Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Same-Sex Couples before National, Supranational and International Jurisdictions pp 93–125Cite as

Same-Sex Couples Before Courts in Mexico, Central and South America

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

Latin American Countries have been historically influenced by Catholic European Countries, such as Spain and Portugal. This influence has resulted in a deeply-rooted traditional culture that has shaped most civil institutions, including marriage and civil unions, and the way they are perceived. As a result, relationships between people of the same sex have usually been prohibited and, at times, criminalized. A process of change, however, has been at work in some parts of Latin America since 2001, and national courts (especially supreme or constitutional courts) have played a major role in the legal, social and constitutional recognition of the rights of same-sex couples. This chapter aims to examine how the main jurisdictions in México, Central and South America have been influenced by this unprecedented trend, which has been accompanied by the legal recognition of other important social rights, such as pension, social security, health care, inheritance and property rights. In Latin America, homosexuals are gradually being granted rights equal to those enjoyed by heterosexuals, and this change is in line with the universal recognition of human rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or any other social and personal circumstances.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Waaldijk (2011).

  2. 2.

    Rodríguez et al. (2010).

  3. 3.

    Bustillos (2011), pp. 1033–1034.

  4. 4.

    A first draft law on same-sex civil unions was submitted in 1993. In 2011, due to the presidential election campaign, another draft law on equal civil marriage for same-sex couples was proposed.

  5. 5.

    Art. 1 (2011), on the prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

  6. 6.

    Art. 37 (1998 and 2008), on the definition and protection of the family.

  7. 7.

    Art. 51 and 52.

  8. 8.

    Bustillos (2011), p. 1035.

  9. 9.

    The CONAPRED, or Consejo Nacional para Prevenir la Discriminación National (Anti-Discrimination Council), is a State Agency created in Mexico in 2003 to prevent discrimination. It receives and resolves complaints of discrimination, including racial, ethnic, religious, and sexual orientation discrimination. For more information, visit www.conapred.org.mx. The report is available at http://www.conapred.org.mx/index.php?contenido=noticias&id=3021&id_opcion=108&op=214.

  10. 10.

    Rafael De La Madrid (2012), p. 39.

  11. 11.

    See the previous text of Art. 146 of the Civil Code.

  12. 12.

    The draft was passed with 39 votes in favour, 20 against, and 5 abstentions.

  13. 13.

    Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, Acción de Inconstitucionalidad 2/2010, 16 August 2010.

  14. 14.

    Suprema Corte de justicia de la Nación, Controversia constitucional 13/2010, 23rd January 2010.

  15. 15.

    Bustillos (2011) p. 1041.

  16. 16.

    Supra, note 14.

  17. 17.

    Ibidem.

  18. 18.

    Ibidem.

  19. 19.

    IV District Labour Court, amparo No. 590/2011-3.

  20. 20.

    CONAPRED Resolution No. 2/2011 of 6 July 2011.

  21. 21.

    The draft was approved with 252 votes in favour, 80 against and 15 abstentions.

  22. 22.

    States of Aguascalientes, Baja California, Baja California Sur, Chihuahua, Estado de México, Hidalgo, Jalisco, Michoacán, Morelos, Nuevo León, Nayarit, Oaxaca, Puebla, Querétaro, San Luis Potosí, Sonora, Veracruz, Zacatecas and Yucatán.

  23. 23.

    States of Campeche, Chiapas, Coahuila, Colima, Durango, Guanajuato, Guerrero, Sinaloa, Tabasco, Tamaulipas and Tlaxcala.

  24. 24.

    See Anderson-Minshall (2012).

  25. 25.

    Second District Court of Oaxaca, Section II, Mesa III-A, Writ of Amparo No. 1143/2011.

  26. 26.

    Supreme Court Decision of 5 December 2012, cases 457/2012, 567/2012 and 581/2012. The Court exercised its ‘power of attraction’ (i.e., legal authority to bring important cases under its jurisdiction).

  27. 27.

    Case 387/2012, Appellate Court for Civil and Administrative Matters, 13th Circuit.

  28. 28.

    See Art. 121(4) of the Federal Constitution.

  29. 29.

    Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court, Judgment No. 7262-06, Action for Judicial Review (Acción de inconstitucionalidad) No. 8127-03.

  30. 30.

    See also the Chapter by Magi in this volume.

  31. 31.

    Art. 2, 3, 5, 8 and 10 of the Declaration.

  32. 32.

    See the Chapter by Paladini in this volume.

  33. 33.

    Avalos (2012).

  34. 34.

    Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court, Judgment No. 2009-8909.

  35. 35.

    Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court, Case No. 13800-11.

  36. 36.

    Bill No. 16390 (Official Gazette No. 214, 8 November 2006), examined by the Special Commission for Human Rights.

  37. 37.

    González Suarez (2009).

  38. 38.

    Supremo Tribunal de Elecciones, application No. 195-E-2008, decision No. 3401-E9-2008.

  39. 39.

    Art. 6 of the Costa Rican law on referendums.

  40. 40.

    Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court, application No. 10-008331-0007-CO, decision No. 2010013313.

  41. 41.

    The original text reads as follows: “para todos los efectos civiles, se denomina unión marital de hecho, la formada entre un hombre y una mujer, que sin estar casados, hacen una comunidad de vida permanente y singular. Igualmente, y para todos los efectos civiles, se denominan compañero y compañera permanente, al hombre y la mujer que forman parte de la unión marital de hecho.”

  42. 42.

    Constitutional Court, C-098/96, 7 March 1996 (No.14).

  43. 43.

    The original text reads as follows: “Las uniones maritales de hecho de carácter heterosexual, en cuanto conforman familia son tomadas en cuenta por la ley con el objeto de garantizar su “protección integral” y, en especial, que “la mujer y el hombre” tengan iguales derechos y deberes (C.P. arts. 42 y 43), lo que como objeto necesario de protección no se da en las parejas homosexuales.”

  44. 44.

    Constitutional Court, C-075/07, 7 February 2007 (application No. D-6362).

  45. 45.

    The original text reads as follows: “es contrario a la Constitución que se prevea un régimen legal de protección exclusivamente para las parejas heterosexuals […] en el entendido que el régimen de protección allí previsto también se aplica a las parejas homosexuales.”

  46. 46.

    Constitutional Court, C-811/07, 3 October 2007 (application No. D-6749).

  47. 47.

    Constitutional Court, C-029/2009, 29 January 2009 (application No. D-7290).

  48. 48.

    Ibidem.

  49. 49.

    Constitutional Court, T-051/10, 2 February 2010 (file No. T-2.292.035, T-2.299.859, T-2.386.935). On this judgement, see also the Chapter by Paladini in this volume, with specific regard to the case X. v. Colombia, decided by the UN Human Rights Committee.

  50. 50.

    Constitutional Court, C-577/11, 26 July 2011 (file nos. D-8367 and D-8376); C-283/11, 13 April 2011 (file No. D-8112); T-716/11, 22 September 2011 (file nos. T-3.086.845 and T-3.093.950).

  51. 51.

    Ibidem, C-283/11.

  52. 52.

    Ibidem, C-577/11.

  53. 53.

    Ibidem.

  54. 54.

    See Art. 2 of Law No. 294 of 1996 (domestic violence) and Art. 2 of Law No. 1361 of 2009 (protection of the family). Both laws implement Art. 42 of the Constitution (protection of the family), which also defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

  55. 55.

    Supra, footnote 48, C-577/11.

  56. 56.

    Constitutional Court, T-860/2011, 15 November 2011(file No. T-3.130.633).

  57. 57.

    Constitutional Court, C-336/2008, 16 April 2008 (file No. D-6947).

  58. 58.

    Constitutional Court, C-814/2001, 2 August 2001 (file No. D-3378).

  59. 59.

    See Art. 89 and 90 of Decree No. 2737 of 1989 on the Juvenile Code.

  60. 60.

    República de Colombia Camara de Representantes (2011).

  61. 61.

    The original text reads as follows: “La presente ley tiene por objeto reconocer legalmente el matrimonio de las parejas del mismo sexo y determinar sus efectos legales de conformidad con el principio de dignidad humana, igualdad y pluralismo que establece la Constitución Política de Colombia”. Congreso de la República de Colombia Senado (2012), available at http://es.scribd.com/doc/111038927/PONENCIA-PRIMER-DEBATE-P-L-47-12.

  62. 62.

    De Oliveira Nusdeo and De Salles (2009), p. 5.

  63. 63.

    STJ, Special Appeal No. 648.763—RS (2004/0042337-7), 7 December 2006.

  64. 64.

    Vianna and Carrara (2013), p. 45.

  65. 65.

    STJ, Special Appeal No. 1.183.378—RS (2010/0036663-8), 25 October 2011.

  66. 66.

    Art. 1514, 1521, 1523, 1535 and 1565 of the 2002 Civil Code.

  67. 67.

    STJ, Special Appeal No. 827.962—RS (2006/0057725-5), 21 June 2011.

  68. 68.

    Corregedoria Geral de Justiça, Provimento No. 02/2013, 7 March 2013.

  69. 69.

    Corregedoria Geral de Justiça, Instrução Normativa (Normative Instruction) No. 2/2013, 26 March 2013.

  70. 70.

    De Oliveira Nusdeo and De Salles (2009), p. 8.

  71. 71.

    STJ, Special appela No. 1.281.093—SP (2011/0201685-2), 18 December 2012.

  72. 72.

    CNJ, Decision No. 174, 14 May 2013.

  73. 73.

    De Oliveira Nusdeo and De Salles (2009), p. 7.

  74. 74.

    Art. 3(IV) and art. 7(XXX).

  75. 75.

    Cf. Universidad Austral (2010), available at http://www.thefamilywatch.org/doc/doc-0142-es.pdf.

  76. 76.

    Constitutional Court, No. 1881/2010, Judgment of 3 November 2011.

  77. 77.

    Lecaros (2012).

  78. 78.

    Supra, footnote 69.

  79. 79.

    See the Chapter by Magi in this volume.

  80. 80.

    Spain legalised same-sex marriage in 2005.

  81. 81.

    XXVIII Family Court, Montevideo, Decision No. 1940/2012, 5 June 2012.

  82. 82.

    Held in Montevideo, 8 May 1979.

  83. 83.

    Freyre Alejandro v. GCBA (Art. 14 CCABA), No. 34292, 10 November 2009. See also Cabrales Lucio (2010), pp. 413–414.

  84. 84.

    Ibidem, pp. 413–414.

  85. 85.

    First Instance Civil Court, Buenos Aires, No. 85, Judgment of 30 November 2009.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Legal and Social Sciences, Autonomous University of Tamaulipas, Tampico, Mexico

    José Miguel Cabrales Lucio

Authors
  1. José Miguel Cabrales Lucio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José Miguel Cabrales Lucio .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, Luiss University, Rome, Italy

    Daniele Gallo

  2. University Institute SSML Carlo Bo, Rome, Italy

    Luca Paladini

  3. Political and International Sciences, University of Siena, Siena, Italy

    Pietro Pustorino

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lucio, J.M.C. (2014). Same-Sex Couples Before Courts in Mexico, Central and South America. In: Gallo, D., Paladini, L., Pustorino, P. (eds) Same-Sex Couples before National, Supranational and International Jurisdictions. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35434-2_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation