Argentina: President elect coy on LGBT issues, activists split on same-sex partnership strategy

Despite rumors that she might have to face a run-off in the Argentinian presidential elections Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, wife of sitting Argentinian president Néstor Kirchner, earned 43% of the vote last weekend in a resounding victory and became the first woman ever to be elected president of Argentina.

Most US commentary that I have seen, even in the LGBT news blogs, have touched upon the supposed similarities between the presidential power couple and our own presidential couple - or on how fabulous-looking and fashionable she seems to be.

Steve Ralls at Bilerico picked up on a blog post at Hepzibah, written before the election, to note that a close Krichner supporter, Senator Vilma Ibarra (pictured right), had introduced a bill proposing changes in the country's Civil Code that would allow same-sex couples to marry (a detailed Spanish language Pagina/12 article on the bill can be found here).

Some saw the move as an indication of where the Kirchner camp might go in the future in regards to the recognition of same-sex partnerships in Argentina.

Then again, Senator Ibarra announced her intention to submit the bill a mere two weeks before last week's election and Pagina/12 pointedly pointed out that Ibarra was the sole sponsor (Ibarra chalked the lack of support up to the fact that political leaders were hesitant to sign up to such legislation in an electoral season but that begs the question: Why not wait until the elections were over to introduce the bill in order to find additional sponsors?).

Another newspaper, El Tribuno de la Salta, also drew questions about the timing, noting that Ibarra is set to step down in December which would leave the bill in uncertain waters.

In addition, press coverage also noted that while Ibarra was among the lead Kirchner supporters, the President-elect was nowhere to be found when they tried to ask about her views on the bill.

As a matter of fact, Kirchner was only one of four candidates (out of thirteen) that did not respond to questionnaires sent by the Argentinian LGBT-rights organization Comunidad Homosexual Argentina (or CHA) on her stand on several issues relevant to the LGBT community - including whether a civil unions law that passed in Buenos Aires in 2002 should be strengthened and expanded to cover the entire country.

Now, there has been an interesting and little-noticed split among the leading Argentinian LGBT rights organizations and leaders on the issue of civil unions vs. marriage.

The CHA, which was formed in 1984, has long led the drive that led to the successful introduction of the civil unions bill that was approved in Buenos Aires in 2002, making the city the first in Latin America to recognize same-sex partnerships (actually CHA secretary Marcelo Suntheim and CHA president Cesar Cigliutti where the first Argentinian couple to enter into a civil union, both are pictured left at the official ceremony) . They have continued to advocate for a national civil union law that would strengthen and expand on the rights offered by the existing Buenos Aires law.

In the meantime, 2006 saw the launch of the Argentinian LGBT Federation (FALGBT), a network of 15 LGBT Argentinian organizations that is led by long-time LGBT rights activist Maria Rachid. On February 14 of this year the Federation made a splash with the announcement that Rachid would head to the Civil Registry office with her partner Claudia Castro and ask for a marriage license, threatening to go to the courts if they turned them down (Maria and Claudia also happen to be the leaders of La Fulana, which advocates for the rights of lesbian and bisexual women, they are pictured on the right and is one of the member organizations of the FALGBT).

It is the first time that I am aware that there has been a concerted strategy in a Latin American country to ask for same-sex marriage rights as opposed to civil unions (so far, it's been a losing strategy with a second couple being denied the right to marriage by the Civil Chamber as Pagina/12 reported just yesterday, Maria and Claudia's court challenge is still making it's way through the courts). No surprise, then, that they have backed the Ibarra bill.

The CHA, noticeably absent from the groups that conform the Federation, has been mostly silent regarding the pro-marriage efforts of the FALGBT while sticking to their civil union strategy. By all measures they have also sustained a civil and working relationship with the Federation (and vice-versa).

Which probably explains why on the eve of the election the pro-marriage FALGBT, while supporting the Ibarra marriage bill, also urged the Argentinian LGBT community not to vote for Cristina Fernández de Kirchner for "not pronouncing" herself on the rights of the LGBT community.

But wait! Kirchner speaks!

At the last possible minute, after months of avoiding media (or questions from the CHA and FALGBT), the President-elect suddenly opened up days before the election and was uncharacteristically forthcoming on LGBT issues (sorta like Hillary did when, after months of refusing to meet LGBT political organizations in New York, she decided to have a high-profile meeting on the eve of her presidential announcement).

As part of a radio interview that took place on October 24th and as reported by Perfil, Kirchner didn't necessarily support same-sex marriage but she did espouse generic platitudes that sounded like she did: "I believe in the free will of all men and women in Argentina to choose their sexuality," she said (Hmm... me thinks sexuality is mostly not a choice?).

Furthermore she said "It's not an issue on which I have to express myself [why not?], in all respects it's an issue that has to be debated in the Parliament."

Then there is a SentidoG article written by a member of a NYC-based Argentinian LGBT organization in which it is said that members "exchanged words" with the then-candidate at an "exclusive" Waldorf Astoria Hotel campaign fundraiser breakfast on October 26th. Aside from a nice photo op, though, the article fails to say whether Kirchner said anything about LGBT rights in Argentina (other than to say that she spoke about her commitment to "human rights").

Kirchner is certainly miles ahead on LGBT issues compared to some of the conservative candidates that she faced in the presidential elections but, like her husband, she leaves a lot to be desired about how strong an LGBT rights ally she will be as the president of Argentina.

Argentina: Marriage equality whiplash as good developments follow bad

Movement on legislative marriage equality bill: Following yesterday's announcement that a Tierra del Fuego court had annulled the first ever same-sex marriage in Latin America, there were welcome news today about the increased chances of a marriage equality bill reaching the floor of the Argentinian congress.

Today, two legislative commissions - the General Legislation Commission and the Women, Children and Adolescence Commission - backed a full congressional debate of a bill that would amend Argentina's Civil Code to allow same-sex couples to marry.

La Nación reports today the recommendation has already drawn support from members representing a plurality of the political parties sitting in Congress (which doesn't mean all party representatives sitting in congress will vote in favor once it does come down for a floor vote).  It also noted that members of two conservative parties, including the Peronistas - Quick! Someone call Madonna - er - Evita! - were holding off and willing to endorse a "civil union-only" bill that did not define legal same-sex partnership recognition as "marriage".

Vilma Ibarra, the lead sponsor of the bill, said it would replace the words "man and a woman" in the Civil Code with "spouse". She also said that, considering the wide support that the bill received today, she expected a full debate in the next congressional session and passage of the bill.

How many same-sex couples remain married?: In the meantime, questions have been raised about the number of partners that remain legally married in light of yesterday's news - and there are good news on that front as well.  Here is what I have:

The courts have annulled the first two marriages - that of Alex Freyre & José Maria Di Bello which took place on December 28th (photo) and that of Damian Bernath & Jorge Esteban Salazar Capón (photo) which took place on February 23rd.

Florencia Kravetz, an attorney representing Bernath and Salazar Capón, said the set back was temporary and vowed that the marriage equality question would eventually be resolved by the courts in their clients' favor.

The third and fourth marriages are those of Carlos Alvarez & Martin Canavaro (above) which got the go-ahead on April 5th (photo) and Norma Castillo & Ramona Arevalo, the first lesbians to marry in the country, which got the go ahead on April 9th (photo).

Castillo and Arevalo, the lesbian couple, were able to marry almost immediately because the news didn't come out until the 12th when a judge had already officiated their wedding.  That judge was Elena Liberatori - the same judge who officiated the annulled marriage between Bernath and Salazar Capón - so it wouldn't be surprising if they also face a court repeal.

As for Alvarez and Canavaro (photo), they would have been able to marry last week as well if it wasn't for an appeal to the marriage decision.  That appeal was dropped this week and they were able to marry this morning (as shown the photo above).

So two same-sex couples remain married in Argentina tonight and there are signs that congress will take up a marriage equality measure in the near future.  Good signs, despite the bad news this week.

Photo credit: Clarin via AG Magazine.

Argentina: Highest Court ready to back same-sex marriages, says justice, but there's one caveat...

As you might remember, on December 28th, Alex Freyre and José Maria Di Bello became the first gay couple to ever receive a marriage license in all of Latin America. Their victory came after years of struggling with the Argentinian courts and with much help from marriage equality advocates, including the Argentinian LGBT Federation.

Previously, the country's Supreme Court had indicated that they would take up the question of whether denying marriage rights to same-sex couples was unconstitutional and, in the wake of the surprising wedding announcement, they reaffirmed their intent to take up the issue later this year.

In the meantime, last year there was an aborted effort to bring a marriage equality bill to the country's Parliament and strong indications that there would be another push this year (there have been efforts to do so since 2007).

Now, in an extraordinary front page article that ran yesterday in Argentina's Pagina/12, the paper takes a look at both the Parliamentary and the judicial paths to marriage equality in Argentina and it begins with quite a bombshell ("The Two Roads to Gay Marriage") .

"The judicial decision is quite simple, that's not the problem" says an unnamed source, "it's a clear case of supervening unconstitutionality, the same thing happened with joint divorce".

The problem, according to the unnamed source is this:

"What is difficult, what is doubtful (he weighs), is whether we should dedicate ourselves to rule on any of the files we have, or if we [should] wait for Congress to debate the law."

Those words coming from any anonymous source would be almost meaningless but when the source is identified as one of the seven Supreme Court Justices in Argentina they are simply stunning. Basically, the unnamed justice is saying that the Argentinian Supreme Court is all but ready to rule in favor of marriage equality but also seem willing to wait for issue to go through the Parliamentary process.

Mario Wainfeld, the reporter for Pagina/12, says he was surprised that a sitting Supreme Court Justice would agree to discuss an issue that was on the docket and still unresolved. He was even more surprised, he says, by what he described as the vehement insistence by the judge that the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision would be "easy" and fall in the favor of same-sex couples.

It's not clear whether there are enough votes to pass a marriage equality bill through Parliament, particularly in the Senate, and the reporter says that the judge agrees with that statement. Without a tape recorder to capture the conversation, the reporter paraphrases the judge's comments:

Judge: If that is the case, it would be better to wait for the topic to be aired through society and through the Parliament. Of course, if the bill doesn't advance or it's delayed, the Tribunal would have to decide.
Reporter: In that case, would it be that easily resolved? (reporter insists).
Judge: The file would have to be passed around, there are some strong individuals here, each one will want to establish their position, it's a historic decision. But it is almost certain that there will be majority support.

-----------

Bizarre. The last time I remember a judge from the highest court discussing a case on which the court had yet to rule was when Peruvian Constitutional Court Justice Carlos Fernando Mesias Rámirez went on Peruvian television to argue that a ban on gays in the military might violate the Peruvian constitution. The court went on to decide just as much six months later.

But how would you feel, as a member of the highest court, if another member spoke to media about a case on the docket and predicted that a majority of the court would vote in one way or another? I hope he or she knows exactly what he or she is doing, because I can see how those comments might back-fire easily. At the same time, though, the interview was probably arranged in advance with accompanying prerequisites (the judge could be identified as a judge but not by name, no tape recorders, etc.). What if it was meant to send a message to the legislative branch as they mull taking up the issue once again?

----------

The Pagina/12 article then takes a look at previous efforts to bring a marriage equality bill to the Argentinean Parliament (see my previous post: "Argentinean president-elect Cristina Fernández de Kirchner coy on LGBT issues, activists split on same-sex partnership strategies").

The current President, Cristina Fernandez de Kichner and her government come out as duplicitous and opportunistic on the issue (that's her with the violin and her husband and former president Nestor Kichner, who now backs marriage equality). I have never been a fan of President Kirchner on LGBT rights and the article confirms some of my hunches and reservations.

From the article:

Also simple and brief is the bill that came within a hair of being taken up by Parliament last year. It's being sponsored by, among others, deputy Vilma Ibarra (New Encounter party). It calls for the reform of a single article in the current Civil Code. Where it is established that an essential prerequisite for marriage is the "freely expressed full consent by man and woman", it would substitute "man and woman" for "persons of the same or different gender". The rhetoric economy of the modification is not due to chance or negligence. It seeks to underline the equality of every person, in their civil rights.

The Front for Victory party (FpV) joined the initiative at the end of last year until it was resolved from the Pink House that it should be delayed [Buenos Aires' Pink House is the equivalent of DC's White House]. It came on the eve of president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner's trip to the Holy See. Her Chief of Staff, Anibal Fernández, according to rumors by opposing MP's and fellow party members, suggested that it was inopportune to move ahead just before the imminent meeting between Férnandez de Kirchner and her Chilean counterpart, Michelle Bachelet, with Pope Benedict XVI to commemorate the mediation by John Paul II that averted war between the two countries. Having engaged in the ceremony and averted any alleged embarrassment to the Pope, the ruling bloc has the intention to join the move. Their support is necessary, although not sufficient. It's already known that it doesn't have its own quorum but it's the largest minority; their numbers and their discipline ensures an important number of loyalists. They won't all be from the same party, because it deals with one of those so-called "question of conscience" norms in which legislators are allowed to deviate from party discipline.

The ruling party strategy is to build a progressive platform agenda to revamp its image and start to weave alliances, even if they are contingent, with center-left parties. And, by the way, try to regain the support of progressive citizens.

As a matter of fact, Nestor Kirchner, a former Argentinean president and husband of the current president, officially announced his backing for the marriage equality bill earlier this year (echoes of Bill Clinton backing marriage equality last year while Hillary has yet to do so)..

Ultimately, the article says, the topic is heading to Congress and it's certain that, if rejected by the Congress, the Supreme Court will have its say. If that happens and the high court rules in favor, the civil code will remain on the books. Same-sex couples who have brought their demands to the highest court in the nation would be allowed to marry but other couples would have to take their case to the courts and wait to be granted marriage rights on a case by case basis.

Picture that: A ruling presidential political party, which is in trouble with its progressive branch, unabashedly - if opportunistically - embracing marriage equality as a progressive calling card.