Talk:Same-sex marriage in Mexico

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

Durango[edit]

Durango is now highlighted green indicating a court order for legalization. A court order is not indicated on any Wikipedia page, nor can I find any source to verify this ruling. Please provide references and make the appropriate change to the text of this page. Andrew1444 (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A fed judge ordered the leg to bring to a vote the SSM bill that was intro'd years ago and never debated. So not a SC ruling for SSM, but partway there. Further action would only be necessary if the leg votes it down. But the position of the court is clear: Durango needs to move on SSM. — kwami (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now moot: gov'r has decreed SSM. — kwami (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage statistics[edit]

The last marriage statistics were from 2015. Anyone up for updating them? Bkatcher (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of it. Bkatcher (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any recent polling on public opinion? — kwami (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex civil union translation[edit]

The general term is concubinato igualitario. Sociedad de convivencia only applies for Mexico City. Coahuila call them Pacto Civil de solidaridad.

Actually, it would be good to make a deeper research about this subject because the Supreme Court has stated (after Colima and Jalisco cases) that civil unions must be an alternative to both opposite and same-sex couples but same-sex marriage must always be legal. States can't restrict civil unions just to same-sex couples and marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Same-sex couples still prefer marriage, but opposite-sex couples are shifting towards 'concubinato'. My list of states that have harmonised their laws related to 'concubinato' is not extensive. Actually, before harmonisation, some same-sex couples in San Luis Potosí demanded injuctions for civil union and not marriage: https://www.elsoldesanluis.com.mx/local/parejas-del-mismo-sexo-tambien-recurren-al-concubinato-2050830.html Aleqc (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All full legalization dates to table?[edit]

Guanajuato is considering legalization. Should we add those dates to the effective dates, when the effective dates do not indicate a change in state law? — kwami (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a need for consensus, and I also see a need for discretion by all of us concerning which is actually "the" state that makes SSM legal throughout Mexico. At this point we have Guerrero, México, Tabasco and Tamaulipas that have approved SSM but have not published nor issued a date effective--any one of these four could be the final jurisdiction in Mexico; I am not arguing a change, just a clarification that SSM is not really fully legal in any of these states. Andrew1444 (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I added "or pending" to the lead. Not much doubt that they will legalize before the end of the year, though. And it is clear in the table that the laws aren't in effect. — kwami (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good idea. I would just replace the label 'date of legalisation' with 'codification into state law', because in those states where SSM was introduced by court ruling or gubernatorial decrees, it was already legally recognised and performed, it was already legal. (talk) 09:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, once the five pending states are done, we should be able to simplify the map. Striping isn't visible at small scales, and we could integrate where SSM doesn't count as marriage for adoption: dark blue -- full legality; grey blue -- not yet legal under state law; maroon -- SSM but not full marriage equality. — kwami (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Finedelledanze (talk) 09:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because it would be a rather drastic change, even given that I created the map in the first place, I thought it might be better to start with a new map: File:Marriage equality in Mexico.svg. That way if other wikis want to continue to use the current map we won't get into an argument about it. The new one is still too busy to start using, IMO, because Tamaulipas and Guerrero still need to be striped, but once their laws are published and we change them to solid colors I think we could switch over. The only striped state will be Guanajuato, and I don't know if the bill they said they'd introduce ever was, or how long it will take to pass it. — kwami (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea! How about this simplified legend:
DARK BLUE - Marriage equality incl. adoption rights
LIGHT BLUE - Marriage equality by court ruling or executive order (not codified in state law) incl. adoption rights
DB/RED and LB/RED - no access to adoption for same-sex couples
All the states without adoption rights would be striped.
PS
Would you be so kind to teach me how to make and edit svg maps? Finedelledanze (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to avoid stripes. That's why I haven't tried switching over yet. I'd also prefer to restrict dark blue to marriage equality. In most countries of the world with SSM, you're just married. But, in a few, getting married does not make you equal. That I know of, those countries are Taiwan (with more than just adoption, also who you're allowed to marry), Ecuador and Mexico. In the case of Mexico, I think dark blue should mean that you have the same access to marriage as OS couples, and that once you're married, you're simply married. Anything less than that is not marriage equality and IMO should not be shown as full SSM on the map. Eventually all of these states will need to pass laws both allowing marriage and allowing adoption for all married couples, per the SC ruling, so having different colors will make the progress easy to track.
Also, for adoption, the point is not that adoption is not available to SS couples. It's also not available to OS couples if they're not married. The difference is that it's not available to SS couples even if they are married, despite being available to married couples. So I think wording that clarifies that SSM does not qualify as marriage is in order. That is, you're not really married, you're SS married, which isn't the same thing. Also, red is used for constitutional bans. The purple is no longer in use for any of our maps. — kwami (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for SVG maps, I mostly use Inkscape. It's fairly intuitive, and changing colors is simple. I'd just pick a map and start playing around with it to figure it out. But Inkscape does bloat the coding, so with streamlined files you'll want to edit it with a text editor. For me, I just see what coding's being used and copy it over. And Inkscape can't do everything. For example, if you want to strip a state with a new combination of colors, you need to use a text editor to go in and duplicate one of the existing striping patters and change the name and color codes. That will make it available to Inkscape. If you have specific questions, let me know and I'll try to help (assuming I can do it myself), but "teach me" is an open-ended request! — kwami (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Map: Ok, I can see the benefits of reducing the number of striped territories (map more readable). Please paint in red the states banning same-sex couples to adopt (red is more striking and used for other bans, like constituional bans on SSM).
Inkscape: thanks for the tip! Do you create vectorial maps from scratch (how? any tutorial you may refer me to?) or is there a wiki repository for blank svg maps? Finedelledanze (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you noted, red has a different meaning on these maps.
There are blank maps on Commons, but you can always modify some other map. — kwami (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_Mexico&oldid=1208742652"