Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Open thread

Community/Meta Discrimination

This is an open thread. We’ll post any breaking news.

– Via Equality Case Files, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has announced its final rule regarding so-called “conscience” protections in health care. The rule could lead to discrimination in health care against LGBT families. The final rule, and more, is posted at the link.

25 Comments Leave a Comment

  • 1. VIRick  |  May 2, 2019 at 6:44 pm

    San Luís Potosí Congress: Human Rights Committee Approves Marriage Equality Bill

    Per Luis Guzmán:

    Se aprobó en la Comisión de Derechos Humanos del Congreso de San Luis Potosí el dictamen para reconocer el matrimonio igualitario.
    https://twitter.com/luisigg

    The draft proposal to recognize marriage equality was approved in the Human Rights Commission of the Congress of San Luis Potosí.

    Per Gonzalo Kinich:

    Se acaba de aprobar el dictamen referente a la iniciativa de ley sobre el matrimonio igualitario. Hoy, el 2 de mayo 2019, se aprueba en comisiones matrimonio igualitario en el Congreso de San Luís Potosí, 4 votos a favor (Morena y PT), 3 en contra (PAN y Nueva Alianza). Pasa al pleno para votación. La iniciativa es del diputado, Pedro Carrizales, "El Mijis."
    https://twitter.com/Kiwi_lloron

    The draft proposal regarding the initiative of law on equal marriage has just been approved. Today, 2 May 2019, marriage equality is approved in committee in the Congress of San Luis Potosí, 4 votes in favor (Morena and PT), 3 against (PAN and Nueva Alianza). It now goes to the full congress for a vote. The initiative is from the deputy, Pedro Carrizales, "El Mijis."

    Per "El Mijis:"

    Gracias por no rendirse, gracias por luchar contra la discriminación, gracias por ser la voz de los que anhelaron ver este momento suceder, gracias por soportar tanto tiempo. Comunidad LGBTTTIQ, hoy su lucha dio frutos; aprobamos en la Comisión de DDHH el matrimonio igualitario.
    https://twitter.com/mijisoficial

    Thank you for not surrendering, thank you for fighting discrimination, thank you for being the voice for those who longed to see this moment happen, thank you for supporting for so long. LGBTTTIQ community, today your struggle gave fruit; we approved marriage equality in the Human Rights Commission.

  • 2. VIRick  |  May 2, 2019 at 6:45 pm

    San Luís Potosí: Voting Prospects on Marriage Equality in the Full Congress, 9 May

    Per Gonzalo Kinich:

    Un compañero de Morena de SLP informa que, a menos que se salgan del huacal (cajón rustico), hay 13 votos a favor (Morena, PT, PRD, MC, PES y Conciencia Popular) y 11 en contra (PAN, PRI, Verde, y Panal). Estaremos atentos; será una votación muy cerrada.
    https://twitter.com/Kiwi_lloron

    A companion from Morena in SLP informs that, unless they depart from their huacal (their expected compartment), there are 13 votes in favor (Morena, PT, PRD, MC, PES and Popular Conscience) and 11 against (PAN, PRI, Green, and Nueva Alianza). We will be vigilant; it will be a very close vote.

    With a 27-member congress, 14 favorable votes are required. According to an earlier report, of the 5 PRI members, several are supposedly in favor, and several more are uncertain.

    Note: A "huacal" is a rustic tray used for carrying fruit, like tomatoes or avocados, with individual compartments to keep them from banging together. I had never before thought of a huacal in a political sense.

  • 3. VIRick  |  May 2, 2019 at 6:47 pm

    Durango State Congress: Marriage Equality Bill to Be Discussed in Committee, 7 May

    Per Gonzalo Kinich:

    El 7 de mayo 2019, se discute matrimonio igualitario en comisiones del congreso estatal de Durango. Morena y PT tienen cómoda mayoría para aprobar. La militancia vigilante para que ninguno vaya en contra.
    https://twitter.com/Kiwi_lloron

    On 7 May 2019, marriage equality is to be discussed in committee in the state congress of Durango. Morena and PT have a comfortable majority to approve. Vigilant militancy so that no one goes against.

    Per Tadeo Campagne:

    Próximo martes, el 7 de mayo 2019, la Comisión de los Derechos Humanos que preside el diputado David Ramos (PRD) del Congreso del Estado de Durango discutirán la iniciativa de matrimonio igualitario.
    https://twitter.com/tadeocampagne

    Next Tuesday, 7 May 2019, the Human Rights Committee of the Durango State Congress, chaired by Deputy David Ramos (PRD), will discuss the marriage equality initiative.

  • 4. allan120102  |  May 3, 2019 at 10:52 pm

    Amazing explanation of what is happening in Nepal https://kathmandupost.ekantipur.com/news/2019-05-

  • 5. scream4ever  |  May 4, 2019 at 11:34 am

    Very shocked that the Green party member would be against it.

  • 6. VIRick  |  May 4, 2019 at 9:58 pm

    Scream, based upon the state government's own website, the party affiliation of the 27 members of the San Luis Potosí congress are as follows, together with a speculative breakdown of their possible up-coming votes, based on the post above:

    13 in favor:
    Morena (6)
    PRD (2)
    Popular Conscience (1)
    MC (1)
    PT (2)
    Social Encounter (1)

    11 against:
    PAN (6)
    Nueva Alianza (1)
    Green (2)
    PRI (2)

    3 undecided/unknown
    PRI (3)
    http://congresosanluis.gob.mx/conocenos/integrant….

    According to the other speculative view quoted in the previous thread, of the 5 PRI members, "some are in favor, some others do not have a clear position." In that account, it did not mention that any PRI members were against. Yet, according to this latest count, the only way the "contras" could have 11 negative votes at this stage is by 2 PRI members already being on that side. Plus, since all the minor parties have been accounted for, the 3 remaining undecided members are the 3 remaining PRI members. So, where is the accounting for the PRI members previously described as "some are in favor?"

    Thus, I am anticipating that we will get 2 PRI votes in a close, favorable vote, 15-12.

    Still, it also does not seem likely or logical that both Green members are against the proposal.

  • 7. allan120102  |  May 5, 2019 at 1:21 am

    Not every green member is in favor of ssm. I cant remember which other state I believe it was Veracruz or Chiapas before the supreme court struck down the ban that was against ssm.

  • 8. VIRick  |  May 5, 2019 at 11:14 am

    Argentina: 9th Anniversary of Marriage Equality

    Per Nahuel Bacigaluppi and Norma López:

    El 5 de Mayo de 2010, la Cámara de Diputados de Argentina daba media sanción a la Ley de Matrimonio Igualitario. Hace 9 años empezábamos a ser un poco más iguales y le dimos derechos a otrxs que no tenían.
    https://twitter.com/nahubacigaluppi
    https://twitter.com/NormaLopezSF/status/112506809

    On 5 May 2010, the Chamber of Deputies of Argentina gave a half sanction to the Equal Marriage Law. Nine years ago, we started to be a little more equal and gave rights to others that they did not have.

  • 9. VIRick  |  May 5, 2019 at 11:45 am

    Mr Gay World 2019: Janjep Carlos of the Philippines

    Janjep Carlos (John Jeffrey B. Carlos), described as a 41-year-old businessman in Filipino media, was announced the winner of the pageant at a ceremony held in Cape Town, South Africa, on Saturday, 4 May. The second Filipino to win the title after John Fernández Raspado in 2017, Carlos took the crown from Jordan Bruno, the Australian chef who won Mr Gay World 2018.

    Spain’s Francisco Alvarado was crowned 1st runner-up, followed by Hungary’s Oliver Pusztan, Thailand’s Cjayudhom Samibat, and Belgium’s Nick Van Vooren.
    https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/05/05/filipino-bu

  • 10. FredDorner  |  May 5, 2019 at 3:32 pm

    Let's not forget that Francis was the Vatican's voice for their opposition to marriage equality in Argentina and their support for Catholic sharia law.

  • 11. VIRick  |  May 5, 2019 at 9:02 pm

    More on the History of Same-Sex Marriage in Argentina

    Note per Luciana Dalmagro, Argentine journalist and writer:

    In Argentina, marriage equality was fully approved on 15 July 2010 when the Senate also voted in favor of bill 26.618, one which was then subsequently promulgated as national law by the president on 21 July 2010, effective from the following day.
    https://twitter.com/lucianadalmagro

    Thus, Luciana's comment explains the notion of "half sanction" and why 5 May 2010 was the "start." We also must remember that leading up to these dates, from late 2009, various courts in Argentina had begun granting amparos to same-sex couples who wished to marry. In early 2010, the matter of amparos for same-sex couples had already reached the Supreme Court for its review. By 2 July 2010, the Supreme Court had given every indication that they were now ready to rule in favor of the same-sex couples by declaring that Articles 172 and 188 of the Civil Code were unconstitutional.

    Throughout this process, neither the courts nor the legislature nor the president, Cristina Elisabet Fernández de Kirchner, bothered to consult with the then-current Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who, since 2013, has been more-commonly known as Pope Francis.

  • 12. ianbirmingham  |  May 5, 2019 at 10:24 pm

    Brunei halts plan to punish gay sex with death by stoning

    Following an international uproar, sultan says Brunei will not enforce death penalty for gay sex, adultery and rape.

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/05/brunei-hal

  • 13. allan120102  |  May 6, 2019 at 7:42 am

    Durango
    Lgbt activists see very hard to approve ssm in the state. They still need 5 more votes in the full chamber and they see it very hard to get them. As they need from what I understand 2/3 of the full chamber and not a simple majority.
    https://ulisex.com/congreso-de-durango-abordara-e

  • 14. VIRick  |  May 6, 2019 at 2:10 pm

    Durango: Voting Prospects on Marriage Equality in the Full Congress

    The Durango State Congress is comprised of 25 members, as follows:

    Morena (8)
    PT (6)
    PRD (1)
    Verde (1)
    PRI (5)
    PAN (4)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mexican_sta

    Este martes 7 de mayo 2019, se espera que el Congreso de Durango, aborde el tema del matrimonio igualitario en la comisión de Derechos Humanos. De acuerdo con Ezequiel García, activista LGBT y ex-regidor del Ayuntamiento de la capital del estado, las probabilidades de que en esta instancia los resultados sean favorables, son altas.

    Sin embargo, en en pleno del Congreso, las expectativas son diferentes. Ezequiel, dijo que las probabilidades no son buenas, toda vez que "En el PT, no vemos voluntad, el PRI está dividido entre consevadurismos, y el PAN está impensable. Pero pues en política todos cambia. Estamos en proceso electoral." Destacó que sólo Morena y PRD se han pronunciado a favor y que necesitan una mayoría calificada, para la cual les faltarían cinco votos.
    https://ulisex.com/congreso-de-durango-abordara-e

    This Tuesday, 7 May 2019, the Durango Congress is expected to address the issue of Equal Marriage in the Human Rights Commission. According to Ezequiel García, LGBT activist and former member of the City Council of the state capital, the chances of favorable results in this instance are high.

    However, in the full Congress, the expectations are different. Ezequiel said that the odds are not good, since "In the PT, we do not see the will, PRI is divided among hard conservatives, and PAN is unthinkable. But in politics everyone changes. We are in the electoral process." He stressed that only Morena and PRD have spoken in favor and that a qualified majority is needed, for which they would lack five votes.

    Una mayoría calificada = a favorable 2/3 majority or 17 votes

    According to this account, there are currently 12 favorable votes in the full congress, of which Morena/PRD account for 9. Thus, there are 3 additional favorable votes between PT/Verde. However, we need all of PT, that one Verde member, and at least one PRI member all voting in favor.

    So, for starters, this sounds like a job for "El Mijis" (PT), the driving force for marriage equality within the San Luis Potosí state congress, to berate and cajole his fellow PT members in Durango to "get with the program." Our saving grace, for the moment, is that tomorrow's vote is only at the committee level. The date for the final vote in the full congress has yet to be announced.

  • 15. allan120102  |  May 6, 2019 at 3:50 pm

    Breaking.
    Tomorrow might be the day in which Ecuador could become the twenty something country to allow ssm. The constitutional court is to issue its opinion on the application of the ich advisory opinion tomorrow. https://www.vistazo.com

  • 16. arturo547  |  May 6, 2019 at 4:40 pm

    The article says that tomorrow the 45-day deadline ends, but that’s a mistake. Sundays don’t count. Anyway, I golpe Ecuador gives us great news.

  • 17. allan120102  |  May 6, 2019 at 5:01 pm

    Thanks Arthur but I also share it because Pamela Troya, Silvia Buendia and other lgbt activist in Ecuador share it, so I was like it should be true. Honestly at first I thought that it was less days than imagine but we will see tomorrow I guess. I just hope when it happens is a favorable decision.

  • 18. VIRick  |  May 6, 2019 at 7:13 pm

    In Ecuador, the public hearing on the marriage equality case occurred on Friday, 29 March 2019. Counting every day non-stop, until we arrive 45 days later, would mean that the decision must be issued by 13 May 2019. Tomorrow, 7 May, by this rushed, non-stop standard, is only day 39.

    However, per Arturo's comment, assuming we are actually discussing a 6-day work week, the 45 days does not expire until 21 May.

    Even more likely, assuming we are discussing a 5-day court week, the 45 days does not expire until 31 May. And if even one additional holiday occurred during that interval, the 45 days expire on 3 June. And remember, during "Semana Santa," no one works. So, those 5 days are likely not to have been counted in. Thus, that pushes the 45 days back to 10 June.

    Despite the fact that the first word in the headline reads, "Mañana," I will read mañana in the vague Mexican sense of the term as meaning "sometime in the indefinite future," and certainly not in the literal Spanish sense of tomorrow being "the day after today." Still, it would be nice to be surprised.

  • 19. VIRick  |  May 6, 2019 at 7:41 pm

    Panamá: New Social Democratic President-Elect

    Laurentino Cortizo, futuro presidente de Panamá, tras ganar las elecciones del domingo, el 5 de mayo 2019, dice que quiere "rescatar" el nombre de su país, manchado por el escándalo de los Papeles de Panamá y por múltiples listas sobre paraísos fiscales. A sus 66 años, este empresario y ganadero, conocido como "Nito", ganó las elecciones con apenas 40.000 votos sobre el derechista Rómulo Roux, apoyado desde la cárcel por el detenido expresidente Ricardo Martinelli.

    Tras su victoria, Cortizo logró que el Partido Revolucionario Democrático (PRD, socialdemócrata), fundado por el líder nacionalista Omar Torrijos, con el que tiene un enorme parecido físico, regrese al poder tras una década en la oposición.
    https://www.vistazo.com/seccion/mundo/politica-mu

    After winning the elections on Sunday, 5 May 2019, Laurentino Cortizo, future president of Panamá, says he wants to "rescue" the name of his country, tainted by the scandal of the Panamá Papers and by multiple listings concerning tax havens. At 66, this entrepreneur and rancher, known as "Nito," won the election with only 40,000 more votes over the right-winger Rómulo Roux, supported from prison by the detained former president Ricardo Martinelli.

    With his victory, Cortizo has managed to get the Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD, social democratic), founded by the nationalist leader Omar Torrijos, with whom he bears an enormous physical resemblance, to return to power after a decade in opposition.

    Note: The PRD in Panamá is not quite as "revolutionary" as the PRD in Mexico. Instead, it is more focused on nationalism. Still, of the two main final contenders, the more progressive candidate did win.

  • 20. JayJonson  |  May 7, 2019 at 7:08 am

    US State Department Appealing ruling that recognized the birthright citizenship of a child of a same-sex bi-national (U.S.-Israel) couple.

    From Joe.My.God and Immigration Equality:

    Yesterday, the U.S. State Department appealed the decision of a California federal district court that recognized the birthright citizenship of Ethan Dvash-Banks, the child of a same-sex bi-national couple. The government refuses to recognize the validity of Andrew and Elad Dvash-Banks’ marriage, and continues to defend its discriminatory policy, which conditions the recognition of birthright citizenship on a biological link to a U.S. citizen parent.

    Andrew Dvash-Banks, a U.S. citizen, and Elad Dvash-Banks, an Israeli citizen, had twin sons via surrogacy. However, the State Department only recognized Aiden’s citizenship because of his biological connection to Andrew, and denied Ethan’s. Immigration Equality challenged the decision on behalf of the family, and the district court determined that as a child born to a married U.S. citizen parent, Ethan Dvash-Banks was entitled to birthright citizenship. Learn more about the Dvash-Banks family here.

    Aaron C. Morris, Executive Director of Immigration Equality, said, “Once again, the State Department is refusing to recognize Andrew and Elad’s rights as a married couple. The government’s decision to try to strip Ethan of his citizenship is unconstitutional, discriminatory, and morally reprehensible. This is settled law in the Ninth Circuit, which has already established that citizenship may pass from a married parent to a child regardless of whether or not they have a biological relationship.”

    From my initial report on the case:

    Each boy was conceived with donor eggs and the sperm from a different father — one an American, the other an Israeli citizen — but born by the same surrogate mother minutes apart. The government had only granted citizenship to Aiden, who DNA tests showed was the biological son of Andrew, a U.S. citizen. Ethan was conceived from the sperm of Elad Dvash-Banks, an Israeli citizen.
    https://www.joemygod.com/2019/05/state-department

  • 21. scream4ever  |  May 7, 2019 at 8:01 am

    I expect this will turn out in a similar fashion as the birth certificate case from Arkansas.

  • 22. VIRick  |  May 7, 2019 at 2:01 pm

    OK, now I am finally understanding Pamela Troya's and Diana Maldonado's time calculation, as the 45-day count began from the date when the case was admitted, not from the date of the hearing:

    Per Pamela Troya:

    Per the Boletín de Prensa de la Corte Constitucional del Ecuador, case 0011-18-CN (Consulta de Norma), concerning marriage equality, was admitted on 6 March 2019.
    https://twitter.com/pametroya/status/112583532656

    From that date onward, counting each week as a 5-day week, without exception for any holidays, the 45th day turns out to be 7 May 2019.

  • 23. arturo547  |  May 7, 2019 at 3:25 pm

    Oh my gosh, so today we should have news from the Ecuadorian court. D:

  • 24. allan120102  |  May 7, 2019 at 6:10 pm

    Sadly no. Something happen and they couldnt deide because the proyect wasnt send or something like that. https://mobile.twitter.com/LaPrensaInforma/status

  • 25. VIRick  |  May 7, 2019 at 8:30 pm

    Per La Prensa Chimborazo:

    Pese a vencer el plazo para que la Corte Constitucional del Ecuador se pronuncie sobre el matrimonio igualitario, no lo hizo debido a que se no envió el proyecto de matrimonios igualitarios en el Ecuador.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/LaPrensaInforma/status

    Despite the expiration of the deadline for the Constitutional Court of Ecuador to rule on marriage equality, it did not do so owing to the fact that the equal marriage proposal in Ecuador was not sent.

    OK, but that does not make any sense in either Spanish or English. What proposal needed to be sent? A draft document/proposal legalizing marriage equality? And to whom? The Constitutional Court? And from whom? The Provincial Court of Pichincha? The case had been accepted, as is, by the Constitutional Court from the provincial court, and a public hearing, at the constitutional court's own behest, had already taken place. Why would they be missing any documentation, or be requiring additional documentation, at this stage? And what is the provincial court now supposed to do with the case for which they had sought guidance?

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