Mes: octubre 2014

Por Alfonso García | EFE

El equipo de abogados de las parejas homosexuales que reclamaban que sus matrimonios contraídos en otros estados de EE.UU. sean reconocidos en Puerto Rico, demanda rechazada el martes en San Juan por un juez federal, apelará la decisión en el plazo de los próximos días.

Omar González Pagán, uno de los abogados de las 4 parejas homosexuales y la organización Puerto Rico para Tod@s que se unieron a la demanda federal presentada por el matrimonio formado por Ada Conde e Ivonne Álvarez, señaló hoy a Efe que se trata de un fallo contrario al adoptado en decenas de casos similares en estados de EE.UU. y que se ultiman los detalles de la apelación.

El juez federal Juan Pérez Gimémez desestimó la demanda presentada por la activista y abogada Ada Conde y su esposa, Ivonne Álvarez, quienes intentaban que se declarara inconstitucional el artículo 68 del Código Civil de Puerto Rico que establece el matrimonio como la unión, exclusivamente, entre hombre y mujer.

González Pagán recordó que solo un juez de Luisiana -de entre decenas de casos- determinó que era el estado de EE.UU. donde residían las parejas el que debía reconocer la validez de los matrimonios homosexuales.

El abogado subrayó que la desestimación de la demanda por parte del juez Pérez Gimémez fue, a su juicio, herrada, y que por ello ya se trabaja en la apelación que será presentada ante el Primer Circuito de Apelaciones Federales en Boston.

Mostró su confianza en que la postura de sus defendidos salga favorecida, tras recordar que en decenas de estados del país norteamericano está reconocido el matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo.

El coordinador de la organización Puerto Rico para Tod@s, Pedro Julio Serrano, dijo a Efe que la decisión del juez Pérez Gimémez es solo un escollo que no impedirá que triunfe una igualdad que catalogó de «imparable».

Serrano resaltó que la decisión del letrado del Juzgado federal de San Juan «rompió una racha casi unánime» en todo EE.UU. de decisiones a favor de los matrimonios homosexuales.

El activista de los derechos humanos dijo además que la postura adoptada por el juez federal de comparar el matrimonio homosexual con el incesto «es una falta de respecto y una ofensa».

Serrano destacó que la comunidad homosexual en Puerto Rico vive la discriminación «a flor de piel» y que no están dispuestos a que un magistrado federal se mofe de ese colectivo.

Conde dijo hoy en una entrevista radial no entender la decisión del juez federal, ya que ésta, matizó, se basa en un caso que data de 1972 que no se utiliza actualmente por no tratarse de jurisprudencia normativa.

Destacó que el juez federal determinó que es el Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico el que tiene que cambiar la ley para que se reconozca el matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo a través de legislación, algo que resaltó les ha dejado «absortos».

La decisión del juez federal trascendió Puerto Rico y la presidenta del Concejo Municipal de Nueva York, Melissa Mark Viverito, dijo en declaraciones recogidas por el diario El Nuevo Día que se trata de una postura decepcionante.

Mark Viverito subrayó que se trata de una decisión mezquina y una injusticia para las parejas del mismo sexo en Puerto Rico, por lo que hizo público su apoyo a las parejas homosexuales en la isla caribeña.

El juez federal, al rechazar la demanda, apuntó que Puerto Rico, a través de su Legislativo, es libre de formar su propia política matrimonial y que son la ciudadanía y sus representantes los encargados de redefinir el matrimonio, pero no los jueces.

El Código Civil en Puerto Rico solo reconoce el matrimonio como la unión entre hombre y mujer.

Conde y Álvarez contrajeron matrimonio hace más de una década en el estado de Massachusetts.

La Justicia puertorriqueña había solicitado recientemente a la federal que desestimara la demanda interpuesta el pasado marzo por Conde y Álvarez.

El exgobernador Pedro Rosselló (1993-2000) firmó durante su mandato una norma que prohibía el reconocimiento en Puerto Rico de los matrimonio del mismo sexo contraídos en otras jurisdicciones de EE.UU.

By Chris Johnson | Washington Blade

A federal judge on Tuesday bucked the recent trend of pro-gay marriage court rulings and upheld Puerto Rico’s ban on gay nuptials.

In a 21-page decision, U.S. District Judge Juan Perez-Gimenez, a Carter appointee, ruled 40-year-old precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court dictates that courts must uphold laws against same-sex marriage.

“Because no right to same-gender marriage emanates from the Constitution, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico should not be compelled to recognize such unions,” Perez-Gimenez writes. “Instead, Puerto Rico, acting through its legislature, remains free to shape its own marriage policy. In a system of limited constitutional self-government such as ours, this is the prudent outcome. The people and their elected representatives should debate the wisdom of redefining marriage. Judges should not.”

Same-sex marriage is illegal in Puerto Rico as a result of a law signed by then-Gov. Pedro Rosselló in 1999 defining marriage as “a civil contract whereby a man and a woman mutually agree to become husband and wife.”

Perez-Gimenez points to Baker v. Nelson, a 1972 case seeking marriage equality that the Supreme Court refused to hear for want of federal question, as precedent for upholding Puerto Rico’s marriage ban.

The multitude of other judges who’ve struck down bans on same-sex marriage have pointed to more recent decisions, such as the ruling against the Defense of Marriage Act, as reason to believe precedent has changed since that time.

But Perez-Gimenez writes these decisions aren’t sufficient “to imply that Baker is no longer binding authority.”

Criticizing other courts that have struck down bans on same-sex marriage, Perez-Gimenez says marriage should be restricted to one man, one woman because that definition “is the fundamental unit of the political order.” At one point, the judge invokes incest as a possible outcome if decisions against these laws continue.

“A clear majority of courts have struck down statutes that affirm opposite-gender marriage only,” Perez-Gimenez writes. “In their ingenuity and imagination they have constructed a seemingly comprehensive legal structure for this new form of marriage. And yet what is lacking and unaccounted for remains: are laws barring polygamy, or, say the marriage of fathers and daughters, now of doubtful validity?”

The lawsuit was filed by Lambda Legal on behalf of three same-gender couples who live in Puerto Rico seeking recognition of their marriages from another jurisdiction; two same-gender couples who seek the right to marry in Puerto Rico; and Puerto Rico Para Todos, a LGBT group in the Commonwealth.

Puerto Rico lies within the jurisdiction of the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals. Should the plaintiffs decide to appeal the decision, that’s the court that would consider the case. Although the appeals court hasn’t considered a marriage lawsuit since the Supreme Court’s decision against the Defense of Marriage Act last year, it determined that DOMA was unconstitutional based on a low standard of rational basis review.

Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, staff attorney for Lambda Legal, told the Washington Blade his organization will “of course” appeal the ruling to the First Circuit, saying the decision defies logic.

“The court’s ruling directly conflicts with the wave of recent decisions finding these marriage bans unconstitutional and perpetuates the discrimination and harm done to same-sex Puerto Rican couples and their families,” Gonzalez-Pagan said. “It defies the unmistakable import of the Windsor decision and flies in the face of the blizzard of rulings of the last year, the reasoned rulings of the Courts of Appeals for the 4th, 7th, 9th and 10th Circuits, and the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court let stand the rulings striking down five bans similar to Puerto Rico’s. One struggles to understand how this judge came to a different conclusion.”

After the Supreme Court refused to review decision in favor of marriage equality, plaintiffs in the case sought a declaratory judgment from Perez-Gimenez this week in favor of same-sex marriage.

Pedro Julio Serrano of Puerto Rico Para Tod@s said he was offended by the ruling because he feels it doesn’t represent the views of people within the Commonwealth.

“I am outraged that Judge Pérez Giménez that he compared marriage equality to incest,” Serrano said. “His prejudice is shameful. The nefariousness and offensiveness of Judge Pérez Giménez does not represent the sentiment of the people of Puerto Rico. We are a sympathetic and inclusive people.”

New York City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, who is from Puerto Rico, also criticized the ruling.

“Today’s court decision upholding the ban on marriage equality in Puerto Rico is tremendously disappointing, mean spirited and an injustice for everyone who believes all people must be treated equally,” she said in a statement. “As a Puerto Rican, I know we are sensible, humane, inclusive and respectful people. We love our LGBT brothers and sisters and we stand with them in the struggle for equality and justice.”

Serrano also pledged to take up the case with the First Circuit, saying the outcome will be different with the appeals court.

“We will win in appeal,” Serrano said. “Equality is inevitable and unstoppable. Puerto Rico will be for everyone.”

Michael K. Lavers contributed to this article.

Por Maritza Díaz Alcaide
Primera Hora