Gay marriage likely to be approved in Colombia

  

Sources consulted by this newspaper ventured a vote of 6-3 or 5-4 in favor of same-sex couples can marry in a civil ceremony and substantially modifies the traditional concept of family.

Without exaggeration it seems that demand is only a few days of failure of the Constitutional Court for same-sex couples can form a family and civil marriage, is the most controversial public debate has arisen in the nearly twenty years of high court. Of equal importance to the partial decriminalization of abortion or personal dose, and trimmed more controversial than those laid down in the ruling that opened the way for the legalization of euthanasia. That size is the debate.

By drawing on the Judge Maria Victoria Street accounted for the study of the application filed by the young lawyer Felipe Montoya Castro, who on September 11, 2009 formalized its request before the Court and since then nothing counter to the church, Christian organizations, the Congress, which has sunk six times bills to recognize their rights, and to the Attorney Alejandro Ordóñez, who said vehemently: "The homosexual union is neither marriage nor is family."
An avalanche of citizen involvement, from the Episcopal Conference, 28 professors from prestigious universities around the world, United Nations and a long list of bodies were made to record this week enters its final straight in court. Before November 18 the high court must rule on this burning issue, but it appears that there was consensus to resolve it on Thursday. And guess are on the agenda. Sources close to the process and consulted by El Espectador venture a vote of 6-3 in favor of the interests of the gay community.

On the edge of the champions of the traditional concept of marriage and family would be the judges Jorge Pretelt Chaljub and Nilson Pinilla Pinilla. On the latter, beyond its conservative origins, concepts that recorded in the minutes of the Court, dated April 17, 2008, left him exposed. At that time it discussed the recognition of social security for homosexual unions, and Pinilla, who was defeated then outlined a theory that shocked today, as requested psychological treatment for them.
What they said at least said that the concept of marital relationship could not be predicated same-sex, criticized not see why the state had to sponsor "these different manifestations," but was in favor of recognizing their social security as you want that in his opinion "these people are an anomaly and require psychological care of this condition." And immediately afterwards warned that the state "can not encourage abnormalities, since that step will ultimately avail living with several women, several men and other abnormal situations that threaten the family unit."

In its issue of 13 September, The Spectator revealed the contents of this act that raised blister. However, the lawyer Montoya Pinilla recused because he would not further delay the ruling and had not succeeded in its challenge against the Attorney Ordóñez. Although anything can happen this week, sources aware of the Court placed on the side of yes to the rapporteur Judge Maria Victoria Street, Luis Antonio Vargas, Humberto Sierra Porto, Jorge Ivan Palacio and Juan Carlos Henao. Although a liberal, is still a mystery the position of president of the corporation Mauricio Gonzalez. And something similar happens with the sense of Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza vote.

Supporters of the demand to amend the concept of civil marriage and the family worry that the wave of speculation about the vote in the Court increased the pressures on lawyers. Others, however, have the idea that airing these possible positions of the magistrates rid of stress. In any case, whether any pressure could not be attributed to the media. However, since 2007 has been the Court has defended the rights of same-sex couples, in the opposite of what happened in Congress.

For example, 23 members of Congress also submitted his statement to the Court, was recognized as a minority in Parliament and concluded that if by legislation have been denied the rights to the gay community, and the remedies should straighten that road. The discussion is not unimportant. Just in 1981 disappeared from the Colombian Penal Code the crime of homosexuality. Since 1936 was in force. Moreover, in May 1990, the World Health Organization conceptualized that this condition was not listed in the list of mental illnesses. However, it is common to hear that they qualify as "aberrations."

For now, Colombia, same-sex couples "are an economic reality," but not recognized as a family. Attorney says that marriage is based on a sexual dimension "because the woman and the male are carriers of a full humanity." A vision that scholars have criticized the highlight a more biblical than legal origin. Felipe Montoya's attorney says to the letter that gay couples have suffered discriminatory treatment and desecrate the urgency of civil contracts like marriage. That is, no longer speak of a man and woman, but just a couple. In the hands of nine judges of the Constitutional Court is the heated discussion, and whatever their decision, the controversy will accompany him.

The plaintiff in the Constitutional Court

"If the Church does not want homosexuals to marry, have the right to do so, but the state can not keep denying the right to hold a civil contract, as is marriage," says the lawyer Felipe Montoya, the man with only 28 years old today filed suit study the Constitutional Court which claims that civil marriage is a right for homosexuals. Born in Armenia, believes that the Constitution, being a pluralist framework is designed so that they can co-exist various forms of human life and, therefore, can not exclude a group of people for their sexual orientation. "Just being in a social state of law where the authority and society value people in its human dimension, regardless of skin color, gender or sexual orientation," he says.

  

Elespectador... actup.org