Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Open thread: SCOTUS updates, and more

Community/Meta Discrimination Transgender Rights

Fifth Circuit Court of AppealsThis is an open thread. Some updates:

– Last week, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request by an employee to rehear her discrimination case, which is based on sexual orientation and gender non-conformity. The employee lost the case in the district court. Lambda Legal, who filed the lawsuit, has said they’ll file a petition in the Supreme Court asking them to take up the case in their next term beginning in October. The Court will already be hearing a case involving a baker who doesn’t want to bake cakes for LGBT customers, and a school board is planning to ask the Court to hear a case on whether transgender students should be allowed to use the correct bathrooms, so the Court’s next term could be big for LGBT rights.

– Challengers to Mississippi’s sweeping anti-LGBT law HB 1523 are asking the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear the case with all judges present. A three-judge panel of the court had ruled that the challengers don’t have legal standing to bring the cases.

We will post more when news breaks.

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings

54 Comments Leave a Comment

  • 1. ianbirmingham  |  July 10, 2017 at 3:37 pm

    In today’s Russia, constitutional lawyers are creating “alternatives” to human rights (SSM in particular) http://intersectionproject.eu/article/society/con

  • 2. Fortguy  |  July 10, 2017 at 8:35 pm

    Texas Gov. Greg Abbott today issued his official proclamation calling for a 30-day special session of the Legislature beginning next week on July 18. With this proclamation, lawmakers are now free to begin filing their bills. Under the state's constitution, the Lege may only consider those items the governor places on the special session's agenda. Abbott will be limiting the session to must-pass sunset extension legislation to keep five professional agencies alive including the Texas Medical Board lest the state lose the authority to license, decertify, or discipline physicians and surgeons. Once this critical legislation has been safely passed to his desk, he will then expand the agenda to 19 other items the far-right has wet dreams of passing including potty policing.

    The Secretary of the Senate received her copy of the proclamation at 11 am and then forwarded it to Senate offices to let them know they can begin filing. The House has an electronic filing system through which more than two dozen bills were already filed by 1 pm. Among these early filers was Rep. Ron Simmons (R-Carrollton) who filed, not one, but two bathroom bills.

    HB 46 would prohibit political subdivisions, including school districts, from adopting or enforcing non-discrimination measures in bathrooms or changing facilities supporting any class of people not specifically protected under federal or state law.

    HB 50 is essentially the same measure but applying only to school districts in case HB 46 is too much for the House leadership to stomach.

    Andy Duehren and Shannon Najmabadi, The Texas Tribune: Lawmakers file dozens of bills as Abbott officially calls special session

  • 3. Fortguy  |  July 10, 2017 at 9:46 pm

    There are a couple of good articles published recently that give a good primer on Texas politics and the players and shakers of the Lege. First,

    Lawrence Wright, The New Yorker: America’s Future Is Texas (warning: very long read)

    Wright offers some golden nuggets about House Speaker Joe Straus (R-San Antonio).

    On the Friday before the end of the session, Straus told me, [Lt. Gov. Dan] Patrick sent two emissaries from the Senate to visit him at his office. (Patrick’s spokeswoman says that this is “not accurate.”) One of the senators carried an envelope that apparently contained the language of a bathroom bill that Patrick would accept. The senator, whose name Straus would not disclose, was a lawyer, and told Straus that the language had been carefully crafted to insure that the bill would override any local antidiscrimination ordinances. The senator started to open the envelope, but Straus said not to bother. “I’m not a lawyer, but I am a Texan,” he said. “I’m disgusted by all this. Tell the lieutenant governor I don’t want the suicide of a single Texan on my hands.”

    […]

    I asked Straus about the clash between business and cultural conservatives. He quoted William H. Seward, Lincoln’s Secretary of State, who described the forthcoming Civil War as “an irrepressible conflict.” The prejudices unleashed by the election of Donald Trump had poured kerosene on the already volatile world of Texas politics. Straus, referring to the bathroom bill, said, “We came very close this session to passing a sweepingly discriminatory policy. It would have sent a very negative message around the country.”

    “That’s still possible, right?” I asked. Couldn’t Abbott put forward his own bill in the special session and threaten to veto any amendments?

    Straus agreed, but noted, “The legislature is not obligated to act upon his agenda items within the thirty-day period. And the Governor would have the option to call as many thirty-day sessions as he would like.”

    “So the bill could stay in committee and not get voted out?”

    Straus smiled.

    Another must-read is the following describing the fighting factions of the state's GOP.

    R.G. Ratcliffe, Texas Monthly: The Grand Old Divide

    A commenter to the Ratcliffe article mentions rumors of capitol staffers wearing buttons saying "Sunset and Sine Die". From their buttons to God's ears. Nothing would be so awesome than to have the Lege pass the sunset bill and then for the House to vote for Straus to gavel the chamber to adjournment sine die. Don't think it will happen, I believe we'll have to hope for the committees to kill most everything else, but it would be fabulous. I'm hoping what will kill the bathroom bills is that Abbott's proposed legislative agenda is way too ambitious and contentious for the Lege to find any agreement within the short time frame for most of the items he has proposed.

    Of course, true leadership would be for Abbott to never waste taxpayer money on a special session dedicated to wing-nuttery, but to use it for real issues like actually fixing the state's school finance disaster which the session won't address.

  • 4. Fortguy  |  July 10, 2017 at 10:46 pm

    Associated Press via the Houston Chronicle: Activists want Houston gay spousal benefits halted amid case

    AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Conservative activists are seeking an injunction blocking Houston from paying same-sex spousal benefits to its municipal employees, after Texas' Supreme Court ruled last week that gay couples may not be entitled to them.

    Attorneys filed a motion Friday in District Court in Harris County, which includes Houston.

    They also want to recover public funds that America's fourth-largest city spent on same-sex spousal benefits since November 2013, though how much such "clawbacks" would be worth is unclear.

    Last week, the all-Republican state Supreme Court overturned a lower court's decision favoring same-sex marriage benefits and ordered the issue back to trial.

    Opponents hope the case will chip away at the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 ruling legalizing gay marriage, arguing that that decision doesn't mean gay couples have inherent rights to spousal benefits.

    Houston blogger Charles Kuffner has more.

  • 5. scream4ever  |  July 10, 2017 at 11:02 pm

    I'm sure the eventual outcome will be that this group of citizens lack standing to sue/can't claim damage, even if it must go all the way to the US Supreme Court.

  • 6. Fortguy  |  July 10, 2017 at 11:41 pm

    Exactly. SCOTX originally refused to hear the case (because Obergefell), but ended up reversing themselves because of wingnuts screaming at them that "the spousal benefits ordinance doesn't just cover married people but also covers BUTT SEX PERVERTS!!!!!" even though the alleged BSPs have legal marriage certificates with fancy lettering and all. The GOP has won every statewide race since 1994 including all SCOTX seats, and the justices know that they have to appease the crackpots who dominate the vote in GOP primaries in order to keep their seats.

    SCOTX remanded the case back to district court with the instruction to consider whether Obergefell also covers same-sex spousal benefits. It does. There is no reading of Obergefell that doesn't make clear that marriage is marriage and that there is no legal distinction between gay and straight marriage.

    The wingnuts are especially overreaching and hurting their case with the "clawback" demand. This is in no way practical after so many years. If the spouse of a city worker used health benefits to pay for hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions, for cancer treatment, how can the city taxpayers ever get that back? No court would ever expect the city to even try to do so, especially because the plaintiffs' case is so likely to fail because of, well, Obergefell.

    By the way, "Butt Sex Perverts" sounds like a great name for an indie band whose music I'd readily buy.

  • 7. VIRick  |  July 11, 2017 at 1:10 pm

    "…. Butt Sex Perverts …."

    Fortguy, as an extra touch, here's a sweet little limerick mocking them in Spanish to which we can all joyfully sing along. It's not a perfect rhyme, but it expresses the sentiment:

    Qué agujeros pervertidos,
    Con problemas muy desvestidos.
    Tienen miedo del sexo,
    Y del pene erecto,
    U otros objetos que se metidos.

    What perverted ass-holes,
    With issues laid bare.
    They're afraid of the sex,
    And of the erect penis,
    Or other objects that get stuck.

    Next question: How in the world does the spell-check function on my computer know whether I am typing in Spanish or English, as it automatically seems to be able to switch itself back and forth between the two, and make the corrections accordingly?

  • 8. allan120102  |  July 11, 2017 at 2:30 pm

    Breaking news. Supreme court of Mexico finally strikes down Chiapas ban on same sex marriage making it the 10 state were same sex couples can get marriage licenses in all municipalities. Tomorrow its expect Pueblas ban to be strike down too. Chiapas becomes the 2nd state were the supreme court invalidates a ban. http://m.excelsior.com.mx/nacional/2017/07/11/117

  • 9. VIRick  |  July 11, 2017 at 3:30 pm

    Chiapas: Marriage Equality Ban Struck Down by Mexico's Supreme Court

    Per Rex Wockner:

    As announced today, 11 July 2017, the Mexican Supreme Court has struck down the Chiapas state ban against marriage equality. The ruling will have near-immediate effect, as it must first be officially published before it can go into force as law, a process that will take 7-10 days.

    Chiapas becomes state #11 of 31 with marriage equality, or alternately, jurisdiction #12 of 32. This is only the second instance of the Supreme Court striking down a state's marriage equality ban, the first having been that of Jalisco on 26 January 2016.

    Per Eduardo Murillo‏:

    Hoy día, hace tres horas, la SCJN invalidó esos Artículos del Código Civil de Chiapas que definían al matrimonio como exclusivo entre un hombre y una mujer.
    https://twitter.com/BlogdelaCorte

    Today, 11 July 2017, three hours ago, the Supreme Court invalidated those Articles of the Chiapas Civil Code which defined marriage as exclusively being between one man and one woman.

    Per Borde Jurídico:

    Se invalidó el Artículo 144 del Código Civil de Chiapas porque consideraba como objetivo del matrimonio la perpetuación de la especie.

    Se invalidó el Artículo 145 del Código Civil de Chiapas porque consideraba al matrimonio exclusivo entre hombres y mujeres.
    https://twitter.com/BlogdelaCorte

    Article 144 of the Chiapas Civil Code was invalidated because it considered the object of marriage to be the perpetuation of the species.

    Article 145 of the Chiapas Civil Code was invalidated because it considered marriage to be exclusively between men and women.

    Per Geraldina González de la Vega:

    La SCJN está resolviendo la Acción de Inconstitucionalidad 32/2016 que permitiría el matrimonio igualitario en Chiapas.

    Se declara inválido Artículo 145 en porción normativa "hombre y mujer" del Código Civil de Chiapas que discrimina a parejas del mismo sexo.
    https://twitter.com/geraldinasplace

    The Supreme Court is resolving the Action of Unconstitutionality 32/2016 which would permit marriage equality in Chiapas.

    The portion of Article 145 with the term "man and woman" in the Chiapas Civil Code which discriminates against same-sex couples has been declared invalid.

    Chiapas is the southern-most state of Mexico, and directly abuts against Guatemala. Now that Chiapas will have marriage equality, this reality ought to have a major impact on all the adjacent states in Central America, as Chiapas is the most accessible Mexican state from that near-by region.

    Someone has already up-dated the written Wikipedia state-by-state listing, as well as the individual state entry for Chiapas (but not the map). The ruling was today, 11 July 2017, as indicated. But it will not become effective until published in 7-10 days' time. They have marked it in the state-by-state listing as also being effective from today, a point which is incorrect. For the moment, it should be marked TBA (to be announced).

  • 10. VIRick  |  July 11, 2017 at 5:28 pm

    UK Government Helping Gay Couples to Marry in Diverse Countries Worldwide

    Hundreds of same-sex couples are getting married inside British consulates in countries where same-sex marriage is still banned, under little-known rules. After marriage equality became legal in England and Wales in 2014, the British government made changes to permit same-sex marriages to take place at any number of their Diplomatic Missions around the world. Under the policy, overseas same-sex couples can marry under British law inside UK consulates and embassies, as long as one of the applicants is a British citizen (and as long as the host country itself does not permit same-sex couples from marrying).

    New data released by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office revealed that hundreds of couples have taken advantage of the policy. Responding to an inquiry, the FCO confirmed: “UK Diplomatic Missions celebrated 6 civil partnerships and 202 same-sex marriages between 1 July 2016 and 6 July 2017.

    “Between 1 July 2016 and 6 July 2017 civil partnerships and same-sex marriages were celebrated at UK Diplomatic Missions in Australia, Cambodia, China, Cyprus, Germany, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, Philippines, Serbia, Venezuela, and Vietnam.”

    By holding ceremonies in consulates, couples are able to have a legally-recognized marriage ceremony without having to travel to the UK. While many of the ceremonies have been low-key, while others have been prominently celebrated by diplomats. A spokesperson for the Foreign Office said: “The UK believes that human rights are universal and that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people should be free to enjoy the rights and freedoms to which people of all nations are entitled.”
    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/07/11/the-uk-gover

  • 11. scream4ever  |  July 11, 2017 at 6:08 pm

    Great! Let's hope this motivates couples in the remaining states to file lawsuits (can they do it as a class-action?).

  • 12. VIRick  |  July 11, 2017 at 6:51 pm

    Puebla Marriage Equality Ruling Expected on Thursday, 13 July 2017

    Per LGBT Marriage News, retweeting Eduardo Murillo (who I also quoted below):

    MEXICO: Today, 11 July 2017, the Supreme Court strikes down Chiapas state LGBT marriage ban; similar ruling expected for Puebla tomorrow, 12 July.
    https://twitter.com/LGBTMarriage/status/884867443

    Correction to above, per Rob Salerno:

    Correction: The Puebla LGBT marriage ruling is expected on Thursday, 13 July 2017.

    Per Daniel Berezowsky‏:

    Como sucedió con Jalisco, la SCJN declaró inconstitucionales los Artículos del Código Civil en Chiapas que impedían el matrimonio igualitario.

    A partir de hoy, las parejas del mismo sexo en Chiapas podrán casarse sin la necesidad de un amparo.
    https://twitter.com/danberezowsky/status/88492615

    As was done with Jalisco, the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional the Articles of the Civil Code in Chiapas which blocked marriage equality.

    Beginning from today, same-sex couples in Chiapas can marry without the need of an amparo.

  • 13. VIRick  |  July 11, 2017 at 7:35 pm

    Querétaro: Urgent to Unfreeze Initiative for Marriage Equality

    Querétaro: Urgen a Descongelar Iniciativa para el Matrimonio Igualitario

    La presidenta de la Comisión de la Familia de la legislatura local urgió a la Comisión de Procuración y Administración de Justicia del Poder Legislativo a dictaminar la iniciativa de ley que reformaría al Código Civil para el llamado matrimonio igualitario. De acuerdo con la diputada local Leticia Mercado Herrera, presidenta de la Comisión de la Familia, es necesario que se presente un dictamen lo más pronto posible, sobre todo ante la culminación del periodo actual de la Mesa Directiva el próximo 31 de julio, y el retraso que existe en el análisis de la propuesta legal. La también secretaria de la Mesa Directiva señaló que ya hay unos ocho estados del país que aprobaron las uniones civiles entre parejas del mismo sexo, bajo el principio de que “no puede haber ciudadanos de primera y de segunda”.

    Mercado Herrera recordó que el matrimonio igualitario es una iniciativa que presentó hace varios meses el diputado local independiente Carlos Lázaro Sánchez Tapia, y tendrá que modificarse la ley, como un reconocimiento a los derechos de los ciudadanos.
    https://www.diariodequeretaro.com.mx/local/urgen-

    The President of the Family Commission of the Querétaro legislature urged the Commission for Procurement and Administration of Justice of the Legislature to draft the bill that would reform the Civil Code for marriage equality. According to the local deputy Leticia Mercado Herrera, president of the Family Commission, it is necessary to submit an opinion as soon as possible, especially with the ending of the current period of the Board on 31 July, and the delay which exists in the analysis of the legal proposal. The secretary of the Board said that there are already some eight states in the country that have approved civil marriage between same-sex couples, under the principle that "there can be no first and second-class citizens."

    Mercado Herrera recalled that egalitarian marriage is an initiative introduced several months ago by local deputy Carlos Lázaro Sánchez Tapia, and the law will have to be modified, as a recognition of the rights of all citizens.
    https://www.diariodequeretaro.com.mx/local/urgen-

  • 14. scream4ever  |  July 11, 2017 at 7:43 pm

    Let's hope this and the Mexican Supreme Court has gotten the ball rolling with Chiapas!

  • 15. VIRick  |  July 11, 2017 at 8:11 pm

    I had expected to see states in the more progressive center of the country, states like Querétaro, Guanajuato, and San Luis Potosí to have already passed their marriage equality legislation months and months ago. Perhaps the Supreme Court's latest ruling against Chiapas (and the upcoming anticipated ruling against Puebla) will finally push them to do so.

    There's also an anticipated forthcoming Supreme Court ruling against Aguascalientes, as well, quietly working its way to the top of the list.

    To answer your earlier question, the surest, fastest way for us to obtain a favorable ruling from Mexico's Supreme Court is for the idiots in the assorted state congresses to pass some legislation altering some aspect of the Family Code, but without their touching the issue of marriage equality, such as legalizing "express divorce" or raising the age of consent for marriage. Once that has happened, activists then have 30 days to file an "Action of Unconstitutionality" directly with the Supreme Court, as these state legislatures are all under Supreme Court orders to also make the change authorizing marriage equality (as well as to make several of these other changes).

    "Actions of Unconstitutionality" have already successfully struck down the marriage equality bans in both Jalisco and Chiapas, and should soon do the same thing in Puebla and Aguascalientes. I am aware that Baja California Sur has an "Action of Unconstitutionality" already drawn up, ready to be filed as soon as the pending "express divorce" legislation there has been approved (with the "Action" itself having been prepared by the Chief Justice of their own state Supreme Court).

  • 16. allan120102  |  July 11, 2017 at 9:16 pm

    As we already know action is already occuring in central America with three countries already having there ban already challenge in court. Guatemala might be challenge with a recognition case soon if ss couples cross the borders and marry in Chiapas. Same sex couples are already becoming more visible like in Honduras with the couple last week for example. I really think ssm will be legal in central america in the next 10 years.

  • 17. Mechatron12  |  July 11, 2017 at 9:42 pm

    So then what's going on in the Yucatan? Didn't the Supreme Court leave their marriage ban alone? If so, then what's to stop other states from doing the exact same thing?

  • 18. VIRick  |  July 11, 2017 at 9:49 pm

    I see this scenario happening very soon, as the dominos continue to fall:

    Later this month, a same-sex couple from Guatemala crosses the border and marries in Tapachula, the closest city, just within Mexico. They then return home and file suit in Guatemala for recognition of their legal Mexican marriage. Needless to say, in due course, they will win their recognition suit.

    In fact, this is precisely how we are going to win the remaining portions of Latin America, through the courts, one recognition suit after the other.

    Remember, one legal Mexican marriage recognition suit has already been favorably ruled upon in court, thus overturning Peruvian law banning same-sex marriage. It is now currently under appeal, but we will eventually win outright.

    And a second legal Argentine marriage recognition suit has also been favorably ruled upon in a Venezuelan court, overturning that country's ban on second-parent recognition in cases involving children in a same-sex marriage.

  • 19. Fortguy  |  July 11, 2017 at 10:04 pm

    Are you using the optional Windows feature that lets you select keyboard language from the icon in the system tray? (Mac and many Linux distros have similar funtions.)

    Alternatively, did you include more than one language in your web browser's preference settings?

    Also, nice little ditty, but I can't think of many rock songs with a Limerick rhythm.

  • 20. allan120102  |  July 11, 2017 at 10:14 pm

    You might count Costa Rica soon as Costa Rican who marry a Mexican in mexico are asking the country to recognize theire marriage. They are demanding Costa Rica to recognize the marriage if not they are going to challenge the recognition ban to the constitutional court and if they fail they will take it Interamerican court of Human rights and we know we get a favorable ruling from them in Chile and in a Colombia case were a man sue because of discrimination. http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/articulo/mundo/2017

  • 21. VIRick  |  July 11, 2017 at 10:20 pm

    Yes, both. I've set my computer to utilize keyboards in US English, French French, Brazilian Portuguese, and Latin American Spanish. However, I frequently type in Spanish on the US English keyboard,– and spell-check knows,– even when I do a rapid switch between the two. Today, it even helped me with my little rhyming ditty, suggesting the double-entendre, "desvestidos," as more apropos.

  • 22. allan120102  |  July 11, 2017 at 10:24 pm

    The thing with Yucatan was that lgbt groups and groups that fight for equality were trying to make the supreme court to act as a instigator in others words, and the supreme court cannot force state legislators to legalize ssm or overturn a ban against there will. They were trying to make the supreme court to take a job that isnt theirs. If it was that easy the supreme court could just force every legislature to legalize ssm and as we see that hasnt happen.

    If the legislators in the states dont modify there civil codes then the court cannot act, if they modify an article that mentions marriage and dont legalize ssm then the court can act and say that is unconstitutional because it prevents ss couples from marrying.That is what is happening in Guerrero were legislators dont prohibit Child marriage because if they touch that article and dont legalize ssm then an action of unconstitutionality might be file like it happen in Chiapas and in Jalisco. Durango lgbt groups should had filed an action of unconstitutionality when they prohibit child marriage in February not sure why they didnt do it.

  • 23. VIRick  |  July 11, 2017 at 10:50 pm

    The Yucatán state legislature has done absolutely nothing. Zip. Nada. The rights groups there, having grown tired of the wait, filed an "Action of Omission for Failure to Act" against said congress for not having approved marriage equality legislation in a timely manner. However, Mexico's Supreme Court ruled that, "No, we can't allow that."

    In other words, we (and the rights groups) have to catch the state congresses in the act of doing something stupid (within a 30-day time-frame), like passing the so-called "express divorce" legislation, or eliminating the child marriage provision, while simultaneously failing to approve marriage equality. Then, we can file an "Action of Unconstitutionality" against the state congress in question. And the Supreme Court will rule in our favor. All state congresses are presently under Supreme Court orders to make all 3 changes. Unfortunately, no one is operating under a set time-frame on any of these changes. Tal vez, mañana. Tal vez, cuando quieran. Quizás siempre. (Maybe tomorrow. Maybe anytime. Whenever they want.)

  • 24. scream4ever  |  July 11, 2017 at 11:07 pm

    We could also get a favorable ruling out of Panama at anytime.

  • 25. VIRick  |  July 12, 2017 at 12:16 am

    Tico Requests Costa Rica Recognize His Same-Sex Marriage with Mexican

    Tico Pide que Costa Rica le Reconozca Matrimonio Homosexual con Mexicano

    San José, 11 de julio 2017 – Un ciudadano costarriquense contrajo matrimonio con un ciudadano mexicano en México, y la pareja se presentó en abril de 2017 ante la embajada de Costa Rica, en la Ciudad de México, para tratar de que su enlace sea reconocido. Hoy, 11 de julio 2017, este costarriquense anunció que está luchando para que su unión matrimonial sea reconocida legalmente en Costa Rica y advirtió que está dispuesto a llevar el caso hasta la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos para lograr modificar la legislación de este país.

    El costarricense Julio César Monge, de 25 años, contrajo matrimonio con el mexicano Iván Rivera, de 33, en enero de 2015 en México y la pareja se presentó en abril de 2017 ante la embajada de Costa Rica en la capital mexicana para tratar de que su matrimonio quedara también inscrito en el Registro Civil de Costa Rica, una instancia estatal de esta nación que es la responsable de llevar todas los controles legales en esa materia.

    Sin embargo, el Registro rechazó la petición, basado en el artículo 14 del Código de Familia de Costa Rica que prohíbe el matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo. En mayo de 2017, Monge y su abogado, el costarricense Freddy Gamboa, apelaron la resolución y en junio pasado el Registro volvió a denegar la solicitud. El recurso fue presentado ahora ante el Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones (TSE). Si esa institución también niega la gestión, Monge planea acudir luego a la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia y, si tampoco hay resultados positivos, insistirá posteriormente en vías judiciales internacionales.

    Informó que el Registro alegó que se carece de una “norma habilitante” y que el Código plantea que “es legalmente imposible casar a parejas del mismo sexo”. En México, donde una unión de ese tipo es legal, “podemos adoptar, tenemos todos los derechos de un matrimonio, pero en Costa Rica, aparezco como soltero”, relató, al comentar que como pareja tienen planes de trasladarse a vivir en suelo costarriquense.

    Por su parte, el abogado Gamboa aseguró que Costa Rica es firmante de la Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos, emitida el 10 de diciembre de 1948, y que ese instrumento del derecho internacional, que a su juicio permite el matrimonio homosexual, debe ser respetado por el Estado costarricense porque fue ratificado por este país.
    http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/articulo/mundo/2017….

    (to continue in English)

  • 26. VIRick  |  July 12, 2017 at 12:18 am

    (continued)

    San José, 11 July 2017 – A Costa Rican citizen married a Mexican citizen in Mexico, and the couple appeared in April 2017 before the Costa Rican embassy in Mexico City to attempt to have their marriage recognized. Today, 11 July 2017, this Costa Rican announced that he is struggling to have his marriage union legally-recognized in Costa Rica and warned that he is willing to take the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in order to amend the legislation of this country.

    Costa Rican Julio Cesar Monge, 25, married Mexico's Iván Rivera, 33, in Mexico in January 2015, and the couple appeared in April 2017 at the Costa Rican embassy in the Mexican capital to try to ensure that his marriage was also registered in the Costa Rican Civil Registry, a state agency that is responsible for carrying out all legal matters in that area.

    However, the Registry rejected the petition, based on Article 14 of the Costa Rica Family Code prohibiting same-sex marriage. In May 2017, Monge and his lawyer, Costa Rican Freddy Gamboa, appealed the resolution, and in June 2017 the Registry again denied the request. The appeal has now been filed before the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE). If that institution also denies the request, Monge plans to go to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice and, if there are still no positive results, will subsequently insist on international judicial channels.

    He reported that the Registry alleged that there is no "enabling standard" and that the Code states that "it is legally impossible to marry same-sex couples." In Mexico, where a union of this type is legal, "we can adopt, we have all the rights of a marriage, but in Costa Rica, I appear as a single," he said, commenting that as a couple they have plans to move to Costa Rican soil.

    For his part, Gamboa said that Costa Rica is a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, issued on 10 December 1948, and that this instrument of international law, which in his view allows gay marriage, must be respected by the Costa Rican State because it was ratified by this country.

    Someone from Costa Rica is affectionately known as a Tico, while someone from Puerto Rico is affectionately known as a Rico, with both "costarriquense" and "puertorriquense," the formal versions, being too much of a mouthful.

  • 27. VIRick  |  July 12, 2017 at 12:46 am

    Gira de Trump

    Totally off-topic, but still ….

    The Mexican newspaper, "El Universal," rather than have a section entitled "US News," or "Noticias de EEUU," now has one instead, merely stated as "Gira de Trump" (Trump World or Trump Orbit).

  • 28. allan120102  |  July 12, 2017 at 6:19 am

    The vote to overturn Chiapas ban was 9-2. I am looking to see who were the two dissenting Judges. http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/articulo/nacion/soc

  • 29. VIRick  |  July 12, 2017 at 12:17 pm

    Chiapas Ruling Was a 9-2 Supreme Court Decision

    SCJN Aprueba Matrimonios Gay en Chiapas, 9-2

    Por mayoría de nueve votos, el proyecto fue realizado por la ministra Margarita Luna Ramos. Chiapas se convierte en el tercer estado en el que por una "Acción de Inconstitucionalidad" la SCJN deja la puerta abierta para la celebración de los matrimonios entre personas del mismo sexo. Las otras entidades en este supuesto son Jalisco y Colima, este último posteriormente formalizó la legalización del matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo en sus leyes locales. Además de Colima, ocho estados más han legalizado el matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo en sus leyes locales: Ciudad de México, Campeche, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Michoacán, Morelos, Nayarit, y Quintana Roo.
    http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/articulo/nacion/soc

    By a majority of 9 votes, the decision was written by Justice Margarita Luna Ramos. Chiapas becomes the third state in which by an "Action of Unconstitutionality" the SCJN opens the door for the celebration of marriages for same-sex couples. The other entities in this instance are Jalisco and Colima, the latter having later formalized the legalization of marriage for same sex couples in their local laws. In addition to Colima, eight other states have legalized same-sex marriage in their local laws: Mexico City, Campeche, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Michoacán, Morelos, Nayarit, and Quintana Roo.

    The remaining three with marriage equality are Jalisco, and now, Chiapas (both solely on the strength of the Supreme court ruling), plus Guerrero (by executive order of the state governor).

    Two questions: Has Chihuahua modified its state law, as claimed here in this news article? They are under obligation to do so, but I do not recall that they have yet followed through. In the meantime, like Guerrero, marriage equality there is based on the governor's executive order.

    And was the ruling against Colima actually an "Action of Unconstitutionality?" Instead, I remember that ruling as being ruling #5, one which thus set the jurisprudence to enable future "Actions of Unconstitutionality," with rulings #1-4 being the earlier rulings against the bans in Oaxaca, Baja California, Sinaloa, and Edomex, in that order.

  • 30. VIRick  |  July 12, 2017 at 1:29 pm

    Britain: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Man Seeking Pension Rights

    A gay British retiree has won a legal battle to secure the same occupational pension rights for his husband that a heterosexual spouse would enjoy. Five judges at the Supreme Court, Britain‘s highest court, ruled that if John Walker were to die, his husband would be entitled to a spouse’s pension, provided they stay married until then.

    The 66-year-old launched a discrimination lawsuit when the company he worked for said it would not pay out spousal benefits because his pension plan pre-dated 2005, the year in which same-sex civil partnerships became legally-recognized.

    The Court of Appeal ruled against Walker in 2015, but today, 12 July 2017, the Supreme Court overturned that decision. Said decision means that Walker’s partner will be entitled to spousal benefits of around 45,000 pounds ($57,800) a year — instead of about 1,000 pounds a year.
    https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/07/uk-supreme-co

  • 31. VIRick  |  July 12, 2017 at 2:13 pm

    Malta Same-Sex Marriage Bill Receives Final Vote of Approval

    Today, 12 July 2017, the bill that would extend marriage rights to same-sex couples in Malta received its third and final vote of approval, with lawmakers approving the Marriage Equality Bill by a 66-1 vote margin.

    “Marriage equality is now reality in Malta,” said Prime Minister Joseph Muscat on his Twitter page shortly after the bill passed. “Pledge fulfilled. Future sealed.”

    The Maltese marriage equality bill is expected to take effect later this July.

    Currently in Europe, gays and lesbians can legally marry in Iceland, Greenland, Faroe Islands, Republic of Ireland, Scotland, England, Wales, Isle of Man, Guernsey, France, Spain, Portugal, Gibraltar, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland, with Malta and Germany soon to be added to the list.
    http://www.washingtonblade.com/2017/07/12/malta-s

  • 32. VIRick  |  July 12, 2017 at 2:51 pm

    Gay Guatemala Definitely Approves of Chiapas Ruling

    Per GayGuatemala:

    El matrimonio igualitario está muy cerca de nuestra frontera. Se aprueba el matrimonio igualitario en Chiapas.

    Egalitarian marriage is very close to our border. Marriage equality is approved in Chiapas.
    https://twitter.com/hashtag/MatrimonioIgualitario

  • 33. VIRick  |  July 12, 2017 at 3:56 pm

    Sinaloa Up-Date on Marriage Equality

    Falta Poco para el Matrimonio Igualitario en Sinaloa

    Así lo dio conocer el magistrado presidente de la sala familiar del Supremo Tribunal de Justicia del Estado de Sinaloa, en una conferencia impartida entre abogados:

    Guamúchil, Sinaloa, 12 de julio 2017 – El Congreso del Estado de Sinaloa ya ha recibido dos notificaciones (de resoluciónes) de la Suprema Corte para que permitan el matrimonio igualitario. Por ello, deben de acatarlo ya que es inconstitucional, y que las uniones deban ser permitido por personas del mismo sexo.

    Sin embargo, aún pueden modificar la ley ya que el límite que tienen son cinco resoluciónes, para que les brinden un plazo de 90 días para que lo hagan legítimo. Así lo dio a conocer el magistrado presidente de la sala familiar del Supremo Tribunal de Justicia del Estado de Sinaloa, Claudio Raymundo Gámez Perea. Inclusive señaló que en otras legislaturas con las dos notificaciones (de resoluciónes) ya lo cambiaron.
    https://www.debate.com.mx/guamuchil/Falta-poco-pa

    At an on-going legal conference, this was made known by the presiding judge of the family court of the Supreme Court of the State of Sinaloa:

    Guamúchil, Sinaloa, 12 July 2017 – The State Congress of Sinaloa has already received two notifications (of resolutions) from the Supreme Court to allow for marriage equality. Therefore, they must comply with it because what they have is already unconstitutional, and that unions must be allowed between same-sex couples.

    However, they can still modify the law since the limit they have are five resolutions, which then gives them a 90-day period in which to legalize it. This was announced by the presiding judge of the family court of the Supreme Court of the State of Sinaloa, Claudio Raymundo Gámez Perea. He even pointed out that in other legislatures with two notifications (of resolutions) that they have already made the changes.

    By the way, the original Spanish text was terrible. I had to edit multiple spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors before I could even begin to translate, with the lack of punctuation in an amazingly extended run-on sentence being the worst. And this summary account was written by someone at a legal conference??

  • 34. Randolph_Finder  |  July 13, 2017 at 9:16 am

    I'm having some problems updating the map. I'll try for Chiapas and Puebla in a few days (and probably) from another computer. This would be so much easier if the entire country had Marriage Equality, I'd only have to worry about one color. :)

  • 35. GregInTN  |  July 13, 2017 at 10:33 am

    Sen. Warren’s new bill could give gay couples refund on back taxes
    http://www.washingtonblade.com/2017/07/13/sen-war

    A new bill led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in the U.S. Senate would make gay couples potentially eligible for a refund on their back taxes if they married more than three years before the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act.

    In the Senate, the legislation is co-sponsored by 30 senators — all Democrats. Among them are Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), lesbian Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.).

    Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.) leads the legislation in the U.S. House, where 39 other lawmakers have co-sponsored the bill.

  • 36. allan120102  |  July 13, 2017 at 2:46 pm

    Same sex couples may be able to marry in two weeks and they also may be able to adopt. http://www.cuartopoder.mx/bodasigualitariasendosshttp://m.excelsior.com.mx/nacional/2017/07/12/117

  • 37. VIRick  |  July 13, 2017 at 8:14 pm

    AG Sessions Speech at ADF's Private Summit on "Religious Liberty"

    Per Equality Case Files:

    On Tuesday, 11 July 2017, Attorney-General Sessions spoke at the ADF's Summit on "Religious Liberty," an event that was closed to the press. Per CNN, Sessions' attendance was first disclosed that same morning, but the DOJ has declined requests to release his full remarks.

    Instead, the Federalist Society has published his prepared remarks.

    "Under this administration, religious Americans will be treated neither as an afterthought nor as a problem to be managed. The federal government will actively find ways to accommodate people of all faiths. The protections enshrined in the Constitution and our laws protect all Americans, including when we work together, speak in the public square, and when we interact with our government. We don’t waive our constitutional rights when we participate fully in public life and civic society.

    "This administration, and the upcoming guidance, will be animated by that same American view that has led us for 241 years: that every American has a right to believe, worship, and exercise their faith in the public square."

    One can read the entire unedited blather here:
    http://thefederalist.com/2017/07/13/heres-the-spe

    Personally, I never got past this line:

    "First, President Trump appointed an outstanding Supreme Court justice with a track record of applying the law as written, Neil Gorsuch."

    Gorsuch did no such thing. In "Pavan v. Smith," he did not read the Arkansas statute, as written. Quite to the contrary, he interpreted it in such a way so as to suit his own pre-conceived prejudices and notions. Period.

    With married couples, Arkansas law clearly presumes that the spouse of the birth mother is the second parent to the child. Unlike Gorsuch's claim, Arkansas does not require biological testing or DNA proof that the second parent be the sperm donor, and thus, the actual party responsible for inseminating the birth mother.

    One can also read excerpts of Sessions' prepared speech to the hate group, ADF, including the sickening Gorsuch praise line that made me puke, here:
    https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/07/speech-jeff-s

  • 38. VIRick  |  July 13, 2017 at 8:45 pm

    Indiana: Up-Date on Birth Certificate Appeal in "Henderson v. Adams"

    Per Equality Case Files:

    On 27 June 2017, in "Henderson v. Adams," the state of Indiana's appeal of the ruling requiring both mothers (as spouses) be listed on a child's birth certificate when the child is born to a married couple, the Plaintiffs have filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority, bringing to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals' attention the recent Supreme Court decision in the Arkansas case, "Pavan v. Smith," which was decided just the day prior.

    That Notice is here: http://files.eqcf.org/cases/17-1141-42/

    The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the "Henderson" appeal on 22 May 2017, but has not yet issued an opinion.

  • 39. VIRick  |  July 13, 2017 at 9:37 pm

    Federal Judge: Trump Muslim Ban Can Not Keep Out Grandparents, Other Family Members

    The US federal government cannot use the (revised) executive order to "exclude grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States," US District Judge Derrick Watson ruled today, 13 July 2017.

    The federal judge in Hawaii who initially put President Trump's revised travel and refugee ban on hold, today then placed (much narrower) limits on the administration's recent rules enforcing a limited version of that ban. As the Trump administration announced its standards for enforcing the ban under the Supreme Court's ruling on 29 June 2017, the state of Hawaii immediately went back to court, arguing that the federal government's interpretation of "bona fide relationship" was too narrow. Hawaii won.

    Watson also placed additional restrictions on which potential refugees can be excluded under the order. Specifically, Watson ruled that a potential refugee's "assurance from a United States refugee resettlement agency" constitutes the sort of "bona fide relationship" that bars enforcement of the executive order against that would-be refugee.
    https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/federal-jud

  • 40. Fortguy  |  July 13, 2017 at 9:47 pm

    Up above, I earlier posted on the two bills filed in the Texas House following Gov. Greg Abbott's official proclamation calling for a legislative special session to begin next Tuesday. I was able to do that for the House bills as that chamber provides for the electronic filing of legislation. The Senate does not, but now I can report on what has been filed there so far.

    SB 23 by Sen. Bob Hall (R-Edgewood) would sweepingly prohibit all of the state's political subdivisions from passing anti-discrimination protections against any class of people not already protected under state law effectively invalidating many municipal LGBT-protection ordinances. This is not a bathroom bill, and doesn't address bathrooms at all whether in schools or otherwise. While school districts may not require that transgender students must be allowed to use the proper bathroom, it doesn't prohibit schools from informally allowing them to do so. In effect, this would seemingly have no effect over the status quo in schools except possibly in districts such as Fort Worth ISD where a school with a bigot principal could ignore the district's previous progressive policy. However, it would devastate LGBT individuals protected under city ordinances by permitting private businesses to discriminate.

    SB 38 by senators José R. Rodríguez (D-El Paso), Sylvia R. Garcia (D-Houston), Juan Hinojosa (D-McAllen), and John Whitmire (D-Houston) would do just the opposite. This bill seeks to prohibit all anti-LGBT discrimination in public accommodations, employment, and housing. Of course, this bill will be thrown into the trash as soon as it's assigned to committee, if it even gets that far, in Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick's Senate.

    No Senate potty bill has yet been filed, but you know that will happen soon enough. Meanwhile, here are six possible scenarios gaming how the 30-day session will play out Game of Thrones-style.

    R.G. Ratcliffe, Texas Monthly: Six Scenarios for Thirty Days

  • 41. VIRick  |  July 13, 2017 at 10:11 pm

    Same-Sex Marriage Provisions Approved by Ho-Chunk Legislature

    Per Rex Wockner:

    On 5 June 2017, the Ho-Chunk Legislature (in Wisconsin), in a 13-0 vote, unanimously approved an amendment to their Marriage Ordinance, thus allowing for same-sex marriage.
    http://www.hocakworak.com/archives/Issue12.pdf

    Note: Rex continues to keep watch over the 566 First Nation tribes within the USA which were not automatically covered by the "Obergefell" decision. By his count, to date, at least 21 tribes have specifically legalized same-sex marriage. However, any number of others follow the marriage law of the state in which they are located, meaning same-sex marriage is currently legal within that particular tribe without any additional tribal action.
    https://wockner.blogspot.com/

    According to Wikipedia, same-sex marriage is allowed within at least 38 tribal jurisdictions, with it probable within 71 more. According to the same listing, same-sex marriage is only specifically banned in these 9 tribal jurisdictions:
    3.1 Ak-Chin Indian Community
    3.2 Chickasaw Nation
    3.3 Choctaw Nation
    3.4 Kalispel Indian Community
    3.5 Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma
    3.6 Muscogee (Creek) Nation
    3.7 Navajo Nation
    3.8 Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa
    3.9 Seminole Nation
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_u

  • 42. Fortguy  |  July 14, 2017 at 1:27 am

    Out of curiosity, I decided to search for what is available online for my state's three federally recognized tribes: the Alabama-Coushatta, the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas, and the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (a.k.a. the Tiguas).

    Small-tribe websites are notoriously bad about providing legal and governmental info and instead seem to be devoted primarily about tourist self-promotion. Of the three tribes, only the Kickapoo provided links to their tribal constitution and statutes, and they seem to be ambiguous. In their tribal code, Section 19.2 (6) states:

    "Marriage" shall mean a consent relationship between a man and a woman that becomes a civil contract if entered into by two people capable of making the
    contract. Consent alone does not constitute a marriage. A conventional marriage
    relies upon the issuance of a license and the issuance of a marriage certificate as
    authorized by this Chapter. A common law marriage has no documentary
    requirements.

    Meanwhile, Section 19.5 (2) states:

    All marriages performed other than as provided for in this Chapter, which are
    valid under the laws of the jurisdiction where and when performed, are valid
    within the jurisdiction of the KTTT.

    To me, this sounds like they don't perform SSMs, but they recognize those legally performed elsewhere.

    KTTT Tribal Code: Chapter 19, Domestic Relationships Code

  • 43. ianbirmingham  |  July 14, 2017 at 7:02 am

    #Pride: 'First Gay Muslim Wedding' in the UK https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/society/2017/7/

  • 44. ianbirmingham  |  July 14, 2017 at 7:14 am

    These Middle Eastern Countries Still Criminalize Homosexuality https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/blog/2017/7/8/t

  • 45. VIRick  |  July 14, 2017 at 10:22 am

    "To me, this sounds like they don't perform SSMs, but they recognize those legally performed elsewhere."

    Your little exercise with the three Texas tribes highlights the problem others have encountered in attempting to provide any sort of listing. As you discovered, 2 of 3 do not even provide any information whatsoever, while the third is ambiguous in its language, making it subject to one's own interpretation (but an interpretation with which I would agree).

    Here's what I can add relative to the two Arizona tribes, the Ak-Chin and the Navajo, where same-sex marriage is specifically banned. In both instances, same-sex couples already married off-reservation have been refused recognition of their marriage within the tribe. With the Ak-Chin, it happened to a lesbian couple, while with the Navajo, it happened to several gay couples. As a result, in all instances, these couples in question have chosen to continue living off-reservation.

  • 46. VIRick  |  July 14, 2017 at 12:24 pm

    Washington State Bigot Seeks OK from Supreme Court to Deny Service to Gays

    A Washington State florist who refused to service a gay couple’s wedding for religious reasons is calling on the US Supreme Court to reverse state court rulings that she violated the state’s LGBT non-discrimination law.

    On Friday, 14 July 2017, Barronelle Stutzman, the sole owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland WA, filed the petition for certiorari before the US Supreme Court, asserting the rulings against her violate her freedom of speech and religion.

    Stutzman, who denied floral arrangements in 2013 for the same-sex wedding of Rob Ingersoll and his spouse, Curt Freed, said in a statement her refusal to serve their wedding had nothing to do with them being gay. She's being defended by the ADF,– so whatever. I refuse to quote from their silly line of "defense," which goes on for 54 pages.

    In February 2017, the Washington State Supreme Court decision upheld the ruling against Stutzman by the Benton County Superior Court, which found she violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination, and fined her $1,000. The American Civil Liberties Union and Washington Attorney-General Bob Ferguson led the charges against her, resulting in the penalty.
    http://www.washingtonblade.com/2017/07/14/wash-fl

    One can read all of the blather in its 54-page entirety, in the matter of "Arlene’s Flowers, Inc., and Barronelle Stutzman, Petitioners v. State of Washington, Respondent," per Equality Case Files, here:
    http://files.eqcf.org/cases/arlenes-flowers-cert-….

    *Fresh Reminder to Self* After one's many bouquets of flowers have all withered and died, remember to send them to:

    Arlene's Flowers
    117 Lee Blvd.
    Richland Washington 99352
    And add this note: Love is Not Dead, Hate is!

  • 47. VIRick  |  July 14, 2017 at 1:11 pm

    Argentina: 7th Anniversary of Marriage Equality

    Per Juan Pablo Martínez:

    Hoy, 14 de julio 2017, se cumplen 7 años de la ley de matrimonio igualitario (en Argentina). Comparto foto de las firmas que juntábamos en la Co-ordinadora en Córdoba.
    https://twitter.com/hashtag/MatrimonioIgualitario

    Today, 14 July 2017, marks the 7th anniversary of the marriage equality law (in Argentina). I share a photo of the signatures that we were joined at the Registry Office in Córdoba.

    Note: Juan Pablo Martínez and spouse were among the very first same-sex couples to legally marry in Argentina.

    Per Vicki Freire:‏

    El sábado, 15 de julio 2017, se cumplen 7 años de sanción de matrimonio igualitario. Hacemos intervención en Estación Carlos Jáuregui (a Santa Fe y Pueyrredon, Buenos Aires).
    https://twitter.com/hashtag/matrimonioigualitario

    On Saturday, 15 July 2017, seven years of sanctioned marriage equality will be completed. We will commemorate at Carlos Jáuregui Station (at Santa Fe and Pueyrredon, Buenos Aires).

    Per Claudio Presman:

    Matrimonio igualitario: En Argentina, cada persona construye la familia que quiere. El 15 de julio de 2010, después de casi 14 horas de discusión, los senadores convirtieron en ley el matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo que convirtió a la Argentina en el primer país de América Latina en legalizarlo.
    http://www.telam.com.ar/notas/201707/195399-opini

    Marriage equality: In Argentina, each person builds the family they want. On 15 July 2010, after nearly 14 hours of discussion, the senators made same-sex marriage a law so that Argentina became the first country in Latin America in legalizing it.

    Claudio Presman is the director of the National Institute against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism (INADI).

    Note: The very florid Argentine Spanish, detected in these tweets, always makes me smile.

  • 48. VIRick  |  July 14, 2017 at 1:36 pm

    Puebla: "Action of Unconstitutionality" to Be Ruled Upon in August 2017

    Conclusión: Así, Chiapas se convirtió en el tercer Estado en México que mediante el recurso de "Acción de Inconstitucionalidad," 32/2016, se ve posibilitado para legislar a favor del matrimonio igualitario. Cuando se reanude el periodo de trabajo de la SCJN en agosto, se analizará otro proyecto, bajo el mismo sentido, y que se prevé que la votación sea igual, pero en Puebla.
    http://bordejuridico.com/2017/07/avala-suprema-co

    Conclusion: Thus, Chiapas became the third state in Mexico whereby an "Action of Unconstitutionality," 32/2016, has made it possible to legislate in favor of equal marriage. When the work period of the SCJN is resumed in August, another case will be analyzed, under the same sentiment, with the voting expected to be the same, but against Puebla.

    Note: Despite assurances, Mexico's Supreme Court ended its current session on Thursday, 13 July 2017, without ruling upon the "Action of Unconstitutionality" directed against Puebla. The court's next session begins on 1 August 2017, with the Puebla case, 29/2016, at the very top of their list.

    Next after that: Aguascalientes, 22/2016.

  • 49. allan120102  |  July 14, 2017 at 2:57 pm

    I am still mad that LGBT groups in Durango, Tlaxcala and Veracruz didnt filed action of unconstitutionality when the state congress of each state modify their state civil codes to prohibit child marriage and didnt legalize ssm as jurisprudence established. Anyways Legislators in Guerrero are dragging to prohibit child marriage because of the same reason as they dont want to legalize ssm and they know that if they prohibit child marriage there is a chance a group could file an action of unconstitutionality like it happen in Jalisco, Puebla and Chiapas.

  • 50. VIRick  |  July 14, 2017 at 4:00 pm

    Agreed on all 3, as Durango, Veracruz, and Tlaxcala should all have had "Actions of Unconstitutionality" filed against them.

    On the other hand, I am glad we got the ones we did. Quite frankly, much of it depends upon the capabilities of the leadership of the rights groups in question, as well as the quality of the CEDH in the state in question. Not everyone is a legal genius, with law degrees and an endless quantity of spare time on their hands.

    We here have figured out the surest method in overturning the ban against same-sex marriage to be through the filing of an "Action of Unconstitutionality" against the specific state legislature after they have made some other change to the marriage process within their Family Code. Still, we can not assume that this procedure is self-evident to everyone else. Mexican law is insanely complex, with the dragged-out court process almost beyond hopeless. Many people in Mexico consider anything concerning the courts to be a complete waste of time and effort, and will quickly point to the recent Yucatán case as proof.

    As a result, to these others, the more direct (and more traditional) route is to appeal to the state congresses in question to change the law,– in person and in their faces, with lots of noise. I mean, that still is an alternate possibility, even if it not overly practical, given the fact that PAN has too much control in too many of the remaining state congresses. But this method appeals to those who have more of a political sense than a legal one. It also appeals to those who simply enjoy posturing.

    Besides, it would have been difficult to go against the wonderful state congresswoman in Tlaxcala who poured her heart into the civil unions bill covering same-sex couples, and managed to get it passed on the very last day of the last session in 2016. Legally-speaking, I know it's "not good enough," but it's better than nothing. She should be commended for doing her best, in that she performed a minor miracle, practically single-handedly. Plus, we may have a second chance in Veracruz, where they are likely to follow Tlaxcala's example, and approve a civil unions type of bill for same-sex couples. Again, legally-speaking, I know it's "not good enough," but this time, they really do need to file their "Action of Unconstitutionality" within that 30-day grace period,– and stop their posturing.

  • 51. VIRick  |  July 14, 2017 at 6:10 pm

    Marriage Equality: The View from San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas

    En San Cristóbal se han dado dos matrimonios entre parejas del mismo sexo debido a que interpusieron un amparo, antecedentes que fueron fundamentales para que la Suprema Corte declarara algo inconstitucional negar el matrimonio civil.

    Será hasta a mediados de agosto cuando una pareja del mismo sexo podrá acudir al registro civil (sin amparo) para casarse, porque (la Suprema Corte) falta cumplir con el trámite de notificación al Congreso local y éste último al registro civil.
    http://www.nvinoticias.com/nota/64227/matrimonio-

    In San Cristóbal, there have been two marriages between same-sex couples, owing to their having filed an amparo, antecedents which were fundamental to the Supreme Court's finding of something unconstitutional in the denial of civil marriage.

    It will take until mid-August before a same-sex couple can go to the civil registry (without amparo) to get married, because they (the Supreme Court) have to comply with the procedure of notification to the local Congress, and then the latter to the civil registry.

    All told, prior to the Supreme Court ruling, throughout Chiapas state, there were 35 same-sex marriages performed, all following the issuance of amparo judgments, with most being granted in the state capital, Tuxtla Gutiérrez, or by the Supreme Court itself.

    San Cristóbal de las Casas, one of the larger, historic, elaborately-colorful colonial towns in Chiapas, all cobblestones and red-tile roofs, and home to the very traditional Tzotzil people, is perched at 7200 feet, way up in the central highlands, not overly far from the Guatemala border.

  • 52. VIRick  |  July 14, 2017 at 7:25 pm

    Middle Eastern Homosexuality/Marriage Equality Summary

    Where homosexual acts can be punished by death:
    Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Sudan, Afghanistan

    Where homosexual acts are illegal:
    Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, South Sudan, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Gaza (males only)

    Where homosexual acts are legal:
    Iraq, Turkey, Jordan, Bahrain (adults aged over 21 only), Lebanon, West Bank

    Same-sex marriage is not legal anywhere in the Middle East.
    https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/blog/2017/7/8/t

    Unfortunately, they forgot to list Syria.

  • 53. ianbirmingham  |  July 14, 2017 at 7:32 pm

    Syria summary:
    Same-sex sexual activity legal No
    a) 3 Years Imprisonment (Syrian Arab Republic)
    b) Execution (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant)
    Equal age of consent No
    Anti-discrimination laws in employment only No
    Anti-discrimination laws in the provision of goods and services No
    Anti-discrimination laws in all other areas (incl. indirect discrimination, hate speech) No
    Same-sex marriages No
    Recognition of same-sex couples No
    Stepchild adoption by same-sex couples No
    Joint adoption by same-sex couples No
    LGBT people allowed to serve openly in the military No
    Right to change legal gender No
    Access to IVF for lesbians No
    Commercial surrogacy for gay male couples No
    MSMs allowed to donate blood No
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Syri

  • 54. ianbirmingham  |  July 14, 2017 at 7:36 pm

    Israel was also omitted. Israel summary:
    Same-sex sexual activity legal Yes (Since 1963 de facto, since 1988 de jure)
    Equal age of consent Yes
    Anti-discrimination laws in employment Yes (Since 1992)
    Anti-discrimination laws in the provision of goods and services Yes (Since 1997)
    Same-sex marriage legal/recognised No/Yes (Same-sex marriage from abroad recognised since 2006; civil unions similar to marriage for irreligious couples since 2010)
    Recognition of same-sex relationships (unregistered cohabitation) Yes (Since 1994)
    Stepchild adoption by same sex couples Yes (Since 2005)
    Joint adoption by same sex couples Yes (Since 2008)
    Access to IVF for lesbian couples Yes
    Commercial surrogacy for gay male couples Yes
    LGBT people allowed to serve openly in the military Yes (Since 1993)
    Conversion therapy banned by law Yes/No (Practice of conversion therapy in the public health system banned since 2014)
    Right to change legal gender Yes
    MSMs allowed to donate blood, Females who have sex with MSMs and WSWs allowed to donate blood Yes/No (Since 2017; one year deferral period)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Isra

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