Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Supreme Court sends Gavin Grimm’s case back to lower courts, won’t hear arguments this term

Transgender Rights

The U.S. Supreme Court. Attribution: Jeff Kubina
The U.S. Supreme Court. Attribution: Jeff Kubina
Think Progress reports:

The Trump administration has successfully delayed the Supreme Court considering a question of transgender equality.

Monday morning, the Supreme Court issued an order to vacate and remand the lower court’s opinion in the case of Gavin Grimm, the transgender student in Virginia fighting to use the bathroom at his high school. Because this means the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit will have to reconsider Grimm’s case, this almost certainly guarantees that the question will not be settled until after Grimm graduates. It also means it might not be settled by Grimm’s case at all.

The case was set to be heard on March 28, but the Trump administration withdrew the guidance document relied on by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. This wouldn’t have affected the underlying merits except for the technicality that the other merits issues aside from deference to the guidance document were left unaddressed by the lower court.

The new order gives the lower courts a new chance to decide the case on other grounds.

Unfortunately, this likely means the issue of anti-transgender discrimination under federal law won’t be decided by the Supreme Court until at the earliest 2018. Gavin Grimm’s case could reach the Court again – he’s graduating this year, but his lawyers have argued that he would continue to have standing in the case due to the fact that he could go to school alumni events – or the Court could take up one of the many other cases working their way through the courts.

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings

44 Comments

  • 1. allan120102  |  March 6, 2017 at 1:45 pm

    Chihuahua. Political party PES is not stopping its fight against ssm even when the supreme court already determine that Chihuahua must allow ssm. They are going to sue the state as they claim that the state is illegally marrying same sex couples because the civil code havent been modify

    CIUDAD JUÁREZ.- Protest leaders of the Social Encounter Party (PES), against the state government for marrying same-sex couples in the past event of the collective weddings last Monday and the argument is that the Civil Code of the state was violated when proceeding In the union of these couples, according to José Luis Aguilar, local leader of the PES.

    He mentioned that article 134 of the Civil Code stipulates that marriage is the agreement of wills between a man and a woman to realize the community of life, where both seek respect, equality and mutual help, with the possibility of procreation Children in a free, responsible and informed manner.

    "We protest against this action, we believe that the State Government through the Civil Registry, is committing a flagrant violation of the Civil Code. Equal marriage is illegal and does not correspond to what is established by law, "he said.

    At the same time, the partisan leader commented that there is also another illegality such as the rearrangement of surnames in the birth certificates of registered children, especially in the case of unions of same-sex couples. That is why they require the Governor of the State to retracted the realization of these acts.

    "When this mandate is violated, the figure of paternity and maternity is broken, and a person is robbed of identity and origin. He did not consult the citizens or the Civil Associations, it is a violation and we protest against it, "he said.

    The Social Gathering Party since its inception has been defined as the family party as we know it, with a father and a mother, for that reason in the next few days they will draw ideas with the partisan organization at the state level, and plan to do A demonstration against these acts. http://netnoticias.mx/2017-03-03-226edeea/denunci

  • 2. davepCA  |  March 6, 2017 at 3:27 pm

    This action by the Trump administration to withdraw the guidance document, and the flimsy bullshit excuses the Trump administration offers for doing so, when they KNEW that this would be the result, is further proof that Trump and Pence and their cronies are lying cowards with an anti-LGBT agenda and they have no intention of doing anything that might help assure that rights of LGBT citizens are respected and protected. Do not believe one word of the rhetoric and lies they offer in their attempts to deny the prejudiced and animus-driven anti-LGBT motives behind their actions.

  • 3. VIRick  |  March 6, 2017 at 4:07 pm

    Holy shit!! And in addition to the above, all on the same day, they've hit us with a new Muslim travel ban/restrictive visa/immigration EO, PLUS their repeal of Obamacare (ACA) plan. This latest item, just released, via up-date at BuzzFeed News, is here:
    https://www.buzzfeed.com/paulmcleod/republicans-f

    Meanwhile, in "other" news, Ben Carson, now the "esteemed" Secretary of HUD, just referred to slaves as immigrants, sparking understandable outrage from the NAACP.

  • 4. VIRick  |  March 6, 2017 at 5:06 pm

    The PES is a small splinter party, even more right-wing than PAN. Do not expect too much to come from their loud bluster, as they obviously have little-to-no understanding as to the meaning of court jurisprudence, let alone as to the legal validity of an executive order properly signed and executed by the governor of the state.

    Think of it this way: If the PAN seems to frequently pander to the Catholic base, the PES definitely panders to the evangelista and the "Testículos de Dios" crowd, the erstwhile Testigos de Jehová.
    .
    So, they're claiming they are going to sue. Let them do so.

    At the moment, in the Chihuahua state congress, the PES has only one deputy out of 33, and receives anywhere from 1% to 7% of the overall state vote, depending on the district, ranking it #9 among the assorted political parties in existence.
    https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elecciones_estatale

    More germane to our interests is a group called Pro-Trans Chihuahua, as transgender rights and gender identity are really the next main issues in Mexico. One can find a positive write-up about them here (in Spanish), including the fact that they've already taken their cause to the Chihuahua state congress:
    http://m.eldiariodechihuahua.mx/Local/2017/03/04/

    Even if one does not read Spanish, it's still worth a look just to see the hot pics of Kendra Mitchell Vázquez, la coordinadora general del grupo.

  • 5. VIRick  |  March 6, 2017 at 7:51 pm

    More Venezuelans Marrying Abroad

    Per Venezuela Igualitaria:

    Glenn y Manuel, dos venezolanos casados en España el pasado 4 de marzo 2017 luego de 7 años de relación.
    https://twitter.com/hashtag/matrimonioigualitario

    Glenn and Manuel, two Venezuelans married in Spain on 4 March 2017 after a 7-year relationship.

    At least for Latin America, every time another same-sex couple marries abroad, it puts more pressure on their country of origin to recognize said marriages.

    Per Venezuela Igualitaria:

    Las adhesiones a la Demanda de Nulidad del Art. 44 del Código Civil suscritas en Carabobo llegaron al TSJ.

    The signatures for the Demand of the Nullity of Article 44 of the Civil Code subscribed in Carabobo arrived to the Supreme Court.

    Carabobo (Clown Face) is the actual name of one of Venezuela's states, named after some obscure near-by geological formation which was the site of Venezuela's decisive battle for independence.

    The signatures from Coro state have already arrived, and apparently, each are being presented to the Supreme Court, state by state.

  • 6. Fortguy  |  March 7, 2017 at 11:21 am

    Hearings are being held today in Texas on SB 6, the anti-transgender bathroom bill, in the Senate State Affairs Committee. The hearings are expected to last for hours as there is no shortage of people pro and con who wish to testify.

    Alexa Ura, The Texas Tribune: How to watch the Texas "bathroom bill" hearing live
    Patrick Svitek, The Texas Tribune: Sen. Lucio, a Democrat, comes out in support of "bathroom bill"
    Alexa Ura, The Texas Tribune: Texas "bathroom bill" galvanizes advocates for transgender people
    Alexa Ura, The Texas Tribune: Republicans expected to revise Texas "bathroom bill"
    Edgar Walters, The Texas Tribune: Straus on Abbott, bathroom bill: "I never give up on anyone"
    John Wright, Texas Observer: Patrick Compares Bathroom Bill Fight to Alamo at Briefing Hosted by Anti-LGBT Hate Group
    R.G. Ratcliffe, Texas Monthly: A Tale of Two Legislatures
    Ben Sargent, Texas Observer: Loon Star State: Obsessed

    It is unclear when the Senate committee will vote on the bill. Friday is the 60-day bill-filing deadline in the Lege, and no bill outside of the governor's emergency agenda, which doesn't include potties, may be considered on the floor of either chamber until after the filing deadline. The Senate requires 19 votes out of 31 total to begin floor deliberation. The bill has 17 GOP author/coauthors and the expressed support of Sen. Eddie Lucio (D-Brownsville).

    On a side note, Sen. Lucio was not our friend during the last regular session in 2015. He will not face reelection until 2020 when we desperately need a progressive to mount a primary challenge to him in his deeply blue Valley district.

  • 7. davepCA  |  March 7, 2017 at 12:34 pm

    Good grief. Looks like there will be no shortage of pearl clutching and irrational rhetoric today in Texas, all just to vilify people who are trans and try to make their lives more difficult for no legitimate or beneficial purpose whatsoever.

  • 8. VIRick  |  March 7, 2017 at 3:32 pm

    "Patrick Compares Bathroom Bill Fight to Alamo"

    In his comparison between his "last stand" at the "bathroom bill" and the "hopeless case" fight at the Alamo, I hope that Patrick remembered that Santana thoroughly defeated the renegade Texans at the Alamo.

  • 9. Fortguy  |  March 7, 2017 at 5:49 pm

    Patrick's remarks were made yesterday, March 6 on the 181st anniversary of the Alamo Massacre (not to be confused with the Bowling Green Massacre). One maxim of Texas politics is that Patrick would never let such a day of observance pass by without using it as an opportunity to shamelessly pander. That's who he is.

  • 10. VIRick  |  March 7, 2017 at 6:41 pm

    Court Rules Against ACLU's Request for Kim Davis to Pay Legal Fees

    In "Miller v. Davis," the ACLU was denied the right to recover costs the civil rights organization incurred in a lawsuit against Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who shut down marriage license operations after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of marriage equality in 2015, reports The Huffington Post.

    The ACLU had filed a motion requesting that Davis or Rowan County, where she was a county clerk, pay $233,058.08 in attorneys' fees and other costs the organization bore when it represented four couples who sued Davis. On Monday, 6 March 2017, a US magistrate judge denied the ACLU's motion, but the group is planning to file an objection.

    When the ACLU first filed its motion to recover costs in September 2016, it released a statement that said, "It is unfortunate that an elected official sought to use her office to withhold government services on the basis of her religious beliefs." Davis said issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples conflicted with her Christian beliefs, so she shut down all marriage license operations in her office. US District Judge David Bunning ordered her to resume issuing licenses, but she continued to resist. She eventually spent five days in jail; she was released when her deputies began serving same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex ones, therefore bringing Rowan County into compliance with the law.

    The ACLU argued in its motion that it had the right to reimbursement because “it had to go through the expense of that litigation to secure a basic right that should not have been denied eligible couples in the first place — the ability to secure a marriage license and marry the person of their choosing.”

    Davis' attorneys were with the anti-LGBT legal group, Liberty Counsel, which has been labeled a hate group by the progressive SPLC.
    http://www.advocate.com/politics/2017/3/07/court-

  • 11. Fortguy  |  March 7, 2017 at 6:59 pm

    Testimony and debate continues in the Senate State Affairs Committee. If anyone wishes to watch the live feed and the Tribune link above isn't working for you, there is also a Senate feed.

    Here are roundups of today's action so far.

    Alexa Ura, The Texas Tribune: "Bathroom bill" testimony runs late into Tuesday evening
    Sam DeGrave, Texas Observer: First Texas Bathroom Bill Hearing Brings Hundreds of Transgender Advocates to Capitol

    Here's a timeline for SB 6.

    Emily Donaldson, Community Impact: INTERACTIVE: A complete history of the bathroom bill in Texas

    Meanwhile, here's more on the Dem turncoat senator in this mess, Eddie Lucio Jr.

    Morgan Smith, The Texas Tribune: Lucio's bathroom bill support is the latest example of aisle-crossing by Valley Democrat

    Sen. Lucio has a son who is also a legislator in the Texas House. St. Rep. Eddie Lucio III (D-Brownsville) is an apple thrown very, very far from the tree into a much greener pasture.

    Amy B. Wang, The Washington Post: He’s the only Texas Democrat to support the state’s ‘bathroom bill.’ One vocal critic: His son.

    Too bad that in the interest of allowing the extended family to properly digest Thanksgiving dinner every year, it's highly unlikely that Eddie III will challenge his dad in 2020.

  • 12. 1grod  |  March 7, 2017 at 7:02 pm

    Dave, you seem mockingly surprised by double speak. The president's forked tongue. From a distance, it appears that Trump's US against THEM got him and the Republicans elected. In his first budget, is he not continuing to make a similar appeal to his base? In the linked March 7 article, it asserts that his base is either strongly resentful of or indifferent to the needs and rights of others including related to gender, "couldn't care less"; and concerned about being themselves advantaged. Have you considered Trump's appealing to his base is what mainly motivates his actions? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/07/business/econo

  • 13. VIRick  |  March 7, 2017 at 7:34 pm

    North Carolina Appeals at 4th Circuit Court of Appeals

    Per Equality Case Files:

    Two North Carolina appeals are moving forward and are to be heard for oral argument before 4th Circuit Court of Appeals on same date, 10 May 2017:

    One is "Carcaño v. McCrory," the plaintiffs' appeal of the narrow scope of the preliminary injunction against North Carolina HB2;

    The other is "Ansley v. Warren," the plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal, for lack of jurisdiction, of this case challenging North Carolina's magistrate recusal law.
    https://www.facebook.com/EqualityCaseFiles

  • 14. Fortguy  |  March 7, 2017 at 8:27 pm

    Remember Mack Beggs? He's the guy discussed on earlier threads for winning a Texas high school girls state wrestling championship despite being, well, a guy. During and immediately after his championship run, he was quite reticent. Now, he's beginning to open up, and he speaks with so much more class, grace, and maturity than any of the people twice, three-, and four-times his age that have been condemning him during all this.

    Charles Kuffner, Off the Kuff: More on Mack Beggs

    He won his championship as a junior. Let's hope that during his senior year he'll be able to compete with the boys. The University Interscholastic League's gender policy actually stands in opposition to its bureaucratic parent, the University of Texas System Board of Regents whose system policy prohibits gender identity discrimination.

  • 15. Fortguy  |  March 7, 2017 at 8:46 pm

    And now, we have a spambot.

  • 16. JayJonson  |  March 8, 2017 at 6:33 am

    Here is a link to the magistrate judge's decision: http://lc.org/030617DavisReportandRecommendationD

    I'm not sure what I think of the judge's ruling, but it seems tortured to me. Does anyone have any thoughts about the judge's logic and legal reasoning (quite apart from our disagreement with the outcome)?

  • 17. VIRick  |  March 8, 2017 at 2:47 pm

    This "reply" is extraneous to the above, but the box for posting new replies on this thread has vanished ever since we were visited by a spam-bot last night:

    Wyoming Supreme Court Censures Judge for Refusing to Marry Same-Sex Couples

    Cheyenne WY — On Tuesday, 7 March 2017, a small-town judge who says her religious beliefs prevent her from presiding over marriages for same-sex couples was publicly censured by the Wyoming Supreme Court. But while the court said her conduct undermines the integrity of the judicial system, it does not warrant removal from the bench. In a 3-2 decision, Justice Kate Fox wrote that Judge Ruth Neely violated judicial conduct code but removing Neely would “unnecessarily circumscribe protected expression.”

    “Judge Neely shall either perform no marriage ceremonies or she shall perform marriage ceremonies regardless of the couple’s sexual orientation,” Fox wrote. Neely has never been asked to perform a same-sex marriage, and Fox said that the case was not about same-sex marriage or the reasonableness of religious beliefs. “This case is also not about imposing a religious test on judges,” wrote Fox, who was joined in her opinion by Justices E. James Burke and William Hill. “Rather, it is about maintaining the public’s faith in an independent and impartial judiciary that conducts its judicial functions according to the rule of law, independent of outside influences, including religion, and without regard to whether a law is popular or unpopular.”

    The two dissenters, Justice Keith Kautz, joined by Justice Michael K. Davis, did not seem to feel that Judge Neely had done anything wrong.

    The Wyoming Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics had recommended that Neely be removed from her positions for violating the state code of judicial conduct. Neely had argued that removing her would violate her constitutional rights._ http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/03/wy-supreme-cou… Neely is a part-time magistrate appointed by a local circuit court judge to handle particular court needs, the Wyoming Supreme Court left it to the discretion of the circuit court judge whether Neely can “continue to serve the essential functions of that position.”__

  • 18. VIRick  |  March 8, 2017 at 2:56 pm

    OK, so I can not "fix" the error in the post immediately above, as there is no "Edit" button on it.

    As a result, until a new thread has been started, I will not be posting anything more, simply because I am unable to do so here on this current thread.

  • 19. 1grod  |  March 8, 2017 at 2:58 pm

    While we learn today that the some Alabama counties are still not issuing marriage licences, we also learn that the legislature is still contemplating doing away with marriage licenses and requiring couples to have certain documents notarized before submitting to the probate office. While this is the third time that the House has approved this innovative idea, it still need to be approved by the Senate. I struggle who appreciate "who is serving who"? http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2017/

  • 20. allan120102  |  March 8, 2017 at 3:13 pm

    Actually it was the senate who pass the bill this time, and it looks poise to pass in the house. Looks like this time Alabama is going all the way to eliminate marriage licenses.

  • 21. VIRick  |  March 8, 2017 at 5:07 pm

    Court Uses Loophole to Let Kim Davis Avoid Paying Plaintiffs' Legal Fees

    Lexington KY — A federal judge has ruled that a county clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2015 does not have to pay the legal fees for the couples who sued her. Attorneys for the couples who sued Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis asked the court to award them about $233,000 in legal fees and costs. Davis’ lawyers asked that the request be denied.

    A law approved last year removed county clerks’ names and authorizations from state marriage licenses. On Monday, 6 March 2017, in his ruling, US Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins stated that because the issue was resolved in the legislature, the plaintiffs were not the prevailing parties, and therefore, are not entitled to legal fees.

    The ACLU of Kentucky’s legal director, William E. Sharp, said in a statement that the ruling is preliminary, and the group will file objections before District Judge David Bunning issues his final ruling.
    http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/03/court-uses-loo

  • 22. Fortguy  |  March 8, 2017 at 8:09 pm

    After nearly 21 hours of public testimony, the State Affairs Committee of the Texas Senate voted 7-1 at 5 am this morning to advance SB 6 to the full Senate.

    Christopher Hooks, Texas Observer: In Ritual Beating-Up of Vulnerable Texans, Senate Advances ‘Bathroom Bill’

    The lone vote in opposition was Sen. Judith Zaffirini (D-Laredo) who is the only other committee Democrat besides Lucio. One GOP committee member who supported the bill was absent for the vote. Two of three GOP senators whose stance on the bill had not been previously revealed were on the committee and supported the bill's passage. This means the bill now has twenty votes, enough with an extra to spare, to be considered next week under the Senate's three-fifths rule.

    Alexa Ura, The Texas Tribune: Committee sends Texas "bathroom bill" to full Senate

  • 23. VIRick  |  March 8, 2017 at 10:34 pm

    Here's another post extraneous to the ones above, but one which details an important legislative move in Brasil, besides providing us with an excellent, accurate background summary:

    Brasil: Senate Takes 1st Step To Regulate Marriage for Same-Sex Couples

    Senado de Brasil Da el Primer Paso Hacia la Regulación del Matrimonio entre Parejas del Mismo Sexo

    Una comisión del Senado brasileño dio, este miércoles, 8 de marzo 2017, el primer paso legislativo para la aprobación del matrimonio entre parejas del mismo sexo, el cual ya fue legalizado judicialmente en 2013 por el Consejo Nacional de Justicia (CNJ). La Comisión de Constitución de Justicia de la Cámara Alta dio luz verde a un proyecto que altera el Código Civil y reglamenta con forma de ley la ‘unión estable’ entre personas del mismo sexo y la conversión de dicha unión en un matrimonio de pleno derecho.

    Hasta mayo de 2013, en Brasil solo se contemplaba la figura de la ‘unión estable’ de personas del mismo sexo, que en términos de derechos es equivalente a un casamiento, aunque sus miembros eran considerados ‘solteros’ y tenían limitaciones en cuanto a herencias y otras garantías reservadas a los matrimonios heterosexuales. No obstante, la decisión tomada en 2013 por el CNJ legalizó la figura del matrimonio homosexual y la equiparó en términos de derechos al de parejas heterosexuales, aunque algunos jueces la han rechazado en los últimos años alegando la ‘inexistencia de previsión legal expresa.’

    En ese sentido, el proyecto de ley, que todavía deberá pasar una serie de trámites en el Congreso antes de su aprobación definitiva, pretende eliminar ese tipo de barreras y otorgar seguridad jurídica, según explicó su relator, el senador Roberto Requião.
    http://cdn.com.do/2017/03/08/senado-brasil-da-pri

    On Wednesday, 8 March 2017, a committee of the Brazilian Senate issued the first legislative step toward the approval of same-sex marriage, which has already been judicially legalized in 2013 by the Council of National Justice (CNJ). The Commission of Constitutional Justice of the Upper House gave a green light to the bill that alters the Civil Code and regulates by law the 'stable union' between same sex couples and the conversion of this union into a marriage by right.

    Until May 2013, Brasil only allowed the term of 'stable union' for couples of the same sex, which in terms of rights is equivalent to marriage, although its members were considered 'single' and had limitations in terms of inheritance and other guarantees reserved for heterosexual marriages. However, the decision taken in 2013 by the CNJ legalized marriage for same-sex couples, and equated it in terms of rights to that of heterosexual couples, although some judges have rejected it in recent years, alleging "no express legal provision."

    In that sense, the bill, which still has to pass a series of procedures in Congress before its final approval, aims at eliminating such barriers and provide legal security, said its sponsor, Senator Roberto Requião.

  • 24. theperchybird  |  March 9, 2017 at 10:04 am

    Baja California's state adoption agency says same-sex couples can adopt since there's no legal impediment for it. They state that two couples are already in the process of adopting. There are several states without equal marriage where the adoption agencies moved ahead of Congress and allowed couples the right to have their application accepted and reviewed:
    http://www.uniensenada.com/noticias/mexicali/4693

  • 25. VIRick  |  March 9, 2017 at 1:56 pm

    Judge: Ban on Same-Sex Marriage in Puebla "Unconstitutional"

    “Inconstitucional” Impedir Matrimonio Gay en Puebla: Juez

    Puebla, 8 de marzo 2017 – Después de seis meses de espera, Jacob Jiménez y su novio, Felipe González, recibieron el amparo que les permitirá casarse en su lugar de origen, Tepeaca, Puebla. El Juzgado Sexto de Distrito en Materia de Amparo Civil en el Estado de Puebla, determinó que es “inconstitucional” considerar que una de las finalidades del matrimonio es la “perpetuación de la especie” y también es contrario a los principios constitucionales, definir al matrimonio como la unión entre un hombre y una mujer. "El matrimonio es el contrato celebrado entre dos personas, sin importar su género u orientación sexual, para realizar una vida en común,” determinó el juez.

    Por medio del Amparo número 1734/2016-IV, se concluyó que no hay impedimento para que Jacob Jiménez y Felipe González celebren su unión civil, con todos los derechos y obligaciones que establece la ley. Los novios anunciaron que la boda civil se llevará a cabo el 27 de marzo en el Rancho Los Pinos. Ellos se convertirán en el primer matrimonio gay de Tepeaca y uno de los pocos en todo el estado de Puebla.
    http://japii.mx/inconstitucional-impedir-matrimon

    Puebla, 8 March 2017 – After six months of waiting, Jacob Jiménez and his boyfriend, Felipe González, received the amparo that will allow them to marry in their place of origin, Tepeaca, Puebla. The Sixth District Court on Civil Protection in the State of Puebla determined that it is "unconstitutional" to consider that one of the purposes of marriage is the "perpetuation of the species" and that it is also contrary to constitutional principles to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. "Marriage is the contract between two people, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, to lead a life in common," the judge said.

    Through Amparo number 1734/2016-IV, it was concluded that there is no impediment for Jacob Jiménez and Felipe González to celebrate their civil marriage, with all the rights and obligations established by law. The grooms announced that the civil wedding will take place on 27 March at Rancho Los Pinos. They will become Tepeaca's first marriage of a same-sex couple and one of the few in the entire state of Puebla.

  • 26. VIRick  |  March 9, 2017 at 3:19 pm

    The amparo judgment in Puebla state, cited immediately above, to allow for a same-sex marriage to take place in Tepeaca, Puebla, is at least amparo #8 granted for Puebla state, remembering too, that amparo #7, an amparo colectivo which originated from San Pedro Cholula, granted by Mexico's Supreme Court, abstractly allowed 30 individuals to marry whomever they chose. As a result, despite the comment in the article, this up-coming marriage could be about marriage #37 for the state, also bearing in mind, too, that the municipality of San Pedro Cholula will allow same-sex couples there to marry without first obtaining an amparo judgment.

  • 27. VIRick  |  March 9, 2017 at 4:27 pm

    The report, up-dating the legislative proceedings in the Brazilian Senate to enact marriage equality into law, cited above, was first translated and published in the Dominican Republic. A second account, with even more detail, cited below, has now been translated and published in Peru:

    Brazilian Senate Approves Marriage Equality Converted into Law

    Senado Brasileño Aprueba Convertir en Ley Matrimonio Igualitario

    La Comisión de Constitución y Justicia (CCJ) del Senado brasileño aprobó un proyecto de ley que modifica el Código Civil para reconocer la unión estable entre dos personas del mismo sexo y posibilitar la conversión de esa unión en matrimonio. En la actualidad el matrimonio homosexual está permitido en Brasil, gracias a una decisión del Tribunal Supremo Federal de 2011 que sentó precedente, pero no existe una ley que ampare esa decisión._

    La propuesta aprobada ahora en el Senado sustituye la definición de entidad familiar, que pasa de "unión estable entre hombre y mujer" a "unión estable entre dos personas," manteniendo el resto del texto original del artículo. El relator del proyecto de ley, Roberto Requirão (Partido del Movimiento Democrático de Brasil) explicó que el objetivo es "adecuar a ley en vigor el entendimiento de la corte suprema," para eliminar dificultades y dar más seguridad jurídica a las parejas homosexuales.

    Las parejas homosexuales en Brasil pueden casarse normalmente por lo civil desde el año 2013, cuando el Consejo Nacional de Justicia obligó a todas las sedes del registro civil del país a aceptar esta modalidad. Ahora el proyecto para modificar el Código Civil y que la posibilidad del matrimonio homosexual conste en la ley pasará a ser analizado en la Cámara de Diputados. https://www.facebook.com/LimaGay.net/photos/a.479

    The Constitution and Justice Commission (CCJ) of the Brazilian Senate approved a bill that modifies the Civil Code to recognize the stable union between two persons of the same sex and to enable the conversion of that union into marriage. Currently, same-sex marriage is allowed in Brasil, thanks to a decision of the Federal Supreme Court of 2011 that set the precedent, but there is no law to support that decision.

    The proposal now approved in the Senate replaces the definition of family entity, which goes from "stable union between man and woman" to "stable union between two people," keeping the rest of the original text of the article. The sponsor of the bill, Roberto Requirão (Party of the Brazilian Democratic Movement) explained that the objective is to "adapt the understanding of the Supreme Court into the force of law," to eliminate difficulties, and to give more legal security to same-sex couples.

    Same-sex couples in Brazil can civilly marry normally since 2013, when the National Council of Justice forced all of the civil registry offices of the country to accept this modality. Now the bill to amend the Civil Code and to allow for same-sex marriage by law will be analyzed in the Chamber of Deputies.

  • 28. VIRick  |  March 9, 2017 at 6:45 pm

    NARTH ‘Ex-Gay Therapy’ Leader Dead at 70

    Per Equality Case Files:

    Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, a co-founder of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) and a prominent figure in the ex-gay movement, has passed away, the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic, where he served as clinical director, confirmed over the phone to The Daily Beast. Nicolosi, 70, was a practitioner of conversion or reparative therapy, treatments intended to change a person’s sexual orientation that have been widely denounced by major medical associations—including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association—and banned by legislation in five states: Vermont, Oregon, New Jersey, Illinois, and California.
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2017/03/09/ex

    "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." – Mark Twain

  • 29. VIRick  |  March 9, 2017 at 7:09 pm

    New Mexico: Ban on LGBT Conversion Therapy Advances Further

    New Mexico appears set to become the next state in the USA to pass a bill that bans health care workers from trying to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of minors, according to a top lawmaker there who calls so-called LGBT conversion therapy “a misnomer, a sham.” House Speaker Brian Egolf told BuzzFeed News, “You don’t know for sure until the roll call is taken, but we feel confident for the prospects for the bill.” Although the governor, Republican Susana Martinez, has not asserted her position, Egolf added, “This doesn’t seem to be developing as a partisan issue, which is very good.”

    Senate Bill 121 would amend the state’s Unfair Practice Act to ban licensed health care professionals from any “treatment that seeks to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including any effort to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward persons of the same sex.”

    It passed the New Mexico Senate on a 32-6 vote last month, and the House Health and Human Services Committee advanced the bill on Wednesday, 8 March 2017, when lawmakers voted 5-2 to send the bill to the Judiciary Committee. Egolf, the House’s top Democrat, expects it to then pass that committee and win approval from his full chamber. New Mexico Attorney-General, Hector Balderas, an outspoken backer of the legislation, said it “has not has created the polarization experienced in other states.”
    https://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/new-mexico

  • 30. allan120102  |  March 9, 2017 at 7:12 pm

    I am a little surprised by the words of this supreme court of justice of Mexico saying they cant force Puebla to legalize ssm. He mention that couples need to continue to ask for amparo even though they are always going to come in favor as there is already jurisprudence. Also he says that it would be a coup of power if they force Puebla to legalize ssm.
    During the presentation of the doctorate in Legal Research that will be given by the Ibero-American University as of next August, the Minister of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN), José Ramón Cossío Díaz, specified that the country's highest court Can not force the Congress of Puebla to reform its Civil Code to approve egalitarian marriages.

    He also detailed that as long as the Congress of the Union does not endorse this right in the Constitution, the autonomy of the congress poblano and the other 31 federative entities have all the legal powers to not homologate it.

    However, he stressed that this aspect is unconstitutional and the only way for same-sex couples to access this right, is currently the Amparo.

    "As long as the Congress of the Union still does not endorse the initiative to reform the fourth constitutional article of President Enrique Peña Nieto, presented last May, there is no way for state legislations to harmonize this right for same-sex couples," he pointed.

    He considered that this reform can occur in several years or, if applicable, that it is declared that it is constitutional not to allow these marriages, because the initiative is not well rounded in legal terms, but is strongly supported by the decisions of the SCJN.

    "Many state legislations following the cases reformed their law, others not, we can only resolve cases if we arrive and because there is jurisprudence on the subject, they will get married, but it would be a coup d'état because it is already recognized That it is unconstitutional to deny them the right, "he said.

    In that context, Cossío Díaz said that the maximum legal instance in the national territory, continues to receive judgments by that sector of the population or by the defenders of the rights of homosexuals and lesbians, and anticipated that the resolutions will be judged in favor, not only For people living in Puebla but all states.

    Last September, PAN deputy Pablo Rodríguez Regordosa proposed reforming the Civil Code to incorporate the figure "isomonio" to refer to the "civil contract between people of the same sex", which would recognize rights and obligations of contracting parties, but not adoption.

    In this regard, Brahim Zamora Salazar, head of the Citizens Observatory for Sexual and Reproductive Rights (Odesyr), mentioned that this reform could take place until the next legislature, as MPs have politicized the issue, in addition to the fact that the majority in the local Congress is a militant PAN , A fraction that has refused to do so.

    The National Commission on Human Rights (CNDH) in December 2015 issued general recommendation 23, addressed to the heads of the executive and legislative branches of the states on the subject to modify the civil codes of the state, as well as challenged Article 300 of the Civil Code of Puebla, considering it unconstitutional.
    http://intoleranciadiario.com/detalle_noticia/153

  • 31. VIRick  |  March 9, 2017 at 8:00 pm

    Washington State Asks Court to Confirm New Travel Ban as Unenforceable

    On Thursday, 9 March 2017, in "Washington State v. Trump," Washington State Attorney-General, Bob Ferguson, announced that the state of Washington is continuing its lawsuit against the Trump administration, arguing in a court filing that the prior injunction issued against the January executive order applies to major portions of the new order Trump signed on Monday, 6 March 2017.

    “The President cannot unilaterally declare himself free of this Court’s injunction and reinstate policies that this Court already enjoined,” Ferguson argued in the Thursday evening court filing. Ferguson said at a news conference earlier in the day that he continues to believe that “what the president is doing is unconstitutional.”

    The attorney-general said that the state would be “seeking to confirm” from US District Judge James Robart that the injunction he issued against the initial executive order on 3 February remains in place. Robart’s order halted enforcement of major portions of Trump’s 27 January executive order, commonly referred to as the Muslim travel and refugee ban.

    "On February 3, this Court enjoined key provisions of Executive Order No. 13769 (First Executive Order). The Ninth Circuit unequivocally rejected President Trump’s request to stay or narrow this Court’s injunction. Nonetheless, on March 6, President Trump signed a new Executive Order (Second Executive Order) that, in the words of his own senior advisers, adopts “the same basic policy” as the first: “the goal is obviously to maintain the way that we did it the first time.” In particular, the policy purports to reinstate two provisions of the prior order that this Court enjoined: (1) a 90-day ban on entry of persons from several Muslim-majority countries, and (2) a 120-day suspension of the US Refugee Admissions Program."

    The state of Minnesota remains a party to this suit, and today also filed a similar, though blunter, objection to the new travel ban.

    As of today, 9 March 2017, the state of Oregon has also been granted permission to intervene in this ongoing suit, and requests are on file from the states of New York and Massachusetts to do likewise.

    Separately, the state of Hawaii has filed suit to obtain a restraining order against the new ban, but as Washington State's A-G Ferguson said, “What we’re asserting is, we’ve already got one, it’s already in place.”
    https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/washington-

  • 32. scream4ever  |  March 9, 2017 at 8:03 pm

    I for one love the headline on JMG:

    NARTH Ex-Gay Torture Founder Joseph Nicolosi Dead At Age 70, Survivors Include 350,000,000 Homosexuals
    http://www.joemygod.com/2017/03/09/narth-ex-gay-t

  • 33. scream4ever  |  March 9, 2017 at 8:06 pm

    No Governor has yet vetoed such legislation. New Hampshire is likely to follow suit soon as well.

  • 34. Fortguy  |  March 9, 2017 at 11:41 pm

    Bette Davis on the passing of her nemesis Joan Crawford:

    You should never say bad things about the dead, you should only say good . . . Joan Crawford is dead. Good.

  • 35. VIRick  |  March 10, 2017 at 1:50 pm

    ACLU Files Ethics Complaint Against Sessions with Alabama State Bar

    A lawyer with the ACLU filed an ethics complaint against Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Thursday, 9 March 2017, asking the Alabama Bar to “determine whether he violated the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct” in his sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding his contact with Russian officials.

    “Mr. Sessions made false statements during sworn testimony on January 10, 2017, and in a subsequent written response to questions on January 17, 2017,” the complaint alleges. Christopher Anders, a lawyer with the ACLU in Washington, DC, filed the complaint, which asks the state’s bar to investigate whether Sessions engaged in professional misconduct in the answers he gave to the committee regarding his contact with Russian officials.

    The complaint points to two of Sessions’ answers to the committee — the exchange he had with Sen. Al Franken about Russian communications during the campaign, and a written follow-up response to Sen. Patrick Leahy — as potentially violating the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct.
    https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/aclu-lawyer

  • 36. allan120102  |  March 10, 2017 at 8:50 pm

    Boston St Patrick day parade to allow gay veterans to march. Justice have been serve finally. I am happy for them. Surprised that this happen in Boston a very accpeting city.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/11/bos

  • 37. scream4ever  |  March 10, 2017 at 9:18 pm

    The threats proved effective. This is what's different in our country now as opposed to even just a decade or so ago.

  • 38. ianbirmingham  |  March 10, 2017 at 11:18 pm

    PATTAYA – [Thailand's] Jiratchaya Sirimongkolnawin was crowned Miss International Queen 2016 on Friday at a contest billed as the world's largest and most popular transgender [beauty] pageant.

    http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/general/1212793/t

  • 39. scream4ever  |  March 11, 2017 at 3:07 pm

    http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/03/court-rules-ci

    The 7th Circuit en banc ruling is likely to come down in our favor any day now. I expect both cases to be consolidated and heard at the Supreme Court (along with any similar cases) next year.

  • 40. Fortguy  |  March 11, 2017 at 7:02 pm

    Yesterday was the 60-day bill-filing deadline for the Texas Legislature. From this point on, all bills outside of Gov. Abbott's emergency agenda may now proceed from committee's to the floors of their respective chambers. With the filing deadline behind us, there are now 25 anti-LGBT bills being monitored by Equality Texas. Nine of these I have previously posted on here, here, here, and here. Pro- and anti-LGBT bills can be found on EQTX's Legislation 2017 page. In addition to the nine about which I previously posted, here's an update on new anti-LGBT Senate bills:

    *SB 892 by Sen. Charles Perry (R-Lubbock) would allow child welfare services providers to decline to provide, facilitate, or refer a person for child welfare services due to religious belief.

    *SB 893 by Sen. Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola) would allow individuals or businesses to refuse to serve customers due to religious belief.

    *SB 1536 by Sen. Donna Campbell (R-New Braunfels) also relates to child welfare services providers and religious belief.

    *SB 2096 by Sen. Bob Hall (R-Edgewood) would allow psychological and counseling providers the right to refuse clients based on religious belief.

    I'll follow up in my next post with offending House bills.

  • 41. Fortguy  |  March 11, 2017 at 8:22 pm

    Here are the House bills opposed by Equality Texas:

    *HB 1805 by Rep. Scott Sanford (R-McKinney) again deals with child welfare services and religious belief.

    *HB 1813 by Rep. Dan Flynn (R-Canton) would allow county clerks to pass their job duties over to other officials due to religious belief.

    *HB 1923 by Rep. Matt Krause (R-Fort Worth) again deals with business and employees denying customers due to religious belief.

    *HB 2280 by Rep. Jay Dean (R-Longview) would require law enforcement to honor immigration detainers.

    *HB 2279 by Rep. Matt Schaefer (R-Tyler) would allow anybody to discriminate in nearly every way imaginable based on religious belief. This includes adoption and foster care, employment, housing, marriage-related licensing, ceremonies, and services; sex reassignment, psychological, counseling and fertility services; sex-based dress, grooming, and bathroom access; licensing and accreditation.

    More below…

  • 42. Fortguy  |  March 11, 2017 at 8:23 pm

    …From above

    *HB 2795 by Rep. Mike Lang (R-Granbury) is another county clerk/marriage/religious belief bill.

    *HB 2876 by Sanford would permit discrimination based on religious belief specific to the wedding industry.

    *HB 2878 by Sanford is another religious-based discrimination bill only this time for health care professionals.

    *HB 3571 by Rep. Tom Oliverson (R-Cypress) would get rid of those pesky municipal non-discrimination ordinances and allow discrimination for everything other than race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability.

    *HB 3856 by Rep. Matt Rinaldi (R-Irving) is another license-to-discriminate bill for psychological and counseling service providers with religious beliefs.

    *HB 3859 by Rep. James Frank (R-Wichita Falls) is an especially broad bill for bigoted child service providers. Laura Marie Thompson of the Observer has more.

    *HB 4097 by Rep. Briscoe Cain (R-Deer Park) is yet another attempt to smack down municipal non-discrimination ordinances.

    Missing from this session's anti-LGBT bill authors are: Rep. Cecil "Buford T. Justice" Bell (R-Magnolia), Rep. Tony "Tiny Tim" Tinderholt (R-Arlington), and Rep. Jonathan "Proud Former Fetus" Strickland (R-Bedford).

  • 43. allan120102  |  March 12, 2017 at 1:12 pm

    Mariela Castro the daughter of Raul Castro(president of Cuba) words has surprised many in the lgbt communty as she said in Guadalajara Mexico that same sex marriage has not been approved in the country because they do not like to copy what other countries are doing it. Many feel like it was a stab in the back. She says that same sex marriage do not stopped hate crimes which I agree but I dffer in the marriage part. I do believe that marriage should be approved in Cuba Asap and not wait anymore time . It would be trascendental that Cuba legalize ssm as it will put pressure in other Caribbean nations to be more friendly to its lgbt community.
    Cuba has not adopted a law in favor of homosexual marriage because it can not be repeated what others do and, moreover, this does not ensure the end of hate crimes against that group, said Saturday in Mexico Mariela Castro, director of the National Center Of Sex Education (Cenesex) of Cuba.

    "We do not like to copy, we want to have creativity and look for what truly fits the possibility of social formation and our reality," said the Cuban official.

    The daughter of Cuban President Raúl Castro visited the Guadalajara International Film Festival (FICG), where she received the Maguey Award for her activism in favor of the rights of the homosexual community, women's rights and HIV / AIDS prevention .

    The activist also offered a conference as part of the Maguey section of the FICG, which brings together activities and screenings of films with homosexual themes.

    He affirmed that, even if there are homosexual marriages, "hate crimes" remain against them.

    "The main goal is not marriage, it's one of the goals. For us, the main goal is to achieve equality of opportunity as it was achieved in the process of working with discrimination against women, he said.

    Castro said that when defending socialism "you can not go for the simplest, the first solution that appears or repeat what others do," referring to the many countries that have legislated in favor of the rights of the homosexual community.

    He spoke of the work he performs at the head of the Cenesex and stated that he was not "convinced" about the parades of "homosexual pride" because they make this group seen from the "carnival".

    "I wanted the population to observe them in their reality and from their deep dignity," he said.
    http://www.elnuevoherald.com/noticias/mundo/ameri

  • 44. DevilWearsZrada  |  March 13, 2017 at 11:42 am

    Our righteous socialist homosexuals vs their vicious capitalist homosexuals, eh? Sounds similar to what they say about gay people in North Korea.

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