Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Open Thread 2/8/2016

Community/Meta

Here’s your open thread for the week of 2/8/2016.

158 Comments

  • 1. VIRick  |  February 8, 2016 at 2:05 pm

    Colombia: El Gobierno Alista un Revolucionario Decreto para Garantizar los Derechos de las Personas Gais, Lesbianas, Bisexuales y Transgeneristas

    Colombia: The Government Readies a Revolutionary Decree to Guarantee the Rights of the LGBT Community

    La semana que comienza será crucial para definir hasta dónde llega la institucionalidad para defender los derechos de los millones de colombianos integrantes de la comunidad LGBTI. De la Corte Constitucional podría salir un fallo definitivo para legitimar el matrimonio igualitario, en respuesta a una tutela que el procurador Alejandro Ordóñez presentó el año pasado en busca de anular más de 40 matrimonios ya formalizados, y de limitar la realización de otros nuevos.

    Además del fallo de la corte, otra noticia cambiará la manera como el Estado asume el compromiso igualitario con esta comunidad. Será el decreto de política pública que reúne la jurisprudencia relacionada con gais, lesbianas, bisexuales y transgeneristas. En el documento vienen trabajando desde hace más de un año el Ministro del Interior, el Consejero para los Derechos Humanos, y un grupo de asesores en cabeza de la politóloga, Laura Gil. Solo falta el último visto bueno de los activistas antes de su expedición, que será dado a finales de febrero.

    Esta nueva política pública implica también un compromiso específico de la Procuraduría con la defensa de los derechos de los gais, pues incluye a esta entidad en la Comisión Intersectorial que crea para garantizarlos. Esto, sin duda, le caerá como un baldado de agua fría a Ordóñez, para quien atacar las causas igualitarias ha sido una de sus grandes obsesiones. Pero el procurador no está en un buen momento y todo parece indicar que con el fallo de la corte sobre el matrimonio y la firma de esta política pública, http://www.semana.com/nacion/articulo/lgbti-gobie….

    The coming week will be crucial in defining how far the institutions will change in defending the rights of millions of Colombian members of the LGBTI community. The Constitutional Court could render a final decision to legalize same-sex marriage, in response to Inspector-General Alejandro Ordóñez's complaint presented last year, looking to cancel more than 40 formalized marriages, and limiting the formalization of new ones.

    In addition to the court ruling, another document will change the way the State assumes equal commitment to this community. It will come in the form of a decree on public policy that meets the jurisprudence related to gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders. The document has been worked upon for more than a year by the Minister of Interior, the Human Rights Council, and an advisory group headed by the political scientist, Laura Gil. Just missing is the final approval of the activists before its presentation, which will be given at the end of February.

    This new public policy also involves a specific commitment of the Inspector-General to defend the rights of gays, as it includes this entity in creating the Intersectoral Commission to guarantee them. This undoubtedly will drop like a bucket of cold water onto Ordóñez, for whom the attack on egalitarian causes has been one of his great obsessions. But the Inspector-General is not having a pleasant moment, as indicated by the court ruling on marriage and the signing of this public policy document.

  • 2. VIRick  |  February 8, 2016 at 2:07 pm

    Mexico: A Third Municipality in Jalisco State Begins to Marry Same-Sex Couples

    In addition to the large metropolitan cities of Guadalajara and Zapopán, both of which made very public announcements indicating they would immediately begin issuing the necessary marriage documents to same-sex couples in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, we now have the mayor of a third large municipality in that sprawling Metro area following suit.

    In the latest instance, the mayor of San Pedro Tlaquepaque, María Elena Limón García, in a quiet move, simply signed an internal memo to the Civil Registry to allow same-sex marriages to proceed, and did so without making a big public pronouncement out of it. http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/articulo/estados/20….

    The municipality of San Pedro Tlaquepaque contains 600,000 inhabitants, making it Jalisco's third-largest city. Thus, with just these three major urban municipalities alone, over 40% of the state's population (3.2 million of 7.8 million) now have same-sex marriage in effect. Plus, of course, one does not need to be a resident of a given municipality in order to be married there.

  • 3. VIRick  |  February 8, 2016 at 2:10 pm

    North Carolina Lawmakers, Magistrate Seek to Defend Gay Marriage Exemption

    Raleigh NC — Two North Carolina lawmakers and a magistrate have asked a federal court to let them defend a religious exemption law involving civil marriages challenged as discriminatory against same-sex couples. They largely blame their request on Attorney-General Roy Cooper, who is personally opposed to the law but whose office represents the state in the litigation.

    Senate leader Phil Berger, House Speaker Tim Moore, and Alexander County Magistrate Brenda Bumgarner filed motions this week to intervene in the lawsuit as additional defendants, represented by private attorneys. They contend that Cooper cannot adequately defend a law that he is known to personally oppose.

    Three couples sued in December 2015 over the law the General Assembly passed last year that allows local magistrates, who can preside over marriages, to opt out of performing all marriages if they have a “sincerely held religious objection.” The law and litigation also covers assistant and deputy registers of deeds who issue marriage licenses.

    Department of Justice spokeswoman Noelle Talley said the agency, which Cooper heads, has effectively defended several laws that the attorney general himself opposes personally. “It’s a waste of taxpayer dollars for legislators to pay outside lawyers to do the work our attorneys are already doing defending the state in this case,” Talley wrote Friday, 5 February 2015, by email. State attorneys filed their own motion late Friday asking the lawsuit be dismissed.

    The request marks the latest incidence in which the Republican-led General Assembly has hired private attorneys to defend legislation, spending several million dollars. In some cases, GOP lawmakers have said they’re concerned Cooper won’t defend laws robustly because of his negative comments about them. The legal fighting has been magnified because Cooper, a Democrat, is running for governor. (Of course, their claim also failed to mention that the legislation now under court challenge was passed by the legislature's obstinate over-riding of Governor McCrory's veto, a Republican.) http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/02/nc-lawmakers-m….

    From my archives:

    "The plaintiffs include two same-sex couples. One of them, Kay Ansley and Cathy McGaughey, helped overturn in court North Carolina’s 2012 constitutional ban against same-sex marriage. The third couple, a white woman and black man, successfully sued in the mid-1970s when Forsyth County magistrates refused to marry them on religious grounds, according to the lawsuit.

  • 4. VIRick  |  February 8, 2016 at 2:13 pm

    Chihuahua: Se Registran 8 Parejas del Mismo Sexo para Matrimonios Colectivos

    Chihuahua: Eight Same-Sex Couples Registered for Collective Marriage Ceremony

    Noticias de Chihuahua.-
    El estado de Chihuahua se convirtió en la cuarta entidad que da posibilidades legales a las parejas del mismo sexo para contraer matrimonio, derivado de una serie de amparos emitidos que generó la jurisprudencia para permitir a las parejas casarse sin necesidad de interponer recursos legales.

    Estos derechos ganados por la comunidad lésbico gay en la entidad chihuahuense, también permitirá que las parejas puedan acceder al programa de matrimonios colectivos, reportando hasta el momento ocho registros de personas del mismo sexo. La inclusión de las parejas homosexuales en los matrimonios colectivos es un logro para la comunidad gay.

    Sin embargo aún faltan acciones que realizar sobre todo en el plano legislativo. Joel Galvan, coordinador general del Movimiento Integración de la Diversidad (MOVID), informó que es necesario reforzar las peticiones para que se legisle a favor del matrimonio igualitario, tema que no ha sido absorbido por el poder legislativo actual, a pesar de las órdenes de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (SCJN). http://entrelineas.com.mx/local/se-registran-8-pa….

    Chihuahua News –
    The state of Chihuahua became the fourth entity that legalized same-sex marriage, derived from a series of injunctions which were issued to generate the case law which allow couples to marry without having to interpose legal remedies.

    These rights won by the gay and lesbian community in Chihuahua will also allow couples to access the collective marriage program, so far, with eight same-sex couples reportedly registered. The inclusion of same-sex couples in collective marriages is an achievement for the gay community.

    However, there are still actions needed, especially at the legislative level. Joel Galvan, general coordinator of the Integration Movement for Diversity (MOVID) reported the need to strengthen the demands upon it to legislate in favor of marriage equality, an issue about which the current legislature has not been absorbed, despite orders from the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ).

    This interpretation is quite interesting in that they state that because there had been 33 amparos granted in Chihuahua state (only 5 of which were truly needed), they have more than a sufficient number to have established the required jurisprudence to have legalized same-sex marriage via the amparo process alone (a point with which I am in full agreement). There's no mention of the governor's accompanying executive order of 11 June 2015 (after "only" 31 amparos had been granted), which then allowed marriages between same-sex couples to commence from the very next day.

    But they are correct in the long-term sense: Executive order or not, the jurisprudence alone will continue to require the legalization of same-sex marriage in Chihuahua. A future governor can not rescind it.

  • 5. VIRick  |  February 8, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    Tamaulipas: A Pesar de Tener Amparos Parejas LGBT Posponen sus Bodas

    Tamaulipas: Despite Possessing Amparos, LGBT Couples Postpone Weddings

    De las 68 personas homosexuales que obtuvieron un amparo colectivo en el estado de Tamaulipas para poder contraer matrimonio por la vía civil, sólo cinco lo utilizaron durante el 2015, informó en entrevista el director del Registro Civil, Alejandro Torres Mansur, quien mencionó que en el caso de Cuidad Victoria, hace dos meses se efectuó una celebración.

    El funcionario recordó que las personas del mismo sexo interesadas en contraer nupcias por la vía civil en el Estado, deben contar con el respaldo legal (amparo). Deben contar con este documento para realizar la firma del contrato, ya que de lo contrario, la celebración no podrá realizarse.

    Recordó que con base a los términos legales del amparo, éste cuenta con vigencia indefinida, con lo que abre la posibilidad de que las personas del mismo sexo puedan planear la celebración con tiempo. “Las personas que poseen un amparo pueden casarse en cualquiera de los 43 municipios del estado,” comentó. http://gaynewsmx.com/tamaulipas-a-pesar-de-tener-

    Of the 68 gay people who obtained a collective amparo in the state of Tamaulipas to contract for civil marriage, only five had used it during 2015, said the director of the Civil Registry, Alejandro Torres Mansur. In the interview, he mentioned that in the case of Cuidad Victoria, one such celebration was held two months ago.

    The official recalled that same-sex couples interested in getting married civilly in the state must have the legal backing (amparo). They must have this document before signing the contract because otherwise, the celebration will not be allowed.

    He recalled that on the basis of the legal terms of the amaro, it has an indefinite term, which opens the possibility for same-sex couples to have time to plan the celebration. "People who possess an amparo can get married in any of the 43 municipalities in the state," he said.

  • 6. allan120102  |  February 8, 2016 at 3:53 pm

    How many amparos do Tamaulipas have Rick?

  • 7. VIRick  |  February 8, 2016 at 4:00 pm

    Another Gay Couple Use Diplomatic Loophole to Marry in Australia

    A gay couple have tied the knot in Australia, even though the country has yet to legalize marriage equality. James Hanley and Dan Waknin have taken advantage of a legal diplomatic loophole which allowed them to marry in the British consulate in front of their loved ones this past Friday, 5 February 2016.

    As Mr Hanley currently possesses dual citizenship – he is both an Australian and a British citizen – he was able to marry his partner of two-and-a-half years at the British consulate in Sydney. The pair made the decision to wed after officials advised the pair they could do so for for $600AUD (£294).

    The newlyweds shared their delight following their marriage, which although recognized under British law, will not be recognized by the Australian government, http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/02/08/gay-couple-u

  • 8. allan120102  |  February 8, 2016 at 4:02 pm

    As Thursday nears, Here is a cute story of a gay couple that have been together since 1983. It is really sweet, you should all check it out. http://www.elespectador.com/noticias/judicial/cha

  • 9. F_Young  |  February 8, 2016 at 5:24 pm

    Great news!

  • 10. VIRick  |  February 8, 2016 at 6:46 pm

    It would appear that there have been four amparos already granted in Tamaulipas (but certainly not five, or this civil registrar would not still be insisting on the need for an amparo). Wikipedia lists three. However, in regard to the same-sex marriage that took place in Ciudad Victoria several months ago, this same civil registrar states,

    "…. sólo que esta fue promovida de manera independiente."

    "…. except this one was brought forward independently."

    I'm taking this comment to mean that the couple in question obtained a separate amparo (in Ciudad Victoria as amparo #4), independent of the three mass amparos colectivos previously granted (in Nuevo Laredo and in Tampico, twice) to a grand total of 125 persons who can now marry whoever they please. Anyone who contributed money to help defray the legal expenses for those three filings got their name placed onto one or the other of the amparo requests. That point (which is not mentioned in this up-dated report), could further help explain why only 5 of 68 named persons listed on amparo #3 have actually gotten married, 10 months after it was granted. Apparently, not every financial contributor who helped fund the lawsuits actually wanted to get married (or to get married immediately, given that there's no deadline date to actually utilize it).

    And amparo #5, already in process, is yet another communally-funded, mass amparo colectivo for 80 persons, filed some time ago in the big border city of Matamoros.

  • 11. ianbirmingham  |  February 8, 2016 at 7:45 pm

    Marco Rubio walks away after New Hampshire man reminds him marriage equality is the law

    [T]he Republican establishment favorite had this bewildering exchange about marriage with Timothy Kierstead, a gay New Hampshire resident who was not interested in taking excuses:

    Kierstead said he has been married for a “long time,” and he added to Rubio: “You want to say we don’t matter.”

    “No, I just believe marriage is between one man and one woman,” said Rubio.

    “But that’s your belief,” Kierstead shot back.

    “I think that’s what the law should be. And if you disagree you should have the law changed by a legislature,” said Rubio. The man reminded Rubio that gay marriage is legal.

    Rubio told him “I respect your view” and moved on.

    Rubio has done a lot of whining about how the Supreme Court did a thing he disagreed with, so it seems implausible that he forgot what the law is. But if Rubio was trying to suggest that marriage equality is illegitimate because it was decided by the Supreme Court rather than the Congress, he struck out there, too, because New Hampshire’s legislature did pass the law, way back in 2009 (it went into effect in 2010).

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/8/1481892/-M

  • 12. allan120102  |  February 8, 2016 at 7:59 pm

    Marriage equality in guernsey a step closer. http://www.itv.com/news/channel/update/2016-02-08

  • 13. VIRick  |  February 8, 2016 at 8:22 pm

    South Dakota's New Hate Law Proceeds

    From ACLU of South Dakota earlier today, 8 February 2016:

    "The South Dakota House of Representatives just passed HB 1107, the bill that applies special protections to those who believe marriage is between a man and a woman, who disapprove of transgender people, and who believe sexual relations should be confined only to marriage. This bill could allow taxpayer-funded discrimination, and would allow state contractors who provide vital social services – such as homeless shelters – to turn away LGBT people. This bill will now head on to the (South Dakota) Senate." https://www.facebook.com/ACLUSD/photos/a.10150305

  • 14. theperched  |  February 8, 2016 at 8:59 pm

    A bill to codify gay marriage in Puerto Rico will be discussed within two weeks, but a memo from the House already says that the votes are not there:
    http://elvocero.com/sin-votos-la-camara-para-nuev

    Sin votos la Cámara para nuevo Código Civil

    El presidente de la Comisión senatorial de lo Jurídico, Miguel Pereira, no obstante, dijo que la discusión comenzará dentro de dos semanas

    Without the votes in the House for the new Civil Code

    The president of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Miguel Pereira, said regardless that the debate will begin within two weeks.

  • 15. theperched  |  February 9, 2016 at 6:25 am

    Portuguese Parliament will attempt to override the President's veto on the same-sex adoption bill, most likely tomorrow.

    If they approve the bill as is with 116/230 MPs in favor then the President has no choice than to sign it within eight days of its arrival on his desk. Parliament is confident they have more than enough support 😀
    http://diariodigital.sapo.pt/news.asp?id_news=810

  • 16. Zack12  |  February 9, 2016 at 10:50 am

    This is why this fall's election is so important.
    These bills are going to pass in some states and end up in the courts, which is why we need a Democrat to appoint judges who will put a stop to them.
    Alito has already hinted he would LOVE to allow this, a Republican will appoint more judges in his mindset.

  • 17. Rakihi  |  February 9, 2016 at 10:58 am

    Stutzman attorneys filed brief in Arlene’s Flowers appeal

    Article: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/local/article5

    Brief: http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ArlenesFlowersReply

  • 18. Christian0811  |  February 9, 2016 at 12:17 pm

    Good as this is, I'm still mad that this wasn't addressed at the constitutional tribunal in 2010. Article 3 is so invidious and offensive, I'm angry the president didn't refer it to the court with the rest of the bill.

    At least parliament is fixing it now.

  • 19. VIRick  |  February 9, 2016 at 12:33 pm

    Here are a few comments and observations on Puerto Rico:

    The current proposal to revise Puerto Rico's Civil Code is a package deal to bring the Code up to a standard to reflect the present reality. Marriage equality is only one of a host of necessary changes which are sought, in this instance, to reflect the "Obergefell" ruling, confirmed as applicable to Puerto Rico by the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, and as verified and placed into effect by the Governor's Executive Order.

    Puerto Rico has a bi-cameral legislature. Apparently, they do not (yet) have the votes in the PR House to pass the package deal to approve the revisions to the Civil Code. So, instead, the PR Senate will be going ahead with their debate on it anyway. If it passes the Senate, and presumably it will, or the matter wouldn't be pressed there, that ought to convince a number of House members to finally vote in favor.

    Regardless, the PR legislature can not un-do the Court's rulings nor the Governor"s Executive Order. Marriage equality will continue in Puerto Rico, even if the legislature refuses to act. Still, it would be nice to have the Civil Code up-dated to reflect the present reality, which is what the package-deal proposal is all about.

    This is much the same issue facing us in Mexico where the various (unicameral) state legislatures are being excessively slow and obstinate in up-dating the various state Civil Codes to reflect the court rulings in favor of marriage equality. However, Puerto Rico is part of the USA where court rulings have a much quicker and stronger enforcement mechanism, and where the executive branch, having already issued and then implemented its executive order, has no intention of violating the court's orders.

  • 20. allan120102  |  February 9, 2016 at 2:01 pm

    Deputy explained why marriage equality havent come to Zacatecas. Remeber that Zacatecas an Hidalgo aree the only two states where marriage equality have come . http://www.imagenzac.com.mx/nota/pide-cervantesap
    We need to watch closely Durango as marriage equality might come soon, I dont want to be surprised like in Nayarit case. https://www.elsiglodetorreon.com.mx/noticia/11957

  • 21. guitaristbl  |  February 9, 2016 at 2:32 pm

    What a disgusting man (Rubio I mean of course).

  • 22. guitaristbl  |  February 9, 2016 at 2:34 pm

    So glad Portugal got a progressive left-wing majority in the parliament in recent elections. The leaving president had to put up a last act of right wing bigotry to remind us of their ugliness. I hope everything works out.

  • 23. ianbirmingham  |  February 9, 2016 at 3:15 pm

    FL Senate Judiciary Committee Kills Employment Anti-Discrimination Bill

    Florida's Senate Judiciary Committee did not advance the Competitive Workforce Act today — meaning this important legislation protecting LGBT Floridians from discrimination is dead for this [year's] legislative session.

    http://flcompetes.org/senate-judiciary-committee-

  • 24. VIRick  |  February 9, 2016 at 3:26 pm

    Virginia: Anti-Trans Bathroom Bill Defeated

    Per Equality Case Files and a Facebook posting by Mara Keisling:

    Victory: Anti-trans Virginia Bathroom Bill just failed 7-13 in committee. Thanks to Equality Virginia, the ACLU of VA, and all the trans activists here who kicked the bill's butt, especially a high school student named A_______ who testified so strongly. http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/02/mother-poses-i

    And here's an earlier account, by GAYRVA, from when trans activists took over the bathrooms at the Virginia General Assembly, prior to the vote defeating the bill:

    Mother Poses in General Assembly Bathroom with Trans Son to Protest Bathroom Bill http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/02/mother-poses-i

  • 25. VIRick  |  February 9, 2016 at 4:15 pm

    Durango: Aprueba Comisión de Justicia del Congreso Estatal a Matrimonio Igualitario

    Durango: Justice Commission of State Congress Approves Marriage Equality

    Hoy día, 9 de febrero 2016, la Comisión de Justicia del Congreso del Estado de Durango aprobó la iniciativa que promueve el matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo. La venia se dio con el voto a favor del presidente de la Comisión, Bernardo Bonilla Saucedo (Panal), así como de los vocales Israel Soto Peña (PRD) y Luis Iván Gurrola Vega (PRI). La iniciativa había sido presentada en junio de 2015 por el diputado Israel Soto Peña. https://www.elsiglodetorreon.com.mx/noticia/11957

    Today, 9 February 2016, the Justice Commission of the Congress of the State of Durango approved the initiative in favor of same-sex marriage. The approval was given by the favorable vote of the President of the Commission, Bonilla Bernardo Saucedo (Panal), as well as by the vocally supportive Israel Soto Peña (PRD) and Luis Iván Gurrola Vega (PRI). The proposal was first presented in June 2015 by Congressman Israel Soto Peña.

  • 26. allan120102  |  February 9, 2016 at 5:32 pm

    sorry try to said where an amparo havent been grant. I have been busing with programming that I didnt pay attention.

  • 27. VIRick  |  February 9, 2016 at 9:10 pm

    Guadalajara: First Same-Sex Marriage Scheduled

    El pasado sábado, 6 de febrero, el Sistema DIF Guadalajara entregó la constancia de pláticas prematrimoniales a dos parejas del mismo sexo, luego de que acudieron al curso que los prepara para su unión civil. Tal es el caso de Jorge Sánchez y Jesús Tornel, una de las parejas que acudió el pasado sábado, quienes ya tienen la constancia que necesitan para casarse este 20 de febrero 2016. http://gaynewsmx.com/jalisco-dif-guadalajara-entr

    On Saturday, 6 February 2016, the DIF System Guadalajara gave proof of premarital counseling to two same-sex couples, after they had attended the course that prepares them for their civil marriage. Such is the case of Jorge Sánchez and Jesús Tornel, one of the couples who attended last Saturday, who now have the evidence they need to get married on 20 February 2016.

    As a sly bonus, I am more than elated to note that Jesus will be the first to marry in Jalisco state.

  • 28. VIRick  |  February 9, 2016 at 9:23 pm

    Mexico: Diputados Federales Proponen Matrimonio Entre Personas del Mismo Sexo en Todo el País

    Mexico: Federal Deputies Propose Same-Sex Marriage Nationwide

    Diputados federales propondrán al Congreso de la Unión una iniciativa que reformaría los artículos 146, 147, y 148 del Código Civil Federal, para plasmar la definición de matrimonio como “la unión libre de dos personas para realizar la comunidad de vida, en donde ambos se procuran respeto, igualdad, y ayuda mutua, la cual debe celebrarse ante los servidores públicos que establece la ley y con las formalidades que ella exige.”
    http://gaynewsmx.com/diputados-proponen-matrimoni

    Federal deputies have proposed to Congress an initiative that would amend Articles 146, 147, and 148 of the Federal Civil Code, to reflect the definition of marriage as "the free union of two persons to realize a common life, where both seek respect, equality, and mutual aid, which must be held before the public servants under the law and according to the procedures it requires."

  • 29. VIRick  |  February 10, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    Portugal Overturns Presidential Veto to Legalize Same-Sex Adoption

    Today, 10 February 2016, Portugal’s parliament has just overturned the presidential veto on a bill to legalize same-sex adoption there. The new law had passed through Portugal’s Parliament last last year, granting full adoption rights to same-sex couples, and allowing lesbian couples to receive medically-assisted fertilization.

    Portuguese President Anibal Cavaco Silva, of the centre-right Social Democratic Party, blocked the law by vetoing it just two months before he was set to leave office. President Anibal Cavaco Silva will now be forced to sign the law. http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/02/10/portugal-ove

  • 30. VIRick  |  February 10, 2016 at 1:20 pm

    Venezuela: Detalles de Nuestra Propuesta de Ley de Matrimonio Igualitario

    Venezuela: Details of the Proposed Law for Marriage Equality

    Per Venezuela Igualitaria:

    The details are presented as an infographic picture which I am unable to copy-and-paste, so one will have to consult their website to see the full list of the proposed changes here: https://twitter.com/Vzla_Igualdad

    Oh wait! The full version is here: http://venezuelaigualitaria.org/ver_noticia_25

    The proposal was first introduced into the Venezuela National Assembly on 31 January 2014, over two years ago, and has been sitting there ever since. This new notice is an attempt to cause some further action on it to occur, now that a host of new assembly members have been sworn in, following the recent elections.

  • 31. davepCA  |  February 10, 2016 at 1:49 pm

    Excellent!

  • 32. allan120102  |  February 10, 2016 at 2:23 pm

    Same sex couples can adopt in Queretaro <a href="http://ohttp://www.ciudadypoder.mx/index.php/slide-principal/10009-parejas-gay-pueden-adoptar-en-queretaro-dif” target=”_blank”>ohttp://www.ciudadypoder.mx/index.php/slide-principal/10009-parejas-gay-pueden-adoptar-en-queretaro-dif

    The new articles in the state constitution of Michoacan, the ones reforming their civil code to allow ss couple to get married to get present and possibly vote once Papa Franciso leave Michoacan, not sure when he is leaving, I am not even sure if he is in Mexico, someone might help me here. I hope he does not interfere in this or I will pissed. https://www.quadratin.com.mx/politica/Abren-paso-
    Only 260 couples have get married in PR since the marriage equality ruling from the supreme court. I believe though it have figures until December 2015. http://www.primerahora.com/noticias/puerto-rico/n

  • 33. VIRick  |  February 10, 2016 at 2:34 pm

    Two Current Petitions at ‪‎SCOTUS‬

    Per Equality Case Files:

    Today, 10 February 2016, two current petitions before the US Supreme Court have been distributed for consideration for certiorari at their next conference, 19 February 2016. The cases are:

    "V.L. v. E.L.," 15-648, the Alabama adoption case (in which Alabama unilaterally nullified a legal Georgia adoption) on appeal from the Alabama Supreme Court.

    "Doe v. Christie," 15-195, the challenge to New Jersey's law banning SOCE (so-called "conversion therapy") for minors. https://www.facebook.com/EqualityCaseFiles

  • 34. VIRick  |  February 10, 2016 at 4:08 pm

    New Hampshire Republican Party Primary Results

    According to God @TheTweetOfGod the official word on the official results of the New Hampshire Republican Party primary is as follows:

    RESULTS
    Yuuuuuge A-hole 34%
    Normal-sized A-hole 15%
    Fundy A-hole 11%
    Dynastic A-hole 11%
    Robotic A-hole 10%
    Fat A-hole 7%
    She A-hole 4%
    Black A-hole 2%
    http://www.joemygod.com/2016/02/10/carly-fiorina-

  • 35. TheVirginian722  |  February 10, 2016 at 4:09 pm

    House Bill 781 was defeated in the Committee on General Laws by a vote of 8-14. The committee is comprised of 22 members, 15 Republicans and 7 Democrats. Voting for the bill were 8 Republicans. Voting against were 7 Republicans and 7 Democrats.

    The principal reason cited by the Republican opponents was that the matter was currently before the courts and should be allowed to run its course there.

  • 36. guitaristbl  |  February 10, 2016 at 4:23 pm

    That's a pretty positive description of the republican candidates. And with Fiorina (and soon Christie) out it will be just Kasich and Bush to a certain degree keeping the asylum from being run by the most lunatic lunatics (not the aforementioned 2 are much better but compared to the rest..)
    I hope Carson ends his campaign soon as well.

  • 37. allan120102  |  February 10, 2016 at 7:26 pm

    I am not sure how this deputy clerk was not fired in W.V. https://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/anti-gay-georgia

  • 38. VIRick  |  February 10, 2016 at 8:17 pm

    West Virginia: Lesbian Couple Says Gilmer County Deputy Clerk Screamed “Abomination” At Them

    This incident has set off a veritable shit-storm in West Virginia, right when the West Virginia legislature is on the verge of passing an intolerably broad RFRA law, HB 4012 and SB 11, that will allow "religion," or whatever one claims to be "religion," to trump just about any other law in the state:

    The Charleston "Gazette-Mail" reports today, 10 February 2016:

    Samantha Brookover stood crying in the Gilmer County courthouse last week, humiliated on what was meant to be a celebratory occasion. Brookover and her partner, Amanda Abramovich, wanted a marriage license. They got one — along with an earful from a deputy clerk in the office, who told them that their relationship was wrong and that God would judge them.

    Debbie Allen, the deputy clerk who processed their marriage license, and another deputy clerk who was there, Angela Moore, disputed some of the allegations from the couple and Brookover’s mother, Jill Goff, who was also there. They disagree on how loud Allen was, and whether the word “abomination” was used. The clerks don’t dispute that Allen told the couple was they were doing was wrong, and that they would be judged.

    Allen says that she believes God was “standing with her” during the incident. The couple’s mother called Allen’s boss, Jean Butcher, who was not present during the confrontation, but Butcher shrugged off the mother’s complaint. West Virginia’s Gilmer County Clerk Jean Butcher says she agrees with her deputy clerk, whom the lesbian couple claims railed at them about God and called them an “abomination” when they applied for a marriage license.

    Gilmer County Clerk:
    Jean Butcher
    10 Howard Street
    Glenville, WV 26351
    Phone: 304-461-7641
    Fax: 304-462-8855

    http://www.joemygod.com/2016/02/10/west-virginia-

    The original news article is here: http://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/20160210/same-s

    From Wikipedia: Gilmer County's main employer is the Federal prison there. The county is 97% white and 26% below the poverty line, while I-79 doesn't bother to have an exit within the county.

  • 39. VIRick  |  February 10, 2016 at 9:07 pm

    The pope is on an official visit to Mexico between 12-17 February 2016. He's to be in Morelia, Michoacán, on 16 February.

  • 40. theperched  |  February 10, 2016 at 11:16 pm

    8 days to sign once it's in front of him or he's in big trouble. He thought he could slip away and punt to the next President, but nope :)

    As for the IVF bill, that's going to be fast-tracked. The bills discussed in Parliament today were the abortion and adoption ones.

  • 41. theperched  |  February 10, 2016 at 11:23 pm

    There was an interview with someone who filed a lawsuit in San Luis Potosi. This suit is different because it's against members of Congress for committing a legal omission. What it's saying is that the plaintiffs don't care if it's a Yes or No in the end at this point, they just want to know why the marriage bill is still in the committee stage. They accuse the committees of just sitting around doing nothing. The lawsuit is pending in the Second Tribunal of the 9th Circuit and according to the interview, a verdict will be released within two months.

    They are also asking the Governor to issue an executive order if Congress keeps dragging its feet:
    http://globalmedia.mx/noticia/70570/registro-civi

  • 42. theperched  |  February 10, 2016 at 11:29 pm

    Morelos' marriage bill is stuck in the Constitutional Committee stage and can't advance to the plenary because of 1 vote. It needs at least 8/15 committee votes to move to the final round.
    http://www.launion.com.mx/morelos/politica/notici

  • 43. theperched  |  February 10, 2016 at 11:34 pm

    Isle of Man's marriage bill received the second reading on a vote of 18-4. The House of Keys rejected sending the bill to the committee stage on a similar vote count. The bill now goes to the clauses stage for a few weeks. The Chief Minister wants summer weddings so the final reading shouldn't be too far away.
    http://www.itv.com/news/granada/update/2016-02-10

  • 44. JayJonson  |  February 11, 2016 at 5:46 am

    The deputy clerk was not fired because the Clerk agrees with her.

  • 45. Zack12  |  February 11, 2016 at 6:31 am

    The scary part is with the "religious freedom" bill that is likely to pass there, she will be able to reject same sex couples outright.

  • 46. VIRick  |  February 11, 2016 at 3:27 pm

    Washington State: State Senate Votes to Maintain Transgender Access Rule

    The controversial rule which allows transgender people to use restrooms and locker rooms that match their gender identity went into effect on 26 December 2015 after approval by the state Human Rights Commission. On Wednseday, 10 February 2016, the attempt to repeal the rule failed on the Senate floor, 25-24.

    Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/politics

  • 47. VIRick  |  February 11, 2016 at 3:43 pm

    West Virginia: House Overwhelmingly Passes "License to Discriminate" Bill

    Per Fairness West Virginia:

    Today, 11 February 2016, the West Virginia House of Delegates passed the "License to Discriminate Bill," otherwise known as the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act," HB 4012, in a vote, 72-26. It now moves to the WV Senate for consideration. Plainly put, this legislation seeks to legalize discrimination in the name of religion.
    https://www.facebook.com/fairnesswv/photos/a.1526

  • 48. VIRick  |  February 11, 2016 at 3:58 pm

    South Dakota: Hate-Filled Bathroom Bill Also Proceeds

    Today, 11 February 2016, HB1008, the transgender bathroom bill, which has already passed the South Dakota House, now passes out of the South Dakota Senate Education Committee with a vote of 4-2.

    See more here: https://www.facebook.com/bernie.hunhoff/posts/101

  • 49. allan120102  |  February 11, 2016 at 4:44 pm

    Another wedding in Irapauto after an amparo was win in January. http://www.am.com.mx/2016/02/10/irapuato/local/al

  • 50. allan120102  |  February 11, 2016 at 6:00 pm

    People that are are in gay relationships can now be arrest in Malawi, after a judge order to stop the moratium that prevent police from arresting lgbt people. That means that being lgbt is now against the law in Malawi again.The judge even was angry that that police release two suspect of being gay. I am tired of the obvious discrimination our brothers and sisters suffer in Africa. http://allafrica.com/stories/201602110876.html http://76crimes.com/2016/02/11/malawi-judge-seeks

  • 51. VIRick  |  February 11, 2016 at 6:06 pm

    Guanajuato, Amparo #7: Alistan Segundo Matrimonio Homosexual en Irapuato

    Guanajuato, Amparo #7: Second Same-Sex Marriage Ready in Irapuato

    El próximo 4 de marzo se llevará a cabo la segunda boda gay pública en Irapuato, que unirá las vidas de María Candelaria Ríos Rosales y María del Carmen Pérez Ventura, ciudadanas que desde julio del 2015 interpusieron un amparo para concretar el matrimonio.

    En enero, el juzgado Décimo de Distrito emitió la sentencia del amparo 729/2015, el cual ordenó al oficial del Registro Civil no. 1 de Irapuato que uniera en matrimonio a la pareja, que inició el proceso conforme a lo establecido por la ley. http://www.am.com.mx/2016/02/10/irapuato/local/al

    The second public same-sex marriage in Irapuato will be held on 4 March 2016, linking the lives of María Candelaria Ríos Rosales and María del Carmen Pérez Ventura, who filed for an injunction in July 2015 to realize their marriage.

    In January 2016, the Tenth District Court issued the judgment of amparo 729/2015, which ordered the officer of the Civil Registry no. 1 of Irapuato to unite the couple in marriage, according to the process as provided by law.

    This is amparo #7 granted in Guanajuato state (#1-4 in León, #5 in Irapuato, #6 in Silao, and now #7 in Irapuato again). Thus, it is rather over-due for the Wikipedia map to be up-dated to reflect this reality, especially considering that Guanajuato state is proceeding forward to legalize same-sex marriage, based strictly on the amparo process alone (5 or more and it becomes legal, given that the jurisprudence is thus established, especially now that no appeal can be successful), just like in Colima and Querétaro states (and which should also be the case with Baja California, Sinaloa, Michoacán, Morelos, and Yucatán states, but most of which appear to have some sort of an earlier unresolved appeal blocking the immediate implementation).

  • 52. ianbirmingham  |  February 12, 2016 at 12:53 am

    New Sanders Ad Invites Gay Americans: Join The Political Revolution

    …Sanders has long been viewed as an ally to the LGBT community. He earned a perfect score from the Human Rights Campaign in the 113th Congress, and in the most recent legislative session, he co-sponsored the Student Non-Discrimination Act, which would explicitly protect LGBT students, and the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the last remaining elements of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, which was effectively gutted by the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Windsor v. U.S. …

    http://www.advocate.com/election/2016/2/11/watch-

  • 53. guitaristbl  |  February 12, 2016 at 11:45 am

    Sanders is the most reliable candidate when it comes to fighting for LGBT rights as president. But I still believe he is unelectable on a national level unfortunately.

  • 54. ianbirmingham  |  February 12, 2016 at 12:45 pm

    Sanders is a stronger candidate vs. Republicans, according to the polling averages…

    Trump vs. Clinton, Clinton wins by 4.7%
    Trump vs. Sanders, Sanders wins by 9.7% (nearly double the margin of victory)

    Cruz vs. Clinton, Cruz wins by 0.2% (Republican presidency)
    Cruz vs. Sanders, Sanders wins by 3.0% (Democratic presidency)

    Carson vs. Clinton, Clinton wins by 1.3%
    Carson vs. Sanders, Sanders wins by 1.3% (same result)

    Bush vs. Clinton, Clinton wins by 3.0%
    Bush vs. Sanders, Sanders wins by 5.3% (larger margin of victory)

    Rubio vs. Clinton, Rubio wins by 4.2%
    Rubio vs. Sanders, Rubio wins by 1.0% (a much closer election)

    Bottom line, Sanders outperforms (or is just as good as) Clinton.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/pres

  • 55. JayJonson  |  February 12, 2016 at 1:21 pm

    These polls are utterly meaningless at this point in the campaign. Sanders has been spared the Republican defamation so far because they would much prefer to run against him than Hillary. But should he get the nomination, you can count on a smear campaign against him that will be as nasty as the one against Hillary, and that will no doubt lower his favorability ratings and thus his place in the polls.

    Most importantly, the Republicans (except for Trump) have largely avoided revealing the worst and most vulnerable aspects of their rivals for the nomination. And the Democratic candidates have held their fire as well. All the Republicans have a huge amount of baggage that will be exposed in a general election campaign.

    If Bloomberg decides to run as an independent, and if Biden decides to enter the quest for the Democratic nomination if Clinton falters, then we have a new ballgame.

  • 56. VIRick  |  February 12, 2016 at 1:48 pm

    Myanmar LGBT Film Festival Raises Visibility, Challenges Taboos

    After 60 years of dictatorship, in long-secluded and conservative Myanmar (formerly known as Burma), homosexuality remains illegal in the country The struggle of LGBT people is still a sensitive issue in Myanmar.

    Homosexuality is a crime, says Article 377 of the penal code, or the infamous “sodomy law.” There even seems not to be a very clear understanding of who LGBT people are. Despite this, some organizations, like Colors Rainbow, try to advocate in favor of repealing Article 377.

    – See more at: http://www.washingtonblade.com/2016/02/12/myanmar

    So, here we have this same Victorian-era Section 377 again, undoubtedly an inheritance from the British colonial period, just like in India, Bangladesh, and probably Pakistan.

  • 57. allan120102  |  February 12, 2016 at 1:53 pm

    The 10 couples that were supposedd to marry in Cuatla on Valentines day now need to wait for the law to be approved at the end of the month. http://www.oem.com.mx/elsoldecuautla/notas/n40780

    Same sex couples stil not marrying in Jalisco but soon as they wait the forms to change. http://nnc.mx/notas/1455261197.php

  • 58. VIRick  |  February 12, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    Bermuda: Same-Sex Civil Union Legislation Plans Unveiled

    Per the Bermuda "Royal Gazette" of 12 February 2016:

    The Bermuda Government has unveiled plans to present legislation allowing civil unions between same-sex couples. But Trevor Moniz, the Attorney-General, told a public meeting last night that the One Bermuda Alliance (the governing political party) had no intention of same-sex marriage becoming law. Mr Moniz told the meeting that the move would bring Bermuda in line with the European Convention of Human Rights and recent legal precedent set in both Bermuda and Europe.

    Mr Moniz said the Government planned to present legislation in the House of Assembly before 29 February 2016; a deadline set by Chief Justice Ian Kawaley in the landmark Bermuda Bred Company decision, at which time the ruling will take effect. In that case, Dr Justice Kawaley ruled that those in same-sex partnerships with Bermudians should have the same rights to reside and seek employment as spouses of Bermudians

    Mr Moniz said: “We will protect marriage for a man and a woman but we will also propose the idea of civil unions. If the legislation comes through the House of Assembly, that will be a conscious vote. Whether it passes or fails is a question of the individual. If it does not pass, the Chief Justice’s ruling is still in place and he will act accordingly.”

    Under the proposed legislation, same-sex couples will obtain the right to work in Bermuda without a work permit upon registering their relationship as a civil union with the Registry-General department. The proposed civil union legislation will only apply to same-sex couples. Under the proposals, couples will have to be 18 to undertake a civil union and they will have to issue a notice to the Registrar-General of the intended union that will be “publicly notified."

    The new laws stipulate that civil unions can take place before the registrar by signing the necessary documentation in the presence of two witnesses. They may also be formalized before a civil union “celebrant” by making a declaration of commitment to each other in the presence of two witnesses.

  • 59. VIRick  |  February 12, 2016 at 3:47 pm

    William y Rául Solicitan el Primer Matrimonio Igualitario en Puerto Vallarta

    William and Rául Request the First Same-Sex Marriage in Puerto Vallarta

    Per ACT LGBT, Puerto Vallarta:

    El día de hoy, 11 de febrero 2016, acompañamos al miembro de nuestra asociación y amigo, William Hamilton y a Rául Durán Reséndiz, a presentarse en el Registro Civil de Puerto Vallarta para hacer su solicitud de matrimonio.

    Rául y William se convirtieron en la primer pareja del mismo sexo que solicita el matrimonio igualitario en Puerto Vallarta después de que la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (SCJN) avaló el matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo en el estado de Jalisco. Aunque las actas para este acto no están listas aun, los solicitantes deberán acudir a las platicas prematrimoniales la próxima semana y cumplir el resto de los requisitos, por lo que probablemente estaría contrayendo matrimonio en dos semanas.

    Gracias al presidente municipal Arturo Dávalos Peña por todo el apoyo y a su esposa Candelaria por toda la disponibilidad de acatar la resolucion de la corte. http://actlgbt.org/noticias/2016/02/william-y-rau

    Today, 11 February 2016, we accompanied a member of our association and friend, William Hamilton and Rául Durán Reséndiz, to present themselves to the Civil Registry of Puerto Vallarta to make their request for marriage.

    Rául and William became the first same-sex couple seeking marriage equality in Puerto Vallarta after the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) endorsed same-sex marriage for the state of Jalisco. Although the minutes for this act are not ready yet, the applicants must attend pre-marital talks next week and meet the other requirements, so they probably would be getting married in two weeks' time.

    Thanks to Mayor Arturo Dávalos Peña for all the support and to his wife Candelaria for all the availability throughout in abiding by the resolution of the court.

    So, in addition, we can presently count 4 municipalities (at a minimum) in Jalisco state abiding by the Supreme Court ruling, that is, #1 Guadalajara, #2 Zapopán, #3 San Pedro Tlaquepaque, and now, #5 Puerto Vallarta (pop. 255,000). With these 4 major urban municipalities alone, over 44% of Jalisco's population have marriage equality already in effect.

  • 60. VIRick  |  February 12, 2016 at 9:04 pm

    Ted Cruz Features Lesbian Adult Film Star in Campaign Ad

    The virulently anti-gay presidential hopeful Ted Cruz has yanked a new ad after discovering the featured actress previously starred in a handful of softcore adult films.

    The ad, titled “Conservatives Anonymous,” was released Thursday, 11 February 2016. It features a woman stridently asking Americans to “vote for more than just a pretty face next time.” (A joke at Marco Rubio that doesn’t quite land.)

    The joke that does land is the fact that the woman is played by Amy Lindsay, an actress who’s appeared in such films as "Secrets of a Chambermaid," "Milf," "Sex Sent Me To The ER," and "Carnal Wishes."

    The pathetically clueless actress claims to be a lesbian, a Republican, and a Christian conservative. In the aftermath, she tweeted: "Extremely disappointed the Ted Cruz campaign pulled the national television spot I had a role in." http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/02/homophobic-ted

  • 61. theperched  |  February 13, 2016 at 12:01 am

    Unfortunately, the legislation is a trojan horse. The idea to make the Matrimonial Act trump the Human Rights Act which pro-lgbt judges use in their rulings shows how the Government bent under pressure from conservatives.

    If the Civil Unions Act remains a package deal, I hope it fails. It would be best to just let the Chief Justice's ruling go into effect on the 29th.

  • 62. VIRick  |  February 13, 2016 at 1:03 am

    From my vantage point, I hope the proposal passes. That way, later on, in due course, the courts can rule on whether or not the separate civil union status can truly be deemed equal. (We know it is not, but insular minds often don't grasp such obviousness too quickly).

    Of all the British and ex-British Caribbean territories, Bermuda is the furthest along, so even a half-way measure there will push it even further, keeping it well ahead of the pack, a pack which includes ALL of the most dreadfully backward and antiquated "anti-sodomy" hell-holes in the Americas, a list which includes the Bahamas, Jamaica, Belize, Trinidad, Barbados, and Guyana, plus a whole collection of pissant little countries stretching from my front door all the way to South America, most of which still consider sodomy a criminal offense, some with insane jail terms included.

    But the key is this: all of these islands and territories share the same court system, so the courts will stay busy for the foreseeable future, given that a precedent set in one will have a direct effect on the rest. But it's still important to have the Bermuda legislature (the oldest British-based legislature in the New World) even make an attempt, as the entire British Caribbean is intently watching events as they unfold in Bermuda (as we all should be).

    The legislative passage of this proposal in Bermuda will have a much deeper impact on the rest of these Caribbean territories, setting the over-all tone of court plus legislature, and give much stronger backing to the courts to keep pushing the dominos down. We have to use Bermuda as the leading wedge, as it's not just a matter of Bermuda alone.

    The Cayman Islands have an identical lawsuit already filed which matches the one in Bermuda. The case is still pending, but the precedent is obvious. And the reaction there (on the part of the ordinary fools, seeing the handwriting on the wall) is intensely more negative than anything that could be mustered in Bermuda. But the court will rule, and the Cayman Islands legislature will be "forced" to prepare some half-way measure to satisfy the court, just as in Bermuda. Still, the Cayman Islands are semi-mild compared to the true hell-holes, like Jamaica.

  • 63. F_Young  |  February 13, 2016 at 3:20 am

    How Gay Marriage and Wedding Culture Threaten Other Couples
    http://time.com/4213175/gay-marriage-domestic-par

    A different take on the issue.

  • 64. theperched  |  February 13, 2016 at 5:43 am

    Colombia's Court has now scheduled a February 18th debate for the same-sex marriage issue:
    http://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/ordendeldia

    PLEASE let this session be the one. I want a verdict :)

  • 65. theperched  |  February 13, 2016 at 5:45 am

    Here's to hoping the anti-sodomy law case in Jamaica is backed by Jamaica's Court.

    I wish Belize's court would get with the program, been a while since it was filed.

  • 66. JayJonson  |  February 13, 2016 at 5:58 am

    The best way to help these countries get with the program is to hit them where it hurts: a tourism boycott until they treat their lgbt citizens fairly. What little progress that has been made in Jamaica is a direct result of activists storming a meeting in New York where the Jamaican prime minister came to lobby for capital investment. These countries are all dependent on tourism, and thus vulnerable to boycotts.

  • 67. JayJonson  |  February 13, 2016 at 6:12 am

    Yes, it is a different take on the issue, but not one that I am going to worry much about. We rightfully dismissed civil unions and domestic partnerships as stop-gap measures that failed to provide equal rights to gay and lesbian couples and that created "separate but equal" institutions.

    Civil unions and domestic partnerships served their purpose as a means to provide recognition and benefits to same-sex couples who were denied equal rights under the law. They are no longer needed for that purpose. If they serve other purposes, then they will have to be evaluated in their own right. (That is, I have no particular objection to allowing gay and straight couples who do not want to marry to claim domestic partnerships or civil union benefits from their employers, but it seems to me not to be an especially compelling issue as long as they are not offered in place of marriage or only to same-sex couples.)

    I found one passage in the article especially tendentious: "For example, couples filing for a marriage license in Louisiana, Michigan and Idaho actually put themselves and their families at risk. By outing themselves as gay, they could be fired, denied credit, evicted or deprived of public accommodations. For these reasons, it is absolutely essential that employers continue offering domestic partner benefits."

    I fail to see that filing for a marriage license is more of a public act than declaring oneself in a civil union or a domestic partnership. (Or that an employer would offer domestic partner benefits but balk at offering marriage benefits.) But in any case, if one were fired, denied credit, evicted, or deprived of a public accommodation simply for filing for a marriage license, then that would make a wonderful test case that would have the potential of furthering equal rights in states that do not ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

    In this regard, it is worth noting that many states that do not ban descrimination on the basis of sexual orientation do ban discrimination on the basis of marital status.

  • 68. Sagesse  |  February 13, 2016 at 6:44 am

    Now, if only these folks could get to Judge Roy Moore…

    Investigation targets Paxton on gay marriage [Fort Worth Star Telegram]

    "A misstep by the attorney general might get him disbarred.

    "Ken Paxton, already indicted on separate charges, will face a State Bar ethics investigation over a questionable legal opinion he issued in 2015.

    "After the U.S. Supreme Court deemed gay marriage legal in June, Paxton wrote an opinion telling county clerks they could use religious grounds to refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses."
    http://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/editorials/a

    See also

    Texas attorney general's gay-marriage advice requires ethics probe, panel says [ABA Journal]

    "More than 200 lawyers signed an ethics complaint alleging Paxton was encouraging officials to violate the U.S. Constitution and their oaths of office."
    http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/texas_atto

  • 69. theperched  |  February 13, 2016 at 8:23 am

    Last month Acapulco's Civil Registry said that the marriages performed there last year were not valid and won't conduct any more until the law is changed. Some good news today, the head of the STATE Civil Registry department said that while it's true that it's up to municipalities to decide whether to marry couples/respect unions or not, marriages conducted will be legally valid on a state level. Guerrero has mass weddings all over the state planned for Valentine's Day. She stressed that gay couples can join and that there even be accommodations for couples who a need a ride to friendlier jurisidictions. Way to go, Maria!
    http://suracapulco.mx/8/pueden-casarse-parejas-de

  • 70. allan120102  |  February 13, 2016 at 9:42 am

    I hope so too. Colombia will be the 22nd country in the world to have ssm legalized if the court rule in our favor. btw If they rule in February Colombia will be the first country to get marriage equality on the month of February .

  • 71. allan120102  |  February 13, 2016 at 11:17 am

    Guerrero is in a complex situation like New Mexico was in the states, while the weddings celebrate in the municipalities that allow are going to be recognized at the same time its legal to municipalities to reject same sex applications if they want. as they have the power to do it. As it is stressed in the news , the couples that are reject in their municipality if they want to get married there they should get an amparo. So like I mention in wikipedia Guerrero should be strip like NM was when same sex marriage was just recognize in some counties. Btw thank you so much for this piece of info it was the thing that we need. by my count at least 9 or 10 municipalities are issuing. btw the civil marriages that occured in Acapulco are still invalid as the civil registry in there are not recognizing them and they have power to not do it. the mayor also was against it. Since previous the weddings took place the registry said that they were not going to be recognize. quite surprise Acapulco is taking this approach though, I thought they were pretty gay friendly compare to other municipalities in Guerrero.

  • 72. montezuma58  |  February 13, 2016 at 2:18 pm

    Scalia dies. http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/02/supreme_

  • 73. ianbirmingham  |  February 13, 2016 at 2:25 pm

    Scalia arrived at the ranch on Friday and attended a private party with about 40 people. When he did not appear for breakfast, a person associated with the ranch went to his room and found a body.

    http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/13/1484728

  • 74. JayJonson  |  February 13, 2016 at 3:01 pm

    We will no doubt be subjected to the indignity of hearing what a deep intellectual Scalia was. IMO, that is nonsense. He was among the very worst Supreme Court justices in the history of the United States. His intellect was not used to advance understanding or to elucidate the meaning of the Constitution, but to advance inequality and impede progress. For all his insistence on "originalism," he was most attuned to advancing his own contemporary prejudices. The Supreme Court will be better for his absence. I wish he had retired two years ago, when President Obama could have appointed a replacement. Now, we are likely to limp along with an 8-member court until a new president takes office in January 2017.

  • 75. allan120102  |  February 13, 2016 at 3:05 pm

    I thought Ginsburg would have die first but now I have hope people will find the presidential race important and go to vote democrat so we can defend the rights that we have and not worried it will be overturned, I am pretty sure if US elects a democrat Ginsburg will retire.

  • 76. Christian0811  |  February 13, 2016 at 3:09 pm

    DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD

  • 77. VIRick  |  February 13, 2016 at 3:13 pm

    They're also vulnerable to the fact that an assortment of their immediate neighbors already have marriage equality, as the Caribbean area is a ridiculous patchwork, where in general, most of the wealthier islands have marriage equality, while all the poorer ones still ban it.

    Those with marriage equality are:

    1. All the French islands (all at once, since May 2013).

    2. All the Dutch islands (in a series of complex stages, some now with full equality, and others still only with recognition, but pushing).

    3. Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands (all at once, since July 2015).

    Since tourism marketing is such a cut-throat business, ALL LGBT citizens should plan their trips to the Caribbean area to only include those islands mentioned in the above list. Boycott any/all British/ex-British islands (as well as hellacious places like the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Cuba) as absolutely none of them provide for any sort of LGBT protection whatsoever.

  • 78. bayareajohn  |  February 13, 2016 at 3:51 pm

    I am torn between celebration and guilt for being glad a lifelong public servant has died.

    I'll get over the guilt in time. The celebration will last.

  • 79. JayJonson  |  February 13, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    I am not glad that Scalia died, but I am glad that he is no longer on the Court. There is a difference between celebrating someone's death, and celebrating the fact that a deeply ignorant foe of equal rights no longer has a vote on the nation's highest court.

  • 80. JayJonson  |  February 13, 2016 at 4:09 pm

    It would be interesting to know who else was at the party at which he died.

    I would not be surprised to find that it was a gathering of Koch Brothers lobbyists, Cheney neo-cons, and Catholic red cape loons, and other assorted neer-do-wells. Or some assortment thereof.

  • 81. VIRick  |  February 13, 2016 at 4:10 pm

    Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dies at Age 79

    US Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia died on Saturday morning, 13 February 2016, of apparent natural causes, the San Antonio "Express-News" first reported.

    Scalia, 79, died in his sleep while staying as a guest at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, a private residence in the Big Bend region south of Marfa, according to reports. The ranch is near the border with Mexico and about two and a half hours from El Paso, Texas.

    He was the first Italian-American to sit on the nation's highest court. The US Marshall's Service confirmed Scalia's death to the Associated Press.
    http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/02/supreme_

    Under normal conditions, it's not considered polite to celebrate someone's death, but given the party in question, I'm having a difficult time restraining my elation. And Obama gets to nominate his successor. WOW!!! Just WOW!!!

  • 82. tx64jm  |  February 13, 2016 at 4:16 pm

    Im just glad that Obama will not be able to appoint another Anthony Kennedy to the supreme court … in fact … the slot will probably remain open until the next pres is elected.

  • 83. montezuma58  |  February 13, 2016 at 4:19 pm

    Does Scalia's passing mean that Thomas will have to start thinking for himself?

  • 84. VIRick  |  February 13, 2016 at 4:28 pm

    Oh Clarabel!! Whatever will you do now?????

  • 85. VIRick  |  February 13, 2016 at 4:31 pm

    Richard Posner, a life-long Republican, will do nicely as Scalia's direct replacement.

    That will finally make some amends for Clarabel's appointment to replace Thurgood Marshall.

  • 86. ianbirmingham  |  February 13, 2016 at 4:38 pm

    Let;s not forget the importance of a Democratic Senate… the Senate must confirm the nomination, and right now it is controlled by Republicans. Right now the polling indicates that the November election will give Republicans 50 Senate seats, Democrats 47. 3 seats are considered too close to call. There needs to be enough voter mobilization to get Democrats up to 51 Senate seats in November. They could barely get by with 50 if the Presidency stays in Democratic hands (because the Vice President would be the "tiebreaker" for a 50-50 divided Senate). Bernie Sanders looks like the candidate who is best positioned to drive new voters and independent voters to higher levels of voter turnout in support of the Democratic party.

  • 87. ianbirmingham  |  February 13, 2016 at 4:39 pm

    Donald Trump called Scalia’s death “a massive setback for the Conservative movement.”

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/breaking-ne

  • 88. ianbirmingham  |  February 13, 2016 at 4:52 pm

    Six Responses to Bernie Skeptics
    SATURDAY, JANUARY 16, 2016

    1. “He’d never beat Trump or Cruz in a general election.”

    Wrong. According to the latest polls, Bernie is the strongest Democratic candidate in the general election, defeating both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz in hypothetical matchups. (The latest Real Clear Politics averages of all polls shows Bernie beating Trump by a larger margin than Hillary beats Trump, and Bernie beating Cruz while Hillary loses to Cruz.)

    2. “He couldn’t get any of his ideas implemented because Congress would reject them.”

    If both house of Congress remain in Republican hands, no Democrat will be able to get much legislation through Congress, and will have to rely instead on executive orders and regulations. But there’s a higher likelihood of kicking Republicans out if Bernie’s “political revolution” continues to surge around America, bringing with it millions of young people and other voters, and keeping them politically engaged.

    3. “America would never elect a socialist.”

    P-l-e-a-s-e. America’s most successful and beloved government programs are social insurance – Social Security and Medicare. A highway is a shared social expenditure, as is the military and public parks and schools. The problem is we now have excessive socialism for the rich (bailouts of Wall Street, subsidies for Big Ag and Big Pharma, monopolization by cable companies and giant health insurers, giant tax-deductible CEO pay packages) – all of which Bernie wants to end or prevent.

    4. “His single-payer healthcare proposal would cost so much it would require raising taxes on the middle class.”

    This is a duplicitous argument. Studies show that a single-payer system would be far cheaper than our current system, which relies on private for-profit health insurers, because a single-payer system wouldn’t spend huge sums on advertising, marketing, executive pay, and billing. So even if the Sanders single-payer plan did require some higher taxes, Americans would come out way ahead because they’d save far more than that on health insurance.

    5. “His plan for paying for college with a tax on Wall Street trades would mean colleges would run by government rules.”

    Baloney. Three-quarters of college students today already attend public universities financed largely by state governments, and they’re not run by government rules. The real problem is too many young people still can’t afford a college education. The move toward free public higher education that began in the 1950s with the G.I. Bill and extended into the 1960s came to an abrupt stop in the 1980s. We must restart it.

    6. “He’s too old.”

    Untrue. He’s in great health. Have you seen how agile and forceful he is as he campaigns around the country? These days, 70s are the new 60s. (He’s younger than four of the nine Supreme Court justices.) In any event, the issue isn’t age; it’s having the right values. FDR was paralyzed, and JFK had both Addison’s and Crohn’s diseases, but they were great presidents because they fought adamantly for social and economic justice.

    http://robertreich.org/post/137454417985

  • 89. bayareajohn  |  February 13, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    Good reading: Posner on Scalia…
    https://newrepublic.com/article/106441/scalia-gar

  • 90. ianbirmingham  |  February 13, 2016 at 5:09 pm

    Republicans control the Senate, so being elated is not quite the best response here. I would be elated if Democrats gained control of the Senate in November and Bernie Sanders gained control of the White House. At that point we could start looking for the next Thurgood Marshall type appointment to the Supreme Court. With anything less than that, our best hope would be that a reasonably moderate person might be appointed and confirmed instead.

  • 91. bayareajohn  |  February 13, 2016 at 5:16 pm

    Situational gerrymandering, the repubs (who insist that it would be obviously unfair to let Obama nominate a replacement) would be just as adamant that an immediate appointment was obviously required by fairness and patriotic legislative obligation…. if the sitting/exiting president was a republican.

    What would Reagan do?
    Justice Anthony Kennedy was nominated by President Reagan and confirmed in Feb. 1988 — which was an election year — after the Senate had rejected Reagan's first nominee, Robert Bork.

  • 92. ianbirmingham  |  February 13, 2016 at 5:24 pm

    The passing of Justice Scalia of course affects the cases now before the Court. Votes that the Justice cast in cases that have not been publicly decided are void. Of course, if Justice Scalia’s vote was not necessary to the outcome – for example, if he was in the dissent or if the majority included more than five Justices – then the case will still be decided, only by an eight-member Court.

    If Justice Scalia was part of a five-Justice majority in a case – for example, the Friedrichs case, in which the Court was expected to limit mandatory union contributions – the Court is now divided four to four. In those cases, there is no majority for a decision and the lower court’s ruling stands, as if the Supreme Court had never heard the case.

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/what-happens-to

  • 93. SethInMaryland  |  February 13, 2016 at 5:31 pm

    What about President Obama's case on order on immigration? They would have likely been a 5-4 decision in favor of nthe opposition but that now that is likely void

  • 94. SethInMaryland  |  February 13, 2016 at 5:35 pm

    There is a moderate nominated by Obama in DC circuit that got every senate member on both parties. It very possible that this nominee will be selected

  • 95. SethInMaryland  |  February 13, 2016 at 5:46 pm

    Sri Srinivasan is name that we better get use to because this guy could be the next justice of the supreme court

  • 96. VIRick  |  February 13, 2016 at 6:24 pm

    This comment scores as the "Tweet of the Day:"

    From Mrs. Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian:

    "This would be an excellent day for Justice Thomas to continue in his tradition of just doing whatever Justice Scalia does." http://www.joemygod.com/2016/02/13/breaking-supre

  • 97. davepCA  |  February 13, 2016 at 7:07 pm

    Zing!!!!!

  • 98. guitaristbl  |  February 13, 2016 at 7:28 pm

    Are you serious..? Scalia…died ? I am kind of numb to be honest, I never expected that, he seemed prettty feisty till the very end. What can I say ? As I human being I do offer my condolences to his family. As a person invested to human rights in general and upholding the rule of law I have to say this is a good day for american justice.

    My brain cannot begin to comprehend the earth shattering impact of that though. Conservatives immediately lose power to make 5-4 rulings in many important cases before them now so the pressure falls on the decisions of the courts of appeals since SCOTUS basically loses all its power on the divisive matters now.
    And of course the battle between Obama and the Senate has began – with Obama doing his job and the McConnell telling him not to do his job and wait for the next president.

    The good thing is conservatives are on the defensive side here. They lost their most prominent SCOTUS justice and best case scenario for them is to win the white house in November and nominate someone equally bad.
    The bad news is with Scalia dead, a possible republican presidency would allow to put on the court someone quite young – so all 4 reliably conservative justices would be under 70 essentially while on the liberal side two justices are quite old.
    But the opportunity for democrats to tip the court on the liberal side is unique.

    This is going to be a huge election matter and it's going to be game changing from now on. Things just got a lot more interesting.

  • 99. guitaristbl  |  February 13, 2016 at 7:31 pm

    McConnell made it clear – they won't confirm anyone. Not that I expected anything even remotely close to constitutional behaviour from those thugs.

  • 100. SethInMaryland  |  February 13, 2016 at 8:11 pm

    If the senate republicans do that the Dems are going to rock their ass with saying they aren't doing their job in attack ads. The republicans are now stuck between a rock and a hard place. I give it a month or two before the republicans cave and approve Sri

  • 101. guitaristbl  |  February 13, 2016 at 8:18 pm

    They won't budge imo. They can't risk to replace Scalia with anyone any less conservative. I do hope they pay the price for that when elections come. It does leave them vulnerable as it exposes them as the opportunists they are who have no respect for the constitution but I doubt the majority of those commited to voting for them would disagree with them. They have actually already taken the social media asking McConnell to "stay strong" and not confirm anyone. They may lose any moderates looking for compromise they were aiming for.

    But truth is that whatever choice they make, the republicans are in the tough spot right now.

    If only 5 of them break ranks and vote to confirm a candidate though, there will be a justice on the supreme court soon.

  • 102. tx64jm  |  February 13, 2016 at 8:19 pm

    Scalia on Posner:

    “He’s a court of appeals judge, isn’t he?” Scalia, 76, said of Posner. “He doesn’t sit in judgment of my opinions as far as I’m concerned.”

    "But with that delicious “isn’t he,” feigning confusion about or ignorance of who Judge Posner is, Justice Scalia pulls Supreme rank, relegating the eminent Richard Posner to the non-SCOTUS cesspool inhabited by, say, district judges from Montana. Or icky state court judges."
    http://abovethelaw.com/2012/07/benchslap-of-the-d

  • 103. tx64jm  |  February 13, 2016 at 8:20 pm

    AK was nominated in '87 – a non election year. Thats why he got confirmed.

  • 104. GregInTN  |  February 13, 2016 at 8:21 pm

    So, if Trump files a challenge on the eligibility of Canadian born Ted Cruz and the Supreme Court deadlocks 4-4 on the definition of "natural born citizen" that could create an interesting mess.

  • 105. tx64jm  |  February 13, 2016 at 8:22 pm

    Yep … so now the Texas abortion laws will be affirmed. 4-4 = affirmance of the lower court.

  • 106. tx64jm  |  February 13, 2016 at 8:23 pm

    It will be 4-4 – so the 5th circuit will be affirmed and the injunction will remain in place.

  • 107. guitaristbl  |  February 13, 2016 at 8:25 pm

    I almost feel bad for downvoting you today..All of you bigots must be mourning for losing your far right hack on the court. Don't worry you'll get over it. Time to get some actually constitutional decisions from SCOTUS ! Because apart from Obergefell and a few more others, we did not get many of those in the last many years !

  • 108. guitaristbl  |  February 13, 2016 at 8:28 pm

    Actually Goldstein predicts that the laws will be struck down anyway and they would have even with Scalia on the bench. Too bad – you lost this one as well bigot :)

  • 109. SethInMaryland  |  February 13, 2016 at 8:37 pm

    I think that they can get at least Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mark Kirk, Kelly Ayotte , and possible Pat Tommey to go along. these 5 means a new supreme justice

  • 110. VIRick  |  February 13, 2016 at 8:41 pm

    Lesbian Nominated to Become Puerto Rico Chief Justice

    On Friday, 12 February 2016, Puerto Rico Governor Alejandro García Padilla nominated a lesbian woman to become the next Chief Justice of the US commonwealth’s highest court. Associate Justice Maite Oronoz Rodríguez has been a member of the Puerto Rico Supreme Court since 2014. She would become the first openly LGBT chief justice in the USA if members of the Puerto Rico Senate approve her nomination.

    “Today I entrust with her the construction of a new legacy for everyone, and above all, for our daughters and sons,” said García as he formally announced Oronoz’s nomination at his official residence in San Juan. Oronoz also spoke. “I accept this nomination with the energy and force of the new generation,” she said. Lambda Legal Staff Attorney Omar Gonzalez-Pagan applauded Oronoz’s nomination.

    – See more at: http://www.washingtonblade.com/2016/02/12/lesbian

  • 111. SethInMaryland  |  February 13, 2016 at 8:44 pm

    But it will only hold in the 5th circuit which means the law can be implanted everywhere else :) President Cinton/Sanders wasn't going to win 5th circuit states anyway.

  • 112. guitaristbl  |  February 13, 2016 at 8:53 pm

    List of potential nominees according to NYT :
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/14/us/

    The positive thing (if these people are indeed in Obama's mind) is that dems finally got the message and nominate young people on the bench. I mean a 46 year old SCOTUS justice would be amazing. That said none of these have a chance to ever go through the senate imo. Obama needs to pick a moderate republican so that he brings McConnell to an even more difficult position. Judge Holmes, a G.W. Bush appointee, from the 10th circuit comes to mind.

  • 113. VIRick  |  February 13, 2016 at 8:56 pm

    "But with that delicious “isn’t he,” feigning confusion about or ignorance of who Judge Posner is, Justice Scalia pulls Supreme rank, relegating the eminent Richard Posner to the non-SCOTUS cesspool inhabited by, say, district judges from Montana. Or icky state court judges."

    And for that exact reason, it would be eminently fitting to appoint Richard Posner to replace Scalia.

  • 114. allan120102  |  February 13, 2016 at 9:26 pm

    I thought that for normal federal judges it was required a 50 vote but for a supreme court justice is 60 or not?

  • 115. scream4ever  |  February 13, 2016 at 9:30 pm

    Indeed, plus there's always a couple more that come as a surprise. We only need 4 since a tie at 50 would be broken by Biden.

  • 116. SethInMaryland  |  February 13, 2016 at 9:31 pm

    hmm I forgot the filibuster but I'm thinking it 50 if no filibuster.

  • 117. allan120102  |  February 13, 2016 at 10:24 pm

    After 14 months of battle the first same sex couple to give its I do in NL. http://www.milenio.com/monterrey/Pareja-obtiene-N
    Zapoppan on its way to give same sex marriage certificates to two couples of women. http://www.ntrguadalajara.com/post.php?id_nota=30
    PAN members against marriage equality in Durango. http://www.milenio.com/region/PAN_Durango-Matrimo

  • 118. Zack12  |  February 13, 2016 at 11:23 pm

    Hate to sound cold but I have no pity that a man who compared us to murderers and pedophiles and thought it was okay to jail us for having sex in our homes and deserved to be treated as strangers under the law is gone.

  • 119. VIRick  |  February 14, 2016 at 1:22 am

    First Same-Sex Couple Married in Nuevo León

    Monterrey – Today, 13 February 2016, Rosa Nelly Patlán and Rosa María Ríos were the first same-sex couple to marry in the state of Nuevo León. According to the complete chronology, attached to the bottom of the article, the seemingly endless process began on 12 March 2014 when they were denied a marriage license by the civil registry office of San Pedro Garza García.

    This couple then became part of a 5-couple group which originally won their amparo colectivo on 18 August 2014. But then, both the state government and the state congress appealed,– and then appealed again, first to the Appellate Court and then on to the Supreme Court. Mexico's Supreme Court affirmed the original judgment in favor of the 5 couples on 11 January 2016.

    And today, this couple, the first of the 5 couples listed on the amparo colectivo, finally had their civil ceremony at the Civil Registry in Monterrey, followed by a blessing at Monterrey's MCC Church, followed by a reception for family and friends.

    Unfortunately, I am unable to do my usual bi-lingual translation/copy-and-paste, as Milenio blocks any attempt to copy anything in either language.

  • 120. tx64jm  |  February 14, 2016 at 3:29 am

    Yes… It takes 60 to confirm a supreme court justice.

  • 121. guitaristbl  |  February 14, 2016 at 5:01 am

    Although I am well aware that justice Scalia and justice Ginsburg were very good friends outside the scotus walls I cant help but think that it must have at least crossed justice Ginsburg's mind the thought "and you thought I would be the next one gone".

  • 122. guitaristbl  |  February 14, 2016 at 8:20 am

    According to SCOTUSblog and Tom Goldstein's analysis, Paul Watford of the 9th is the most likely nominee :
    http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/ninth-circuit-j

  • 123. allan120102  |  February 14, 2016 at 8:59 am

    He will need 60 votes and I am pretty sure the senate will block any candidate that is not conservative. Even though I may be wrong because I think Thomas was comfirmed 52-48. But Marco Rubio yesterday say 60 sooo lets see. The law might have changed.

  • 124. ianbirmingham  |  February 14, 2016 at 9:29 am

    Paul Watford would be a very good choice. Great ally for the future Bernie Sanders nominees!

  • 125. bythesea66  |  February 14, 2016 at 10:18 am

    No. It does however require sixty to allow the nomination to go to an up or down vote. It is quite possible for there to be votes to allow the nomination move forward to an up or down vote that will still oppose the nominee. It only takes a majority to confirm, but sixty to get past a filibuster.

  • 126. tx64jm  |  February 14, 2016 at 11:32 am

    There is no law. Its only an executive order.

  • 127. bayareajohn  |  February 14, 2016 at 11:39 am

    This new concept that the president is not really the president in his last year in office is entirely situational fantasy. I'd suggest that any congressmen who are to be in elections this year ALSO not be allowed to do anything, but I am not sure we could tell the difference….

  • 128. bayareajohn  |  February 14, 2016 at 11:40 am

    Thomas should do what he's been doing for years, and follow Scalia to his new location.

  • 129. tx64jm  |  February 14, 2016 at 11:45 am

    Not without overturning Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which is a Kennedy opinion. Do you really think Kennedy is going to overturn himself?

  • 130. SoCal_Dave  |  February 14, 2016 at 12:01 pm

    I've been hearing republicans saying that it's been 80 years since a lame duck president nominated a new SCOTUS justice. But what they don't say is how many opportunities have there been to do so. I would guess that a SCOTUS opening happening early in the same year as a presidential election after a 2-term president would be a fairly rare occurrence, but I don't really know. Has anyone found this or figured it out?

  • 131. guitaristbl  |  February 14, 2016 at 12:21 pm

    Btw can you imagine what the reactions would be here if Scalia had passed exactly one year ago, when Obergefell was about to go before SCOTUS ?

  • 132. Christian0811  |  February 14, 2016 at 1:05 pm

    Any word on how they intend to over-look the wording of article 42?

  • 133. VIRick  |  February 14, 2016 at 1:13 pm

    "Obergefell" would have been 5-3 instead of 5-4, or, more likely, 5-2-1, as Thomas would have abstained, given that his puppet-master was no longer present to direct his vote.

    The current 8-member court is now actually more liberal than it was as a 9-member court. The 5-4 decisions in our favor will now be 5-3 decisions. And any 5-4 decisions against us will now be 4-4 ties, meaning that the lower court decision will be upheld.

  • 134. VIRick  |  February 14, 2016 at 1:20 pm

    "…. lame duck …."

    Traditionally, that term was only used to describe the situation during the short 2-month time-interval between the date of the election in November (in which the sitting president or member of congress either lost the election or did not seek re-election) and the date of the inauguration of their replacement in January.

    The sitting president would not become a "lame duck" until after this November's election.

  • 135. guitaristbl  |  February 14, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    Supreme court justices' (current and former) statements on Scalia's death :
    http://www.nytimes.com/live/supreme-court-justice

    Ginsburg's is obviously heartfelt.

  • 136. 1grod  |  February 14, 2016 at 2:28 pm

    guitar. You seem to assume that the appointment will not be ratified until after the election. That seems so foreign to me. In Canada, where Supreme Court Judges retire at age 75, a pro forma 'confirmation' process occurred between 2006 to 2013. Prime Minister Harper (PM) dispensed with it, although he introduced the practice, for his last three appointments. (Technically, the Governor General on advice of the PM appoints). Another differences in our two systems of appointments is proximity to elections. Like yourself, Canada now has a fixed election date for federal parliamentary elections, the last being October 19 2015. The PM named Russell Brown [ a Scalia type originalist) to the Supreme Court on July 27 to take effect August 31 when another of his appointments retired, and then called the election 6 days later. Lastly, turnover: Harper had named all but 2 of the current 9 member court. Other prime ministers in the last 50 years have named as many.

  • 137. VIRick  |  February 14, 2016 at 2:45 pm

    Per Colombia Diversa:

    Jueves 18 de febrero 2016, regresa la discusión de Matrimonio Igualitario a la Corte Constitucional. https://twitter.com/ColombiaDiversa

    On Thursday, 18 February 2016, the discussion on Marriage Equality returns to the Constitutional Court.

    So, stay tuned and perhaps on Thursday we will find out. I am expecting that tweets from Marcela Sánchez B. at Colombia Diversa in Bogotá to be the first to tell us.

  • 138. GregInTN  |  February 14, 2016 at 2:56 pm

    It is also appropriate to note that it has only been about 65 years since the 22nd Amendment (limiting a President to two terms) was ratified.

    It really doesn't seem to me like there are enough data points to claim "a tradition" of leaving a vacancy on SCOTUS for a year if the vacancy occurs less than a year before a Presidential election.

  • 139. GregInTN  |  February 14, 2016 at 3:08 pm

    Republicans may figure out that blocking a nomination could very easily backfire on them. It is very possible that Democrats will win back control of the Senate this year (it is certainly within reach based on "the map"). It may be that the Republicans would have more leverage on influencing the nomination if they act while they still have control.

  • 140. allan120102  |  February 14, 2016 at 3:31 pm

    It was Ginsburg best buddy so I understand her. I have friends and family which I loved but disagree in many topics. I see their relationship as my brother and I. I love him but we disagree in many social issues. He is pretty conservative while I am pretty liberal. But I cherish and love him against our differences. All justice have give statements, The only I dont see there is justice Souter.

  • 141. allan120102  |  February 14, 2016 at 8:32 pm

    Third amparo against Puebla´s ban. A fourth to be issued soon. http://odesyr.blogspot.mx/2016/02/tres-parejas-de

  • 142. allan120102  |  February 14, 2016 at 10:03 pm

    NL might legalize ssm by its legislature. http://www.milenio.com/region/LGBT_Congreso_NL-ma
    Or depending on its governor as being independent might issue an executive action. http://www.multimedios.com/telediario/local/niega
    Things are going fast in a lot of states in MX.

  • 143. Deeelaaach  |  February 14, 2016 at 11:18 pm

    I have an addition to your post: there are actually four potty panic bills before the WA legislature. And if a "companion bill" counts as a separate bill (I don't know enough about such things), that would be five. HB 2935 was/is a companion bill to SB 6443 – so does that meant that HB 2935 is dead along with SB 6443? Can anyone who knows explain this?

    Here is a list of bills before the WA legislature during this session. Please forgive me if I've summarized incorrectly or don't truly understand all this. Corrections/Additions are always welcome.

    HB 2589 01/15/16 Referred to Judiciary for first reading
    HB 2782 01/20/16 Referred to Judiciary for first reading
    HB 2935 01/28/16 Referred to Judiciary for first reading
    SB 6443 02/10/16 FAILED (Failed in Rules Committee?
    Third reading, 24 Aye, 25 Nay, 0 Absent, 0 Excused Companion Bill: HB 2935
    SB 6548 02/05/16 PASSED (Law and Justice Committee)Moves to Rules Committee
    for 2nd reading
    http://governmentrelations.wsu.edu/2016billwatch…. http://app.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=http://app.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?billhttp://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?yearhttp://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year

  • 144. VIRick  |  February 15, 2016 at 12:34 am

    Tres Parejas de Mismo Sexo Obtienen Amparos para Casarse en Puebla

    Three Same-Sex Couples Obtain Amparos to Marry in Puebla State

    Desde el 15 de septiembre de 2015 se presentaron cuatro amparos directos del mismo número de parejas, de los cuales, tres han recibido sentencias favorables del juzgado Primero, Segundo y Quinto, respectivamente.

    Las audiencias se llevaron a cabo entre noviembre de 2015 y enero de 2016, obteniendo sentencias favorables el 30 de noviembre, las dos primeras y el 3 de febrero de este año, la tercera.

    Del cuarto caso ya se celebró al audiencia, sin embargo no se ha notificado a sobre el sentido de la sentencia a la pareja que solicitó el amparo. http://odesyr.blogspot.mx/2016/02/tres-parejas-de

    Since 15 September 2015, four direct injunctions for the same number of couples were presented, of which three have received favorable rulings from the First, Second, and Fifth District Courts, respectively.

    Hearings were held between November 2015 and January 2016, with the first two obtaining favorable rulings on 30 November 2015, and the third on 3 February 2016.

    The hearing on the fourth case was held, but the couple who filed for the amparo have not yet been notified about the meaning of the judgment (remembering, of course, that it must be granted, as judges no longer have discretion in the matter).

    We must also remember that, much earlier, the first same-sex couple to be married in Puebla did so on 1 August 2015, after their case went all the way to the Supreme Court (and back). Therefore, the "fourth case" in this latest series will actually be amparo #5 to be granted for Puebla state, and will thus push Puebla over the amparo limit.

  • 145. JayJonson  |  February 15, 2016 at 6:36 am

    As usual, the Republicans are lying. When one conservative spread the lie yesterday on CNN (or maybe MSNBC), however, she was challenged by another commenter, who said the facts were just the opposite. In the last 80 years, no president has failed to nominate a replacement for a supreme court vacancy in a presidential year. The Republicans are trying to again fool the public that their extremism (and violation of the Constitution) is the norm rather than the exception.

    The facts can be found in this posting on the Scotusblog: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-v

  • 146. Sagesse  |  February 15, 2016 at 9:50 am

    John Oliver is a better historian than the Republicans.

    John Oliver Slams Republicans for Attempting to Block Obama’s SCOTUS Choice [The Daily Beast]
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/14/

    Didn't know Mitch McConnell denied the 'Thurmond rule' in 2008, when the Democrats tried to use it.

  • 147. RnL2008  |  February 15, 2016 at 10:22 am

    It appers that I have been out of the loop of the news, but is it truly true that Justice Scalia has passe? My condolences to his family………now what about a replacement for him?

    By the way, holding my own, but I am back in UCSF Mission Bay, if anyone wnts to visit.

    Hugs,
    RnL2008

  • 148. davepCA  |  February 15, 2016 at 11:38 am

    Yup, apparently it is truly true. Sorry to hear you're back in UCSF, but glad to hear you're doing okay. Very good to hear from you!

  • 149. sfbob  |  February 15, 2016 at 12:08 pm

    Anthony Kennedy was nominated in 1988–Ronald Reagan's final year in office. Correction: he was nominated 11/30/87. Just barely before the start of Reagan's final year. Kennedy wasn't confirmed until 1988.

  • 150. VIRick  |  February 15, 2016 at 1:16 pm

    Yes, Rose, to quickly bring you up-to-date, they found a body in his bed, ostensibly alone, at breakfast time, on the morning of Saturday, 13 February 2016, at a guest ranch in West Texas (Presidio County) near the Mexican border.

    Presumably, he had gone there for a quick, 3-day hunting trip during the long Presidents' Day week-end. However, they have yet to reveal what he was hunting for. As a result, some have speculated that it may have been "boys" smuggled over the border from Mexico. His wife did not accompany him. Additionally, Jay has been curious as to who the other 40 registered guests were there at the ranch at the same time.

    My nominee for his replacement is Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.

  • 151. Christian0811  |  February 15, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    My nominee is Stephan Reinhardt of the 9th in SF 😛

  • 152. RnL2008  |  February 15, 2016 at 1:32 pm

    I truly appreciate your blessings and well wishes. Looking forward to being home before the weekend.

    Big hugs going out to you nd yours

  • 153. RnL2008  |  February 15, 2016 at 1:40 pm

    You made a funny and made me giggle……….thank you.

    I totally agree with your assesment……….Posner would really help certain issues coming before the SCOTUS, even though the Republicans want President Obama to wit, it is his job to ensure the high court is able to still funcation……….and the Republicans know they have no legal leg to stand on.

  • 154. SoCal_Dave  |  February 15, 2016 at 2:34 pm

    Thanks for all the info on this topic. In a related republican desperate talking point, they are saying that the American people should have a voice in this and that's why the nomination should be delayed until after the election in November. What they seem to forget is that the people DID have a say. They said they wanted Pres. Obama for 4 more years, not 3.

  • 155. 1grod  |  February 16, 2016 at 9:19 am

    Originalism vs Living Tree Scalia debated then Canadian Supreme Court Justice Ian Binnie in Montreal 2007 National Post Feb 16: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian

  • 156. 1grod  |  February 17, 2016 at 6:23 am

    How Scalia's rejection of developments in comparative legal thinking, including LGBT rights, influenced the Canadian Supreme Court's acceptance of international thought. Feb 17: http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/dodek

  • 157. David_Las_Cruces_NM  |  February 17, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    No major Republican presidential candidate is any better. Birds of a feather. . .?

  • 158. David_Las_Cruces_NM  |  February 17, 2016 at 3:03 pm

    My grandmother used to say, "Don't speak ill of the dead," which is why my comments ends so abruptly.

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!