–
The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of Mexico invalidated this Monday a normative portion of the second paragraph of article 4 of the Constitution of the state of Veracruz that recognized the right to life from conception to natural death, published on August 23, 2016.
In addition, it invalidated provisions of the Civil Code of Veracruz that excluded same-sex couples from the marriage regime, as well as a provision that prevented the parent who was married at the time of the birth or at the time of the birth from being entered on the birth certificate. conception.
In the first case, it pointed out that, in effect, the local legislator “lacks the power to modify the essential core of the right to life; In addition, the regulation in such terms allowed to restrict other fundamental rights, especially of women and pregnant people.
In addition, he said that this provision violated the principles of interdependence and indivisibility.
Then, unanimously, the 10 SCJN ministers declared the invalidity of article 4 of the state constitution, which established that “the State shall guarantee the right to life of the human being, from the moment of conception until natural death, as a primary value that supports the exercise of other rights.
In the second case, the SCJN analyzed the actions of unconstitutionality promoted by the State Human Rights Commission of Veracruz and the National Human Rights Commission, against various provisions of the Civil Code of the aforementioned federal entity, reformed by Decree 569 , published on June 10, 2020.
First, it invalidated article 47 in the portion that establishes “his mother or his father.”
He said that although said provision refers to how children born of marriage should be named and not to the definition of marriage as such, it reaffirmed “the requirement that marriage should be celebrated only between a man and a woman, excluding homosexual couples.
For the same reasons, the Full Court of the SCJN invalidated articles 48, first paragraph, in the normative portion “of the mother and the father”, as well as article 145, third paragraph, in the normative portion “with the mother and the father”.
On the contrary, it recognized the validity of other articles which are part of the regulation of the institution of marriage.
“By not providing that it must necessarily be held between a man and a woman, given that its content is developed from the use of neutral nouns, which designate both genders, such as spouses, spouse, ex-spouse or ex-spouses, which must be interpreted in the sense of including homosexual couples”, he pointed out.
Likewise, the validity of articles 139 and 139 was recognized, where the definition of concubinage is established, which by using the word “persons” gives generality to the normative content, so that for this union to be recognized, the gender of those people.
—
