Meaning and Scope of the Restrictions Imposed by the Mexican Constitution on Ministers of Worship

I. INTRODUCTION In response to the decision by Mexico's Supreme Court of Justice issued in July 2010, declaring that the law permitting marriage between persons of the same sex is consistent with the Mexican Constitution, several Catholic bishops made statements criticizing the decision. These statements generated a strong response from the party promoting the legal reform, the Democratic Revolution Party (PRD), which filed several charges against the bishops, arguing that they had violated the Mexican Constitution and various laws. The purpose of this Article is to analyze, with reference to this case, the content of the constitutional restrictions affecting ministers of worship, particularly those against engaging in proselytism and opposing the laws and institutions, which are the restrictions allegedly violated in the case, and to propose an interpretation of these restrictions that is fully consistent with the Mexican Constitution and with current human rights doctrine. To this end, I will first present the case (Part I), and then present the constitutional and legal precepts that were allegedly violated (Part II); I will then detail the restrictive - and in my opinion antidemocratic - interpretation given to these precepts by the accusers (Part III), and conclude by proposing the interpretation that I judge to be consistent with the Mexican Constitution and human rights doctrine (Part rV); finally, I will present a few brief conclusions by way of summary (Part V). A. The Case In August 2010, Mexico's Supreme Court of Justice ruled that the amendment to the civil code of the Federal District that allows marriages between persons of the same sex, as well as die adoption of minors by· such couples, is consistent with die Mexican Constitution. Several Catholic bishops and other religious leaders criticized die court's decision, considering it contrary to the ethics of their respective faiths and Mexican traditions. Having an especially strong impact on public opinion were the views of the Archbishop of Mexico City, Norberto Rivera Carrera, and particularly diose of his official spokesman, Fatiier Hugo Valdemar, and those of the Archbishop of Guadalajara, Cardinal Juan Sandoval iniguez. Considerable public opinion (diat is, opinions expressed in die most influential media oudets) and die political party behind die disputed reform, die PRD, criticized die statements made by these bishops, arguing that diey violated Article 130 of the Mexican Political Constitution (which establishes die bases for relations between religious organizations and die State) and die relevant regulatory law. There were even several charges brought before the Ministry of die Interior, calling upon it to investigate whether these statements were in violation of the law and, if diey were, to impose the corresponding penalties. Charges were also filed with die Federal Electoral Institute, alleging that diese criticisms, insofar as diey affected a political party, violated die Electoral Code. 1. The decision of the Supreme Court of Justice An action of unconstitutionality was filed with the Supreme Court of Justice, calling upon it to resolve whether the amendment to the Federal District's civil code to allow marriages between persons of die same sex, as well as adoption of minors by such couples, was or was not consistent with Mexico's federal constitution. The Plenary Sessions in which this matter was debated were broadcast on television. There were several sessions (on August 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, and 16), at die end of which the ministers declared, by a majority of nine votes to two, that die amendment was constitutional. In brief, die court found in favor of the constitutionality of the amendment, diat same -sex marriages entered into in the Federal District would have to be respected in all other Mexican states and that same-sex couples were entitled to adopt. The press release issued by the Supreme Court oudined a number of reasons for its decision: that marriage is not a "predetermined concept immune to legislation," and thus may be freely defined to include unions between homosexual persons; that homosexual relations "are totally comparable to heterosexual relations"; that the Constitution "protects all types of families" and diat marriage between a man and woman is not "the only way of forming one. …