The 2005 proposal to privatize government pensions in Mexico defined one of the family beneficiaries as:
“El conyuge, cualquiera que sea su genero, o a falta de este, el varon o la mujer con quiern, segun sea el caso, la Trabajadora o el Trabajador o el Pensionado o la Pensionada ha vivido como si fuera su conyuge durante los cinco anso anteriores o con uien tuviese uno o mas hijos(as), siempre ue ambos permanezcan libres de matrimonio.” [apologies for the lack of accents]
The clause, I think, is meant to say that a female worker can cover her husband and count him as a beneficiary. In the IMSS system, female workers can only cover her husband if he is unable to work. (I don’t remember off-hand the rules under the 1983 ISSSTE law.)
However, the way the clause is written, it seems to me, could open the door to same-sex couples claiming benefits.
I wonder if this has happened yet?
Update: It seems this loophole was found and closed in the final version of the law.