Despite washing his hands, Daniel Karam of IMSS under attack for denying gay rights

A couple of days ago, Daniel Karam, head of Mexican Social Security (IMSS), declared IMSS would refuse gay couples access to social security, despite the recent Supreme Court decision that gay couples are constitutional. Karam's reasoning, a hand-washing worthy of a Pontius Pilate, was the following: 
The IMSS statutes does not explicitly mention gays, hence, IMSS have to wait for Congress to change the statutes.


Karam: "It is not my place to say whether I am in favor or against a change in the law; it is my place to apply it as it is."


This is quite pathetic. Given the salience of the issue and the recent Supreme Court interpretation, as the IMSS statutes stand, one hardly need to engage in institional engineering to interpret that gay couples, who certainly do pay taxes to IMSS, should have the same rights to e.g.  social security, medical attention, or kindergarten services that straight couples are entitled to, in case of the death of a IMSS-registered partner. 
(as gays are not mentioned in the IMSS charter, does that mean they do not have to pay IMSS contributions either?)


Regardless, health secretary Ángel Córdova Villalobos, a possible presidential contender, responded favorably to "initiating a debate" on the issue. Already, one IMSS client has filed an injunction against IMSS for its refusal to register her partner. So far only one political party, the PRD, is standing up for equal social rights for gay couples . 

Finally, interior ministry offers a (tepid) response to the church attack on the Mexican state

Almost a week after various members of the Mexican catholic high clergy broke almost any conceivable law regulating the church's involvement in politics - strictly circumscribed according to the Constitution - and viciously attacked the country's institutions and democratic process, the Ministry of the Interior finally owed up to its institutional role of defending them. 


Well, sort of. The Interior Ministry acknowledged it had received the legal complaints from the national PRD and from the Government of Mexico City and is currently investigating them, while calling rather tepidly, and vaguely,  for the "recognition and respect for the institutions and laws of the country"


The church's rights and limitations to engage in public and political debate are circumscribed by the Constitution, above all article 130, as well as the Ley de Asociaciones Religiosas y Culto Público, which, although watered down quite a bit by Salinas, is quite clear on these topics. It is well worth a read, and can be found here. 


As for the church's recent denigration of the Mexican state, the most relevant parts are found in its Article 29: 



ARTICULO 29.- Constituyen infracciones a la presente ley, por parte de los sujetos a que la misma se refiere:
I. Asociarse con fines políticos, así como realizar proselitismo o propaganda de cualquier tipo a favor o en contra de candidato, partido o asociación política algunos;
II. Agraviar a los símbolos patrios o de cualquier modo inducir a su rechazo;
III. Adquirir, poseer o administrar las asociaciones religiosas, por sí o por interpósita persona, bienes y derechos que no sean, exclusivamente, los indispensables para su objeto, así como concesiones de la naturaleza que fuesen;
IV. Promover la realización de conductas contrarias a la salud o integridad física de los individuos;
V. Ejercer violencia física o presión moral, mediante agresiones o amenazas, para el logro o
realización de sus objetivos;
VI. Ostentarse como asociación religiosa cuando se carezca del registro constitutivo otorgado por la Secretaría de Gobernación;
VII. Destinar los bienes que las asociaciones adquieran por cualquier título, a un fin distinto del previsto en la declaratoria de procedencia correspondiente;
VIII. Desviar de tal manera los fines de las asociaciones que éstas pierdan o menoscaben gravemente su naturaleza religiosa;
IX. Convertir un acto religioso en reunión de carácter político;
X. Oponerse a las Leyes del País o a sus instituciones en reuniones públicas;
XI. Realizar actos o permitir aquellos que atenten contra la integridad, salvaguarda y preservación de los bienes que componen el patrimonio cultural del país, y que están en uso de las iglesias, agrupaciones o asociaciones religiosas, así como omitir las acciones que sean necesarias para lograr que dichos bienes sean preservados en su integridad y valor; y,
XII. Las demás que se establecen en la presente ley y otros ordenamientos aplicables.




Cardinal Sandoval's recent contribution to the political climate is to claim the Supreme Court "committed treason" against the country, the family, marriage, etc. 


As far as I can see, Sandoval and the church are the ones committing treason against Mexico. 

First effects of UN criticism: Guanajuato moves toward lowering abortion penalties

Following the recent visit of a UN mission to examine the atrocious human rights situation for women in Guanajuato, the  State Human Rights Attorney's office recommended to the state congress that penalities for illegal abortion. Currently, a woman can receive 25-35 years in prison for having an abortion, including a spontaneous abortion, in Guanajuato, and governor Juan Manuel Oliva, for his part, proposed reducing this to 3-8 years. 


The state human rights attorney is quite a misnomer - its protagonism is minimal, and it notoriously continues to deny that any woman in Guanajuato is locked up for the aforementioned crime, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary - and has absolutely no independent authority from governor Oliva. Yet these recent declarations, which may at the very least be considered a step forward, serve to illustrate that international pressures still matters.