Advertisement
Advertisement

Baja California rejects bill to guarantee marriage equality rights

A same-sex marriage button
Jose Juan Murillo pinned a same-sex marriage button on to his jacket in February, when he and his partner Alonzo Osuna were one of three same-sex couples among the 1,500 couples married during a mass wedding ceremony at the Municipal Auditorium in Tijuana.
(John Gibbins/The San Diego Union-Tribune)

Bill would have allowed same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses without a lengthy and costly legal process

Share

State legislators on Thursday rejected a proposed change to Baja California’s constitution that would have guaranteed same-sex marriage rights.

Legal experts said the measure would have allowed same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses without the lengthy and costly legal processes they currently face.

The bill was introduced by Miriam Cano, a Ensenada lawmaker from the National Regeneration Movement Party (MORENA). It would have changed the definition of marriage in the state constitution. The law currently says marriage is a union exclusively between a man and a woman.

Advertisement

Legislators voted 15 in favor; three against and seven in abstention for the constitutional amendment. The measure needed a two-thirds majority to pass.

After the bill failed, lawmakers took the rare step of voting to return the measure to the governance commission to continue analysis and debate. That committee approved a draft measure on July 7 with five votes in favor, zero opposed and one abstention.

Lawmakers did not say when the bill would be taken up again.

Same-sex marriage has been technically legal in Mexico since 2015, when the Mexican Supreme court issued a ruling that gave same-sex couples the right to seek an injunction against state laws banning their marriages.

But to actually get married, gay and lesbian couples have to apply for a marriage license, wait to get rejected by a local clerk, which can take years, and then file an injunction with a federal court.

Advocates say the process adds discriminatory financial and legal burdens that heterosexual couples don’t have to face.

It can take same-sex couples more than two years and cost 10 times as much as it costs heterosexual couples, according to Jose Luis Marquez, an attorney who helps couples through the legal process.

Same-sex marriage advocates thanked lawmakers on social media for supporting the constitutional amendment and for “looking after our rights and being part of the history of progress.”

They vowed “the fight continues” from a Twitter account designated to support the cause in Baja California.

“This bill came out at the request of the community and due to the recommendations made by the National Human Rights Commission,” said Cano, who was visibly disappointed after the vote.

The vote was streamed live via Zoom because of restrictions caused by the coronavirus pandemic. Cano’s family gathered behind her for support as the final vote was taken and the measure failed.

The lawmaker said she’s received numerous physical and death threats over her support for the amendment, including being told “they wish my children would die and be crushed, burned and dismembered.”

The proposed constitutional amendment was met with strong pushback from Baja California’s religious conservative coalition, a powerful force in state politics.

“I consider it a mistake to base marriage on sexual preferences ... The difference is marriage between a man and a woman is a legal fact, but sexual tendency is a pleasure and depends on people’s private preferences,” said Assemblyman Efrén Enrique Moreno Rivera, whose political party is not listed on the state congress’ website.

Gerardo López, a member of the minority Party of the Democratic Revolution, a social democratic political party in Mexico, apologized to the pastor of his church before voting in favor of the constitutional amendment, saying he was duty-bound to uphold the law and human rights.

Opponents said the constitutional amendment would damage the family unit, which they say is created for the purposes of procreation.

“As parents, we appreciate that the legislators have listened to us since the legalization of marriage equality was just going to be the beginning of actions that seem unfair to us for our children like transgender bathrooms in schools ... “ said Marcela Vaquera, a spokeswoman for the National Front for the Family, a coalition of conservative and religious organizations.

The National Front for the Family said Wednesday they gathered close to 27,000 signatures from residents who opposed the constitutional amendment.

Before the vote, Assemblyman Juan Molino, of MORENA, described why he disagreed with opponents of the bill based on the language that marriage is only for the purposes of having children.

“We don’t discriminate against infertile couples or couples who chose not to have children. They are still allowed to marry,” said Molino.

“This is very sad. This is a sad day for our state’s history,” said Assemblywoman Montserrat Caballero, of MORENA, after the vote.

Caballero said she disagreed with, but respected, her colleagues who voted “no.” However she said she could not respect those lawmakers who refused to vote.

“People pay us to take a vote. To vote yes or no. Not to worry about our seats and abstain from voting,” she said.

“Abstention is not a vote,” agreed Molino.

Advertisement