant? Hekerui (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I have acknowledged it, and left a direct link here on the other talk page. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Hekerui you need to acknowledge when there is a consensus, even if you don't agree with it. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Me-123567-Me, there isn't really a consensus yet. If you look at the main discussion, I mention that we may have to forgo declaring that SSM is legal everywhere in Quintana Roo for now. What I'm trying to ascertain is what information we should present in the meantime until more news about SSM in Quintana Roo comes out. Xnux 21:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
So instead of saying it is legal state-wide, say it's legal in some parts. Honestly, from reading all the sources provided here and in the article, this will probably head to court at some point. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me. Also, because of the uncertainty around this topic, I propose that SSM in Quintana Roo not be its own article for now. I can go ahead and change the sources to the CNN and Fox News articles to address Hekerui's concerns about reliable sources. Does that sound good? Xnux 21:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
That's a good response. I want to apologize for becoming annoyed and not reacting in a more calm and relaxed manner. Hekerui (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I disagree, the article should still be on its own to document the future changes. No article is allowed to be longer than 32KB. But make the other changes. See also WP:Length. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
We need to add QR, it's what the news has reported and we cannot make our own conclusions.LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Please produce the news report that states (and that does not merely repeat assertions by activists) that SSMs can be legally performed for any same-sex couple in QR. And I mean it, please do, so the issue can be put to rest. If there is no such source then how can we put QR in the same category as the federal district on Wikipedia, where anyone can marry and not a select few? Hekerui (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
There are at least three reliable sources listed in Same-sex marriage in Quintana Roo. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The first RS reports on the loophole plan by interviewing an activist and the other two RS state that couples had to shop for specific public officials who did not object to their legal reasoning to get marriages performed. So how is SSM-legal-for-everyone sourced? Hekerui (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Can someone who speaks Spanish please check the original source, La Reforma, for additional information on the suspension of marriage ceremonies in the state and the legal review ordered by the Secretary of State? Hekerui (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

On the map, I've added brown rings where it does not officially have the death penalty, but local judged have nonetheless imposed the death penalty. How about s.t. like that here? A dark-blue ring, with the center being the color of the official situation (in this case, recognition only). Pls comment on the map talk page at Commons. — kwami (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Marriages are now legal as long as QR law doesn't state "man and woman".Source (Spanish) Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a very interesting development, and I would go as far to claim that the Quintana Roo Secretariat's decision effectively legalized same-sex marriage in Quintana Roo. Before I update the rest of the relevant articles, let me contact Hekerui, as he had some objections previously. Xnux 16:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Is there an English-language source for this? SSM is a topic that English-language media reliably report on, whether it concerns the English speaking world or not. I don't want this to be another "Alagoas" situation, where local media call civil unions marriages but no other confirmation is available and it turns out it wasn't SSM after all. Hekerui (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I can't find an English-language source (besides this one from Mexico and Gulf Region Reporter), although I can find tons of Spanish-language ones. I'm hoping that this isn't another Alagoas-esque situation, since the articles pretty clearly state "matrimonios gay" and aren't written in legalese, but I'll refrain on editing anything until the English-language media notices (hopefully). Xnux 15:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Please don't take my comment as a discouragement from editing. You can certainly use Spanish-language sources to update the article. I merely expressed my dismay that no reliable English-language reporting has yet been done, apparently. Best regards Hekerui (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

According to several Spanish-language news sources (here's a summary from an English-language blog), the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation ruled against Oaxaca's law banning same-sex marriage. However, as the English-language blog post notes, the actual ruling won't be available to the public for a while, and SCJN decisions tend to take a while before actually going into effect, so it might be a bit early to proclaim that same-sex marriage is legal in Oaxaca. Xnux 22:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Problems in Quintana Roo

According to CNN México, after the initial two weddings in Quintana Roo, on November 2011, any other wedding has been held in this state, despite the statement of Government Secretary in May 2012, telling that has no legal impediment to perform gay weddings. The civil registries argues that has no instructions from state authority to accept this marriages.

"Luis Alberto González Flores, government secretary of the state, said in an interview that Quintana Roo isn't an entity which allow same-sex marriages, and even acknowledged that in law there is no legal impediment to celebrate such weddings are municipal civil registries that will determine whether to accept or not to celebrate marriages."

In these conditions, ¿is really recognized the gay marriage right in Quintana Roo? ¿Does it make sense to keep it on the list? http://mexico.cnn.com/nacional/2012/12/07/la-resolucion-de-la-corte-motiva-a-parejas-del-mismo-sexo-a-ampararse (in spanish, December 2012) Paucazorla (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Error in Map

Colima should be coloured light blue (civil unions), and not dark blue (same-sex marriage). Mattximus (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

adoption

No adoption then in Jalisco, but what about Colima? It sounds as though there might be. — kwami (talk) 06:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The 2nd ref says "no". Can't read the first. I've also removed Coahuila from our adoption maps, as we don't have any ref that it's actually happened there, just that it was going to. (There were a dozen or so states supposedly w adoption on our maps that contradict refs or don't have any.) — kwami (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
El Universal never mentions the word "adopción" or variants, and Proceso says "Además, cancela su derecho a adoptar (Also, cancels their right to adopt)". AFAIK, Mexico City is the only place an LGBT couple can adopt (single LGBT people can adopt in the whole country though). For Coahuila, if I understood correctly this article, there are not adoptions yet. In the question "¿Se vulnera el desarrollo de un pequeño al crecer en un matrimonio legitimado entre dos personas del mismo sexo? (It violates the development of a child to grow into a legitimate marriage between two people of the same sex?)" Lol Kin anwsered: "[...The adoption law arises for singles, exceptions to the last century were for marriages. A single person did not exercise their sexuality implicitly, so the way to have a family was through adoption, and anyone is entitled to this process. What we say is {LGBT people want} to be allowed to form in the same row. The institution which is in charge of the adoption will have to analyze each case what is the right family for that child.]" Kin basically said with "What we say is to be allowed to form in the same row" is that Coahuila, as of March 2013, hadn't approved LGBT adoptions to couples. I couldn't find a recent reference about the topic. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 02:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! — kwami (talk) 06:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Old map and info

Since December 2013 civil union is legal on Campeche too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.146.62.158 (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

File:State_recognition_of_same-sex_relationships_(North_America).svg

We should probably remove the map if it isn't updated by March 20 (March 20 is when the U.S. State of Kentucky recognizes same-sex marriage). --Prcc27 (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Court Ruling declares Oaxaca same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

http://purpleunions.com/blog/2014/04/mexico-oaxaca-court-strikes-down-marriage-equality-ban.html 155.245.69.178 (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Does that mean couples are free to marry, or do they still have to go before a judge? — kwami (talk)

San Luis Potosi?

can someone check this ... my Spanish isn't that good: http://pulsoslp.com.mx/2014/06/07/mas-homosexuales-pueden-casarse-en-slp/ 155.245.69.178 (talk) 08:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

State Order

Would it not make more sense to input the states in alphabetical order and input a chart to show the order in which legalization occurred? The order that they are currently in appears to be date of a decision, which is somewhat awkward. Especially with so many cases being filed.

Should there be a discussion of the injunction procedure? I see discussion in several articles that if 5 injunctions in any given state are issued with the same result, the law must change. I am not certain if that is automatic or is a legislative process. 187.252.94.51 (talk) 07:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)susun

Request to move page

I request we move the page to Same-sex marriage in Mexico. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Guanajuato?

Civil union in Guanajuato?201.219.190.155 (talk) 00:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Baja California

I added the bit about the Supreme Court of Mexico find the constitutional ban against same-sex marriage in Baja California unconstitutional. What I'm not sure about is what this means... Is gay marriage legal in Baja now, or does the ruling just apply to the couple who filed suit? Frimmin (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It only applies to the couple who filed suit. In each state, 5 identical cases with the same outcome require the legislature to act, but in most cases, the legislature doesn't act. If that happens, like in Chihuahua and Yucatan, they then file another amparo asking the SCJN to hold the Congress in contempt. None of the cases has gotten a final review on that level yet, so I am not sure what happens if they don't change it even then. SusunW (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

new Buzzfeed article

[3] Used to confirm map; might be useful in article too. — kwami (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Love the new map and yes, gives a lead on Edomex! Finally after 2 years. SusunW (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Too long?

I'm thinking as we are now at a place where over 2/3 of the states have injunction decisions that, the article is getting unwieldy and needs to have the individual states broken off into separate pieces with this one being just an overview. Anyone else concur and think we should start moving the articles into individual state spaces? Or do we wait until there is actual marriage approval? SusunW (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. At least, that would be the ideal. But there would be 20–30 articles to maintain and keep up to date. Since you're the primary editor for this article, is that a task you're willing to take on? I suspect there will not be nearly as many editors in Mexican state SSM as in Usonian state SSM because (1) this is English WP, and (2) SSM has a lower profile in Mexico than in the US. The downside I see is that if you drop out, most of the state articles would languish and, because things are changing so fast, could possibly become so outdated as to be worse than nothing. But if you're willing to make this essentially a personal project, go for it! — kwami (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
You might want to coordinate with the editors on WP-es. Currently they have an article on Coahuila, which we do not, so that would be s.t. you could copy, but then if you continue, we'd have better coverage than they do, which I don't know if that would be cause for pride or embarrassment. Maybe they could expand the WP-es coverage in sync with your work here. That way, if one of our articles becomes dated, there'd be a Spanish article to update from. (Unless they let their articles languish too.) — kwami (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami: Your logic makes perfect sense for why it may be best to wait a bit to break out the articles. I truly think that we will see a flurry of state congresses overturning codes this year. We have a bunch of states at 4 cases, Yucatán looks to be on the verge of moving, I am still expecting that ruling out of Colima on wedlock vs. marriage. Much easier for me if it is all in one piece, but ultimately it needs to diversify into state articles. And yes, it would be lovely to have more help to keep up with them all, but so far that hasn't happened. I'll check their Coahuila article and see if I can work with it. Thanks for the input. ;) SusunW (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary table

Does anybody know how to create a summary table for recognition of same-sex marriage and civil unions (when and where laws were passed and rulings made)? Not unlike the one that you can find on the US or Europe's page Finedelledanze (talk) 11:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

No idea and not sure how helpful it would be. But you are welcome to create one and maintain it. The issue I see is that Mexico is not like the US or Europe. One judgment does not change anything. Five individual judgements are needed to force a law change and even then, that may not happen. The press does not follow these cases like they do in the US, so you will have to dig for information in regional papers. SusunW (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I created a summary table for the four federal entities that have fully legalised same-sex marriage (but I couldn't find the flag for Mexico City in flagdeco style). The table may need some fixes, but I'll leave this to more expert users! Best Finedelledanze (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
@Finedelledanze: Pulled the flag. Found it under a weird combo ... Distrito Federal (Mexico). Nothing like mixing English and Spanish in one title. o.O SusunW (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Appending this discussion from my page so I don't have to keep repeating the information

Re: Same-sex marriage in Chihuahua

Thank you for creating this article. I added it to Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2015/Results, which tracks new LGBT-related content created during the month of June as part of the annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign. If you happen to create or improve the LGBT-related articles this month, feel free to update the Result page accordingly. Thanks again! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I also did a page on Same-sex marriage in Coahuila because apparently it hadn't been done. Keep an eye on Maurice Tomlinson, his decision is due from the Caribbean Court of Justice this month, I think. SusunW (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up! ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Cases by state/province on subjects like this are to be encouraged everywhere. Coffee production by Brazilian state with specific case studies on each would be good for instance! Epic work BTW on the Argentine actresses, I will plough through those red links soon enough. The problem is that for film I think it's best done by director to make everything consistent.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld: I will eventually break out all the states, but since there are only two of us that regularly monitor the 31 states, it is easier to have them all in one article until the legislation has passed for full legalization. As it stands now, most all of the states have partial judicial precedent, but since each state requires 5 judgments in each state and it is an active situation, one article seems to work best for the time being, so I don't have to monitor 30+ articles. And thanks. Am working my way through the Argentines ;) SusunW (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Would it make sense to have a table of the Mexican States and their Amparo counts? (or even a map based on that?)Naraht (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@Naraht: hard question to answer. I doubt seriously that we have an accurate count of the amparos that have been issued. Some states print them in the paper, others don't. I follow Alex Ali Mendez on Facebook to try to learn where he has filed, etc. But even if he says there is a case, (look at Tabasco), we may not find an article. Some states count the collective amparos as individual judgments and some count them as a single judgment. We tried to make the map show where we have definite evidence that 5 or more separate injunctions (regardless of whether they were single or collective) have been issued, but for some reason that version doesn't flow to all pages. See the one on Recognition of same-sex unions in Mexico. SusunW (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The map is flowing to all pages, the issue is that the page with the map on it may need to be WP:Purged. Do you have an estimate when all states will reach 5 (or the equivalent) bringing full Marriage Equality to Mexico?Naraht (talk) 01:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
@Naraht: In my lifetime? No seriously, I have no idea. Over the last 2 years there have been cases and rulings in all but I think 3 states, I'm totally guessing, but looking at how quickly rulings have come and how much faster they will happen if they do not have to be denied and overturned by the SCJN I'd say within 3-5 years. May be less, but will want to see what impact this recent ruling has on Yucatán, Oaxaca and Colima. IF an impact is going to happen from this latest ruling, it should be there first and if nothing happens there, I would think the impact would be negligible. SusunW (talk) 02:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Well and then there is the NYTimes saying it is essentially done. :) http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/15/world/americas/with-little-fanfare-mexican-supreme-court-effectively-legalizes-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0 Naraht (talk) 12:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Naraht: Yes, I've read that and can only say that since this ruling did not change the laws in any state, they are mistaken. Each state constitution still says SSM is illegal. The civil registrars are bound to follow the constitution. Thus, someone applies, and the registrar denies them. They file for an amparo (injunction), pay money, and wait. The only part of the process that apparently changed happens now, a judge must approve their request. (Before, the judge could deny and then the couple would appeal to the SCJN, who to my knowledge always approved the request.) Then they can marry when the registrar then receives word of the judgment, has all the other documents they think they want, and schedules a date. This process can be quick, or it can be long, it can be with minimal hassle or full of obstacles. In some cases, application to marriage has been under a year, in the case of Edomex, the delays lasted 4 years. Every state has had proposals to change the laws before them virtually since 2006. Only 1 state, Coahuilla has actually done so (Quinanta Roo never had a law banning to begin with). So, does this sound to you like they are done? Doesn't to me, nor does it to any of my Mexican friends and neighbors. SusunW (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
@Naraht: As I am reading the Mexican press this morning, I see skepticism and caution. Out of Durango, "There is no time limit on how quickly we must change the laws. We need to evaluate." Out of Chiapas just because the supreme court came in favor of same-sex marriages, that does not mean that change happens in the state, because legal issues must be harmonized and people will have to follow formalities. In Querétaro we are waiting on the decision of the fifth amparo, we have four. (We look progressive, but we are stalling. Nothing requires them to wait for 5 decisions.) As I said, there are many ways to drag this process out. I hope I am wrong. I hope it happens quickly, but I think it will not be as quick and easy as the English-speaking press is trying to make it sound. SusunW (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The situation in Mexico may start changing rapidly, but unless you can verify with Mexican press that a state has changed their constitution, it is probably a judgment for a single couple or a group of couples. 5 individual rulings on the same issue must have the same verdict before a state can be forced to change their constitution. Almost every amparo (injunction) issued states that the state law is unconstitutional, that does not mean that it has to change because the couple has an injunction that says that law does not apply to them, but only to them. SusunW (talk) 06:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Updates required

I updated the first paragraph to indicate that same-sex marriage is now recognized nationwide, but more work is needed throughout the article. --zandperl (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Zandper: Revert your edits. Clearly you have neither read the talk page, nor the article. Marriage is NOT recognized nationwide. Individual amparos are still required. The supreme court ruling in Mexico did NOT overturn any state laws. You clearly do not understand the situation. If you do not revert, I will. SusunW (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
@Zandper: I have reverted your edits. This is an active situation and there are editors who have worked the page consistently who know what is going on and are following the changes as they happen. You are welcome to participate, but clearly need to familiarize yourself with what the situation in Mexico actually is. The English press very much oversimplified the situation. No same-sex couple here can get married without a court order except in Mexico City, Coahuilla or Quintana Roo. Even in Chihuahua it is questionable if that is possible in spite of the governor's statement because issuing licenses would force registrars to commit criminal acts. No states have yet changed their constitutions due to the Supreme Court's ruling and as I said before, the Supreme Court order did not require them to. It required them to approve individual injunctions. SusunW (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 22 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 06:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


Recognition of same-sex unions in Mexico → Same-sex marriage in Mexico – With same-sex marriage legal in four federal entities and that number likely to rise sharply in the coming months due to the high court's decision going into effect 22 June 2015, should the title of the article change as per other wiki articles on the subject? Jono52795 (talk) 09:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Michoacán

@Jono52795: Please revert your edits. You have created a falsehood. As the discussion above showed, in Mexico, you cannot anticipate what will happen. The Congress rejected the changes. [4] SusunW (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Chase1493: we have learned something else besides the consensus we had not to anticipate was correct. The OEM article gives a list of the penalties of the "6th" (or in the case of Chihuahua 30+th or Yucatan 20+th LOL) amparo. A fine at 100 days, removal of the head of the Congress if it persists, then as a third measure, "the provision of Sarbelio Molina" (I have no idea what this is), and finally "a higher authority" may submit the change. What we do not know is if these are the provisions in all cases, or if these are the provisions only in this case. SusunW (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Posted a news link on the Michoacan talk page. — kwami (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Morelos

On July 27, the governor of Morelos signed an executive order providing for marriage equality within the state: Firman iniciativa para matrimonios igualitarios en Morelos Fortguy (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Chase1493 (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Beautiful. They were predicting this for the first of August. Woot! Thanks @Fortguy: SusunW (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Except I'm backing off of that. It doesn't appear to be an executive order. It appears to be a legislative proposal? Here: [5] Governor presented the legislature with a reform initiative so that the articles of the Family Code and the Family Procedure Code can be amended. Here: [6] ...presented on Monday, July 27 an initiative to adjust local legislation ... with the aims to reform various articles of the Family Code and the Family Code.

I am seeing nothing that says it is a done deal, but it well may be. It is rare that an issue is stated directly and much more common to talk around the issue. Anyone else want to weigh in? SusunW (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Having seen the references you cited and the source your first reference credited, I agree with you. This seems not to be a done deal and requires action during the next legislative session. None of these sources indicate when that may be forthcoming. When I say IANAL, that has even stronger meaning in my lack of understanding of the Mexican legal system. Thanks for the clarification. Fortguy (talk) 04:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
@Fortguy: I've been watching it and reading about the cases for 5 years and I am still in the dark too. Part of it is that there is a language difference. It is rudeness to state something too directly, as it might cause offense, but part of it is also that it is no clearer to the reporters and they don't want to make a mistake. I have a few journalist friends here and they complain about the lack of definite answers all the time. I posted an update on the page and will keep watching. The articles I read over the weekend said it would be done in August, so we shall hope for that. SusunW (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Map update?

Guanajuato

On the map, Guanajuato (the state due east of Jalisco) is labelled as a jurisdiction where same-sex partnerships are recognized. Guanajuato does not recognize any forms of civil unions, domestic partnerships, or unregistered cohabitation. As far as I can tell, the state should be shaded beige since two court orders have been granted. I would simply change it myself except every attempt to download the editor has been unsuccessful

Andrew1444 (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: or anyone else who knows how...can we get the map to show Michoacán is at 5+ amparos. SusunW (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Chase got to it first.
Is there an amparo in Guerrero, or is it just anticipated that there soon will be? Wondering if we should change that state. — kwami (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I say we wait. There has been nothing going on in Guerrero since that abortive illegal first attempt. No amparos, no legislation, no nothing. They seem to be giving out contradictory info. The registrar is saying they are having a joint ceremony, when the law is changed ... the governor is saying they are in support of marriage equality but will follow the law? What does that mean, IDK. I don't think we can anticipate. They may well pull it off, but for now, there are zero amparos in Guerrero and no legislation to change the present law. I don't see how we can make any changes. SusunW (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
After our discussion own on the matter, I support SusunW's proposal. Let's not make the same kind of bold edits that caused the occasional uproar on the U.S. map. Chase1493 (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami: or @Chase1493: Totally amazed that they pulled it off in Guerrero an kudos to them. Can we get the map changed? SusunW (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
They had a mass wedding in Acapulco, but I don't see any evidence that SSM is now freely available across the state. Has the legislation passed? — kwami (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I would love to, but sadly I'm at work. Chase1493 (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami:, @Chase1493: No legislation has passed, no amparos were obtained, but the governor personally conducted the service and said that anyone could marry in Guerrero. I cautioned that we wait until it happened before. Now I'm going with "be bold" because the ceremony did take place with the governor's blessing. The only thing that would impede a marriage in Guerrero from here forward is if you went to a Civil registry that is not connected to the State Coordinator for Civil Registries, as far as I can tell. Apparently that office has override capabilities. SusunW (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@SusunW: Have you read the recent update to the section dealing with Michoacán? Should we get ready to change the map again and color the state for marriage within a day or two? It seems like they only have until tomorrow at midnight to make the change, so it seems like a done deal. Chase1493 (talk) 09:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am watching LuLuDrop's posts. Should happen in a couple of days, but we need to wait to make sure that it does. SusunW (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
@Chase1493: From what I see today in the news, they are asking for an extension. SusunW (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
@SusunW and Talk: I see, I didn't realize that once the precedent was set in a state, fines and other legal action could be used to force change like that. If this is the new norm, I think this map will be getting bluer by the month. Also, have you heard anything about Oaxaca? They've had four of the five amparos for quite some time, I don't see how there hasn't been a fifth in the last six months. Chase1493 (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
@Chase1493: That is what the whole "race to 5" is about. If they can get 5 amparos, they can file a 6th suit and force the issue, but that doesn't mean that it happens. Someone has to be willing to file, pay the costs, wait, etc. Both Chihuahua and Yucatan are way over 5. It isn't a new norm, it is same old, same old. What is different is that IF they file that 6th suit to force the legislative change it cannot be turned down once it gets through to a judge. But then there are lots of ways to delay legislative change. I see nothing happening at present in Oaxaca, but it could. They aren't that far from DF and if you can just go to Mexico City and get it done, it is worth not having to wait to a lot of people. The current climate seems to be all bets are off. I would never have predicted Guerrero before places where they have been actually fighting for marriage. On the other hand, maybe they were fighting for it and it just never made it into the press. Very hard to know. SusunW (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Nayarit

The state congress of Nayarit has approved same-sex marriage legislation by a vote of 26 to one with one abstention. The new law becomes effective once published in the state's official journal. This is a formality as the state has been effectively in compliance with federal court decisions.

Aprueba el Congreso de Nayarit los matrimonios gay

The state previously, along with Colima, Guanajuato, and Querétaro, had been quietly marrying same-sex couples without opposition since reaching the five-amparo limit. Fortguy (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The state governor supports the new law: Aprueba congreso de Nayarit matrimonios del mismo sexo Fortguy (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It's now officially in the state constitution. I think we can add it to the list:

https://www.quadratin.com.mx/opinion/Nayarit-matrimonio-igualitarioGerardo-Herrera/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.159.168.116 (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Agreed. Jono52795 (talk) 00:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think so. This article seems to be a congratulatory piece about the approval of the law by the state congress of Nayarit. Just to be sure, I checked Nayarit's official journal's entries from December. I couldn't find any mention of a new Civil Code Ken (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC).
It's published in the state's Official Journal here. The map and article are grossly outdated. Hidalgo has an amparo. Colima, Guanajuato, and Querétaro are complying with court orders and marrying everyone everywhere without throwing an Alabama fit. Colima is even converting its civil unions into marriages. Texas still hasn't repealed codes criminalizing sodomy despite being the named losing defendant in Lawrence v. Texas much less reforming its constitution and statutes after Obergefell. The same standard used for coloring the U.S. map should at least be used in these Mexican states. Fortguy (talk) 09:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Tlaxcala

A lesbian couple was married on January 18, 2016 after receiving a federal court amparo issued November 27, 2015. Tlaxcala is no longer among the few states without a single amparo.: E-consulta.com, Celebra Tlaxcala primer matrimonio igualitario Fortguy (talk) 07:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Very cool! SusunW (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Jalisco

Jalisco's ban against SSM is now dead. The federal supreme court has ruled the state's ban unconstitutional in a unanimous 11-0 ruling. This is a first in that previous court rulings against state bans had been decided by the "First Chamber", a panel of justices not comprising the entire court. This decision was made by the entirety of the court.

CNN Expansión: Inconstitucional, prohibir matrimonios gay en Jalisco: SCJN

Joe Jervis, Joe. My. God.: MEXICO: Same-Sex Marriage Legalized In Jalisco State After Unanimous Ruling By Supreme Court

Marriage equality is expected to become a reality throughout Jalisco in 7-10 days once the ruling is published in the state's Official Journal. Fortguy (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Baja California

BC has, as long suspected, surpassed the five-amparo limit.

Alex Ali Méndez Díaz, México Igualitario: Carta pública a la Ministra Norma Lucía Piña Hernández

Unfortunately, this list is not comprehensive of all amparos issued within the federal republic so far. Fortguy (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Fortguy That's so much the problem in most states. Since individuals can file privately, we only know about the ones where in there is actually an attorney who wants press involved. Looks like 10 on Méndez's list alone. But it also appears they are appealing every decision? SusunW (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I changed BC on the map because Méndez documents such a large number of amparos while also specifying those that have withstood appeal up to and including a panel of federal supreme court justices. I did not change Sinaloa, despite having sufficient amparos, because Méndez's accounting shows some of those still unresolved by appeal. I do believe Sinaloa and several other states are beyond the 5-amparo limit; I'm just being cautious while I seek other sources of documentation. Fortguy (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Querétaro

Querétaro has been updated on the map. I'm surprised no one has updated the state previously as the article specifically lists sufficient amparos to place it over the limit. Arguably, a case could be made that the state should be dark blue–there are no reports of intransigence on the part of local officials–but I'm being cautious here. The state lacks a formal executive order from the governor nor has the state congress revised the civil code to officially recognize SSM. Fortguy (talk) 07:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Guerrero

Imo Guerrero should be stripe in the map as it was in NM and Kansdas. as marriage equality is not legal in all municipalities and each of them have the power to decide if to allow a same sex couple to get married. If denied they can go to another municipality but if they want to get married in that municipality they will need an amparo. The head of the Civil registry even said that she was sad that the power to decide was in each municipality as there is a law in there,and she could not force every municipality to marry ss couples. She even criticize Acapulco decision to not allow same sex marriages. http://suracapulco.mx/8/pueden-casarse-parejas-del-mismo-sexo-en-las-bodas-del-dia-del-amor-informa-el-registro-civil/ --Allan120102 (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Nuevo León

From what I understand, the situation in Nuevo León is now similar to the one in Jalisco. See http://www.proceso.com.mx/430465/ordena-la-corte-a-el-bronco-reconocer-concubinato-gay Ken (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Michoacán

Michoacán has passed legislation approving marriage equality.

Ibeth Cruz, Provincia: Diputados aprueban matrimonios igualitarios en Michoacán Fortguy (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Same-sex marriage in Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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. due to missing archive

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter above to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Check done by: Fortguy (talk) 06:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Same-sex marriage in Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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. due to Robots.txt

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Checked by: Fortguy (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Same-sex marriage in Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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. due to missing archive

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Checked by: Fortguy (talk) 06:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Linkrot last instances

The reference below has two URLs which are the only linkrot problems in the Querétaro section of this article. Can someone convert these two URLs into correct inline citations?

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://amqueretaro.com/2014/11/discusion-sobre-modificaciones-legales-para-permitir-matrimonios-entre-personas-del-mismo-sexo-no-sera-este-ano/.html|title=Discusión sobre modificaciones legales para permitir matrimonios entre personas del mismo sexo no será este año - See more at: http://web.archive.org/web/20150101014949/http://amqueretaro.com/2014/11/discusion-sobre-modificaciones-legales-para-permitir-matrimonios-entre-personas-del-mismo-sexo-no-sera-este-ano/.html#sthash.unmU1MMX.dpuf|date=2014-11-27|accessdate=2015-10-19|archivedate=2015-01-01|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20150101014949/http://amqueretaro.com/2014/11/discusion-sobre-modificaciones-legales-para-permitir-matrimonios-entre-personas-del-mismo-sexo-no-sera-este-ano/.html}}</ref>

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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. due to missing archive Fortguy (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.. These remain as dead links.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Checked by: Fortguy (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Chiapas

Can someone please provide a source as to why Chiapas is no longer listed among states allowing same-sex marriage? The link that I had to the congressional vote is dead, but I haven't found any sources that suggest that the same-sex marriage bill is not currently pending. Andrew1444 (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. The state was removed from the list but without any extra info on why? Jdcooper (talk) 10:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Various news reports state that the Chiapas Congress has refused to vote on the issue. See for instance http://www.jornada.unam.mx/ultimas/2016/06/14/congreso-de-chiapas-bloquea-iniciativa-sobre-bodas-gay-denuncian-activistas Ken (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_Mexico/Archive_1&oldid=1137171545"