Mexico's Supreme Court Strikes Down Same-Sex Marriage Ban
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court of Mexico determined that a state law could not be used to prohibit same-sex marriage in the southern state of Oaxaca.
The Court found that the law, which included the statement "one of the purposes of marriage is the perpetuation of the species," could not be used to prohibit same sex marriage because it "violates the principle of equality." While the court's decision does not challenge the constitutionality of the law, it does assert that the law cannot be interpreted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. According to Alex Alí Méndez Díaz, the lawyer defending the couples involved, "The court did not declare the unconstitutionality of the law, but the effect of its application is that the justices said that one would have to understand marriage is a contract celebrated between two people without any reference to the sex of those who enter into it."
Activists hope that this could spread a wave of change through the country. LGBT activist and blogger from Mexico City, Enrique Torre Molina, told the Washington Blade "It's not going to be long before same-sex marriage is a reality in the whole country. ... It's a matter of same-sex couples who have been thinking about getting married and haven't done it either because they're not in Mexico City and traveling is not an option or because they were going to get no for an answer. It's just a matter of time of trying it out as these couples in Oaxaca [did] and sort of contribute to this history."
Currently, same-sex marriage is only legal in the capital, Mexico City. Wednesday's decision will also give precedent for cases in other parts of the country.
The Mexican Supreme Court's decision comes while the United States Supreme Court considers whether or not to take a case that challenges the American federal ban on same-sex marriage, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
Media Resources: Washington Blade 12/6/12; Huffington Post 12/5/12; Feminist Newswire 12/3/12
10/31/2014 Federal Judge Exempts Another Catholic University from Birth Control Coverage - A federal judge ruled Tuesday that Ave Maria University, a Catholic university in Florida, does not have to comply with federal rules meant to ensure that covered employees can exercise their right to obtain birth control at no cost.
The Affordable Care Act requires all new health insurance plans to cover all FDA-approved contraceptives - such as the pill, emergency contraceptives, and IUDs - without charging co-pays, deductibles or co-insurance. . . .
10/31/2014 Women of Color in Tennessee Are United in Opposition to Amendment 1 - Just days before the general election in Tennessee, a coalition of community leaders, clergy, and advocates led a press conference encouraging women of color to vote no on Amendment 1, a dangerous and far-reaching measure on the state's ballot.
SisterReach, a grassroots organization focused on "empowering, organizing, and mobilizing women and girls in the community around their reproductive and sexual health to make informed decisions about themselves," organized the press conference "to call attention to the unique concerns Black and poor communities throughout Shelby County and across the state of Tennessee face on a daily basis" and to emphasize how the upcoming election "could further limit [black women's] reproductive, economic, political, and social autonomy."
"We assemble today to impress upon black women and women of color, many of whom are heads of households, to get out and vote," said SisterReacher Founder and CEO Cherisse Scott at the event.
SisterReach has been educating voters about the particularly dangerous impact of Amendment 1 on women of color. . . .
10/30/2014 Medication Abortion Access Threatened by Oklahoma Court Ruling - An Oklahoma state district court judge has refused to block a state law restricting medication abortion, clearing the way for the law to go into affect on November 1.
The Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, together with a local abortion clinic in Tulsa, challenged HB 2684 in September, arguing that the law was an unconstitutional restriction on non-surgical abortion in the earliest weeks of pregnancy. . . .