Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Obama signs LGBT employment nondiscrimination executive order


Big news–President Obama today signed an executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity when hiring.  From the Huffington Post:

The executive order has two parts: It makes it illegal to fire or harass employees of federal contractors based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, and it explicitly bans discrimination against transgender employees of the federal government. The part targeting federal contractors affects 24,000 companies employing roughly 28 million workers, or about one-fifth of the nation’s workforce.

“America’s federal contracts should not subsidize discrimination against the American people,” Obama said during remarks at the White House just before signing the order. “I’m going to do what I can with the authority I have to act.”

The provision affecting federal employees takes effect immediately, while employees of federal contractors will have their new protections in place by early next year, according to senior administration officials.

Scottie is at the White House today attending the signing of the executive order, and has been out of commission computer-wise for the last few days, which is why there haven’t been as many posts!  We’ll have more once he’s gotten his computer back.


  • 1. davepCA  |  July 21, 2014 at 9:31 am

    This is excellent. And I hope Scottie gets the computer up again soon. I'd love to hear a first-hand report from him about the events today at the White House.

  • 2. brandall  |  July 21, 2014 at 9:38 am

    Here is the transcript of the President's brief remarks at the signing ceremony. It is a cause for celebration. One small step for mankind.

    Scottie, I hope you will comment on the atmosphere in the room. It was an historic moment.

  • 3. brandall  |  July 21, 2014 at 9:36 am

    Thank heavens. A new article post. Sifting through 300+ comments is not fun nor enjoyable.

  • 4. Bruno71  |  July 21, 2014 at 9:40 am

    At least they cleaned house of the TK rubbish a few times.

  • 5. JayJonson  |  July 22, 2014 at 6:51 am

    Is TxLawyer another incarnation of TK? Or yet another troll whose life is so meaningless he has nothing to do but spout misinformation and hatred? Probably doing it in the name of religion.

  • 6. DocZenobia  |  July 22, 2014 at 7:46 am

    TxLawyer has been around for a while now. She showed up the first time the Texas DOMA law was struck down.

  • 7. F_Young  |  July 21, 2014 at 9:40 am

    Fantastic news!

    I assume the religious exemptions are only the standard ones. Nevertheless, I expect there be a lot of litigation involving employers trying to fit into the religious exemptions.

  • 8. brandall  |  July 21, 2014 at 9:48 am

    There are no changes to the religious exemptions already in place for other covered groups.

    I would really like to point out the extension of this to the transgender community. I know lots of people are rightly or wrongly having a difficult time with basic gay and lesbian rights. It must be even harder for them to understand transgender people. Obama did the right thing by bringing in all of our community in one fell swoop.

  • 9. JayJonson  |  July 21, 2014 at 11:35 am

    Yes, of course, he did the right thing, but it is well to remember that due to some court and EEOC rulings, transgender people are already much better protected under employment law than gay people are.

  • 10. sfbob  |  July 21, 2014 at 11:42 am

    That's certainly true in principle since the various rulings have determined that gender identity is covered under the heading of sex-based discrimination. However, given the amount of disinformation, misinformation and discomfort, things probably aren't as good on a practical level. It's one thing to have rights, it another to be able to assert them successfully.

  • 11. JayJonson  |  July 21, 2014 at 11:48 am

    Yes, of course. My point was not to minimize the level of discrimination that transgender people suffer–just to point out that they have legal remedies. Of course, some of those remedies are dependent on having access to a lawyer and other resources that poor people often do not have. As you say, it is one thing to have rights, but another to be able to assert them successfully.

    The most important way to reduce discrimination against transgender people is education and coming out as transgender, though there is a long tradition of transgender people wanting or feeling that they need to remain closeted, sometimes to the extent of erasing their past. But that seems to be changing as the definition of transgender has itself broadened over the years.

  • 12. Margo Schulter  |  July 21, 2014 at 10:29 am

    Yes, brandall, the inclusive LGBT scope of the order is very good news. One development which would be very helpful also is something raised by one of the marriage equality decisions at the federal district court level — I wouldn’t want to guess the wrong one.

    In considering whether marriage bans were discrimination on the basis of sex, as opposed to sexual orientation, this judge noted some circuit precedent which appeared to accept some gender-specific dress codes as a basis for preferring to use sexual orientation rather than gender as the relevant category for equal protection analysis.

    A generous interpretation and expansion of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins would take the existing category of gender discrimination to include various forms of unwarranted discrimination directed at people with unconventional gender roles or gender expression.

    For example, this would mean protection not only for a trans man, but for a gender variant woman who identifies strongly as female and butch, and dresses accordingly — or, for that matter, a straight woman with similar preferences in gender expression.

    It’s actually quite remarkable how the new LGBT protections can mesh with and reinforce the freedom of gender expression which has been a traditional concern of feminism. That’s one thing to reflect on in responding to this important executive order.

  • 13. Margo Schulter  |  July 21, 2014 at 10:32 am

    There’s also the suspense of Waiting for Bostic — will the Fourth Circuit come through for us this week?

  • 14. DACiowan  |  July 21, 2014 at 10:50 am

    Here's hoping the Fourth Circuit judges used the weekend to look over Bishop for anything new, and we get Bostic today. If not today, I'm thinking Friday.

  • 15. brandall  |  July 21, 2014 at 10:56 am


  • 16. BenG1980  |  July 21, 2014 at 11:28 am

    Not today. 🙁

  • 17. MichaelGrabow  |  July 21, 2014 at 11:30 am

    You are seeing today's opinions?

  • 18. BenG1980  |  July 21, 2014 at 11:31 am

    Yes, one new published case (not Bostic) showed up before the site crashed.

  • 19. MichaelGrabow  |  July 21, 2014 at 11:32 am

    Ugh! Just affirm the decision already!

  • 20. hopalongcassidy  |  July 21, 2014 at 10:57 am

    I wonder if the admins here a EoT would be willing to consider the possibility of giving 2 or 3 established and active members access to initiate new threads…for when they aren't available. The last one before this got virtually unmanageable with well over 300 posts, and the 10 Circuit opinion that came out last Friday had to be relegated to a reply way down in that hideous long string of posts…it seems to me that should have gotten its own 'headline'. There are a few users here who obviously have the time, expertise and wherewithal to handle this, I believe. Perhaps the software isn't set up to permit such a thing but it certainly would streamline things, IMO.

  • 21. brandall  |  July 21, 2014 at 11:10 am

    The possibility of having additional site administrators was brought up when we were having the problem with our "special guest" bombing the site and getting quick responses to deleting the offenders comments (they have been really good at responding now). They were not comfortable with this. It is their site and their decision on what they wish to do. Technically, they can "delegate" to additional users.

  • 22. hopalongcassidy  |  July 21, 2014 at 11:25 am

    Of course, yes, I understand perfectly…I was thinking about a possibility of some sort of sub-admin access, limited to initiating new threads but your point is clear, it could lead to unforeseen problems. Thanks.

  • 23. StraightDave  |  July 21, 2014 at 11:33 am

    Adding new content is fundamentally different than deleting someone else's posts, and I can understand the concerns about the latter. This is what Quick Hits used to be, which was used quite a lot. Anyone could add a new item and keep it from cluttering up the main thread. I don't know what happened, if it was accidentally disabled or what, but it would fit the bill here.

  • 24. SeattleRobin  |  July 21, 2014 at 5:29 pm

    Yeah, I really miss the Quick Hits section. Especially because it was a good way to keep up on other queer related news that wasn't connected to laws or court cases.

  • 25. JoshLmno  |  July 21, 2014 at 5:55 pm

    I miss it too. I found lots of interesting GLBT related articles in there.

  • 26. Fortguy  |  July 21, 2014 at 12:00 pm

    One thing that would help would be to follow the practice of many highly commented WaPo blogs and create general-topic threads on weekends such as "Saturday Open Thread" and "Sunday Open Thread". This would allow people to post more timely news, questions, and comments of a more general nature on usually slow news weekends, while allowing the older Friday threads to remain on topic without becoming too bloated.

  • 27. Bruno71  |  July 21, 2014 at 12:22 pm

    I wonder if such threads could automatically generate on Sat. & Sun., saving the admins the trouble of manually creating such threads.

  • 28. brandall  |  July 21, 2014 at 12:59 pm

    The simple answer is yes. A script is written to automatically do this based on the calendar day of the week. Easy for me to say, but I have no idea of the time available for Scottie, et al to do these extras.

  • 29. ebohlman  |  July 21, 2014 at 7:38 pm

    Even without automation, out-of-the-box WordPress allows you to create a post and set it to publish at a later time, so Scottie or Jacob could simply post a Saturday open thread and a Sunday open thread before closing up shop Friday afternoon and have them appear (without any further action on their part) at noon on Saturday and Sunday respectively. It should take less than 5 minutes of work per week.

  • 30. davepCA  |  July 21, 2014 at 12:50 pm

    That would certainly be a big help, especially on those weekends right after a Friday with big news. Even if there's no new story that crops up during the weekend that could benefit from having its own new article & thread, just being able to move the discussion to a new article & thread each day and pick up where we left off without the hassles of the 100+ collapsed threads would be great.

  • 31. JoshLmno  |  July 21, 2014 at 5:57 pm

    I like this idea too.

  • 32. Japrisot  |  July 21, 2014 at 11:29 am

    Fourth Circuit site is down for me.

  • 33. MichaelGrabow  |  July 21, 2014 at 11:30 am

    Same here!

  • 34. SWB1987  |  July 21, 2014 at 11:34 am

    It let me in. No Bostic case today

  • 35. RnL2008  |  July 21, 2014 at 11:46 am

    This is great news, but what if any Religious exemptions were there?

  • 36. brandall  |  July 21, 2014 at 11:50 am

    There are no special changes or carve outs to the religious exemptions already in place for other covered groups.

  • 37. RnL2008  |  July 21, 2014 at 12:04 pm

    Thank you brandall and davepCA for your responses……I know the anti-gay folks were asking for special religious exemptions…….glad none were given!!!

  • 38. Lynn_E  |  July 21, 2014 at 12:22 pm

    Funny how they suddenly want "special rights," isn't it?

  • 39. RnL2008  |  July 21, 2014 at 12:27 pm

    Exactly…….a poster from another blog site thinks that giving married Same-Sex couples the same rights, benefits and privileges that opposite-sex married couples receive is taking advantage of something not right, yet insists that ONLY married opposite-sex couples deserve these "SPECIAL" rights, but we shouldn't receive them just because we DON'T naturally procreate……..this is the mentality in which we are dealing with!!!

  • 40. JoshLmno  |  July 21, 2014 at 6:02 pm

    They're coming up with all sorts of horribles that'll come from this simple, sensible, humane order. Many states have the same or similar type laws and there aren't any big problems at least that I ever hear of in MN.

    From Wikipedia, "Since 1993, Minnesota laws outlaw discrimination on the basis of a person's sexual orientation and/or gender identity in housing, insurance, goods and services, contracts, health benefits, hospital visitation rights, and employment."

    Can't anyone point this out to the dumdums? Not that it would matter to them. Maybe this federal order is different, if so, please let us know how/why.

  • 41. davepCA  |  July 21, 2014 at 11:54 am

    See Brandall's remark higher up in the thread. The bills that were signed today were not new bills, the change was done by added LGBT protections to the list of protected groups that are already listed in two bills that have already been in effect for a long time. And that is all it did – add us to the list. It did not include any of those 'but it's still okay to discriminate if the targeted person is LGBT and you invoke religious beliefs as an excuse' clauses that are being pushed for inclusion in some new bills recently by various anti-LGBT groups.

  • 42. brandall  |  July 21, 2014 at 11:47 am

    ME Wisconsin and the 7th – "The ACLU briefing challenging the ban filed an objection Monday to the state's request that the entire appeals court hear the arguments."

    Sadly, last weeks appeals court date postponements are not a good sign of avoiding en banc.

  • 43. RnL2008  |  July 21, 2014 at 12:05 pm

    Probably not, but if it is heard en banc…….it could be a good thing if it is ruled in our favor… appeal will probably still take place…..but we must remain hopeful as we can at this stage of the game!!!

  • 44. Ragavendran  |  July 21, 2014 at 10:52 pm

    I think the date postponement is just the court being careful just in case a vote is called and a majority votes to hear it en banc, as opposed to "almost" having made up its mind that it's going to hear it en banc. Let's see.

  • 45. DACiowan  |  July 21, 2014 at 12:17 pm

    Surprise, Texas is trying to drag its case out as long as possible:

  • 46. Bruno71  |  July 21, 2014 at 12:24 pm

    It almost seems antithetical to their chances to do so. If SCOTUS gets cases found in our favor first (4th & 10th), wouldn't they want to add one for their side to the table as well? Seems to me, the sooner the better for them. For us, not sure.

  • 47. RnL2008  |  July 21, 2014 at 12:30 pm

    Sounds like STALLING to me…..since when does the schedule of an attorney matter? I was under the impression that there is this thing called Due Process and 5 months with of delays is NOTHING more than an OBVIOUS stall tactic!!!

  • 48. Fortguy  |  July 21, 2014 at 12:37 pm

    For more perspective on the Texas appeal at the 5th Circuit, see today's blog post from Charles Kuffner.

  • 49. SeattleRobin  |  July 21, 2014 at 5:41 pm

    My take away from the too busy thing is that Texas should stop passing laws that impinge the rights of citizens. Then the AG wouldn't be so snowed under!

    Also, I don't understand why so much time is needed for the briefing on appeal. I get that it's important so lawyers on both sides want to get it right. But the arguments have already been made at the district court level. It's a matter of refining what's already there. It's not like they're starting from scratch on a blank page.

  • 50. JayJonson  |  July 22, 2014 at 7:00 am

    Yes, the Texas Solicitor General has his plate full trying to defend other unconstitutional laws passed by the Texas Legislature that impinge on the rights of minorities, voters, women, gerrymandering, and on and on.

  • 51. RnL2008  |  July 22, 2014 at 12:17 am

    “Applicants do not seek this extension for purposes of delay, but rather so that appellate counsel Solicitor General Jonathan Mitchell has sufficient time to prepare a brief that is thorough, accurate, and helpful to the Court,” Abbott’s office wrote in a July 15 motion requesting the second extension of 10 days.

    How many extensions does one need to write a well thought out accurate brief. I mean just look at the other anti-gay briefs and copy them, they are all about the same anyways and are going to lose….so just do it and get on with it!!!

  • 52. Terence  |  July 22, 2014 at 5:49 am

    See what Juanita has to say about this fella being "too busy":

  • 53. RnL2008  |  July 22, 2014 at 7:52 am

    That was good………sometimes "STUPID" should hurt!!!

  • 54. brandall  |  July 22, 2014 at 8:00 am

    " in his quest to be the dumbest governor since Rick Perry,"….#Ouch….or, should I say #Oophs…

  • 55. Bruno71  |  July 22, 2014 at 9:11 am

    More Republican AG intellectual prowess? Who'da thunk it in Texas?

  • 56. SoCal_Dave  |  July 22, 2014 at 11:23 am

    "so that appellate counsel Solicitor General Jonathan Mitchell has sufficient time to prepare a brief that is thorough, accurate, and helpful to the Court"

    This sort of implies that briefs he files without extra time are not thorough, accurate or helpful.

  • 57. RnL2008  |  July 22, 2014 at 12:13 pm

    In my opinion, NO briefs by the anti-gays is thorough or accurate!!!

  • 58. StraightDave  |  July 22, 2014 at 12:23 pm

    But they are ohhhh so helpful!

  • 59. RnL2008  |  July 22, 2014 at 12:25 pm

    You made a funny…….lol!!!

  • 60. brandall  |  July 21, 2014 at 12:30 pm

    Florida – Monroe: Emergency Motion to Lift Stay Denied

    Gay = Stay

  • 61. Zack12  |  July 21, 2014 at 12:42 pm

    Under Florida law, any ruling that is appealed is automatically stayed.
    Unlike other states, this one isn't being treated any differently.

  • 62. MichaelGrabow  |  July 21, 2014 at 12:44 pm

    Thank goodness. That would have caused an unbelievable amount of confusion. It would have just been chaos, I tell ya! Thankfully someone is thinking of those poor plaintiffs…that "limbo" would have been too much for them to handle.

  • 63. Zack12  |  July 21, 2014 at 1:00 pm

    In other places where it has been used, I agree it's utter crap.
    But under Florida law (which seems dumb to me) any appeal of a ruling declaring any law in Florida unconstitutional will be given an automatic stay.
    There is no gay means stay in this case.

  • 64. MichaelGrabow  |  July 21, 2014 at 1:23 pm

    Is that to say the Judge is prohibited from lifting the stay? Me thinks not.

  • 65. Zack12  |  July 21, 2014 at 1:35 pm

    He more or less is.
    I understand what you are saying but gay doesn't mean stay in this case.

  • 66. brandall  |  July 21, 2014 at 1:46 pm

    It is another gay = stay because the judge could have lifted the automatic stay. AG Bondi would then go to the 3rd District Court to try and stop it. An automatic stay does not mean an automatic appeal.

  • 67. Zack12  |  July 21, 2014 at 1:51 pm

    It does in this case because Bondi has made clear she will appeal this all the way to the Florida Supreme Court.

  • 68. brandall  |  July 21, 2014 at 1:53 pm

    100% agreement there. But, still sad to watch.

  • 69. Zack12  |  July 21, 2014 at 2:14 pm

    It is indeed, same in CO but I don't see anything that gay means stay in either of those cases.
    Sad to say but in many of these cases, the legal system is simply playing itself out, even though that is frustrating as heck for all of us.

  • 70. hopalongcassidy  |  July 21, 2014 at 2:23 pm

    The law that provides for automatic stays needs to be challenged and/or repealed. (Yes, I know that would take too much time to help with this particular issue, but still…)

  • 71. SeattleRobin  |  July 21, 2014 at 5:51 pm

    Actually the law makes a lot of sense to me. In general, the state is presumed to have good reason for passing laws, and those laws shouldn't be subject to the odd whims of local lower court judges. We've all seen weird rulings from judges, on queer stuff and just in general. When it's the constitutionality of a state law in question I think it's reasonable for the state to protect itself with a system of checks and balances.

    Yes, it's frustrating for us to see yet another stay and our rights delayed. But in the big picture such a law seems imminently reasonable to me.

  • 72. JayJonson  |  July 22, 2014 at 7:04 am

    An automatic stay does not mean an automatic appeal, but an appeal means an automatic stay.

  • 73. brandall  |  July 21, 2014 at 12:46 pm

    Georgia – AG files brief to dismiss lawsuit

    I'll save you a waste of your time to read the brief….Baker…blah, blah, Lawrence not precedent..blah, blah, Windsor states right to define marriage…blah, blah, protect the children…copy/paste from other AG briefs. But then, there is this little doozy on page 23 [bolding added by me]:

    "In upholding Alabama’s prohibition of the commercial distribution of sex toys and rejecting a challenge based on the fundamental right to sexual privacy under the due process clause, the Eleventh Circuit highlighted the importance of exercising restraint in identifying new fundamental rights and allowing the democratic process, instead of the judiciary, to regulate such issues:

    One of the virtues of the democratic process is that, unlike the judicial process, it need not take matters to their logical conclusion. If the people of Alabama in time decide that a prohibition on sex toys is misguided, or ineffective, or just plain silly, they can repeal the law and be finished with the matter. On the other hand, if we today craft a new fundamental right by which to invalidate the law, we would be bound to give that right full force and effect in all future cases….

    Williams, 378 F.3d at 1250. The Eleventh Circuit went on to quote Justice FelixFrankfurter in his concurring opinion in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 525(1951), where he observed that “[h]istory teaches that the independence of the judiciary is jeopardized when courts become embroiled in the passions of the dayand assume primary responsibility in choosing between competing political,economic and social pressures.” Id. Surely these cautions are of particular salience here."

    The fundamental right to ME deserves the same level of caution as the right to a sex toy? Eyes rolling….
    <a href="” target=”_blank”>

  • 74. Zack12  |  July 21, 2014 at 1:00 pm

    Using his logic, interracial marriage in Alabama wouldn't have been legal until the 2000's.

  • 75. DACiowan  |  July 21, 2014 at 1:04 pm

    "One of the virtues of the democratic process is that, unlike the judicial process, it need not take matters to their logical conclusion."

    *snicker* How true.

  • 76. StraightDave  |  July 21, 2014 at 2:41 pm

    I read that as "not following logic is a virtue". And I did not snicker.

  • 77. Steve  |  July 21, 2014 at 1:11 pm

    I've stopped taking most things seriously that contain the phrase "the people of…" in this context.

  • 78. SeattleRobin  |  July 21, 2014 at 6:00 pm

    What bugs me is that I think the court was wrong on that sex toy case to start with. I remember reading about it back at the time. I was initially shocked to know such a law still existed, and then doubly shocked to read the appeals court upheld it. The existing and well established fundamental right to privacy should have applied, in the same way it applied to birth control. There's no "new right" to sex toys being asserted.

    Now to see that idiotic decision come into play here just makes me mad all over again.

  • 79. JoshLmno  |  July 21, 2014 at 6:50 pm

    First, how could they compare buying sex toys to the seriousness of marriage? I think that just might be a glint of animus. They continue to belittle our relationships and think of nothing other than sex, us having it and them thinking, "Ick!" We know that's a huge source of our opposition. They think all gay people have anal sex, even the lesbians and never consider that heteros do the same things.

    Second, what a crazy law about the sex toys! Don't they know people can make their own or pick up some across the border? The sex stores near the borders must be as ubiquitous as the fireworks shops around here along the interstates. Maybe they think sex toys are the cause of unplanned pregnancies, which their state certainly has a lot of.

  • 80. StraightDave  |  July 21, 2014 at 11:22 pm

    Or perhaps the lack of sex toys may contribute to their unplanned pregnancies. Maybe they should rethink things a bit.

  • 81. brandall  |  July 21, 2014 at 1:26 pm

    Louisiana Judge declines further oral arguments.

    So far this is a day of tiny updates…This denied motion means the judge can start writing his decision based on the supplement briefs submitted last week.

  • 82. brandall  |  July 21, 2014 at 1:39 pm

    Colorado – Pueblo clerk 'reluctantly' stops issuing same-sex marriage licenses

    I am very sorry to be posting bummer news updates…..I would rather see a new decision which results in a Gov and AG not appealing and another state opened up to ME.

  • 83. RnL2008  |  July 21, 2014 at 1:40 pm

    It seems to be the day of denials!!!

  • 84. Steve27516  |  July 21, 2014 at 1:44 pm

    Speaking of which: Do I understand correctly that ME will come into effect for Nevada immediately after the Ninth (presumably) strikes Nevada's ban later this year – since the governor will not appeal that decision?

  • 85. brandall  |  July 21, 2014 at 1:52 pm

    Coalition for the Protection of Marriage has standing in the Sevcik v. Sandoval case. They could appeal.

  • 86. Steve27516  |  July 21, 2014 at 1:56 pm

    Ah. Alas. Thank you, brandall, for the information.

  • 87. BenG1980  |  July 21, 2014 at 2:23 pm

    How would the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage have standing to appeal after Hollingsworth v. Perry? I don't think they would. The appellants in Sevcik are the plaintiffs who lost below. It is the appellants' standing and that of the governor keeping this case alive. Assuming the 9th Circuit rules in favor of marriage equality, only the governor (or another appellee sued in his/her official capacity, if any exists) could appeal.

  • 88. StraightDave  |  July 21, 2014 at 2:44 pm

    CPM is just an intervenor, with limited rights, not including appeal. They are not a party.

  • 89. davepCA  |  July 21, 2014 at 3:36 pm

    No, that's right, but the intervenors are not the ones appealing in this case. We are, because the original Nevada trial ruled against ME (but that was before DOMA 2 & Smith Kline, which makes a big difference now).

    So it's now highly likely that we will win OUR appeal currently heading to the 9th circuit on September 8th. And then the intervenors, who are not appealing at the current level, will not be able to appeal beyond the 9th to SCOTUS (because of the Perry decision at SCOTUS last year about defendant intervenors), and that will be the end of it, with a ruling in our favor.

  • 90. brandall  |  July 21, 2014 at 3:37 pm

    I read this too quickly from the ACLU site and it is a bad piece of phrasing on their part:

    Defendants Carson City clerk and Governor have withdrawn their briefs and are no longer opposing appeal (although intervenor—proponent of ban—is).

    You are correct there is a difference between "wanting to appeal" and having "standing to appeal". Thanks for catching this.

  • 91. DrPatrick1  |  July 21, 2014 at 6:58 pm

    As BenG1980 pointed out, this case, was the last case before Windsor, and the lower court ruled against the couples seeking equal access to marriage. As they are an aggrieved party, they have standing to appeal, and they have done so. The intervenors do not have standing, which is clear after the perry case. However, the court has allowed them to intervene in defense of the law. If/when the 9th gets around to reversing the lower court decision, there will be no one left with standing to appeal that decision, and NV will have equality.

  • 92. Corey_from_MD  |  July 21, 2014 at 2:29 pm

    While it is a bummer that progress has been slowed but definitely not stopped in Florida (Monroe County), Colorado, Utah, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, etc., for those of us who lived in states such Louisiana without ME yet and who left for a state such as Maryland and work as a federal contractor or a fed, today is an excellent day – a little more peace of mind from the state gov, federal gov and the workplace. My contractor is across the Potomac in Virginia and there is no way in hell I will live there without ME and pay taxes to Virginia. Let's keep making progress in the places lacking ME (even though there is the requisite frustration along the way) but let's not forget to celebrate each milestone.

  • 93. hopalongcassidy  |  July 21, 2014 at 3:02 pm

    I hear ya…we've gotten spoiled with recent 'big' gains and we don't always appreciate the little ones even when they're positive! (It is, I believe, a good kind of spoiled, :-D)

  • 94. DACiowan  |  July 21, 2014 at 3:59 pm

    There is a bill introduced in the Virgin Islands Senate to recognize same-sex couples' marriages in the territory, which has a statute but no constitutional ban.

  • 95. weshlovrcm  |  July 21, 2014 at 6:28 pm

    I'm glad to see that religious groups received the traditional religious exemptions that every other American receives rather than the special right to discriminate which they were demanding. We should not be giving out special rights based on sleeping with the opposite sex or "religious beliefs."

  • 96. brandall  |  July 21, 2014 at 6:51 pm

    My frustration is increasing as we see day-after-day and week-after-week of stays. It made me think of the current efforts of George Takei to educate the younger generations about the grossly unfair WWII Japanese Interment Camps. So, I thought I would be clever and see how long it took the SCOTUS to rectify taking a group of U.S. citizens, carving out only those of Japanese decent and locking them away in the deserts for a few years.

    To my surprise, Korematsu v. United States has never been overturned* by SCOTUS. From a decision in 1944, that is a long, long time to see justice.

    ME is really moving incredibly fast. Warp speed, faster than light compared to Loving and Korematsu.

    /end rant

    * Korematsu v. United States was overturned by a California District court in 1983 because in Korematsu's original case, the government had knowingly submitted false information to the Supreme Court that had a material effect on the Supreme Court's decision.

  • 97. SeattleRobin  |  July 21, 2014 at 9:47 pm

    Your example is a good way to help keep things in perspective. Here in Seattle Japanese American citizens were rounded up in raids and taken away. They lost most of their personal possessions they couldn't carry with them, they lost their homes, and they lost their businesses. It's appalling.

    While there have been quite a few people who would have liked to round up queers and put them away somewhere, at least we've never come close to that actually happening. Though sometimes I wonder if that would have been different if we were more readily identifiable like Japanese and African-Americans.

  • 98. JayJonson  |  July 22, 2014 at 7:21 am

    Well, we have come close to that happening in individual states. In the 1950s there was a witch hunt in Iowa in which more than a dozen people were forcibly confined to mental institutions for being gay–the ease with which that was done in reaction to panic over a sex crime indicates that there were probably many other people who had been confined (or subjected to lobotomies) because they were gay or lesbian. Other witch hunts were publicized in Idaho and Florida, as well. I suspect there were a lot more that we don't yet know about because then there was no national advocacy group able to publicize to a large audience the witch hunts that took place. One reason Stonewall (as opposed to similar rebellions that took place in Los Angeles and San Francisco) became so symbolic was because it immediately got national attention. Only when we had developed a way to communicate quickly and nationally could a mass movement develop. (The Advocate was established in 1967, and in the wake of Stonewall many other gay liberation newspapers were founded. The homophile magazines and newsletters tended to be published monthly and, except for ONE, were local rather than national.)

    There were certainly people in the 1950s who would have been eager to round gay people up and take them away to prison or mental institutions. It was difficult to do, as you say, because we were able to hide. But, of course, that also impeded our ability to create an effective movement for social change.

  • 99. brandall  |  July 22, 2014 at 8:05 am

    Minor Florida Update – Monroe county case

    Lawyer to attorney general: Let's jointly take gay marriage case to Florida Supreme Court

    I'm thinking any state where there is a November election won't want to expedite the case, but have it delayed until after the election. Especially if it is the AG up for reelection (FL) or running for governor (TX).

    Read more here:

  • 100. scream4ever  |  July 22, 2014 at 9:27 pm

    I actually think the opposite. They likely want this issue settled by then, especially in Florida where she and Scott are running contested re-elections.

    I predict both the Monroe and Miami-Dade cases will be consolidated and expedited directly to the state supreme court. Colorado is likely to do the same after the federal judge issues his ruling tomorrow.

  • 101. ragefirewolf  |  July 22, 2014 at 12:24 pm

    Here's my question:

    Does this executive order affect the military?

  • 102. hopalongcassidy  |  July 22, 2014 at 12:27 pm

    Indirectly, I would imagine, concerning contracts with DOD.

  • 103. Eric  |  July 22, 2014 at 12:55 pm

    It doesn't change the ban on transgender individuals serving in the military.

  • 104. ragefirewolf  |  July 22, 2014 at 3:46 pm

    Because that is statutory…right…

  • 105. BenG1980  |  July 22, 2014 at 5:01 pm

    It doesn't seem to be statutory. The military lists transgenderism as a “psychosexual” condition that does not meet the standard for enlistment in a policy memorandum called an instruction, that is entitled “Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction in the Military Services." (p. 76) JUL12.pdf

    This article indicates the President could change the policy without requiring a change in the law.

    However, the applicability of yesterday's executive order is limited to civilian employees of the federal government because of the explicit text of the 1969 executive order it revised.

  • 106. ragefirewolf  |  July 22, 2014 at 6:08 pm

    Thank you, Ben. I learned something new today. 🙂

  • 107. Equality On TrialDetails &hellip  |  August 7, 2014 at 1:23 am

    […] we have noted previously, President Obama on Monday signed an executive order related to LGBT federal contractors and employees of the federal government. The order wasn’t […]

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