Puerto Rico's Supreme Court upheld a decision from a lower court that stated that a victim of violence in an adulterous relationship was not protected by Law 54 of Domestic Violence [es]. The basis of the decision(pdf) [es], according to the opinion of judge Erick Kolthoff Caraballo (nominated by the pro-statehood Republican governor Luis Fortuño), is that the law's intention is to protect family unity, and therefore, adulterous relationships are outside the purview of the law.
On February 18 of 2013 a protest was held. Two groups, religious representatives and the gay community were protesting on whether the Law 54 should be amended or not. The organization Puerto Rico for All demanded the governor Luis Fortuño that when amending Law 54, he included couples composed of members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT). The Law of domestic violence protects ONLY those victims that are legally married. Legal marriage in Puerto Rico consists of a woman and a man. Having said that, any homosexual couple or heterosexual couple living together (not officially married) are excluded from the protection offered by the Law 54. That is why the gay community is protesting in favor of amending the law. There arguments are that it is unconstitutional to protect an individual according to their sexual orientation, gender, or marital status. They also argue that in Puerto Rico we have many diverse families and they should be valued and respected as any other family unit. On the other hand, the religious representatives argue that they are not opposed to the Law protecting each individual regardless of their sexual orientation, BUT they believe that the proposed measures routed the state to legalize marriage between people of the same gender, which they oppose. They argue that by God's law, marriage only consists of a woman and a man, and by amending Law 54 they would change the family unit.
This is a very complicated situation. It may seem simply but it's not. Amending Law 54 by the measures proposed by the LGTB community doesn't really suggest protecting individuals ONLY, it suggests protecting gay couples in general. That means, that gay marriage would have to be recognized as legal and so forth their family unit. It also means promoting heterosexual couples the "living together" rather that the "let's get married". I'm not against homosexuals, or their protection, but I'm not in favor of recognizing gay marriage as legal. I support the religious representatives when they say it would change the family unit. Changing the family unit would mean telling children it is normal to be in love with a person of their same sex, or that it's normal having two moms or two dads, or a dad that looks like a woman or vice versa. People seem to think that this wouldn't affect a child's sexual orientation development, but it would. Kids learn and imitate many behaviors from adults. They use us as their personal guides. If a teacher educates first graders that being in love with a person of your same sex it's ok, this will open their curiosity into thinking "well do I like girls or do I like boys?". It will get them confused and promote the induced exploration of sexuality at early stages. I'm not saying that a boy who has two dads is going to be gay, it's not that. I'm talking about the changed education that will have to be provided to children so that they understand the diverse family unit. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong and everything stays the same. But I personally think that a marriage is or should be composed of a woman and a man. Even human anatomy speaks for itself; our bodies are made for one another to create another human being. In general, my views on marriage and coexistence are very conservative. However, I don't think that there should be exclusion when it comes to protection. I think Law 54 SHOULD BE AMENDED, but not by the measures proposed. It should not recognize gay marriage or LGTB partners as couples. It should be rewritten and state that any individual is to be protected against domestic violence. It is not necessary to mention married couples, JUST INDIVIDUALS. After all, getting beat up or sexually assaulted (which is considered domestic violence) doesn't require being married.
Santiago, Cesar. "Puerto Rico: Controversial Decision on Domestic Violence." English Global Voices. N.p., 3 Apr. 2011. Web. <http://globalvoicesonline.org/2011/04/03/puerto-rico-controversial-decision-on-domestic-violence/>.
http://www.elnuevodia.com/milesprotestanencontradeenmiendasqueprotegenalacomunidadlgbtt-1451294.html
http://www.wapa.tv/noticias/primeraplana/exigen-que-ley-54-cubra-a-los-gays_20110326132322.html
On February 18 of 2013 a protest was held. Two groups, religious representatives and the gay community were protesting on whether the Law 54 should be amended or not. The organization Puerto Rico for All demanded the governor Luis Fortuño that when amending Law 54, he included couples composed of members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT). The Law of domestic violence protects ONLY those victims that are legally married. Legal marriage in Puerto Rico consists of a woman and a man. Having said that, any homosexual couple or heterosexual couple living together (not officially married) are excluded from the protection offered by the Law 54. That is why the gay community is protesting in favor of amending the law. There arguments are that it is unconstitutional to protect an individual according to their sexual orientation, gender, or marital status. They also argue that in Puerto Rico we have many diverse families and they should be valued and respected as any other family unit. On the other hand, the religious representatives argue that they are not opposed to the Law protecting each individual regardless of their sexual orientation, BUT they believe that the proposed measures routed the state to legalize marriage between people of the same gender, which they oppose. They argue that by God's law, marriage only consists of a woman and a man, and by amending Law 54 they would change the family unit.
This is a very complicated situation. It may seem simply but it's not. Amending Law 54 by the measures proposed by the LGTB community doesn't really suggest protecting individuals ONLY, it suggests protecting gay couples in general. That means, that gay marriage would have to be recognized as legal and so forth their family unit. It also means promoting heterosexual couples the "living together" rather that the "let's get married". I'm not against homosexuals, or their protection, but I'm not in favor of recognizing gay marriage as legal. I support the religious representatives when they say it would change the family unit. Changing the family unit would mean telling children it is normal to be in love with a person of their same sex, or that it's normal having two moms or two dads, or a dad that looks like a woman or vice versa. People seem to think that this wouldn't affect a child's sexual orientation development, but it would. Kids learn and imitate many behaviors from adults. They use us as their personal guides. If a teacher educates first graders that being in love with a person of your same sex it's ok, this will open their curiosity into thinking "well do I like girls or do I like boys?". It will get them confused and promote the induced exploration of sexuality at early stages. I'm not saying that a boy who has two dads is going to be gay, it's not that. I'm talking about the changed education that will have to be provided to children so that they understand the diverse family unit. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong and everything stays the same. But I personally think that a marriage is or should be composed of a woman and a man. Even human anatomy speaks for itself; our bodies are made for one another to create another human being. In general, my views on marriage and coexistence are very conservative. However, I don't think that there should be exclusion when it comes to protection. I think Law 54 SHOULD BE AMENDED, but not by the measures proposed. It should not recognize gay marriage or LGTB partners as couples. It should be rewritten and state that any individual is to be protected against domestic violence. It is not necessary to mention married couples, JUST INDIVIDUALS. After all, getting beat up or sexually assaulted (which is considered domestic violence) doesn't require being married.
Santiago, Cesar. "Puerto Rico: Controversial Decision on Domestic Violence." English Global Voices. N.p., 3 Apr. 2011. Web. <http://globalvoicesonline.org/2011/04/03/puerto-rico-controversial-decision-on-domestic-violence/>.
http://www.elnuevodia.com/milesprotestanencontradeenmiendasqueprotegenalacomunidadlgbtt-1451294.html
http://www.wapa.tv/noticias/primeraplana/exigen-que-ley-54-cubra-a-los-gays_20110326132322.html
RSS Feed