The case would open the door for other Mexican states in contempt to approve this measure.
MEXICO City (Agencies) – The Collective for the Protection of All Families in Yucatan (Collective PTFY) reported that on February 24, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) would decide whether the Yucatan Congress should approve equal marriage.
If granted, he would order the local Congress to correct all local legislation on marriage. “The case would open the door for other states in the country in contempt to recognize equal marriage,” the group said in a statement.
The organization explained that this February 24, the First Chamber of the Suprema Corte de la Nación: SCJN would decide if the Yucatan Congress is in contempt for not allowing marriage between people of the same sex. This decision would be given as the product of an injunction presented by the group in April 2019.
In 2015, they recalled, the SCJN declared that it was unconstitutional to prohibit marriage to same-sex couples for going against the principle of non-discrimination. Hence, the only solution was for local congresses to modify their legislation. Despite this, 11 local Congresses have refused to correct their civil and family codes. Same-sex couples who wish to marry in these entities only have the option of demanding an injunction lawsuit for a federal judge to order the marriage on a case-by-case basis.
In 2019, after the Yucatan Congress rejected an initiative to allow equal marriage, the PTFY Collective filed an injunction (amparo) lawsuit against the Yucatecan Legislative Power for going against the provisions of the SCJN and for failing to comply with its duty to adapt the legislation to international human rights treaties.
In their lawsuit, they requested that the legislative amendment be ordered because it is discriminatory that same-sex couples must file an amparo lawsuit to marry. They considered that this situation invalidates sexual diversity and segregates access to marriage to people who cannot pay for legal advice, in addition to wasting time and resources of the Federation’s Judicial Power due to contempt.
“It will be up to the ministers that make up the First Chamber of the SCJN to decide whether to approve the draft judgment drawn up by Minister Juan Luis González Alcántara Carrancá. In it, it is declared that local Congresses cannot issue norms that jurisprudence of the Highest Court has already declared incompatible with the Constitution for discriminating against certain historically excluded groups,” they explained.
Kalycho Escoffié, from the legal department of the PTFY Collective, pointed out: “Minister Alcántara’s project comes in a favorable direction and recognizes that the mere existence of the norm discriminates against the LGBTI community not only because it prohibits equal marriage, but because it sends a message to the rest of the population that unions of this type are of lesser value.”
For his part, Alex Ouebe, spokesman for the PTFY Collective, indicated that “the case is not only about whether equal marriage should be allowed, which is clear, but also about the obligation of local congresses to guarantee that the laws that approve, do not go against what has already been declared discriminatory.”
The protection of the PTFY Collective case against the Yucatan Congress (Amparo under review 413/2020) requires at least three votes from the five ministers who make up the First Chamber of the SCJN for the protection to be granted. After this lawsuit, similar laws were filed in other entities, such as the case of the Amparo filed last year by the Queretaro Front for the Right to Non-Discrimination and in favor of the Secular State.
The group called on the minister’s Ana Margarita Ríos Farjat, Norma Lucía Piña, and the ministers’ Alfredo Gutiérrez Ortiz Mena and Jorge Mario Pardo Rebolledo, so that this February 24, they vote in favor of the presentation by Minister Juan Luis González Alcántara Carrancá. “Local Congresses cannot arbitrarily decide that in their entities the scope of the right to non-discrimination will be less than that dictated by the Constitution,” they concluded.
