Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Same-Sex Unions in Mexico: Between Text and Doctrine

  • Chapter
Same Sex Couples - Comparative Insights on Marriage and Cohabitation

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 42))

Abstract

Currently Mexico recognizes same-sex marriage in several states. The Mexican Supreme Court has been instrumental in this recognition, advancing an interpretation of marriage outside its historical and textual interpretation. The current state of same-sex marriage and LGBTI rights in general in Mexico is the consequence of a new interpretation of the role of marriage and the family in the Mexican society, as well as the evolution of the LGBTI movement.

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

Access this chapter

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    I know that scholarship has identified other influences in marriage that perpetuate –or undermine– the functioning of this particular model. Capitalism –and other economic factors–, is one of them. (See, for example, Jane Collier, Cambio y continuidad en los procedimientos legales zinacantecos, Haciendo justicia. Interlegalidad, derecho y género en regiones indígenas, 92 (María Teresa Sierra ed.) (CIESAS 2004); and Maxine Molyneux, “Mothers at the Service of the New Poverty Agenda: Progresa/Oportunidades, México’s Conditional Transfer Programme”, Social Policy & Administration, vol. 40, no. 4, (August 2006)).

  2. 2.

    Pablo Mijangos argues that “that Mexico’s 1859 Law on Civil Marriage was the last moment of a long debate about the clergy’s incapacity to bring into being the Christian moral order envisioned by the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century. [In] other words, that civil marriage intended first and foremost to reform Mexican society within an essentially religious framework, and only as an unintended and long-term consequence did it contribute to the secularization of social life.” Pablo Mijangos, “Secularization or Reformation? The Religious Origins of Civil Marriage in Mexico”, paper presented at the 2014 annual meeting of the American Historical Association, cited with the author’s permission, p. 2.

  3. 3.

    James Gordley, The Philosophical Foundations of Modern Contract Doctrine, Clarendon Press, 1991, pp. 3–4.

  4. 4.

    Ley de 14 de Diciembre de 1874, reglamentaria de las adiciones y reformas de la Constitución Federal, article 23, section IX (reformed el December 29, 1914).

  5. 5.

    Código Civil para el Distrito y Territorios Federales en Materia Común y para toda la República en Materia Federal (1928), articles 266–267 (reformed October 3, 2000). For the evolution of divorce, and a list of all the states that now have no fault divorce as an option, see Estefanía Vela Barba, “La evolución del divorcio en clave de derechos y libertades” Nexos: El Juego de la Corte, August 20, 2013, http://eljuegodelacorte.nexos.com.mx/?p=3004

  6. 6.

    Ibid., articles 383, 1,368, f. V. Diario Oficial de la Federación, México, 1928.

  7. 7.

    Ley del Seguro Social (1973), articles 92, 152, 155, 164.

  8. 8.

    Código Civil… (1928), article 302 (reformed December 27, 1983).

  9. 9.

    Ibid., articles 292, 294. (reformed May 25, 2000).

  10. 10.

    Ibid., article 291-Ter. (reformed May 25, 2000).

  11. 11.

    Ley de Sociedad de Convivencia para el Distrito Federal, article 5.

  12. 12.

    Código Civil … (1928), article 291-Bis. (reformed May 25, 2000); Ley de Sociedad de Convivencia para el Distrito Federal, Gaceta Oficial del Distrito Federal, November 16, 2006, no. 136, p. 4.

  13. 13.

    Ley del Matrimonio Civil, no. 5057, July 23, 1859, p. 693 (in Manuel Dublan & Jose Maria Lozano, De las disposiciones legislativas expedidas desde la Independencia de la Republica, tomo VII, Mexico, 1877).

  14. 14.

    Ley Sobre Relaciones Familiares, Diario Oficial de la Federación, April 14, 1917, tomo V, 4a época, no. 87, pp. 429–430

  15. 15.

    Código Civil … (1928), articles 410-A-410-D.

  16. 16.

    See “Circular del Ministerio de Justicia. Remite la ley del matrimonio civil”, núm. 5056, July 23, 1859. Mexico. p. 3.

  17. 17.

    Civil Code of 1870, articles 392, 396. Although only a father could “correct and punish his children temperately and moderately” and, as I affirmed previously, the woman had to ultimately obey him in regards to the education of the children.

    Código Civil del Distrito Federal y Territorio de la Baja California, Ministerio de Justicia e Instrucción Pública (Publisher), Mexico (Publisher Location), December 22, 1870 (date of publication).

  18. 18.

    Venustiano Carranza explicitly referred to the “slavery” women experienced when they were “stuck” with a bad husband and conceived of divorce as a remedy for these women. See Exposición de motivos del Decreto que reforma el artículo 23 de la Ley del 14 de diciembre de 1874, reglamentaria de las adiciones y reformas de la Constitución Federal, decretadas el 25 de diciembre de 1873, December 29, 1914. The Law of Family Relationships of 1917 also had a concern with women’s equality.

  19. 19.

    Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, article 4 (reformed December 31, 1974).

  20. 20.

    Both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (23.4) and the American Convention on Human Rights (17.4) establish that “The States Parties shall take appropriate steps to ensure the equality of rights and the adequate balancing of responsibilities of the spouses as to marriage, during marriage, and in the event of its dissolution.”

  21. 21.

    Código Civil … (1928), article 162 (reformed December 31, 1974).

  22. 22.

    Ibid., article 162 (reformed May 25, 2000). p. 8

  23. 23.

    Ibid., article 146 (reformed May 25, 2000).

  24. 24.

    I highlight the importance of trans people being able to marry, assuming that there are many that, like the judge in Corbett v. Corbett (UK, 1970), argue that they are incapable of fulfilling the ends of marriage, because they are unable to reproduce. The same goes for intersexuals.

  25. 25.

    Código Civil … (1928), article 135-Bis (reformed October 10, 2008). Mexico.

  26. 26.

    The importance of this is not minor. Rafael Rojina Villegas, to this day one of the most read treatise writers on family law, used examples of transexuality and intersexuality to explain why “same sex” marriage could not exist, according to doctrine. Rafael Rojina Villegas, Derecho civil mexicano, tomo II, ed. 2006 (1962), pp. 250–253.

  27. 27.

    Código Civil … (1928), article 146 (reformed December 29, 2009). p. 525.

  28. 28.

    They were published in the Diario Oficial de la Federación on May 20, 1981; March 23, 1981; and May 7, 1981, respectively.

  29. 29.

    For a brief history of health services in Mexico, see Daniel Lopez-Acuña, “Health services in Mexico”, Journal of Public Health Policy, vol. 1, no. 1, 1980; José Arturo Granados Cosme & Luis Ortiz Hernández, “Descentralización sanitaria en México: transformaciones en una estructura de poder”, Revista Mexicana de Sociología, vol. 65, no. 3, 2003.

  30. 30.

    Ley General de Salud (February 7, 1984), Article 6, section IV.

  31. 31.

    Ibid., article 61, section III.

  32. 32.

    Ibid., article 65, section II.

  33. 33.

    Ibid., article 174, section IV; 188, section II; 189, section II; 191, section III.

  34. 34.

    Ibid., articles 77-Bis-1, 77-Bis-4.

  35. 35.

    Ley del Instituto del Fondo Nacional de la Vivienda para los Trabajadores, article 47, (April 24, 1972).

  36. 36.

    Ley de Vivienda, article 1 (June 27, 2006).

  37. 37.

    For a brief overview of the situation of the elderly in Mexico, see Mercedes Blanco & Edith Pacheco, “Aging and the Family-Work link: A Comparative Analysis of Two Generations of Mexican Women (1936–1938 and 1951–1953)”, Journal of Comparative Family Studies, vol. 40, no. 2, 2009.

  38. 38.

    For a list of the services the DIF provides today, see their webpage: http://sn.dif.gob.mx/servicios/

  39. 39.

    For an overview of the day-care programs, see Felicia Knaul & Susan Parker, “Cuidado infantil y empleo femenino en México: evidencia descriptiva y consideraciones sobre las políticas”, Estudios demográficos y urbanos, vol. 11, no. 3, 1996.

  40. 40.

    Código Penal para el Distrito Federal (2002), articles 193–199 (reformed July 22, 2005).

  41. 41.

    Ibid., article 125 (July 16, 2002), article 131 and article 178 (reformed March 18, 2011).

  42. 42.

    Código Penal para el Distrito Federal (2002), article 148 Bis (reformed July 26, 2011).

  43. 43.

    Código Penal para el Distrito Federal (2002), article 200 (reformed March 18, 2011).

  44. 44.

    Amparo en Revisión 93/92, Primer Tribunal Colegiado del Sexto Circuito, cited in Contradicción de Tesis 5/92, Primera Sala de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación.

  45. 45.

    Eugenio Cuello Calón, only referred to by name in Amparo en Revisión 447/89, Tercer Tribunal Colegiado del Sexto Circuito, cited in Contradicción de Tesis 5/92, Primera Sala de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación.

  46. 46.

    Contradicción de Tesis 5/92, Primera Sala de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación.

  47. 47.

    Ibid.

  48. 48.

    Although the Constitution of 1824 is celebrated as the first Mexican Constitution, it did not include a chapter on rights and it established catholicism as the State religion. This changed with the 1857 Constitution, which began by proclaiming the rights of man and ultimately – in 1973 – proclaimed the absolute separation between State and Church.

  49. 49.

    Solicitud de Modificación de Jurisprudencia 9/2005, Primera Sala de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, p. 12.

  50. 50.

    Ibid., p. 33.

  51. 51.

    Ibid., p. 32.

  52. 52.

    Contradicción de Tesis 21/2006, pp. 15–16.

  53. 53.

    Ibid., p. 16.

  54. 54.

    Ibid., pp. 16–17.

  55. 55.

    Ibid., p. 36.

  56. 56.

    Ibid., p. 32.

  57. 57.

    Ibid., pp. 58, 62.

  58. 58.

    Ibid., p. 62.

  59. 59.

    In 2011, the state of Hidalgo reformed its civil code as well, to include no fault divorce. A woman challenged this reform, after she too was divorced under this new procedure. The First Chamber of the Supreme Court was called to solve this case as well. I cannot contrast the two cases here, because technically, the Hidalgo case was decided after the same-sex marriage case. However, it is interesting because, like the Mexico City no fault divorce case, it is an example of how the original doctrine of marriage is used to argue against changes to the text of marriage. But the difference between both cases is that there is a slight sophistication in the way the doctrine is presented: in the first case (Mexico City no fault divorce case), the plaintiff simply refers to the “doctrine” of marriage; in the second (Hidalgo no fault divorce case), the doctrine is re-inscribed both in the constitutional text and in international treaties. The doctrine gets rearticulated as a matter of rights as well.

  60. 60.

    Amparo Directo en Revisión 917/2009, p. 22.

  61. 61.

    Ibid., p. 22.

  62. 62.

    Ibid., p. 23.

  63. 63.

    Ibid., p. 2.

  64. 64.

    Ibid., p. 26. By the way: the Chamber understands “the family” in a broad sense. It can originate with a marriage, but not exclusively. “Common-law marriage, societies of coexistence, and ‘free unions’” also constitute family ties. This is a point that in the same-sex marriage case will be fundamental, key to winning the case. What’s incredible is that nobody cited this no fault divorce decision as a precedent.

  65. 65.

    Ibid., p. 25.

  66. 66.

    Ibid., p. 26.

  67. 67.

    Ibid., p. 27.

  68. 68.

    Ibid., p. 27.

  69. 69.

    Ibid., p. 29.

  70. 70.

    Ibid., p. 29.

  71. 71.

    Ibid., p. 39.

  72. 72.

    Ibid., p. 40. The Chamber uses the word “desamor” which could be translated as “unlove.”

  73. 73.

    “Decreto por el que se aprueba el diverso por el que se adicionan un Segundo y tercer párrafos al artículo 1o. […]” Diario Oficial de la Federación, August 14, 2001. Emphasis added.

  74. 74.

    Ley Federal para Prevenir y Eliminar la Discriminación, articles 1, 4, 5, 9 (June 11, 2003).

  75. 75.

    Ibid., articles 17, p. 20.

  76. 76.

    Ley de Sociedad de Convivencia para el Distrito Federal (November 16, 2006).

  77. 77.

    Código Penal para el Distrito Federal (2002), article 206 (reformed January 25, 2006).

  78. 78.

    Genaro Lozano, “The Battle for Marriage Equality in Mexico, 2001–2011”, Same-Sex Marriage in Latin America. Promise and Resistance, Pierceson, et al., (eds.) 2013, p. 156.

  79. 79.

    Código Civil para el Estado de Coahuila, article 385–7. This article was just derogated this last February of 2014. Raúl Coronado Garcés, “Aprueban adopción gay en Coahuila”, http://www.milenio.com/region/Congreso_de_Coahuila-adopcion_gay-PAN_contra_adopcion_gay_0_243576136.html

  80. 80.

    Código Civil … (1928), article 135-Bis (reformed October 10, 2008).

  81. 81.

    Articles 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 12, and 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; 1, 2, 3, 5, 11, 18, and 24 of the American Convention on Human Rights; 2, 3, 6, 16, 17, and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and 2, 4, and 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.

    Amparo Directo Civil 6/2008, pp. 75–83.

  82. 82.

    Ibid., pp. 85–86, 89–90.

  83. 83.

    Although it did not come up during the Mexico City case (Acción de Inconstitucionalidad 2/2010), in January of 2010, the Supreme Court solved a case related to tax law, in which it established the “purpose” of the right to non-discrimination. In explaining this right, the Court ended up clarifying that when the Constitution spoke of “preferences” as a suspect category, it meant sexual preferences. This because of the logic of the right to non-discrimination, which was not designed to protect any preference, but those that have been a cause for discrimination for certain groups. See Amparo en revisión 2199/2009, p. 45.

  84. 84.

    Acción de Inconstitucionalidad 146/2007 y su acumulada, p. 187.

  85. 85.

    Ibid.

  86. 86.

    The States were Morelos (controversia constitucional 6/2010), Guanajuato (7/2010), Tlaxcala (9/2010), Sonora (12/2010), Baja California (13/2010) and Jalisco (14/2010). For a review of the arguments used in these controversias, see Omar Feliciano, “Corta, pega, litiga: impotencia y vaginitis”, Animal Político.

  87. 87.

    Acción de Inconstitucionalidad 2/2010, par. 238, p. 88.

  88. 88.

    Ibid., par. 239.

  89. 89.

    Ibid., par. 240.

  90. 90.

    Ibid., par. 255.

  91. 91.

    Ibid., par. 252.

  92. 92.

    Ibid., par. 242.

  93. 93.

    Ibid., par. 242.

  94. 94.

    Ibid., par. 246.

  95. 95.

    Ibid., par. 248.

  96. 96.

    Ibid., par. 250.

  97. 97.

    Ibid., par. 251.

  98. 98.

    Ibid., par. 270.

  99. 99.

    Ibid., par. 264, p. 266.

  100. 100.

    Ibid., par. 269. Emphasis added.

  101. 101.

    Ibid., par. 314.

  102. 102.

    Ibid., p. 131, footnote 3.

  103. 103.

    Ibid., par. 317.

  104. 104.

    Ibid., par. 338.

  105. 105.

    Ibid., par. 318.

  106. 106.

    Ibid., par. 319.

  107. 107.

    Ibid.

  108. 108.

    Ibid., par. 329–330.

  109. 109.

    Ibid., par. 334.

  110. 110.

    Ibid., par. 331.

  111. 111.

    Ibid., par. 325.

  112. 112.

    Ibid., par. 328.

  113. 113.

    Article 107, fractions (I) and (II) of the Federal Constitution; Articles 216, 217, 218, 223, 232 of the Ley de Amparo (Law of Amparo).

  114. 114.

    Amparo en revisión 581/2012, pp. 19–20.

  115. 115.

    Ibid., pp. 27–28.

  116. 116.

    Ibid., p. 29.

  117. 117.

    Ibid., pp. 30–32.

  118. 118.

    Ibid., p. 33.

  119. 119.

    Ibid.

  120. 120.

    Ibid., pp. 34–35.

  121. 121.

    Ibid., pp. 39–40.

  122. 122.

    Ibid., p. 41.

  123. 123.

    Ibid.

  124. 124.

    Ibid.

  125. 125.

    Ibid., p. 42.

  126. 126.

    Ibid., p. 41.

  127. 127.

    Ibid., p. 42.

  128. 128.

    Ibid.

  129. 129.

    Ibid.

  130. 130.

    Ibid., p. 46.

  131. 131.

    Ibid., p. 47.

  132. 132.

    Ibid., p. 48.

  133. 133.

    Ibid., p. 49.

  134. 134.

    The Defense of Marriage Act of the United States, for instance, did this by redefining marriage. The Federation did this by denying rights that federal laws attached to state marriages. The distinction is not minor, especially if one considers the ideas that bounced around in the U.S. Supreme Court, for example, with DOMA. The Federation may not have the power to define marriage; but the Federation does have the power to determine what protections it offers to the family –within its powers–. The Federation could choose not to give Access to citizenship for marriage, for example. The problem is that this got lost, when the federation denied access to a whole group of families, with criteria that were not sound.

  135. 135.

    The Supreme Court has not ruled on the merits, yet, only regarding the admissibility of the suit brought against one of these decisiones (see Amparo en Revisión 86/2012); the National Council to Prevent Discrimination issued a resolution in which it condemned the authorities for denying these benefits. See CONAPRED, Resolución por disposición 2/2011, July 6, 2011.

  136. 136.

    CONAPRED, “Registra ISSSTE a matrimonios igualitarios en cumplimiento a Resolución del Conapred”, May 13, 2013. Several news outlets, including CONAPRED’s own note, talk about a press release done by ISSSTE in which it communicates its change in policy. I have not been able to find this release.

  137. 137.

    Amparo en Revisión 485/2013, decided on January 30, 2014; IMSS, “Comunicado de prensa no. 009”, February 17, 2014, http://www.imss.gob.mx/prensa/archivo/201402/009

  138. 138.

    Oaxaca, Colima, Yucatán, Sinaloa, Chihuahua, Estado de México, Jalisco, and Nuevo León.

  139. 139.

    “Congreso de Colima aprueba unions civiles entre personas del mismo sexo”, CNN México, July 4, 2012; Código Civil del Estado de Colima, articles 139 on.

  140. 140.

    Coahuila in 2007 created “solidarity pacts” (pactos de solidaridad) for same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples. Unlike the conjugal unions in Colima, whoever, these pacts, when it comes to same-sex couples, do not grant access to adoption; nor is it clear if they grant access to social security and other federal benefits (since the laws in which these benefits are established are for “spouses”). Código Civil para el Estado de Coahuila, articles 385–1 on.

  141. 141.

    Pedro Zamora Briseño, “Se amparan contra figura de ‘enlace conyugal’ en Colima”, Proceso, September 30, 2013, http://www.proceso.com.mx/?p=354188

  142. 142.

    Ley de Libre Convivencia del Estado de Jalisco, El Estado de Jalisco. Periódico Oficial, 1 de noviembre de 2013, núm. 27 bis. http://app.jalisco.gob.mx/PeriodicoOficial.nsf/BusquedaAvanzada/EE03503DDBE546E786257C16007AAB33/$FILE/11-01-13-BIS.pdf

  143. 143.

    The Attorney General –incredibly so– has challenged it through an Acción de Inconstitucionalidad (number 36/2012), so the Supreme Court will have to solve the case.

  144. 144.

    Código Civil para el Estado de Quintana Roo, articles 680–704.

  145. 145.

    Adriana Varillas, “Revocan anulación de bodas gay en QRoo”, El Universal, May 3, 2012, http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/845171.html; Estefanía Vela Barba, “Derecho y ciudadanía: el caso del matrimonio gay en México”, Nexos: El Juego de la Corte, March 20, 2013, http://eljuegodelacorte.nexos.com.mx/?p=2501

  146. 146.

    Valentina Pérez Botero, “Familias homoparentales logran reconocimiento jurídico de su composición”, Revolución. Tres punto cero, August 21, 2013. http://revoluciontrespuntocero.com/familias-homoparentales-logran-reconocimiento-juridico-de-su-composicion/

  147. 147.

    Código Civil para el Distrito Federal, articles 78–8 (1928).

  148. 148.

    See, for example, Nancy D. Polikoff, Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage: Valuing All Families Under the Law, Beacon Press, 2009; Janet Halley, “Behind the Law of Marriage (I): From Status/Contract to the Marriage System”, Unbound, 2010, vol. 6, no. 1; Brook J. Sadler, “Re-Thinking Civil Unions and Same-Sex Marriage”, The Monist, vol. 91, no. 3/4, 2008; and Libby Adler, “The Gay Agenda”, Michigan Journal of Gender & Law, 2009, vol. 16, no. 1.

  149. 149.

    See, for example, Libby Adler in “Gay Rights and Lefts: Rights Critique and the Distributive Analysis”, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review (Amicus Online Supplement), Vol. 46, No. 1, 2011; and Dean Spade, “Trans Law Reform Strategies, Co-Optation, and the Potential for Transformative Change”, Rutgers School of Law Newark, vol. 30, 2009.

  150. 150.

    Rodrigo Parrini, “Sujeto, tiempo y nación. La emergencia de un sujeto politico minoritario”, supra, p. 8.

Bibliography

  1. Aquinas, Thomas. 1920. Summa Theologica. Supplement to the third part (Supplementum Tertiae Partis). Second and Revised Edition, Question 64, Article 3. Available at: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5.htm.

  2. Blanco, Mercedes, and Edith Pacheco. 2009. Aging and the family-work link: A comparative analysis of two generations of Mexican women (1936–1938 and 1951–1953). Journal of Comparative Family Studies 40(2).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Censida. 2006. Manual de organización específico del Centro Ambulatorio Para la Prevención y Atención del SIDA e Infecciones de Transmisión Sexual, noviembre. http://www.censida.salud.gob.mx/descargas/man_org_capasits.pdf.

  4. Collier, Jane. Cambio y continuidad en los procedimientos legales zinacantecos, Haciendo justicia. Interlegalidad, derecho y género en regiones indígenas, ed. María Teresa Sierra. (CIESAS 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cosme, Granados, José Arturo, and Luis Ortiz Hernández. 2003. Descentralización sanitaria en México: transformaciones en una estructura de poder. Revista Mexicana de Sociología 65(3): 591–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. De la Dehesa, Rafael. 2010. Queering the public sphere in Mexico and Brazil. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Gavito, Barrón, and Miguel Ángel. 2010. El baile de los 41: la representación de lo afeminado en la prensa porfiriana. Historia y Grafía 34: 62–64.

    Google Scholar 

  8. George, Robert P., Sherif Girgis, and Ryan T. Anderson. 2010. What is marriage?. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 34(1).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gordley, James. 1991. The philosophical foundations of modern contract doctrine. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gordley, James. 2013. The method of the roman jurists. Tulane Law Review 87: 940, 941, 947, 948.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Halley, Janet. 2010. Behind the law of marriage (I): From status/contract to the marriage system. Unbound 6(1).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Knaul, Felicia, and Susan Parker. Cuidado infantil y empleo femenino en México: evidencia descriptiva y consideraciones sobre las políticas. Estudios demográficos y urbanos 11(3).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Libby, Adler. 2009. The gay agenda. Michigan Journal of Gender & Law 16(1).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Libby, Adler. 2011. Gay rights and lefts: Rights critique and the distributive analysis. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review (Amicus Online Supplement) 46(1).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lopez-Acuña, Daniel. 1980. Health services in Mexico. Journal of Public Health Policy 1(1): 83–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lozano, Genaro. 2013. The battle for marriage equality in Mexico, 2001-2011. In Same-sex marriage in Latin America: Promise and resistance, ed. J. Pierceson et al., 156. Lanham: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Madrazo Lajous, Alejandro. 2012. El formalismo desde el derecho privado. In Teoría y crítica del derecho civil y comercial, ed. Martín Hevia, 290–291. Mexico: Fontamara.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Madrazo Lajous, Alejandro. 2008. From revelation to creation: The origins of text and doctrine in the civil law tradition. Mexican Law Journal, New Series 1(1); Revelation and creation: The theological foundations of modern legal science in Mexico, Yale Law School JSD dissertation (directed by Paul Kahn), 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Matrimonio, Requisitos del Contrato de. Semanario Judicial de la Federación, tomo XLVIII, 3297 (Segunda Sala, Quinta Época, Tesis Aislada, 358723).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mijangos, Pablo. 2014. Secularization or reformation? The religious origins of civil marriage in Mexico. Paper presented at the 2014 annual meeting of the American Historical Association, cited with the author’s permission.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Molyneux, Maxine. 2006. Mothers at the service of the new poverty agenda: Progresa/Oportunidades, México’s Conditional Transfer Programme. Social Policy & Administration 40(4), August.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Moreno, Hortensia. 2010. La construcción cultural de la homosexualidad. Revista Digital Universitaria 11(8).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Pacheco Escobedo, Alberto. 2006. El matrimonio canónico y el matrimonio natural. Familia. Naturaleza, derechos y responsabilidades, Virginia Aspe Armella (comp.), Porrúa-Universidad Panamericana, México, 57.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Pérez Botero, Valentina. 2013. Familias homoparentales logran reconocimiento jurídico de su composición, Revolución. Tres punto cero, August 21.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Polikoff, Nancy D. 2009. Beyond (straight and gay) marriage: Valuing all families under the law. Boston: Beacon.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Rojina Villegas, Rafael. Derecho civil mexicano, tomo II, ed. 2006 (1962), 250–253.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Sadler, Brook J. 2008. Re-thinking civil unions and same-sex marriage. The Monist 91(3/4).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Spade, Dean. 2009. Trans law reform strategies, Co-optation, and the potential for transformative change. Rutgers School of Law Newark 30.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Vela Barba, Estefanía. 2013. La evolución del divorcio en clave de derechos y libertades. Nexos: El Juego de la Corte, August 20. http://eljuegodelacorte.nexos.com.mx/?p=3004.

Statutes

  1. American Convention on Human Rights.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Circular del Ministerio de Justicia. Remite la ley del matrimonio civil.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Código Civil de Mexico (1928).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Código Civil … (1928), article 291-Bis. (reformed May 25, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Código Civil para el Distrito y Territorios Federales en Materia Común y para toda la República en Materia Federal (1928), (reformed October 3, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Código Penal para el Distrito Federal (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos 4 (reformed December 31, 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  8. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ley de 14 de Diciembre de 1874, reglamentaria de las adiciones y reformas de la Constitución Federal, article 23, section IX (reformed December 29, 1914).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ley de Sociedad de Convivencia para el Distrito Federal.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ley de Sociedad de Convivencia para el Distrito Federal, November 16, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ley de Vivienda (June 27, 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ley del Matrimonio Civil (1859).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ley del Instituto del Fondo Nacional de la Vivienda para los Trabajadores (April 24, 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ley del Seguro Social (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ley Federal para Prevenir y Eliminar la Discriminación, June 11, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ley General de Salud (February 7, 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ley General de Salud (May 15, 2003), Articles 77-Bis-1, 77-Bis-4.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ley Sobre Relaciones Familiares (1917).

    Google Scholar 

Cases

  1. Acción de Inconstitucionalidad 146/2007 y su acumulada, p. 187.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Acción de Inconstitucionalidad 2/2010, par. 238, p. 88.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Amparo Directo Civil 6/2008, pp. 75–83.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Amparo Directo en Revisión 917/2009, p. 22.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Amparo en revisión 581/2012, pp. 19–20.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Amparo en Revisión 485/2013.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Amparo en Revisión 93/92, Primer Tribunal Colegiado del Sexto Circuito, cited in Contradicción de Tesis 5/92, Primera Sala de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Contradicción de Tesis 21/2006, pp. 15–16.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Contradicción de Tesis 5/92, Primera Sala de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Corbett v. Corbett (UK, 1970).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Solicitud de Modificación de Jurisprudencia 9/2005, Primera Sala de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, p. 12.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Carretera México- Toluca 3655, Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas – DEJ, Col. Lomas de Santa Fe, DF, 01210, Mexico

    Estefanía Vela Barba

Authors
  1. Estefanía Vela Barba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Estefanía Vela Barba .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Washington College of Law, American University, Washington, District of Columbia, USA

    Macarena Sáez

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Vela Barba, E. (2015). Same-Sex Unions in Mexico: Between Text and Doctrine. In: Sáez, M. (eds) Same Sex Couples - Comparative Insights on Marriage and Cohabitation. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 42. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9774-0_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation