Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

BREAKING: Ban on transgender military servicemembers blocked by court

Transgender Rights

The Pentagon. Attribution: Wikipedia
The Pentagon. Attribution: Wikipedia
A federal district court has blocked President Trump’s policy barring transgender people from serving in the military:

(WASHINGTON) — A federal court in Washington is barring President Donald Trump from changing the government’s policy on military service by transgender people.
[…]
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly wrote Monday that transgender members of the military who had sued over the change were likely to win their lawsuit and barred the Trump administration from reversing course.

Equality Case Files quotes from the ruling: “The effect of the Court’s Order is to revert to the status quo with regard to accession and retention that existed before the issuance of the Presidential Memorandum—that is, the retention and accession policies established in the June 30, 2016 Directive-type Memorandum as modified by Secretary of Defense James Mattis on June 30, 2017.”

You can read the full opinion here. We’ll have more when we read it.

46 Comments Leave a Comment

  • 1. JayJonson  |  October 30, 2017 at 10:49 am

    Excellent ruling!

  • 2. guitaristbl  |  October 30, 2017 at 11:37 am

    It is definitely not a good day for Trump today with this and federal charges against Mannafort thus it is a great day for the rest of the US :)

  • 3. davepCA  |  October 30, 2017 at 3:04 pm

    Oh hell yeah. This is the best Monday in a long time…..

  • 4. VIRick  |  October 30, 2017 at 3:19 pm

    Federal DC Judge Blocks Assh-Ole-in-Charge from Enforcing Transgender Military Ban

    Today, 30 October 2017, in "Doe v. Trump," a federal judge in DC has blocked Trump’s ban on transgender military service, as litigation against it moves through the judiciary, allowing transgender troops currently serving in the armed forces to breath a sigh of relief.

    In a 76-page decision, US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, of the federal District Court for DC, a Clinton appointee, restores the military policy on transgender troops to a point in time before Trump’s directive, under the likely assumption his action violates the right to due process under the Fifth Amendment.

    “The court finds that a number of factors — including the sheer breadth of the exclusion ordered by the directives, the unusual circumstances surrounding the president’s announcement of them, the fact that the reasons given for them do not appear to be supported by any facts, and the recent rejection of those reasons by the military itself — strongly suggest that plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment claim is meritorious,” Kollar-Kotelly writes.

    The preliminary injunction restores the military’s policy on transgender troops to the policy as set out in the memo Defense Secretary James Mattis issued on 30 June 2017. That memo allowed openly transgender people in the military to continue to serve without fear of discharge, but continued until at least 1 January 2018 a ban on enlistments of openly transgender people in the armed forces, pending a new review.

    Kollar-Kotelly cites as evidence that the transgender ban was driven by animus, and not by military effectiveness, Trump’s decision to announce it unexpectedly in July:

    “[T]he president abruptly announced, via Twitter — without any of the formality or deliberative processes that generally accompany the development and announcement of major policy changes that will gravely affect the lives of many Americans — that all transgender individuals would be precluded from participating in the military in any capacity,” the order says. “These circumstances provide additional support for plaintiffs’ claim that the decision to exclude transgender individuals was not driven by genuine concerns regarding military efficacy.”
    http://www.washingtonblade.com/2017/10/30/judge-b

  • 5. davepCA  |  October 30, 2017 at 4:04 pm

    I'm reading it now – and something that just made me smile…. The Prop 8 ruling was perhaps a bit of a letdown in some ways because SCOTUS didn't address the heart of the issue and instead ruled on the issue of whether defendant intervenors had standing to appeal (they don't). So it seemed that after all that work and thrashing, Prop 8 would probably never be of much use as Precedent on issues related to things like LGBT rights, Equal Protection, Due Process, etc.

    But – look at page 71 of 76. This injunction cites Perry v. Brown / Hollingsworth v. Perry as precedent regarding the difference between a measure which withdraws rights versus merely not previously recognizing those rights (Prop 8 did the former).

    The point in this case being that Drumpf's tweet didn't merely 'restore status quo' by once again disallowing transgendered people to serve, as had been the case at one time, it caused HARM by withdrawing a right which had been previously recognized, and which was made even more harmful since people had now come out as transgender while in the military, with the understanding that this was now safe to do.

  • 6. VIRick  |  October 30, 2017 at 6:59 pm

    Dave, excellent find, citing "Hollingsworth v. Perry" as precedent regarding the difference between a measure which withdraws rights (as did both Prop 8 and the Trump transgender troop ban) versus one merely not previously recognizing those rights, as this point will push the "Hollingsworth" precedent onto center-stage in blocking the stripping away of previously-recognized rights, now that that appears to be what the Assh-Ole-in-Charge is intent on doing.

    This ruling reasserts precisely what you have always asserted; namely, that once granted and recognized, rights can not be taken away

  • 7. VIRick  |  October 30, 2017 at 7:03 pm

    Just-Seen Halloween T-Shirt Sighting:

    "For Halloween, I was planning on going as a Trump Voter, but couldn't get my head that far up my ass."

  • 8. VIRick  |  October 30, 2017 at 8:22 pm

    India: Goa Celebrates its First Gay Pride Parade

    The Indian coastal state and former Portuguese colony of Goa saw the launch of the first ever Goa Pride celebrations. Named the Rainbow Pride Walk 2017, a group of LGBT activists gathered in the state’s capital of Panjim to raise awareness of LGBT issues.

    “We hope this walk will get rid of homophobia in some way,” event organizer Alexander Fernandes told "It’s Goa." “We want people to know that we are not harmful or ‘bad people.’ We deserve respect like anyone else, and that we too have human rights.”
    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/10/30/goa-celebrat

  • 9. VIRick  |  October 30, 2017 at 8:38 pm

    Mississippi: Judge Opens New Path to Challenge Anti-LGBT Law, HB1523

    In the aftermath of a higher court overturning his decision, a federal judge who ruled against a Mississippi “religious freedom” law enabling sweeping anti-LGBT discrimination has opened up to a new path for a legal challenge to the statute. On Friday, 27 October 2017, US District Judge Carlton Reeves, an Obama appointee, issued the order in the case against Mississippi’s HB 1523 filed by the Campaign for Southern Equality and two same-sex couples in the state.

    The order lifts a stay in the case, allowing up to five written interrogatories to identify which of the 82 clerk’s offices in Mississippi have sought to recuse themselves from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples under the law and the process by which they intend to handle those recusals. Additionally, the order grants the state until 13 November, or a time until the parties may agree, to respond or object to the written interrogatories.

    If a Mississippi clerk was found to have recused themselves from issuing marriage licenses or if any such recusal impaired the ability of a same-sex couple to obtain a marriage license, that could form the basis for a new challenge to HB 1523.

    In addition, on Monday, 30 October 2017, The Campaign for Southern Equality — represented by New York lesbian attorney Robbie Kaplan — filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court urging justices to review the case, "CSE/Barber v. Bryant."

    “No one in this country should have to live their day-to-day life under circumstances in which their own government has officially designated them to be ‘outsiders’ for purposes of state law. Laws like HB 1523 that establish state-sanctioned religious beliefs are exactly what the First Amendment was designed to prohibit,” Kaplan said in a statement. “The founders in their wisdom intended for the protections of the Bill of Rights to have real meaning."
    http://www.washingtonblade.com/2017/10/30/judge-o

  • 10. JayJonson  |  October 31, 2017 at 5:36 am

    I am glad that Judge Kollar-Kotelly cited Hollingsworth as precedent here, but I am surprised that she did and I wonder whether it is appropriate to cite Hollingsworth as precedent. My understanding is that when SCOTUS ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to appeal, the appellate ruling was voided and the controlling decision in the Prop 8 cases became Judge Walker's decision, which did not focus on the question of withdrawing rights but much more forcefully affirmed marriage as a fundamental right available to same-sex as well as opposite-sex couples. Judge Kollar-Kotelly may find the reasoning in Hollingsworth compelling, but Hollingsworth, strictly speaking, is not actually a precedent. However, she goes on to cite Romer and Windsor as also focusing on withdrawing rights from targeted groups, and they are unquestionably relevant precedents.

  • 11. JayJonson  |  October 31, 2017 at 5:42 am

    Love Judge Reeves. I hope that when the Democrats take power again (assuming our democracy remains intact), he will be considered for a seat on SCOTUS.
    http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/claude_s

  • 12. Elihu_Bystander  |  October 31, 2017 at 9:50 am

    Here is a link to the Agreed Order
    http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/documents/2017/ju

  • 13. guitaristbl  |  October 31, 2017 at 11:16 am

    I like him as well but I think they should focus on appointing younger judges on all levels. Reeves will be close to 60 at best when democrats get to appoint a justice. Although I think the best way out for Dems when they retake power would be to expand the bench to 11-12 justices to render Gorsuch especially meaningless and that would give space for more lenient age-wise appointments maybe.

  • 14. Elihu_Bystander  |  October 31, 2017 at 12:52 pm

    "(E)xpand the bench to 11-12 justices…"

    That would require a constitutional amendment; not likely. Second there is a need to keep an odd number of justices to avoid tie decisions.

  • 15. VIRick  |  October 31, 2017 at 3:16 pm

    Note pertaining to the appeal in "CSE/Barber v. Bryant:"

    Per Equality Case Files:

    The CSE plaintiffs filed their Petition for Certiorari on 30 October 2017. Their petition is here:
    http://files.eqcf.org/cases/cse-cert-petition/

    The Barber plaintiffs had previously filed their Petition for Certiorari on 10 October 2017, and is here:
    http://files.eqcf.org/cases/17-547-cert-petition/

  • 16. JayJonson  |  October 31, 2017 at 4:28 pm

    Why would that require a constitutional amendment? The number of justices is not specified int he constitution, and historically the number has ranged from 6 to 10. In the 1930s, FDR attempted to expand the number of justices to 15, but the attempt precipitated a great backlash, so it is probably not a good idea to try to "pack the Court," but it would not be unconstitutional per se.

  • 17. bayareajohn  |  October 31, 2017 at 10:51 pm

    If it were easy to do, the GOP and Trump would have already done it.

  • 18. guitaristbl  |  November 1, 2017 at 5:02 am

    I didnt say it will be easy but due to GOP obstructionism during the Obama years Trump gets to fill dozens of positions in district and appeal courts. Dems have to do something or face decades of courts dominated by extremists.

  • 19. allan120102  |  November 1, 2017 at 4:19 pm

    PAN deputy in Zacatecas block ssm bill fron being Discuss. https://meganoticias.mx/zacatecas/ultimo-minuto-z

  • 20. allan120102  |  November 1, 2017 at 4:20 pm

    Three months after the Mexican supreme court struck down the gay marriage ban in Puebla and all local registries refuse to issue ssm licenses. http://desdepuebla.com/todos-los-juzgados-de-lo-c

  • 21. VIRick  |  November 1, 2017 at 6:43 pm

    Louisiana Appeals Court: Governor Cannot Protect LGBT State Workers

    Per Equality Case Files:

    In a ruling issued on 1 November 2017 in the case, "Louisiana Department of Justice and Jeff Landry v. John Bel Edwards," Louisiana's First Circuit Court of Appeals stated, in effect: "Gov. John Bel Edwards cannot protect the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people working for state government from discrimination, harassment, and firing."

    The decision comes after the three-judge panel reviewed Edwards' executive order protecting LGBT state workers and contractors to determine whether it is constitutional.

    The opinion is here: http://bit.ly/2lG97Kd

  • 22. scream4ever  |  November 1, 2017 at 7:27 pm

    Yah I don't understand this as there was previously an order some administrations ago, although that only dealt with sexual orientation.

  • 23. bythesea66  |  November 1, 2017 at 7:30 pm

    It would be very controversial, but not unconstitutional. Still don't see it happening though.

  • 24. bythesea66  |  November 1, 2017 at 7:32 pm

    It was considered under FDR and would have been constitutional, but extremely provocative politically (so much so that as shameless as the GOP is they haven't yet proposed doing it now.

  • 25. VIRick  |  November 1, 2017 at 7:59 pm

    “No Dress Code Required," A Grueling Emotional Saga About Gay Marriage in Mexico

    This documentary film, "No Dress Code Required," already released in Mexico, is scheduled to be released for viewing by audiences in the USA on 3 November 2017. Here's a review:

    Gay couples’ right to marry has increasingly gone global, but even in the two dozen or so countries (mostly in Europe and the Americas) where it is legal, couples still find that acceptance within their communities can be elusive, as it was for two married Mexican men, Victor and Fernando, who run a beauty salon in Baja California.

    Cristina Herrera Borquez’s elegant documentary film, "No Dress Code Required," is a masterful, layered story of star-crossed lovers. Mexico’s Supreme Court (first) declared the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples as unconstitutional in 2010 (a matter which eventually became binding jurisprudence in July 2015); the couple could have married in Mexico City, where licenses are more easily obtained, but they wanted to pave the way for same-sex marriage at home. Like many municipalities that have balked, their hometown, Mexicali, resorted to a (7-month) Kafkaesque series of bureaucratic technicalities to skirt the ruling.

    The film is a grueling legal and emotional saga. Borquez deftly weaves details of the legal case with Victor’s and Fernando’s struggles as boys and young men, each from poor families surviving within Mexico’s Catholic, machismo culture. “You might see this fight as something happening from June until today, but that’s not true — that’s not true,” Victor insists. “It is a fight that I’ve fought since I knew I was gay.”
    https://www.villagevoice.com/2017/11/01/no-dressc

    Note: Víctor Manuel Aguirre and Fernando Urías Amparo were the very first same-sex couple to civilly marry in the state of Baja California, and did so on 17 January 2015. Here is the opening salvo in that epic journey, as taken from my archives:

    Mexico: Baja California Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

    Late Wednesday, 25 June 2014, (Victor's reference to "June," up above), Mexico's Supreme Court allowed a same-sex couple to marry in Baja California, the state immediately south of San Diego that occupies the northern half of the Baja California peninsula. According to a news release from the court, the ruling stated that a provision in the Baja California State Constitution limiting marriage to heterosexual couples is unconstitutional, (the second such ruling against a state, after Oaxaca, to eventually comprise the five needed to establish the binding jurisprudence).

    "Excluding couples of the same sex goes against the right of persons to self-determination and for every individual's personality to develop freely," the statement said. "In addition, it implicitly creates a violation to the principle of equality, because it gives a different treatment to homosexual couples with respect to heterosexual couples."

    The ruling allows the marriage of a Baja California couple, Víctor Manuel Aguirre and Fernando Urías Amparo, who were denied a marriage license at Mexicali City Hall a year ago (in mid-2013). After a federal district court in Baja California sided with the couple, the state legislature appealed the ruling to Mexico's Supreme Court.

  • 26. guitaristbl  |  November 2, 2017 at 6:16 am

    Louisiana courts. Enough said I think.

  • 27. JayJonson  |  November 2, 2017 at 7:08 am

    It seems to me that there is a federal issue involved here as well as the state issue ruled on by the Appellate Court. Federal courts have repeatedly ruled that government employees are protected from arbitrary discrimination. There is a huge amount of case law going back to the 1970s that distinguish between private employers and public employers. I hope that if the governor's appeal of this ruling is denied by the Louisiana Supreme Court (as it may well be), he takes the issue to a federal district court. Failing that, state employees should be assured that if they can sue in federal court if they experience discrimination.

  • 28. allan120102  |  November 2, 2017 at 3:51 pm

    Candidates for deputies in Honduraa are now openly supporting ssm. Its important to mention as Honduras is one of the most conservative countries in Central America and I may say latin America. http://www.elheraldo.hn/pais/1122122-466/aspirant

  • 29. VIRick  |  November 2, 2017 at 8:19 pm

    Bermuda: Consultation Begins on Domestic Partnership Bill

    Per Rex Wockner:

    Minister of Home Affairs Walton Brown is seeking the public’s feedback regarding a current draft bill on the topic of Domestic Partnerships, which the Government said will “essentially replace same-sex marriage with a domestic partnership arrangement which can be entered into by both same-sex and heterosexual couples.”

    The Bill, which is available below, will be posted on the Government website, and the Government said “members of the public are invited to send comments and questions to the following email address: domesticpartnership@gov.bm.”

    “There will be a two week public consultation period which will begin today, 2 November 2017, and conclude on Wednesday, 15 November,” a spokesperson said.

    The Government said, “It should be noted that all same-sex couples who are already married will not have this designation taken away from them.”

    The draft legislation in its entirety can be found here:
    http://bernews.com/2017/11/consultation-begins-do

  • 30. VIRick  |  November 3, 2017 at 1:01 pm

    Maryland: Plaintiffs Ask that Their Anti-Transgender Suit Be Dropped

    Per Equality Case Files:

    On 2 November 2017, in "Smith v. Board of Education of Frederick County MD," the federal case in which a high school student and her mother are suing to block the school's transgender student-inclusive policies, the plaintiffs are now asking to voluntarily dismiss the case saying:

    "Plaintiff minor came home from school in tears the day intervenor’s motion to intervene was in the newspaper because intervenor’s attorneys allegedly said intervenor was trying to “stop members of the community”, meaning minor Plaintiff, “from attempting to disrupt his and other trans students’ education by taking away their right to be treated with dignity…”. Frederick News Post, Oct. 20, 2017.

    "Plaintiff minor treats all people with dignity, and has never been and is in fact not discriminatory, and has instead sought to defend and protect her own privacy and speech rights. However, she does not believe that she can continue to prosecute her case without an increase in anxiety and fear of loss of her privacy."

    The original complaint is here: http://bit.ly/2yCGjGY
    Defendant Board of Education's Motion to Dismiss: http://bit.ly/2grxtSM
    J.V.K.'s Motion to Intervene as Defendant: http://bit.ly/2yCp6vK
    Plaintiff's Motion for Leave for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice:
    http://files.eqcf.org/cases/117-cv-02302-36/

  • 31. VIRick  |  November 3, 2017 at 2:31 pm

    Chiapas: Same-Sex Marriages Are Now Legal Throughout Chiapas

    Chiapas: Ya Son Legales las Bodas entre Personas del Mismo Sexo en Todo Chiapas

    Tuxtla Gutiérrez, 3 de noviembre 2017:

    Desde el día 30 de octubre 2017 en Chiapas ya son legales las bodas entre personas del mismo sexo sin que se necesite de un amparo, confirmó la oficial del registro civil, Guadalupe Ramírez, oficial del registro civil número uno en San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas.

    “Efectivamente a partir de este 30 de octubre 2017, podemos realizar personas de ambos sexos, no solo en san Cristóbal si no en todo Chiapas, ya sin un amparo, totalmente podemos darle la información y a su vez realizar las bodas de estos matrimonios. Los requisitos son los mismos de matrimonios heterosexuales: actas de nacimiento IFE, y sus 4 testigos.”

    Carlos Díaz y Jorge Iván García González se convirtieron en la primer pareja gay en celebrar la primera boda en San Cristóbal de Las Casas (sin amparo) el cual fue el parteaguas para que a partir de este 30 octubre en todo Chiapas ya sea oficial. De acuerdo al artículo nueve, fracción doce, todas las personas en Chiapas del mismo sexo podrán contraer matrimonio sin fuerza de meter un amparo.
    https://meganoticias.mx/tuxtla-gutierrez/noticias

    In Chiapas, from 30 October 2017, marriages between same-sex couples became legal without the need of an amparo, confirmed the official of the civil registry, Guadalupe Ramírez, officer of registry number one in San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas.

    "Effectively from 30 October 2017, we can permit same-sex couples of both sexes, not only in San Cristóbal but in all of Chiapas, through providing them the information and then in turn perform the weddings of these marriages, now without an amparo. The requirements are the same as for heterosexual marriages: IFE birth certificates, and their 4 witnesses."

    Carlos Díaz and Jorge Iván García González became the first gay couple to celebrate the first marriage in San Cristóbal de Las Casas (without amparo) which was the breakthrough, so that from 30 October 2017 throughout Chiapas the change has become official. According to article nine, section twelve, all same-sex couples in Chiapas may marry without the need to file an amparo.

    Note: San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, is the closest city of any consequence to the Guatemala border along the highland highway.

    Note to Wikipedia editors: For Chiapas, from the above-account, the Date of Enactment of the 11 July 2017 Supreme Court ruling is 30 October 2017, and NOT that of 11 July 2017, the date of the Supreme Court ruling itself. In Mexico, Supreme Court rulings ALWAYS have a later date for their enactment, partly because they are not even official on the date of their announcement, but rather, only become so from their date of publication in the official gazette, 7-10 working days later. Plus, following publication, there's a whole complex, multi-level written notification and reverse acknowledgment procedure which then must be followed prior to their actual enactment. We have the same situation with Puebla, whose Date of Enactment has yet to occur, and is NOT that of 1 August 2017, the date of the Supreme Court ruling.

    Also, based on the announcement quoted 3 posts below, Baja California needs to be re-colored blue to indicate that marriage equality is now legal there statewide.

  • 32. Rakihi  |  November 3, 2017 at 3:10 pm

    From Denver 7 News

    "Mom says Masterpiece Cakeshop refused to put rainbows on daughter's birthday cake"
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_FAZ_z1aVM

  • 33. VIRick  |  November 3, 2017 at 6:09 pm

    LGBT Migrants on Increase through Southern Mexican Border

    En Aumento, Migrantes LGBT por la Frontera Sur Mexicana

    Per Sonora Pride:

    This is a long article (in Spanish) about the ever-increasing number of LGBT persons, particularly transgender, fleeing Central America to Mexico (often hoping to continue further north to the USA or Canada). Unfortunately, the source will not allow me to do the usual copy-and-paste, but at minimum, note the photos of the large wall murals in Suchiate, Cuidad Hidalgo, and Tapachula, just inside Mexico's southernmost point with Guatemala, complete with maps and images of fleeing refugees, placed there by the UNHCR, the United Nations High Commission on Refugees:

    "Si tienes miedo de regresar a tu país porque tu vida corre peligro, solicita protección como refugiado en México."

    "If you are afraid of returning to your country because your life is in danger, request protection as a refugee in Mexico."

    To the right-hand side of the mural, it directs one's attention to the fact that the refugee office in Suchiate is 2 1/2 blocks from the river (with the Río Suchiate being the border here), the informal boat-ride across costing 30 pesos mexicanos or 10 quetzales guatemaltecos.
    https://lasillarota.com/frontera-sur-mexico-escap

  • 34. VIRick  |  November 3, 2017 at 10:03 pm

    For a fuller explanation, see my note below, directed to the Wikipedia editors, for both Chiapas and Puebla, with regard to the difference in dates between the date of a Mexican Supreme Court ruling and the date of its actual enactment as having the force of law:

    For Chiapas, from the above-account, the Date of Enactment of the 11 July 2017 Supreme Court ruling is 30 October 2017, and NOT that of 11 July 2017, the date of the Supreme Court ruling itself. In Mexico, Supreme Court rulings ALWAYS have a later date for their enactment, partly because they are not even official on the date of their announcement, but rather, only become so from their date of publication in the official gazette, 7-10 working days later. Plus, following publication, there's a whole complex, multi-level written notification and reverse acknowledgment procedure which then must be followed before their actual enactment. We have the same situation with Puebla, whose Date of Enactment has yet to occur, and is NOT that of 1 August 2017, the date of the Supreme Court ruling.

  • 35. FredDorner  |  November 3, 2017 at 11:14 pm

    The only possible appeal after the Louisiana Supreme Court would be to SCOTUS, but given that this is really a state issue I doubt they'd grant cert.

    Note that the legal issue wasn't really about employment protections per se but about whether the governor could issue that order which goes beyond the scope of state law. Louisiana governors have a history of overreach with EOs (even when it's the right thing to do as in this case).

    I also suspect that Bel could have done it if he had limited the order to being the policy for employees of the executive branch, and not extended it to state contracts.

  • 36. FredDorner  |  November 3, 2017 at 11:18 pm

    So…..a step backwards and one which doesn't even resolve the legal issue which caused the court to rule for marriage equality.

  • 37. JayJonson  |  November 4, 2017 at 8:08 am

    Yes, an excellent point about the extension to state contracts. Governor Blanco's executive order was limited to employees of the executive branch.

  • 38. FredDorner  |  November 4, 2017 at 1:23 pm

    After re-reading your original comment I now understand your point about filing a separate federal claim about arbitrary discrimination. I think the problem would be a lack of standing for Gov Edwards, but a state employee who had been unjustly fired could file suit..

    Of course that wouldn't happen under Edwards anyway.

  • 39. VIRick  |  November 4, 2017 at 2:54 pm

    Baja California: State Government Finally Recognizes Same-Sex Civil Marriage

    Baja California: Reconocimiento de Matrimonio Civil Igualitario por el Gobierno del Estado

    Per Secretaría Nacional de Diversidad Sexual del Partido de la Revolución Democrática:

    Ciudad de México, 4 de noviembre 2017 – La decisión de las autoridades del gobierno de Baja California, a través del Registro Civil, de reconocer jurídicamente el matrimonio civil igualitario, sin la necesidad de recurrir a la vía del amparo, sin duda es una aleccionadora contribución a las causas del movimiento de la diversidad sexual en México.

    De acuerdo con el oficio 3153/RC/2017, de 3 de noviembre 2017, expedido por la Secretaría de Gobierno, en los cinco municipios de Baja California – Tijuana, Ensenada, Tecate, Mexicali, y Playas de Rosarito – las parejas conformadas por personas del mismo sexo cuya voluntad sea unirse en matrimonio civil, podrán acudir a las oficinas del Registro Civil para acceder a este derecho, mismo que hasta hace unas semanas les era denegado, en detrimento del ejercicio de su ciudadanía.
    http://diversidadsexual.prd.org.mx/index.php/2-pr

    Mexico City, 4 November 2017 – The decision of the authorities of the Baja California government, through the Civil Registry, to legally recognize civil marriage equality, without the need to resort to filing for an amparo, undoubtedly, is a major contribution to the cause of the movement of sexual diversity in Mexico.

    According to official letter 3153/RC/2017, of 3 November 2017, issued by the Government Secretariat, in the five municipalities of Baja California – Tijuana, Ensenada, Tecate, Mexicali, and Playas de Rosarito – couples formed by persons of the same sex whose will is to join in civil marriage, may go to the offices of the Civil Registry to access this right, a right that until a few weeks ago was denied, to the detriment of the exercise of their citizenship.

    Note: Given that the 5 named municipios comprise the entire state of Baja California, this official decision of the Government Secretariat actually has statewide application.

    Per Latitud Gay:

    Es Oficial: Matrimonio Igualitario en Baja California, Felicidades.
    https://twitter.com/LatitudGay/status/92676406687

    It Is Official: Marriage Equality in Baja California, Congratulations.

  • 40. allan120102  |  November 4, 2017 at 11:25 pm

    Thanks Rick I am not sure if to count BC as the 11 or 12 state to legalize ssm as Puebla ssm ruling has not taken effect thanks to congress and the civil registry of the state doing everything in its power to slow the process as much as they can. Anyhow I am happy BC has stop fighting a lost cause as we all know ,one by one the states of Mexico wil legalize ssm thanks to the supreme court.

    Anyhow we need to look at Zacatecas on Monday as ssm is suppose to be discuss on Monday I hope we can get it done there and not have a bad experience like we got with Durango on February or SLP of last year.

  • 41. allan120102  |  November 4, 2017 at 11:34 pm

    I need to say though that after Tijuana decide to abide by the the supreme court ruling instead of local authorities and start to marry ssc without amparos, the civil registry in the state would have grudgingly comply as Tijuana I believe have more than half of the state population. Btw Tijuana municipality is the third most populous of all municipalities in mexico behind one in the state of Mexico and a borough in Mexico city. http://www.frontera.info/EdicionEnLinea/Notas/Not

  • 42. allan120102  |  November 5, 2017 at 12:25 am

    I found a page where it narrates all what it has to be so BC could finally legalize ssm. http://alfamedios.com/matrimonio-igualitario-una-

  • 43. JayJonson  |  November 5, 2017 at 7:13 am

    Better than attempting to expand SCOTUS, which would provoke charges of "packing the court," the Dems could add seats on the appellate courts, some of which are clearly overworked.A by-product of that would be to decrease the influence of the judges appointed by Trump (and the Federalist Society). Of course, this assumes that the Democrats win control of both the Senate and the Presidency.

  • 44. VIRick  |  November 5, 2017 at 8:36 am

    …. Tijuana municipality is the third most populous of all municipalities in Mexico ….with more than half of the state's population."

    True enough, and the Municipio de Ensenada must be the largest in terms of geographical area, given that it covers an astounding 80% of the entire land area of the state of Baja California, much of it uninhabited desert stretching for miles and miles down both sides of the peninsula, all the way to the state line with Baja California Sur.

    Still, we must remember: The state legislature has not yet changed the state law. Instead, the Government Secretariat has finally set aside that very state law, already declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on multiple occasions, a point that I have always argued is do-able and legal in Mexico, and with its directive, has entirely focused, instead, upon that wording of the multiple rulings of the Supreme Court, as per the judicial reforms of 2011.

    This is actually a very progressive (yet tardy and inevitable) move, one which must be done by the remaining states which have not yet changed their state law to legalize same-sex marriage. Changing the state law is not necessary, although the "old-guard" will argue differently. The judicial reforms of 2011 deliberately attempted to follow the procedure in the USA whereby a Supreme Court ruling of unconstitutionality is all that is necessary, a point which has had very uneven implementation.

    Let's hope that this directive of the Government Secretariat of Baja California will finally be followed by similar directives from other Government Secretariats in other states.

    Note to Wikipedia editors: This decision in Baja California is almost identical to that taken in Quintana Roo by that state's Secretary of State (the individual who is head of the Government Secretariat).

  • 45. VIRick  |  November 5, 2017 at 8:54 am

    Allan, that is an amazingly complete summary article, with today's date, 5 November 2017, not only detailing the extensive past legal history leading up to the decision on the part of the Government Secretariat to implement the legalization of same-sex marriage in Baja California, but it then goes on to detail the precise steps to be followed by same-sex couples who wish to take advantage of the change, with one set of instructions for couples who are both Mexican citizens, and another for couples wherein which one is a foreign citizen.

    Way at the tail end, it further announces that COCUT, the Tijuana-based LGBT rights group, plans to host two massive same-sex wedding ceremonies in Tijuana, one on 14 February 2018, and the second on 17 May 2018.

  • 46. VIRick  |  November 5, 2017 at 2:48 pm

    Yes, on Monday, 6 November 2017, the justice and human rights committee of the Zacatecas state congress will finally analyze the proposal to legalize same-sex marriage within that state, as first presented by María Elena Ortega in August.
    https://www.imagenzac.com.mx/nota/133471-La-Legis

    Count Baja California as jurisdiction #13 (of 32) with marriage equality (officially from 3 November 2017), with the caveat that Puebla, #12, has not yet implemented the Supreme Court's 1 August 2017 ruling against it, bearing in mind the long length of time it took (from 11 July 2017 until 30 October) for Chiapas, #11, to finally implement an identical Supreme Court decision against it.

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