Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Group that put Nevada’s same-sex marriage ban on the ballot asks Supreme Court to review the challenge to the ban

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

It's time for marriage equality. Attribution: JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images
It’s time for marriage equality. Attribution: JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images
The Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, the anti-LGBT group who put Nevada’s same-sex marriage ban on the ballot and won, is asking the Supreme Court to review the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals striking down the ban in Sevcik v. Sandoval. The new petition is named Coalition for the Protection of Marriage v. Sevcik.

The petition argues that the Ninth Circuit was wrong in its analysis of United States v. Windsor, because the Ninth Circuit believes that Windsor applied a heightened form of judicial scrutiny to strike down Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The petition suggests that’s not the case, and that the Windsor case was about federalism.

The petition also argues, as the Coalition did in its request for rehearing en banc (with an 11-judge panel of judges) in the Ninth Circuit, that there’s evidence of “panel packing”, or picking specific judges to sit on the LGBT rights cases so that those come out a certain way. They suggest that since the judges who were on the panel are widely perceived to be liberal, that could suggest the appearance of impartiality. They also suggest that two of the judges on the panel have sat on more gay rights cases in the Coalition’s chosen sample, which they argue appears to suggest the judges were deliberately put on the panel.

The Washington Blade has more:

“The constitutionality of man-woman marriage is a question of historic importance,” the petition states. “Deciding that question based on a legal standard never endorsed by the Supreme Court for claims of sexual orientation discrimination and at odds with the rational-basis standard applied by virtually every other circuit in the country was plainly erroneous.”

The petition presents three questions before the court: 1) Does the 14th Amendment require a state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples? 2) Does the 14th Amendment require states to recognize to out-of-state same-sex marriages? and 3) Does “substantial evidence of panel-packing” require a federal appeals court to vacate the panel’s decision and rehear the case?

“The reality is that changing the meaning of marriage to that of ‘any two persons’ will transform the institution profoundly, if not immediately then certainly over time as the new meaning is mandated in texts, in schools, and in many other parts of the public square and voluntarily published by the media and other institutions, with society, especially its children, thereby losing the ability to discern the meanings of the old institution,” the petition states.

The signer of the petition is G. Mark Albright, an attorney at the Las Vegas-based law firm Albright, Stoddard, Warnick & Albright. According to the Supreme Court website, the petition was filed on Thursday. A response on potential review of the marriage case is due May 11.

The Coalition is a private organization and doesn’t represent the state, and there are questions over whether they would have standing to ask the Court to review the case.

The Supreme Court will hear marriage cases from four states on April 28, and EqualityOnTrial will be there to cover the arguments.

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings


  • 1. jcmeiners  |  April 13, 2015 at 8:14 am

    And they have standing why exactly?

  • 2. sfbob  |  April 13, 2015 at 8:21 am

    Because their feelings were hurt. Or something.

  • 3. 1grod  |  April 13, 2015 at 9:13 am

    More specifically the feelings of Monte Stewart of genderless marriage fame [' Marriage cannot mean two contradictory things simultaneously']. Having lost at every turn, Monte longs for the time when he and the Coalition did have 'standing'

  • 4. RemC_Chicago  |  April 13, 2015 at 1:28 pm

    Is he still playing with sticks and balls?

  • 5. David_Midvale_UT  |  April 13, 2015 at 6:30 pm

    Just sticks

  • 6. VIRick  |  April 13, 2015 at 8:34 pm

    Yes, he has no balls to play with.

  • 7. Steve84  |  April 13, 2015 at 9:11 am

    Because Jesus

  • 8. Tony MinasTirith  |  April 13, 2015 at 10:57 am

    The Baby Jesus.

  • 9. davepCA  |  April 13, 2015 at 8:27 am

    From the petition: "The constitutionality of man-woman marriage is a question of historic importance…." Um, no, it's not a question that has ever been examined in any of the cases that have ruled bans on marriage for same sex couples to be unconstitutional.

    Sounds like these guys must have convinced someone to give them a bunch of money to pay for this pointless waste of time. Sheesh.

  • 10. A_Jayne  |  April 13, 2015 at 8:35 am

    Exactly. No one claims that man-woman marriage is unconstitutional. All of us are simply saying that trying to exclude same-sex couples from the definition of marriage flies in the face of "equal protection."

  • 11. KnottiBuoy  |  April 13, 2015 at 12:25 pm

    I thought there was more to the definition of marriage than how well you could exclude others.

  • 12. RemC_Chicago  |  April 13, 2015 at 1:31 pm

    Don't be silly. Now you're just making sense. Start being rational and where will all this lead us? Seriously, what irks me no end is that no one of us fighting for marriage equality wants or intends to do away with man-woman marriage, or families with one mother and one father, or any of the other ridiculous, fear-mongering arguments they brandish.

  • 13. RnL2008  |  April 13, 2015 at 1:50 pm

    Exactly……we AREN'T trying to remove the right to marry for opposite-sex couples, we are fighting to be INCLUDED in the same Fundamental Right that opposite-sex couples have enjoyed for generations.

    By the way, the Coalition knows that they probably AREN'T going to be placed on the Calendar this term, right? And isn't it to late for them to appeal to SCOTUS? Or is this just another attempt at trying to stall SCOTUS from making a ruling on Marriage Equality this term?

  • 14. David_Midvale_UT  |  April 13, 2015 at 7:24 pm

    Just a bunch of silly Mormons trying to look "worthy" of having their calling and election made sure.

  • 15. robbyinflorida  |  April 13, 2015 at 8:36 am

    No standing. End of story.

  • 16. guitaristbl  |  April 13, 2015 at 8:56 am

    And I thought they had finally disappeared..ugh…Yes, yes SCOTUS should review your case to answer the very important *we did not get the 3 judges out of 30 that would vote in our favour so it's a set up"* 3rd question and possibly throw into jail those evil liberal judges for setting all this up against your poor group who absolutely has standing.

    If we skip the no standing part though, not even the bigot O'Scannlain addresed your claims about "panel-packing" when your en banc was denied. That should tell you something but can't fix stupid.

  • 17. weaverbear  |  April 13, 2015 at 8:59 am

    They WILL be slapped down by SCOTUS.

    May I remind folks here that in the Prop 8 decision the court decided that the people who appealed 8 had no standing to do so. Roberts, writing for the majority, indicated that the court had to date not granted standing to private parties who saught to defend a state statute, when the publicly elected officials declined to do so. They disallowed the appeals on Prop 8 that went to the 9th circuit, and they will do that the fools trying this stunt now.

  • 18. DeadHead  |  April 13, 2015 at 9:21 am

    The bigotry and hate cottage industries have become a cash cow for quite a few and some are milking every last dime they can get.

  • 19. RQO  |  April 13, 2015 at 9:24 am

    The panel-packing allegation is of deep,deep concern to me, no matter how flimsy. It speaks to the political landscape, and we are all aware of the poltical backlash, mostly "religious freedom" bills, to ME victories furiously underway in almost every state outside the N.E.. and West Coast. Justice Roberts is clearly "politically aware" and the majority of justices were at least raised Catholic, a religion which historically links church and state closely. I wonder if SCOTUS might duck the questions, claiming "federalism"? Improbable, knowing as much about the topic as readers of this site do, but maybe they don't want to know as much?
    I want to hear from our politically savvy two Z's on this.

  • 20. wes228  |  April 13, 2015 at 9:57 am

    The 9th Circuit already addressed the complaints about panel-packing (sounds like a hot gay sex move to me). The argument has no merit: this group considers most of the judges on this court to be liberal, plus they hand-picked which cases they considered to involve "gay issues," meaning they framed the statistical narrative to say what they wanted it to say.

    But most importantly, they have no standing to contest the makeup of the panel anyway. They were not parties to this suit. They are nobodies, just like Hollingsworth in Hollingsworth v. Perry.

  • 21. 1grod  |  April 13, 2015 at 10:29 am

    Wes – at the Appeals Court, with the State and clerks withdrawing from Active participation, the Coalition was designated an appallee, and had been the Intervenor-Defendant at the District Court.

  • 22. wes228  |  April 13, 2015 at 1:00 pm

    State defendants in Nevada do not wish to petition the Supreme Court for review. While the Coalition may have been allowed to present arguments on behalf of state defendants before the 9th Circuit, this does not empower them to appeal in their place.

  • 23. RnL2008  |  April 13, 2015 at 1:54 pm

    Exactly…….hell, Judge Walker allowed the ProtectMarriage group to intervene in the Prop 8 case, but SCOTUS explained that just because the CSSC would grant them Standing does NOT mean they actually had Article 3 Standing and seeing as they DIDN'T, I seriously doubt this Coalition will.

  • 24. wes228  |  April 13, 2015 at 11:30 am

    The Supreme Court ruled that Hollingsworth did not have standing to appeal the District Court decision to the 9th Circuit (and by extension, petition for cert to the Supreme Court). Therefore, not only could the Supreme Court not rule on the merits, they had to vacate the 9th Circuit ruling. Legally speaking, it never existed.

    The only proper parties to that lawsuit were Perry, et al and the Governor and Attorney General of California.

  • 25. A_Jayne  |  April 13, 2015 at 11:39 am

    Chalk my mistake up to skim-reading and assumptions made on my part. My apology! I'll delete my previous comment.

  • 26. Eric  |  April 13, 2015 at 9:59 am

    Those with panel-packing concerns are conspicuously silent about Alabama and Arkansas.

    The anti-gay cherry picked cases to make their claim, excluding cases from their analysis that went against the LGBT community. Typical behavior of Christian apologists.

  • 27. 1grod  |  April 13, 2015 at 10:17 am

    RQO – You may be referring to the complaint of the Coalition, the details of their analysis begins on p 192a. Addressing your concern, provided are two considerations. The request for a rehearing was rejected in January 2015 by the majority of judges considering it. They would have been aware of the complaint:
    AND a look at how panel selections are done in the various circuits suggests while randomness is a major factor, it is not the only consideration in a circuit as big as the 9th:

  • 28. Zack12  |  April 13, 2015 at 9:25 am

    No standing, end of story.

  • 29. SoCal_Dave  |  April 13, 2015 at 10:40 am

    Fixed the typo for them…..

    “The constitutionality of man-woman marriage is a question of histrionic importance,”

  • 30. davepCA  |  April 13, 2015 at 11:01 am

    I like that! : )

  • 31. VIRick  |  April 13, 2015 at 8:40 pm

    "…. a question of histrionic importance."

    Ah, now, that would appeal to Scalia.

  • 32. SoCal_Dave  |  April 13, 2015 at 11:27 pm

    But he's always so cool and calm. Mr. Smooth. LOL

  • 33. hopalongcassidy  |  April 13, 2015 at 10:43 am

    I must have overdosed on idiot pills this morning…are these people thinking the SC might rule differently on this particular appeal from what they decide on the one to be argued in 2 weeks? What am I missing here….what's their point?

  • 34. davepCA  |  April 13, 2015 at 11:02 am

    Their point is that they are getting paid for taking this action.

  • 35. guitaristbl  |  April 13, 2015 at 10:51 am

    Funniest brief against marriage equality so far from "Same-sex attracted men and their wives". It literally says "don't legalize same sex marriage because we will be forced to marry someone of the same sex and we wont have the free choice to marry a woman"…! You can find the whole thing on the special scotus page for briefs on the marriage cases.

  • 36. davepCA  |  April 13, 2015 at 11:04 am

    Link, please!

  • 37. guitaristbl  |  April 13, 2015 at 11:09 am

    Although not that difficult to find it :

    2nd from last.

  • 38. davepCA  |  April 13, 2015 at 11:32 am

    Thanks! I was trying to find it under 'Case Documents / Where to Find Briefs'.

    Wow, there is some really bizarre "logic" in that one……

  • 39. A_Jayne  |  April 13, 2015 at 11:55 am

    False premise, false conclusion – attempting to show they will be harmed by marriage equality being extended to the country:

    Petitioners premise their equal-protection and due-process arguments on the assumption that man-woman marriage laws prohibit, foreclose, disqualify, and exclude gay men and lesbians from marriage and disfavor and demean their very identities and existence. But that could only be true if the marriages of amici and others like them are fakes and shams, so contrary to nature as to be entirely undesirable. Petitioners argue, in essence, that the pursuit of a same-sex marriage is the only way for the same-sex attracted “to be true” to themselves; by insisting so, they demean and disparage amici and their families.

  • 40. RemC_Chicago  |  April 13, 2015 at 1:56 pm

    Curious that all of the examples listed therein is of men with "same-sex attraction" who married women, and not of women choosing to marry men despite their attraction to other women. Maybe the moral of the story is that women are smarter than men? Stop me if I sound judgemental but there seems to be a whole lot of rationalizing going on among these men. It takes all stripes, but I still walk away from all this feeling sorry for these guys…Gonna kiss the hubby in gratitude later tonight.

  • 41. davepCA  |  April 13, 2015 at 2:00 pm

    Yeah I noticed that too…

  • 42. AstrophelAgonistes  |  April 13, 2015 at 2:16 pm

    I think it's more that the bulk of society's most virulent anti-gay stigma is typically directed towards men, making it easier to succumb hetero-normative mores in regions where that strain of 'thought' is overwhelming.

  • 43. Zack12  |  April 13, 2015 at 3:39 pm

    Indeed, there have been women who have entered fake marriages as well but much of the ire is directed towards men, always has been and always will be.

  • 44. VIRick  |  April 14, 2015 at 12:21 am

    Zack, that's because the haters are always envisioning themselves as being the recipients of "anal," and discovering, after the fact, that they really liked it.

    I mean, REALLY like it,– a whole lot.

  • 45. tornado163  |  April 13, 2015 at 2:54 pm

    At least 1 of the signers of this brief (Jeffrey Bennion) was on the TLC show "My Husband's Not Gay", which provided a 1-sided view of men with "same-sex attraction", essentially an infomercial for the Mormon church.

  • 46. davepCA  |  April 13, 2015 at 3:26 pm

    Yeah and turning your opposite sex marriage into a lurid reality TV show is such a great example of the 'sanctity of marriage' which proves marriage shouldn't be available to the gays (eye roll).

  • 47. David_Midvale_UT  |  April 13, 2015 at 7:17 pm

    Bennion is board chair of North Star, the organization that subsumed Evergreen International. North Star is a Mormonism-focused provider of so-called reparative therapy. Odd that their brief doesn't have at least a quarter-page advertisement for their snake oil business on every page.

  • 48. David_Midvale_UT  |  April 13, 2015 at 7:03 pm

    "Same sex attraction" is Mormon-speak. These people have a vested interest in selling snake oil.

  • 49. franklinsewell  |  April 13, 2015 at 11:07 am

    Anyone want pictures of the attorneys who filed this brief? Not Monte Stewart, by the way. A Las Vegas Based firm:

  • 50. franklinsewell  |  April 13, 2015 at 11:11 am

    They are on facebook too:

  • 51. franklinsewell  |  April 13, 2015 at 11:13 am

    And yup, he's a member of the LDS church:

  • 52. A_Jayne  |  April 13, 2015 at 11:34 am

    In a big way —

    (Seven mission presidents and their wives have been called by the First Presidency to begin their service about July 1, 2009.)

    G. Mark Albright


    Brigham Young University, B.A., cum laude, 1978
    Brigham Young University, J.D., 1981, Editor and Author, BYU Law Review, 1980-81

    George Mark Albright, 53, Cimarron Ward, Las Vegas Nevada Redrock Stake; temple ordinance worker; former stake president, bishop, high councilor, seminary teacher, ward Young Men president and missionary in the South Africa Johannesburg Mission. President and attorney, Albright, Stoddard, Warnick & Albright.

    Born in San Antonio, Texas, to George Lavern and Barbara Carruth Albright. Married Karyn Jean Wasden, five children.

    A ward Relief Society president, Sister Albright is a former ward Primary president, ward Young Women camp director, ward Young Women adviser and temple ordinance worker. Born in Idaho Falls, Idaho, to Leonard Berrett and Joyce Esplin Wasden.

  • 53. StraightDave  |  April 13, 2015 at 12:15 pm

    When I saw "temple ordinance worker" in his bio, my eyes read "temple ordnance worker". And my mind immediately went to an SLC version of Guy Fawkes. true story

    You can take the man out of the military, but you can't……

    Edit: Yes, I know there are some things you shouldn't joke about, all you finger-waggers out there. But I was just reporting the facts that actually happened half an hour ago. I was not trying to create a joke out of thin air.

  • 54. davepCA  |  April 13, 2015 at 1:38 pm

    Hey, I thought it was funny. Reminded me of one of the early "Planet of the Apes" movies where a bunch of mutants are worshiping a nuclear bomb….

  • 55. VIRick  |  April 13, 2015 at 8:52 pm

    "When I saw 'temple ordinance worker' in his bio, my eyes read 'temple ordnance worker.'"

    Dave, my eyes read the same thing, and I figured he was the designated clown who was supposed to blow the whole place up when the enemy attacked!

    OK, next question: What in the world is a "Temple ordinance worker?"

  • 56. SoCal_Dave  |  April 13, 2015 at 11:24 pm

    There are rituals/ordinances performed in the mormon temple that require assistance from "temple workers". They guide people and participate in some of the rituals, like bringing you through "the veil" (which is symbolic of going into heaven). To be a temple worker requires strict adherence to mormon commandments, so it says something about this guy that he is a temple worker.

  • 57. VIRick  |  April 13, 2015 at 11:49 pm

    "They guide people and participate in some of the rituals, like bringing you through "the veil" (which is symbolic of going into heaven)."

    That's a peculiarly odd cult-like wierdness (but does prove that they consider themselves to be pre-destined "saved souls").

    I never got beyond their "Lost tribes" thing, considering that they refused us entrance to their temple in Mesa AZ, even though my Jewish roommate, from one of the "unlost tribes," was wearing his yarmulke.

    That whole bio is nothing but LDS-speak, given that I'm aware that "stakes" and "wards" are different-sized units by which the higher-ups keep control over the lower-downs.

    Yikes, I just noticed that even the parental lineage thing for both he and the wife is written in Mormon-speak! To non-Mormons, it would appear that both are bastards, given that, on first glance, both still seem to carry their mother's surname. They don't, of course, but it's the presumptive way that Mormons have in their presentation,– that "everyone gets married, and does so first, before having ridiculous numbers of children, and always have to state how many."

  • 58. SoCal_Dave  |  April 14, 2015 at 7:14 am

    If you really want to see some cult-like weirdness, google mormon temple ceremony and see what it's really like. The pre-1990 version has some especially creepy moments.
    One little correction, they don't consider themselves "pre-destined" to be saved. In fact getting to the highest heaven is pretty difficult and they're always worried they might not make it.

  • 59. DeadHead  |  April 14, 2015 at 8:25 am

    Even more weirder cult stuff is the church of Scientology. I recently watched the HBO documentary ""Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief" it is an eye opener.

  • 60. jdw_karasu  |  April 13, 2015 at 1:45 pm

    They know they're going to get slapped down by SCOTUS, and still file out of a need to get their bigotry on the record yet again. I'd say they they're masochists, but that would be insulting to masochists.

  • 61. ianbirmingham  |  April 13, 2015 at 2:25 pm

    On the political front… Salon has a great review of Marco Rubio's history on LGBTQ issues in response to his declaration today that he is running for President…

    … The same day that the Russian parliament declared war on gay citizens, Sen. Marco Rubio issued a headline-grabbing proclamation: The Florida Republican said he would jettison the immigration reform legislation he’d spent months helping craft if it included an amendment from Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., allowing gay Americans to sponsor their foreign spouses for permanent residency — a right long afforded to heterosexual citizens. … As heteronationalist thugs were brutally beating gays in the streets of Russia — and at a time when 78 countries criminalized homosexuality, with seven nations allowing death sentences for the “crime” of same-sex affection — Rubio brazenly threatened to kill immigration reform if it treated gay immigrants as full and equal human beings.

    Did Rubio ever pause to think about, say, the gay Russian spouse of an American citizen, seeking a safe haven from Putin’s anti-gay nightmare? I’m inclined to think that Rubio was more concerned about the sentiments of socially conservative primary voters, but that explanation would only betray an astonishing deficit of imaginative empathy and a set of misplaced priorities.

    Of course, there’s nothing in Rubio’s record that suggests his conduct was borne of anything other than sincere anti-gay convictions. A long-standing opponent of marriage equality, Rubio has also railed against gay adoption as a “social experiment” on children and joined 29 other senators in voting against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. …

  • 62. JayJonson  |  April 13, 2015 at 3:36 pm

    Rubio is an opportunist who cares about nothing other than himself.

  • 63. Zack12  |  April 13, 2015 at 5:18 pm

    I have to honestly wonder if any of those men who sent the brief are truly gay or if they are saying that to make $$$.
    It is a great scheme that rakes in the dough.

  • 64. David_Midvale_UT  |  April 13, 2015 at 6:57 pm

    Bisexual sexual preference covers a broad range of sexuality. If you are talking about Jeffrey Bennion, he has a financial interest in selling snake oil..

  • 65. ianbirmingham  |  April 13, 2015 at 7:18 pm

    And then there are the semi-bi situations like "cuckolding" (in which the cuckold often fellates while thinking of it as BDSM only, without any element of same-sex romantic or sexual attraction)….

  • 66. weaverbear  |  April 13, 2015 at 6:23 pm

    This is a bit off-topic, but I need to make a brief comment on faith and religion. Let me preface this with the confession that I'm a staunch member of the Religious Left, a 'card carrying' Quaker; much of what I do secularly is influenced by my faith. Our religious community were among the first in this country to work for everyone's right to worship as they saw fit (1670s), for the abolition of slavery (1720s), for women's right to vote and own property (early 1800s) and we've been involved with every non-violent, anti-war movement in the US since the American Revolution. In the 1970's I turned down a national health service corp scholarship because it meant accepting a military commission which was not consistent with my personal beliefs.

    The March on Washington in '63, where Martin Luther King delivered his "I have a Dream" speech was organized by Bayard Rustin, an openly gay, African American, birthright Quaker; Rustin is credited by many for introducing King and others in the civil rights movement to non-violent principles. Rustin's partner accepted a posthumous award of the Medal of Freedom last year from the Obama Administration (Sally Ride's widow accepted one in her wife's place at the same award ceremony).

    Before painting all communities of faith with the same broad brush, it's important to remember that religious folks are neither monolithic nor uniformly hostile to us as a community. I have heard many voices here that are frankly hostile to people who hold spiritual beliefs. While I understand some faith communities have yielded their doctrine as a club aimed at any who hold differing beliefs, that's not true of all. Certainly, I see change in a number of 'mainline' faiths, both Christian and not, who are evolving in their doctrine on a wide variety of fronts. We need to work with them – people of faith are not de facto our enemies.

  • 67. David_Midvale_UT  |  April 13, 2015 at 6:51 pm

    Far too many Utahns assume that the One and Only True Green Jell-O Fan Club speaks for all religious individuals and that the club's pronouncements are the only valid religious point of view. The rest of us occasionally have to remind the locals that on the grand scale of all things religious or spiritual (including secularly philosophical), the pronouncements of the Fifteen Old White Men are statistically meaningless.

  • 68. ianbirmingham  |  April 13, 2015 at 7:02 pm

    I think you mean "have wielded their doctrine"… and I agree completely. Unitarian Universalists, secular humanists, and many other progressive religious faiths are important allies.

  • 69. RemC_Chicago  |  April 13, 2015 at 8:20 pm

    Agreed, WeaverBear. I'm a member of the UCC, which I joined after leaving the Catholic faith I was raised in. My church is extremely welcoming of the LGBT community, particularly to those of us with kids. I have a deep-rooted faith but must confess to having had some of that faith shaken during the last few years by the evidence of so much rabid animosity directed at us from so-called Christians, who are all too eager to judge and condemn and damn us all as "sinners," merely because of who we love. I look for clues in articles, polls, to verify that this noisy and aggressive group is just that—noisy and aggressive—but not indicative of the majority. As I've written here before, I resent this group for taking over the term "Christian," as if there is only one way to be Christian, as if we all think alike. I asked my pastor during the ME fight in Illinois why we weren't hearing more from the pro-folks on the religion side. He said he once asked that of a journalist and was told that religious folks standing up in solidarity was too mainstream—it wasn't news. One of the field directors at Equality Illinois told me the same thing. There are glimmerings here and there of Catholics speaking out against the Church hierarchy, claiming that what they've been taught about the inherent dignity and worth of every individual is betrayed by the anti-gay stances of their religious leaders. The Governor who signed the ME bill into law here in Illinois was Catholic and was scolded by his bishop. It didn't stop him from recognizing that he had to do the right thing. Hope lives on.

  • 70. VIRick  |  April 13, 2015 at 8:15 pm

    Chile: President Signs Civil Unions Bill

    Today, 13 April 2015, Chilean President Michelle Bachelet signed a bill into law that will allow gays and lesbians in the South American country to enter into civil unions. “The civil union law is a vindication in the struggle for sexual diversity rights,” said Bachelet during the signing ceremony that took place at the Presidential Palace in Santiago, the Chilean capital. The bill received final approval from Chilean lawmakers in January, but is already being viewed by most advocates as a first-step measure toward full marriage equality.

    Bachelet, who publicly supports marriage rights for same-sex couples, signed the measure into law less than two weeks after the Chilean Constitutional Court upheld it. Her government earlier this year already announced it would no longer oppose same-sex marriage in a lawsuit before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights that three same-sex couples filed there in 2012.

    The new civil unions law, to take effect in six months, that is, from 13 October 2015, gives same-sex and unmarried couples many of the same rights granted to married couples. Partners can inherit each other’s property, join one another’s health plans, and receive pension benefits. The civil union will be validated by simply registering it in the civil registry. Same-sex unions from abroad can also be registered in Chile.

    Chile has long been one of the most socially conservative countries in the region. For example, it was one of the last countries in the world to legalize divorce when it finally took that step in 2004.

    In other news from South America, there's a same-sex marriage lawsuit pending before the Venezuelan Supreme Court, and a whole string of new human rights protections due to be implemented in Bolivia in August 2015. Advocates in Bolivia seem to think that same-sex civil unions can evolve from the equal protection provisions in these new human rights laws, once implemented.

  • 71. David_Midvale_UT  |  April 15, 2015 at 9:32 am

    guitaristbl wrote:
    "Funniest brief against marriage equality so far from 'Same-sex attracted men and their wives'."

    The Salt Lake Tribune reports:

    "A Mormon couple in a mixed-orientation marriage are objecting to their inclusion in a U.S. Supreme Court case filing because it argues that legalized gay marriage would demean the marriages of couples like themselves."

    GUFFAW. The snake oil salesmen included a reference to a video by a couple who support marriage equality.

    Click… for details.

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