Achy Obejas: Cuba goes both ways on gay rights

"Cuba goes both ways on gay rights". That's the title of a masterful opinion piece published yesterday in In These Times and authored by renown lesbian Cuban author Achy Obejas.

An excerpt:

"Cuba’s split personality on LGBT issues came onto the international stage at the United Nations in November, when it was the only Latin American country that voted to have 'sexual orientation' removed from a list of discriminatory motivations for extrajudicial executions. The amendment would have changed the LGBT-specific language to the vague phrase, “for discriminatory reasons, whatever they may be.”

Citizens around the globe raised such an outcry that, a month later, the international body reversed itself and passed an inclusive resolution.

In a second round of voting, to re-insert the original inclusive language, Cuba abstained.

Breaking with Cuban officialdom, pro-government Cuban bloggers joined dissident bloggers—in defiance of a complete blackout on the matter in official Cuban media—in criticizing the Cuban U.N. delegation for the anti-gay vote..."

Read the rest of the essay. Now.

Mexican Supreme Court: Mexico City's marriage equality law is constitutional

Still on a high from yesterday's historic federal court ruling knocking down Proposition 8 in California?  Well, get a load of this:

The Mexican Supreme Court of Justice has been holding hearings this week on the constitutionality of Mexico City's groundbreaking marriage equality law which was adopted by the city on December 21st, 2009.

The law, the first of its kind in all of Latin America, not only granted gay couples in Mexico City the right to marry but also explicitly said that gay couples could adopt children (previously gay individuals were allowed to adopt but, if they had a partner, that partner could not file for parenthood rights).

Upon passage of the law, Mexican president Felipe Calderón stated that the constitution only allowed marriages "between a man and a woman" and had his attorney general file an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Guess what!  Earlier today the Mexican Supreme Court ruled by a vote of 8-2 that Mexico City's marriage equality law is indeed constitutional ("Mexican court upholds capital's gay marriage law", AP). Suck it, Calderón!

Echoing California federal court judge Vaugh R. Walker in ruling that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, Milenio reports that, in backing the law, Justice Fernando Franco stated the following:

Procreation is not an essential element of marriage nor does it threaten the protection the Constitution grants to the family and procreation, since those who want to conceive, have the full capacity of doing it.

The court had previously said that they would also take up the part of the law that grants adoption rights for gay couples as a separate debate.  To that effect, the court will convene once again this Monday to discuss whether that part of the law is constitutional.  They will also be debating whether the court's ruling has any reach beyond Mexico City.

Not all LGBT-rights advocates were happy with the marriage equality law approved in December by the legislature. Federal Deputy Enoé Uranga, an openly lesbian legislator who spearheaded a civil union bill in 2001 which was passed in 2006, warned that the law had been rushed through the legislature with not enough time for public debate.  She argued that the law reflected political interests rather than serve the needs of LGBT families and warned that making adoption rights explicit within the law might have unintended consequences should the Supreme Court decide to ban them.  As of late, though, and now that the Supreme Court is holding hearings and deciding on the constitutionality of the law, Uranga has been busy trying to draw expert witnesses and testimony for the court to consider backing adoption rights for gays.

Some observers are just as concerned the court won't be nearly as progressive on adoption as it was today on marriage equality but Mexico City Councilmember David Razú (pictured above), the author and lead sponsor of the bill which became law, is absolutely certain the Court will back adoption rights as well, according to my conversations with him on Twitter.

In the meantime, the United Nation's Deputy High Commissioner Kyung-wha Kang, visiting Mexico for an international conference on women's rights, told CNN Mexico that marriage was a right everyone should have access to, including same-sex partners.  CNN doesn't quote her directly but says that the UN Commissioner also backed adoption rights for same-sex couples "although the decision should be taken carefully in each particular case" and said that the United Nations had always been in favor of citizens having full access to human rights regardless of their sexual orientation.

As for marriages between same-sex couples that have taken place since the law was passed six months ago? NotieSe reports that 320 same-sex marriage couples have gotten married, 173 between men and 147 between women.  27 foreigners have married Mexican citizens including people who were born in Rumania, Austria, Germany, Spain, Italy, France, England, the United States, Canada, Panama, Guatemala, Venezuela and Colombia.

IGLHRC gains consultative status in the UN, Venezuela only country in America to vote 'No'

Yesterday, I was thrilled to hear that the US-based International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) had gained consultative status by the United Nations (Official press release here).

This came at the end of a prolonged fight to block the accreditation by leaders and representatives from some of the most homophobic nations in the world as well as fundamentalist religious institutions.

"Today's decision is an affirmation that the voices of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people have a place at the United Nations as part of a vital civil society community," said Cary Alan Johnson, IGLHRC Executive Director. "The clear message here is that these voices should not be silenced and that human rights cannot be denied on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity."

In the United States Republican Congressmen Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Trent Franks (R-AZ) had urged other countries to vote against accrediting IGLHRC.

Today, they'll be glad to know they were on the same side as Venezuela.

Yes, of the thirteen nations that voted against the measure, the only country in the American continent was Venezuela.Venezuelan ambassador to the United Nations Jorge Valera (pictured) has yet to explain his vote as does the government of Hugo Chavez.

An aside: Yesterday the White House released a brief statement by President Barack Obama, welcoming the news:

I welcome this important step forward for human rights, as the International Lesbian and Gay Human Rights Commission (ILGHRC) will take its rightful seat at the table of the United Nations. The UN was founded on the premise that only through mutual respect, diversity, and dialogue can the international community effectively pursue justice and equality. Today, with the more full inclusion of the International Lesbian and Gay Human Rights Commission, the United Nations is closer to the ideals on which it was founded, and to values of inclusion and equality to which the United States is deeply committed.

Hm, it's not the International "Lesbian and Gay" Human Rights Commission. They switched those two words around, and also got the acronym wrong. It's not "ILGHRC" , it's "IGLHRC". Oooopsie! A good thing, though, for the president to recognize the great news.

UPDATE: Thanks to Gerónimo Desumala, who left a comment on this post, here is a link to a description of the vote at the United Nations as well as the debate that preceded and followed.

A Venezuelan delegate stated the 'no' vote was not based on the nature of the agency's work but, instead, on procedural issues...

Speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, Venezuela’s delegate said her country’s Constitution forbade discrimination on grounds of economic or social status.  Venezuela had voted against the granting of consultative status to the organization for reasons of procedure, not because it had substantive objections to that organization’s work.  The examination of applications for consultative status was the responsibility of the Non-Governmental Organization Committee.

She said the Council did not have enough information to make a clear, objective opinion on the issue and it should, thus, respect the Committee’s recommendations.  Any decision adopted regarding the consultative status would establish a negative precedent, opening the door for any State to selectively bring the Council’s attention to applications for consultative status based on national interest.

Colombia: United Nations backs pension rights for same-sex couples

Pictured right, attorney and gay rights advocate
German Humberto Rincon Perfetti

Yesterday's surprise end-of-session congressional vote and passage of a bill that gives "established gay couples full rights to health insurance, inheritance and social security" was not the only major gay rights victory in the South American country this week.

In a little reported May 14th finding that was apparently only announced this week, the United Nations Commission for Human Rights ruled that Colombia had violated a person's equal right protections by denying him access to the pension benefits of his deceased same-sex partner (I could only find a Spanish language version of the the announcement in the United Nations' website).

The ruling is the second time that the Commission has spoken on issues related to same-sex partners. In Young v. Australia (2003) the Committee held that "Australia, in denying pension rights to the surviving same-sex partner of a war veteran, violated discrimination protections in article 26 of the ICCPR" (Human Rights Watch).

In the new ruling, the Commission stated that the Colombian government "has the obligation of adopting measures to block similar violations in the future" and asks Colombia for "information on adopted measures to comply with the current ruling" within 90 days.

It's unclear when and how the Colombian government plans to respond.

The claim on behalf of the unnamed surviving partner was brought before the Commission by my friend and Colombian gay rights advocate (and attorney) German Humberto Rincon Perfetti (yes, he is a man of many untold names and abilities). He can be reached at rinconperfettigerman@hotmail.com.

These developments follow a Colombian Supreme Court ruling back in February (as reported in the San Francisco Chronicle) that seems to be paving the way for a succession of gay rights victories.

Perfetti, for one, is exploring whether Colombian notaries can legally deny civil union rights to same-sex partners in the wake of that Supreme Court ruling.