Equality news round-up: Hearing in Kentucky in case of clerk refusing to issue marriage licenses, and more
July 13, 2015
Civil Unions LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials
– We received a complaint about a user posting inflammatory comments here. We’ve put our tech team on it and we’ll report back soon. Sorry about this. UPDATE: The user has been banned and tech is looking into why none of the flags went through to any of us.
– Here’s part of a video deposition from the Ferguson v. JONAH conversion therapy consumer fraud case from a “success story” witness.
– There’s a hearing today in the case of the Rowan County clerk who is refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
– Same-sex couples in Chile have been signing up for civil unions.
Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!
99 Comments
1.
Rick55845 | July 13, 2015 at 8:36 am
I never noticed before that the Great Seal of Kentucky featured the state's first gay couple. You know, Wikipedia says they're just "friends". Uh huh. 🙂
2.
RnL2008 | July 13, 2015 at 8:48 am
That's just to funny…….lol!!!
3.
StraightDave | July 13, 2015 at 11:45 am
I would be better if they were hugging, but maybe that wasn't allowed back in 1792.
4.
VIRick | July 13, 2015 at 2:27 pm
"I never noticed before that the Great Seal of Kentucky featured the state's first gay couple. You know, Wikipedia says they're just "friends". Uh huh. 🙂 "
And Rick, I still wouldn't have noticed had you not pointed it out!
It also gives a whole new meaning to the first half of the state's motto, "United We Stand," even though one normally doesn't do that while standing. LOL
5.
RobW303 | July 13, 2015 at 8:37 am
Kentucky plaintiffs, please, please, please make the point that, of all the people the Bible (presumably, the guidebook for her faith) explicitly forbids from marrying, it's only homosexuals that she refuses to serve. I'd love to hear Davis's attempted rebuttal to that.
6.
RnL2008 | July 13, 2015 at 8:49 am
Here's my comment in regard to the Clerk in Tennessee who resigned along with her staff:
Funny how she had NO problem issuing marriage licenses to multiple divorcees, body-piercing/tattoo individuals, people wearing mixed fiber clothing and folks who styled, cut or shaved their hair, but she CAN'T in her supposed good conscious issue marriage licenses to Same-Sex couples…….well, I think she's a HYPOCRITE and should be ashamed of herself…….I mean folks had issues with Blacks having ANY rights and now she feels justified to treat others the way she was once treated. NOT acceptable.
7.
VIRick | July 13, 2015 at 2:47 pm
Rose, if someone can not do their job (for whatever reason), the correct procedure is for them to resign their position. Elected officials (whether we like it or not) can not be fired; they must resign.
Once they have resigned, a vacancy is declared and the county commissioners can then appoint someone to fill the vacancy who will do the job. And that's precisely what has happened in the case you're mentioning from Tennessee. A replacement has already been appointed.
That's also precisely why the governor of Kentucky, in his executive order to all county clerks in his state, said, "Do you job and issue marriage licenses to everyone,– or resign."
What we DO NOT need is clerks who refuse to do their job and who also refuse to resign, and who then try to make an issue out of their own pig-headedness.
So, don't worry or fret over the ones who resign. We can call them hypocrites (and I'm certain they are), but at least they're out of the way, replaced by someone who will follow the law and do their job.
That one in Texas from Rusk County who quit in a huff last Thursday afternoon after being told, and who then let the door slam her in the ass on her way out, will duly be replaced (today) by someone who will do the job.
8.
RnL2008 | July 13, 2015 at 3:35 pm
I do agree with ya……some obviously disagree with me and that is their right, but I'm NOT going to change my views on anyone using their supposedly "DEEPLY-HELD" religious beliefs to discriminate as they see fit. Plain and Simple!!!
9.
VIRick | July 13, 2015 at 3:49 pm
Rose, here's one aspect of the Federal punitive class-action case, "Miller v. Davis," that will probably make you go ballistic:
Kim Davis, the recalcitrant Rowan County KY clerk who refuses to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and who has thus chosen to not issue marriage licenses to anyone (so as not to "discriminate") has herself been married 4 TIMES!! I assume, good 'christian' that she is, that this also means she has been divorced 3 TIMES!
10.
wes228 | July 13, 2015 at 9:31 am
That would not make a good legal argument. Courts cannot be in the business of determining what is the correct way to interpret a religious text. The county clerk's religious beliefs may be against same-sex marriage but allow for divorce, fornication, etc. We can think that is hypocritical, but it's not really any of the Court's concern if she is properly interpreting the Bible or not.
The question is if a civil officer is allowed to put her religious beliefs (whatever they may be) over what the law actually is. The answer to that is clearly: NO!
11.
RobW303 | July 13, 2015 at 10:19 am
Judges are emotional beings, too. If she can attempt to sway the judges by citing from scripture, surely demonstrating the hypocrisy of those citations is relevant, if only to kick away the illusion that any such assertions are truly religious in nature (and thus remotely defensible through the First Amendment). It may not be a rigorous legal argument, but it's still a good and effective one.
12.
RnL2008 | July 13, 2015 at 12:29 pm
Well, that is irrelevant……that clearly shows it's more a pick and choose than an actual belief against something…….I mean according to you I can claim I have a religious belief against Blacks, Jews and color purple…….a Judge would either toss me in a funny farm or tell me to get over myself……the same will probably be told to them as well!!!
13.
davepCA | July 13, 2015 at 4:08 pm
While it would not be a good legal argument to show the VALIDITY of someone's beliefs (because there would be no real point in doing so, since people are free to hold whatever religious belief they want), it could do a good job of illustrating that their claim of basing their actions on 'deeply held religious beliefs' is not an honest claim if other facts about other actions they have taken show a lot of inconsistency, thus revealing that their claim is really just a post-hoc fabrication used as an excuse for their garden-variety anti-gay prejudice. They can believe what they want, but if they are LYING about why they took the actions they did, it's a valid tactic to attempt to point this out.
14.
1grod | July 13, 2015 at 8:42 am
Thirteen Alabama counties, including the largest populated hold-out county by 50,000 – Houston Co (101,547) refuse to issue marriage licenses following Obergefell v. Hodges. In response, Equality Wiregrass, Equality Alabama, Freedom to Marry, and the Campaign for Southern Equality are staging a rally in front of the offices of Houston County's Probate Judge Patrick Davenport, 462 N Oates St, Dothan at 12:30 today. Invited speakers include LGBT advocate Audri Scott Williams; Wiregrass LGBT leader & transgender rights advocate Ambrosia Starling; family physician & Army veteran Dr. Jennifer Marsden; Columbus, Georgia LGBT Liaison Officer Jeremy Scott Hobbs; and musician & LGBT advocate Karen Watson. ‪106 have indicated they will attend. Could someone report of the rally and march?
15.
1grod | July 13, 2015 at 1:10 pm
Report on today's Rally and March of 50 – plus people.
ttp://www.dothaneagle.com/news/local/same-sex-marriage-supporters-rally-again-in-dothan/article_2a21c222-298d-11e5-b913-7bdf8c69f812.html
16.
Sagesse | July 13, 2015 at 4:09 pm
There's a typo in the link. Try this.
http://www.dothaneagle.com/news/local/same-sex-ma…
From the article, quoting the probate judge:
“We regret the inconvenience caused to heterosexual applicants over the last several months in obtaining a marriage license but are very grateful to the vast majority who have been supportive and encouraging.”
We don't regret the inconvenience to same sex couples though. Tone deaf or what?
17.
JayJonson | July 14, 2015 at 5:55 am
Not tone deaf, just honest. They are establishing their bigot bona fides.
18.
1grod | July 13, 2015 at 4:10 pm
Houston Co probate judge replies: will do so after the remaining days of the 25 day period or any other legal remedies lapse. He noted only 1 applicant received : http://www.wtvy.com/home/headlines/Houston-Co-Pro…
19.
VIRick | July 13, 2015 at 5:50 pm
More tone-deafness???
I believe he has received 1 application for a marriage license from 2 applicants.
And let me deflate this falsely-derived 25-day "waiting period" thingie, and where it's coming from:
On 29 June 2015, the Alabama Supreme Court published an ambiguously-worded order giving affected parties, including county probate judges, 25 days to file briefs and motions reacting to the US Supreme Court decision in "Obergefell." It seems many probate judges in Alabama, grasping at straws, have interpreted this as a 25-day moratorium on implementing new federal law within their own jurisdictions.
However, Supreme Court decisions are to be immediately implemented and are effective from the date upon which they are announced, in this instance, 26 June 2015.
20.
Ned_Flaherty | July 13, 2015 at 10:35 am
The notation "Plaintiff and Defendant designations merged" at the top of Jonathan Hoffman's written transcript is highly unusual, and this point merits some professional discussion, e.g., what it means, why it occurred in this case, how it affected the outcome, etc.
21.
DrBriCA | July 13, 2015 at 1:44 pm
According to Equality Case Files, there was no decision today in the KY federal hearing. An hearing is to be scheduled. The clerk in question did not appear, as she was never subpoenaed, apparently.
22.
VIRick | July 13, 2015 at 5:39 pm
Here's the ACLU of Kentucky's press release following today's hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction in "Miller v. Davis:"
"We are happy our clients had the opportunity to explain to a judge their experience of being denied marriage licenses they are eligible for in Rowan County. Today’s hearing was continued until Clerk Kim Davis signs paperwork acknowledging she has received the complaint. We look forward to completing these proceedings in Covington at a time and date Judge Bunning sets, so that our clients may receive the relief they are entitled to.”
The case has been continued, with the next round of proceedings to occur no earlier than Monday, 20 July 2015. The case has also been moved from the federal court in Ashland to the federal court in Covington.
23.
ianbirmingham | July 13, 2015 at 1:49 pm
Russia may soon ban rainbow flags
http://www.dw.com/en/not-so-gay-times-in-russia/a…
24.
A_Jayne | July 13, 2015 at 4:11 pm
So all those xtianists complaining that "the gays" stole the rainbow (flag) can instead complain that the Russians gave it to the gay people.
LOL!
25.
ianbirmingham | July 13, 2015 at 1:51 pm
Pentagon drafting plan to lift transgender ban
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MILITAR…
26.
Tony MinasTirith | July 13, 2015 at 2:55 pm
Boy Scouts committee UNANIMOUSLY approves allowing gay adults as leaders
DALLAS (Reuters) – The Boy Scouts of America Executive Committee unanimously approved allowing gay adults to serve as leaders, officials said on Monday, in a major step toward dismantling a policy that has caused deep rifts in the 105-year-old organization.
The group's National Executive Board will meet to ratify the resolution on July 27, the Boy Scouts said in a statement.
For the Rest of The Story…
http://www.globalpost.com/article/6614010/2015/07…
27.
davepCA | July 13, 2015 at 4:10 pm
Unanimous – wow, I wasn't expecting that.
28.
David_Las_Cruces_NM | July 14, 2015 at 5:55 pm
More heads are exploding across Utah and parts of Idaho and Arizona not unlike the movie "Mars Attacks!"
29.
Randolph_Finder | July 15, 2015 at 10:15 pm
Actually not. The LDS wards call only members of the individual ward which sponsors the troop/pack etc. as scout leaders. If the Bishop doesn't want the gay celibate member in good standing to be in the scouting leadership (or for that matter the Young Men's program at all), he won't be. Given this, opening up the ability for gay adults to serve as leaders affects the LDS less than almost anyone else.
I've heard talks by the representatives from the LDS church to the BSA. They knew this was coming when gay youth were allowed and didn't get in the way. This isn't the church being particularly LGBT, but rather deciding that of A) taking the LDS young men's program out of BSA, B) hurting BSA more over the issue or C) living with it, they chose C.
30.
Sagesse | July 13, 2015 at 4:32 pm
Apologies if this has been posted and I missed it.
Roy Moore tells radical anti-abortion, anti-gay rights group that America is under attack [al.com]
"Chief Justice Roy Moore told an audience of members of a radical anti-abortion and anti-gay rights group Saturday that "America is under attack."
"Moore spoke to about 300 people at the Fresh Anointing House of Worship in Montgomery who had come to hear him and take part in the kickoff of a week of activities by the group Operation Save America.
"The group is a fundamentalist Christian conservative organization that opposes abortion, same-sex marriage and non-Christian religions. OSA has been listed as a hate group by some organizations."
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/07/roy_moor…
31.
davepCA | July 13, 2015 at 4:58 pm
Yaaarrgh! Sound the alarm! Bwee-oooh! Bwee-oooh! Bwee-oooh! It's an ATTACK!! Teh gayz are massing and causing lots of abortions with their irresponsible procreating!! …..oh, wait…… Um….
32.
VIRick | July 13, 2015 at 8:45 pm
"Teh gayz are massing and causing lots of abortions with their irresponsible procreating!! …..oh, wait…… Um…. "
I'm surprised they didn't provide a graphic display of all the unusual positions these gays resort to for all this irresponsible procreation!!
33.
davepCA | July 13, 2015 at 9:51 pm
I think this 'irresponsible procreation' involves people having sex while they leave their pet locked in a hot car for an hour…. or something…..
34.
VIRick | July 13, 2015 at 11:06 pm
……… while in church.
35.
VIRick | July 13, 2015 at 4:38 pm
Same-Sex Couples Sue Arkansas over Birth Certificates
Little Rock AR –— Three same-sex couples have sued Arkansas health officials in state court for not allowing both spouses to be named on their children’s birth certificates. The three lesbian couples sued the Department of Health on Monday, 13 July 2015, in Pulaski County Circuit Court and said they were told they would have to obtain a court order to name both parents on their children’s birth certificates. The couples asked to have both parents listed on the birth certificates following last month’s US Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.
The lawsuit claims the department is violating the couples’ constitutional rights, and asks a judge to prevent the state from denying birth certificates naming both parents to same-sex couples. The lawsuit says the department’s policy could affect a number of benefits, including insurance and inheritance.
36.
davepCA | July 13, 2015 at 4:59 pm
Go get 'em!
37.
RnL2008 | July 13, 2015 at 4:56 pm
What happened in Court today with regards to Kim Davis: http://www.dailyindependent.com/news/rowan-clerk-…
38.
davepCA | July 13, 2015 at 6:20 pm
PLEASE NOTE – I get a message that the site in that link contains malware and may attempt to install apps on your computer.
39.
RnL2008 | July 13, 2015 at 6:31 pm
Sorry, Dave……didn't get it and was able to read the article……you aren't mad at me, are ya?
40.
davepCA | July 13, 2015 at 9:53 pm
Aw shucks girl I could never be mad at you : )
41.
RnL2008 | July 13, 2015 at 10:27 pm
Big hugs……and I use Chrome as well, but it could be some other setting on your computer.
I can always copy and paste, but essentially the her Liberty Defense Lawyer claimed her religion DOESN'T allow her to deal with the relationships or marriages of Gay and Lesbian couples and it also DOESN'T allow her to Discriminate……that's why she refused ALL couples……frankly, I'm sick of this BS!!!
42.
VIRick | July 13, 2015 at 11:10 pm
The old biddy has ONLY been divorced 3 times and married 4 times!
43.
RnL2008 | July 13, 2015 at 11:15 pm
Wow, but her religious beliefs must NOT include treat others as you would like to be treated or, what's good for the goose is good for the gander or people in glass houses SHOULDN'T throw stones…….I mean I've ONLY been legally married once and it's the one I'm CURRENTLY in!!!
44.
VIRick | July 13, 2015 at 11:25 pm
I'm waiting for one of her many ex-husbands to publicly denounce her as being a hateful and spiteful, two-faced old biotch!
45.
RnL2008 | July 13, 2015 at 11:31 pm
Her own actions indicate just what sort of person she is in my personal opinion.
46.
Mike_Baltimore | July 13, 2015 at 7:23 pm
Using Google Chrome, I do not get that message, Dave.
For a while, I got that type of message on every newspaper I tried to click on – including the Washington Post, Indianapolis Star, New York Times, etc.
47.
davepCA | July 13, 2015 at 9:54 pm
Odd. I'm using Chrome here too, but got the message.
48.
A_Jayne | July 13, 2015 at 8:20 pm
I did not get that message on my iPad. I did get a popup that advised me I have used one of 8 pages available for viewing this month without paying for the privilege.
49.
flyerguy77 | July 13, 2015 at 6:21 pm
As right now, it sounds like Judge Bunning will order Davis to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Like he said, his oath to uphold the US Constitution is same as hers. Yes she tried to say when she took the oath same sex marriages were not allowed, but it was changed 2 weeks ago.. she has to follow the US Constitution and her religious beliefs are not part of her assigned county clerk job.
50.
Tony MinasTirith | July 14, 2015 at 4:16 am
I'm pretty sure her job description also does not give her discretion as to whom to grant or deny marriage licences, when the applicants meet all express state laws and requirements. The judge should ask her, from where does she obtain the authority to grant herself the power of discretion. He should ask her, which other couples who are otherwise legally able to enter into marriage would she deny or has ever denied a license to. Should she claim her authority comes from scripture, which scripture specifically forbids SSM and then explain why she should be allowed to impose her religious restrictions on others. Could a Jewish clerk require that all applicants b4 her wear a yamakules b4 she offers the state's service to them? Could that clerk deny all applicants who work on the sabbath or who don't have the appropriate orthodox beard and hairstyle? Could a Mormon clerk deny licences Muslims or xtians, or who aren't wearing the magic underwear? What about people with imperfect vision … wearing unnatural glasses or contacts? Could she deny people who have disobeyed their parents? What if the applicants are straight but godless democrats who haven't been baptized or been to church except for funerals? Can she exercise her discretion then? Has she ever denied any other couple a license who otherwise qualified? What about when she divorces for the 4th time… why can the biblical admonishments about divorce be ignored?
51.
Tony MinasTirith | July 13, 2015 at 6:19 pm
So…
Now that marrage equality is legal in all the states, should there be a SS Bachelor/Bachelorette show?
52.
flyerguy77 | July 13, 2015 at 6:30 pm
TLC or other cable channels should have a reality show about a gay family..
53.
RnL2008 | July 13, 2015 at 10:30 pm
I mean if TLC is going to do the Duggars, and My Husband's NOT Gay, along with Sister Wives and My Five Wives……then they SHOULDN'T discriminate and do a Gay or Lesbian family……..oh and I'm sick of the trolls on the other site claims that Lesbians are obese and another literally stated that Lesbians were good for Straight men to watch in porn……ugh:(
54.
flyerguy77 | July 13, 2015 at 10:33 pm
OOPS I unliked your comment.. but i agree with you
55.
RnL2008 | July 13, 2015 at 10:36 pm
No Worries…….thank you
56.
VIRick | July 13, 2015 at 9:01 pm
From Puerto Rico, I just received the news via Gabriel LaBorde that Puerto Rico was ready to start issuing marriage licenses from today, and thus, summarily did so, effectively jumping the gun:
"Effective from Today, 13 July 2015, Puerto Rico Begins to Issue Marriage Licenses to Same-Sex Couples!"
In addition, same-sex couples were also able to immediately register their out-of-state marriages with the Demographic Registry of Puerto Rico. A couple identified only as Emilio and Efraín became the 1st same-sex couple to do so.
And this, from "El Nuevo Dia," also effective from today, 13 July 2015:
Parejas gay podrían adoptar menores en Puerto Rico
(Gay couples may adopt children in Puerto Rico)
Jefa del Departamento de la Familia ordenó a los trabajadores de la agencia a solo considerar “el mejor bienestar del menor” sin prejuicios
(Head of the Department of Family ordered the agency workers to only consider the "best interests of the child" without prejudice)
57.
VIRick | July 13, 2015 at 11:43 pm
From the "Washington Blade:"
On Monday, 13 July 2015, same-sex couples in Puerto Rico began to apply for licenses that will allow them to marry in the U.S. commonwealth. Couples who receive a marriage license have 10 days to use it, according to Puerto Rican law. And given the two-day waiting period, the first same-sex marriages on the island are expected to take place on Wednesday, 15 July 2015.
Our Lt. Governor is expected back in the Territory on the same date, 15 July 2015, and is fully expected to co-sign the executive order for the USVI. Given that 15 July 2015 is also 8 days from the date when the first same-sex couple here filed for their marriage license, we may well see a 2-jurisdiction tie, with full marriage equality arriving in both Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands simultaneously.
58.
Steve27516 | July 15, 2015 at 8:27 am
VIRick, please keep us updated with any developments today in either USVI or PR. Thanks!
59.
VIRick | July 13, 2015 at 9:14 pm
In "Taylor v. Brasuell," the federal case in which a Navy veteran sued for the right to be buried with her wife in the Idaho State Veterans Cemetery, we finally have a decision and an order:
The decision denied the state Defendants' motion to dismiss and granted the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
"Ms.Taylor is entitled to have the assurance that there is a court order in place requiring that what she has a right to have happen if she were to pass away today, will happen when she does pass away. That is the relief she seeks and, equally importantly, her right.
"Therefore, upon her death, Ms. Taylor shall be interred with her deceased spouse, Ms. Mixner, at the Idaho State Veterans Cemetery. Moreover, the State of Idaho, its political subdivisions, and its officers, employees, and agents, are enjoined from enforcing any constitutional provision, statute, regulation, or policy preventing qualified same-sex couples from being buried or interred together at the Idaho State Veterans Cemetery which, if the spouses were not of the same sex, would be otherwise valid under the laws of the state."
60.
JayJonson | July 14, 2015 at 8:07 am
VIRick, thank you for posting so much information about these cases. But could you also provide links to your sources? I have googled Taylor v. Brasuell and have not been able to find any story about the decision. Please provide a link. Thank you.
61.
JayJonson | July 14, 2015 at 8:12 am
OK. I finally found the decision, which was released on July 9, and may be found here: http://media.spokesman.com/documents/2015/07/tayl…
But what confused me was that I thought the case had been settled in October. From a Windy City Times article from October 22, 2014: "Today, Madelynn "Lee" Taylor went to the Idaho State Veterans Cemetery to make arrangements to have both her ashes and those of her late wife, Jean Mixner, interred together at the cemetery. Idaho officials agreed to Taylor's request following the National Center for Lesbian Rights' ( NCLR ) recent victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which found that Idaho's ban on marriage equality violated the U.S. Constitution. The court ordered marriages to begin on October 15, 2014, and directed the state to recognize the marriages of couples who married in other states." http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/lgbt/Lesbian-v…
I am surprised that it was necessary to have the decision and order from the district judge, but glad that it finally came.
62.
VIRick | July 14, 2015 at 4:19 pm
Jay, apparently, in October 2014, she was told verbally that the state had dropped their opposition to her request. At that point in time, she was thus able to make interrement arrangements for both herself and her wife at the Idaho State Veterans Cemetery.
Effective from 9 July 2015, she now has a written court order from the federal district court as verification, partly, I suspect, because the state subsequently attempted to have this case dismissed. This way, too, the state gets stuck paying for her legal expenses (as if Idaho didn't already rack up enough legal expense in their vain efforts to appeal and appeal "Latta v. Otter," the original case that struck down Idaho's ban).
63.
Tony MinasTirith | July 14, 2015 at 10:29 pm
Yes. Sources and Links are helpful.
64.
VIRick | July 13, 2015 at 9:40 pm
Same-Sex Couples Apply to Marry in the US Virgin Islands!!!
ST. THOMAS – Two same-sex couples have applied for marriage licenses in the US Virgin Islands, and presiding Superior Court Judge Michael Dunston said licenses will be issued when the required waiting period has elapsed.
A couple filed an application on St. Croix on Tuesday, 7 July 2015, two days before the governor's executive order, and Dunston further said, "it's my understanding that there's been an application in St. Thomas." Dunston said the applications were accepted and "once the eight-day period has passed, WE WILL ISSUE LICENSES."
The right for same-sex couples in the territory to marry comes on the heels of the US Supreme Court ruling that declared freedom to marry a fundamental right.
Gov. Kenneth Mapp has signed an executive order requiring the government to comply with the ruling, but that will not go into effect until the lieutenant governor returns to the territory from a trip and is able to apply his signature to the decree.
"The Supreme Court ruling is very clear that persons who wish to marry need not wait – this is writing from the opinion – need not wait for any legislative action to be able to exercise their true choices," Mapp has said.
Mapp's order means government agencies must provide health insurance for same-sex partners of employees who have coverage; allow employees to designate their same-sex spouse as a beneficiary; allow such married individuals to have medical decisions made by their spouse in times of emergency or at the hospital; and let married same-sex couples file joint tax returns with the Internal Revenue Bureau.
Dunston said the Superior Court will make officials available to perform ceremonies if couples want an officiant. "We gave the Legislature time to act. It's clear they haven't acted during this period of time," Dunston said. "We are bound to follow the Supreme Court order, and we will do so." DONE!!!
65.
davepCA | July 13, 2015 at 9:48 pm
Wooo-HOOOOOO!!!! Great news, Rick!!! : )
66.
VIRick | July 13, 2015 at 10:08 pm
I'm like totally over the top!
You already know the first half of the story, relative to the issuance of the executive order.
As for the second half of the story, there never was any doubt about my business associate/lawyer friend, the presiding judge. However, in the interim, we still had to give the legislature its 5 minutes of glory and fame to air their mouths, and act like they had some authority.
But with the codified system of law, the executive order cuts through all the bullshit and hot air, particularly if backed up by a strong judiciary, as exemplified here by the presiding judge.
It worked in Puerto Rico, it now just worked here, and it will continue to work in every remaining state in Mexico.
67.
VIRick | July 13, 2015 at 10:42 pm
VI Superior Court to Move Forward with Same-Sex Marriage Licenses
From the "St. Thomas Source:"
Without any action so far from the Legislature and the holdup of an executive order at Government House, the VI Superior Court is moving forward on its own with issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples living in the territory.
At least two same-sex couples, one on St. Croix and one on St. Thomas, have applied for a marriage license, which court officials said Monday, 13 July 2015, will be issued once the mandatory 8-day waiting period is over.
The VI Superior Court began making the necessary changes to marriage applications soon after the Supreme Court ruling came down and, according to presiding Judge Michael Dunston, were waiting for the Legislature to make changes to the section of the VI Code defining marriage as only a union between a man and woman.
Since the VI Legislature has still not acted, however, the Superior Court will “move ahead” with following the language of the Supreme Court’s ruling, officials said Monday, 13 July 2015. Speaking to various media outlets over the past few weeks, Dunston has said the ruling makes clear that “persons who wish to marry need not wait for any legislative action to be able to exercise their true choices.”
Gov. Kenneth Mapp said the same thing at a 30 June press conference, where he also announced that he would be issuing an executive order compelling the courts to comply with the ruling. The order was written and signed by Mapp on 9 July 2015, but has been held up because acting Lt. Gov. Neville James has “refused” to sign it, according to Government House.
“Lieutenant-Governor (Osbert) Potter will return to the Territory on 15 July. We expect it to be signed then,” Mapp spokeswoman Kim Jones said Monday, 13 July.
68.
RnL2008 | July 13, 2015 at 11:47 pm
Okay, these IDIOTS obviously DON'T understand the significance of lowering the flag to half mast and it's got NOTHING to do with their DAMN religious beliefs: http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2015/07…
69.
Fortguy | July 14, 2015 at 12:40 am
Of course, the correct response among the groundskeepers of the two buildings would be to continue to raise the flag highly at full-staff. Masts, after all, are generally found only on sailing vessels, and Missouri has no coastline.
70.
VIRick | July 14, 2015 at 2:10 am
Instead, Dent County is the self-described "Feeder Pig and Calf Capital of Missouri."
Plus, we handily obtained our quote-of-the-day out of the fiasco:
“It ain’t what our Bible tells us. It’s against God’s plan,” County Commissioner Gary Larson said of same-sex marriage, according to the St. Louis "Post-Dispatch."
71.
gay_avenger | July 14, 2015 at 2:43 am
lol They have a direct line to god's office now. Surprised the bigots haven't set up a twitter account for THEIR god.
“It ain’t what our Bible tells us. It’s against God’s plan,” County Commissioner Gary Larson said of same-sex marriage, according to the St. Louis "Post-Dispatch."
72.
JayJonson | July 14, 2015 at 7:59 am
Apparently, the bigots couldn't stand the blowback. They say they will rescind the decision. http://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/local-misso…
73.
RnL2008 | July 14, 2015 at 4:57 pm
Thanks Jay……..some idiots really need to be hit on the head with a hammer…..remember folks I am a Navy Vet and we can fit a square peg in a round hole….all we need is a BIGGER hammer:-)
74.
David_Las_Cruces_NM | July 14, 2015 at 5:57 pm
Guffaw
75.
jm64tx | July 14, 2015 at 1:32 pm
So actually… Missouri is on the Mississippi river … so it does have coastline, as well as sailing vessels.
76.
MJ4 | July 14, 2015 at 3:18 pm
So, actually, rivers have riverbanks, not coastlines.
77.
jm64tx | July 14, 2015 at 5:04 pm
True, but rivers also have shorelines. Shoreline and coastline are synonyms.
78.
Mike_Baltimore | July 14, 2015 at 8:28 pm
Actually, Dent County is NOT on the Mississippi River – it is several dozen miles West of the Mississippi River, and there are 3 counties between Dent County and the Mississippi River.
And the ordinance is NOT for the state of Missouri, but for the two cited locations in Dent County – county-owned buildings.
Besides, half staff is approximately halfway between the top and the base of the staff, pole, etc. that the flag is on, not the county ordinance wording of "lowered below half-mast [sic]".
79.
VIRick | July 15, 2015 at 12:38 am
"So actually… Missouri is on the Mississippi river … so it does have coastline, as well as sailing vessels."
“It ain’t what our Bible tells us. It’s against God’s plan,” County Commissioner Gary Larson said ….
80.
VIRick | July 14, 2015 at 12:38 am
Liberal Party Calls for Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage in Hungary
Liberal Party leader Gábor Fodor has submitted a bill to Parliament on legalizing same-sex marriage in Hungary. Rights granted to the LGBT community do not deprive anybody else of their own rights, Fodor told a press conference. He said the gay community, but also “every decent person”, has long been calling for same-sex marriage to be legal, adding that the constitution and family law were discriminatory. Citing adoption as an example, Fodor said registered partnerships do not grant couples the same rights as marriage.
81.
guitaristbl | July 14, 2015 at 4:14 pm
Yeah no…Hungary has a constitutional ban on marriage equality since 2012 when the (re elected) homophobic right wing party Fidesz won a supermajority and put it in place so this bill is without merit.
Even if the constitutional ban wasnt there with the current political situation in Hungary is extremely unfavourable as apart from the all controlling fidesz party, the 2nd in power party according to the european elections last year is the far right, neo nazi Jobbik party which has threatened the budapest pride with violent protests before.
The progressives powers in Hungary are facing an existential turmoil since 2011 with splits and more splits in the left and center left.
82.
VIRick | July 14, 2015 at 1:32 am
Michoacán Up-Date: Marriage Equality from 15 July 2015!!
On 10 July 2015, a 7th district federal judge ordered the state to accommodate a lesbian couple's injunction. The ruling gave the Governor and Congress of Michoacán until mid-day on 15 July 2015 to revise the laws pertaining to marriage, or face penalties for the previous approval of a Family Code which excluded same-sex couples that was later deemed unconstitutional. The attorney leading the injunction has told the media that state leaders would be found liable for not vetoing that earlier discriminatory revision of the Family Code if it is not immediately modified in accordance with the judge's order. It was announced on 13 July 2015 that Congress would abide by the judge's ruling.
Según 1aplana.mx:
Morelia, Michoacán.- 13 Julio de 2015 – La reforma al Código Familiar en Michoacán que establece que se autorizan los matrimonios entre personas del mismo género será aprobada en la próxima y última sesión ordinaria del Congreso Local, adelantó Sarbelio Molina Vélez, diputado presidente de la LXXII Legislatura en la entidad. Añadió que los diputados tienen como plazo máximo hasta el miércoles a las 11:59 horas para aprobar las reformas, según los términos de la jueza Séptimo Distrito.
Según 1aplana.mx:
Morelia, Michoacán – 13 July 2015 -The amendment to the Family Code in Michoacán which establishes that it authorizes marriages between people of the same gender will be approved in the next and last regular session of the State Congress, according to Sarbelio Molina Vélez, deputy chairman of the Michoacán Legislature. He added that deputies have a maximum deadline of Wednesday at 11:59 hours to pass the reforms, according to the terms of the Seventh District Judge.
http://1aplana.mx/noticias/morelia/cumplira-legis…
So, with this latest announcement, it sounds as if we may have Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, and Michoacán all in a dead heat for 15 July 2015!
83.
allan120102 | July 14, 2015 at 7:49 am
Yes so happy that Mexicans states are abiding pretty fast.
84.
allan120102 | July 14, 2015 at 7:53 am
I have question. Why does Michoacan is being force to change its family code fast compare to other states? Can judges in states like BOC, Durango, Verzcruz, etc do the same in the remaining states that have bans?
85.
VIRick | July 14, 2015 at 4:57 pm
According to the Civil Registrar in Morelia, at least 6 amparos allowing same-sex couples to marry have been granted in the state of Michoacán within the past year. This pushes Michoacán over the 5 amparo limit. The Civil Registrar is thus ready to move forward without any further amparos needed, and has publicly stated so.
Then enter a pissed-off federal judge, fed up with the delay and obfuscation presented by both the Governor and state Congress of Michoacán. The Governor should have already issued his executive decree legalizing same-sex marriage, and the Congress should have already changed the code. Neither have done so. So, the judge is now holding them personally liable for having failed to veto a previous change to the Family Code which was later deemed to be unconstitutional. And his deadline (literally) for legalizing same-sex marriage in Michoacán is tomorrow at mid-day!
The two large, heavily populated states comprising "the Heart of Mexico" are Michoacán and Jalisco. To use a terrible Aztec metaphor, we've now got one-half of the heart in our hands. The other half, Jalisco, is the next case before Mexico's Supreme Court, a suit against the city of Guadalajara, Mexico's second-largest city, and we already know the inevitable outcome of that.
86.
VIRick | July 14, 2015 at 11:33 pm
It's Official! Marriage Equality Begins in Michoacán!
Facing a looming judicial deadline of mid-day tomorrow, 15 July 2015, which would otherwise render him personally liable if he failed to act, today, 14 July 2015, the Governor of Michoacán, Salvador Jara Guerrero, issued an executive order declaring that all the judicially-required changes to the Michoacán Family Code will be applied, effective from 15 July 2015.
And just to be clear, the pissed-off federal judge of the 7th District who finally forced his hand to act was none other than María Dolores Núñez Solorio. http://www.cambiodemichoacan.com.mx/nota-258743
With the addition of Michoacán, over 20% of Mexico's total population now live in a jurisdiction with marriage equality (with the caveat that 100% live in a jurisdiction with recognition).
87.
VIRick | July 14, 2015 at 1:32 am
Michoacán Up-Date: Marriage Equality from 15 July 2015!!
On 10 July 2015, a 7th district federal judge ordered the state to accommodate a lesbian couple's injunction. The ruling gave the Governor and Congress of Michoacán until midnight on 15 July 2015 to revise the laws mentioning marriage, or face penalties for the previous approval of a Family Code which excluded same-sex couples that was later deemed unconstitutional. The attorney leading the injunction has told the media that state leaders would be found liable for not vetoing the discriminatory revision of the Family Code if it is not modified in accordance with the judge's order. It was announced on 13 July 2015 that Congress would abide by the judge's ruling.
Morelia, Michoacán.- La reforma al Código Familiar en Michoacán que establece que se autorizan los matrimonios entre personas del mismo género será aprobada en la próxima y última sesión ordinaria del Congreso Local, adelantó Sarbelio Molina Vélez, diputado presidente de la LXXII Legislatura en la entidad.
Morelia, Michoacán – 13 July 2015 -The amendment to the Family Code in Michoacán which establishes that it authorizes marriages between people of the same gender will be approved in the next and last regular session of the State Congress, according to Sarbelio Molina Velez, deputy chairman of the Michoacán Legislature.
88.
VIRick | July 14, 2015 at 1:32 am
Michoacán Up-Date: Marriage Equality from 15 July 2015!!
On 10 July 2015, a 7th district federal judge ordered the state to accommodate a lesbian couple's injunction. The ruling gave the Governor and Congress of Michoacán until midnight on 15 July 2015 to revise the laws mentioning marriage, or face penalties for the previous approval of a Family Code which excluded same-sex couples that was later deemed unconstitutional. The attorney leading the injunction has told the media that state leaders would be found liable for not vetoing the discriminatory revision of the Family Code if it is not modified in accordance with the judge's order. It was announced on 13 July 2015 that Congress would abide by the judge's ruling.
Morelia, Michoacán.- La reforma al Código Familiar en Michoacán que establece que se autorizan los matrimonios entre personas del mismo género será aprobada en la próxima y última sesión ordinaria del Congreso Local, adelantó Sarbelio Molina Vélez, diputado presidente de la LXXII Legislatura en la entidad.
Morelia, Michoacán – 13 July 2015 -The amendment to the Family Code in Michoacán which establishes that it authorizes marriages between people of the same gender will be approved in the next and last regular session of the State Congress, according to Sarbelio Molina Velez, deputy chairman of the Michoacán Legislature.
89.
Tony MinasTirith | July 14, 2015 at 4:33 am
I've read that Mexico's constitution has been changed and amended over 500 times since the 1920s… Should there be concern about an ultra conservative legislature with support of the catholics could lash back at the liberal courts by amending the Mexican constitution with a SSM ban? Where do the major political parties stand on the judicial legalization of SSM? Where do polls say the Mexican people are with SSM? Like the U.S., does a majority of the electorate approve of SSM?
90.
scream4ever | July 14, 2015 at 11:33 am
Support for SSM in Mexico is at around 50% but growing. In 2000, the country elected a right-leaning government for the first time in generations.
91.
VIRick | July 14, 2015 at 6:14 pm
Tony, ponder this for a moment.
While many states in the USA were busy restrictively "re-defining" marriage as a union between one man and one woman, Mexico simultaneously went the other way. One of those many amendments added to Mexico's constitution, and passed during that same time interval, added non-discrimination protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
92.
Tony MinasTirith | July 14, 2015 at 6:43 pm
What happened in the past is great. I'm concerned more with the future and the havoc a right wing anti gay government could do… Chiefly if the Mexican constitution is easily changed and given the influence of the Catholic Church. I'm not trying to open up a can of worms here… Just keeping an eye on the back door and the enemy. I think it would be a mistake in Mexico, the U.S. Or any other country to assume the opposition will fall back. We all know that Spain could have fallen in 2012 had the Spanish court been more conservative. And in France, where the current socialist govt is loosing popularity day by day and where 100s of thousands of Catholics March against Marriage Equality, the old Sarcovsky Right wing is promising to return to power and undo Marriage a Equality. Its time to celebrate our victories, but we must always keep an eye on the opposition and remain vigilant. Remember, the religious factions have had their way for thousands of years, and they band together when they loose ground. They are not about to give up any time soon. Ultra right conservatism, when joined with dogmatic religion are like a cancer that only needs a few cells to survive and unchecked, turn into a malevolent malignancy.
93.
VIRick | July 14, 2015 at 9:17 pm
Here are the 3 major political parties in Mexico:
PRD – the progressively liberal-leftist and staunchly pro-LGBTI rights party. Gay Mexican citizens and their allies would almost automatically vote PRD. This party has had a "lock" on the Federal District for many years, to the point of making Mexico City appear to be a "country within a country."
PRI – the old institutionalized revolutionary (and anti-Catholic) party which has been very subject to cronyism, patronage, and corruption. They still hold sway in "las provincias," with a particular appeal to the more indigenous portion of the population. For example, in the ejidos (communally-owned communities) of southern Sonora state, they routinely garner a vote of 105% or more of all registered voters (never mind that some voters actually cast a vote for one of the other parties, and not everyone votes).
PAN – the rightist, business-oriented party which has a vision re-making Mexico into a duplicate of the USA. Their appeal is concentrated in the northern tier along the USA border, the most affluent and economically developed portion of Mexico (outside of the Federal District). They tend to be anti-LGBTI, pro-business and pro-church, and garner additional support from the evangelistas.
PRI and PAN tend to fight with each other over other matters not directly involving LGBTI issues, and once in a while PRI will vote with PRD to pass some LGBTI issue just to spite and annoy PAN, and as pay-back for some other unrelated quarrel. For example, they still hate each other because PAN de-nationalized PEMEX, Mexico's oil monopoly (back in the revolutionary heyday, PRI had thrown all the foreign oil companies out of Mexico, along with all the foreign Catholic priests and nuns, and then nationalized all of Mexico's oil reserves, along with all the vast church-held properties).
94.
Fortguy | July 14, 2015 at 11:46 pm
I think you got a touch confused with your parties at the end. Understandable enough since all three have three-letter abbreviations beginning with P. It is the current PRI administration under President Nieto that has opened up PEMEX to foreign investment. The PAN could never have pulled that off. Much as in Israel where only the right-wing Likud has the gravitas to sign the Camp David accords or kick the Jewish settlers out of Gaza without risking national discord, de-nationalizing PEMEX is something only the PRI could do. They were the ones who nationalized the petroleum industry in the first place in 1938 under President Lázaro Cárdenas, and it was their party's quintessential accomplishment in the spirit of the Revolution. The PRD has aggressively opposed the modern reforms–it's most visible leader since it was founded was the former president's son, Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas. Had PEMEX reform been proposed by the PAN, the PRI due to its historic identity along with the PRD would have swatted it down.
Mexico's anti-clerical political tradition runs deep. Although a super-majority of the country is nominally Catholic, most attend mass only for family events such as baptisms, weddings, or funerals, or on days of major observance such as Christmas. Anti-clericalism predates the 1910 Revolution as a major theme in Mexico's War of Independence from Spain and during the Wars of the Reform later in the 19th Century under Benito Juárez.
Elections in Mexico are conducted without runoffs. Because the three main parties are of equivalent strength nationally, its unlikely any presidential candidate will win with an outright majority anytime soon. Similarly, neither of the three is likely to form a majority coalition in the Congress. Usually, this benefits the PRI as they have increasingly taken a centrist position between the PAN and the PRD, and a PRI president can play one against the other in support of his priorities. Nevertheless, when the PAN elected the first non-PRI president since the Revolution, the PAN and the PRD naturally ganged-up on the PRI to impose badly-needed election and civil service reforms to eliminate many of the corrupt practices the PRI relied upon to maintain its long hegemony. Remember, the PRI controlled Mexico effectively as a one-party state longer than the Communists ruled the Soviet Union.
One important thing to know about Mexican politics is that Mexico's political center, much like much of Western Europe, is farther to the left than the center in United States politics. Even the PAN, that plays up Catholic doctrine to its religious base, knows that most of its electorate supports their free market economic principles with the expectation its faith-based values will get nowhere in the national Congress. Most of all, the PAN has taken quite a spanking even in the northern and Yucatan peninsula states where it has been strongest. The violent national drug war under the PAN's Fox and Calderón presidencies has left a very bad taste in people's mouths, and the PRI has seen a strong resurgence in these areas.
95.
VIRick | July 15, 2015 at 12:23 am
You're right, I screwed up with my example near the end. Maybe I should have understated myself by claiming that PAN merely "thought about it."
If I could, I'd re-phrase my example this way: They still hate each other because PAN even dared to begin thinking about de-nationalizing PEMEX, Mexico's oil monopoly.
But to allay Tony's concern, about 2/3rds of voters vote leftist (PRD/PRI), and the rightist PAN has seen a recent draw-down of support.
96.
Tony MinasTirith | July 15, 2015 at 8:17 am
That's what I needed to know.
Also it would be helpful to know if Mexico's Catholics are like those of the U.S. and The Republic of Ireland, wher a slight majority support same sex marriage even while the Catholic Heirarchy denounce SSM. I was concerned after reading how often Mexico has changed their constitution. If it really is that easy, could a Mexican Roy Moore or Ted Cruise type character rally a right wing govt and the catholic bishops to easily amend the Mexican constitution, as it apparently has been in the past, to define Marriage as only between one man and one woman. Is anyone else as tired as me of hearing that phrase "one man and one woman"?
97.
Mike_Baltimore | July 14, 2015 at 7:50 pm
The current Constitution of Mexico went into effect in 1917, instituted under the PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party). This is the Constitution of Mexico that outlawed the Catholic church, and killed many of the priests, bishops, archbishops and cardinals of the Catholic church.
There have been several amendments to that constitution relaxing the constraints on the Catholic church. Many of them were instituted in the 1990s, when PRI was in power. In 2000 and again in 2006, PAN (Partido Acción Nacional) won the Presidency, but PRI won in 2012 (and will retain the Presidency for at least six years, or at least until 2018). The Mexican president is elected for a six year term, but that person cannot repeat.
The most conservative political party in Mexico is PAN, which is the 'natural' party for the Catholic church to support (which it supported from PAN's inception). PAN also currently holds a minority position in the Mexican House and Senate (114 seats of 500 in the House, 38 seats of 128 in the Senate) and PAN has never had a majority in either chamber of the Mexican congress.
Also PAN is vehemently against abortion (at any stage), the morning-after pill, and same-sex marriage, although it's main emphasis seems to be economic. Thus in those respects, PRI would seem to be a much better 'fit' for the GLBT community.
98.
allan120102 | July 14, 2015 at 9:50 am
http://bajopalabra.mx/2015/07/13/no-se-garantiza-… congress in guerrero don t know if same sex marriage is going to be approved.
99.
VIRick | July 14, 2015 at 5:33 pm
Allan, the gist of the hemming and hawing and political double-talk is this:
The President of the Guerrero Congress, Bernardo Ortega Jimenez, stated that they are listening to all voices and that it was not yet decided whether the amendment to the Civil Code will be brought forward or not, although he did announce that the justice commission of the Guerrero Congress will soon provide a thorough analysis, and that there is still no "last word."
But actually, there is, twice round, and quite firm: They are under binding Supreme Court precedent to change the state code to legalize same-sex marriage. Plus, their own governor, Rogelio Ortega, has already issued his executive order legalizing same-sex marriage within Guerrero, and personally officiated over the first mass same-sex marriage ceremony in Acapulco on 10 July 2015.
My message back to the President of the Guerrero Congress: Get used to it. It has already happened. Your only choice is to change the code so as to be in compliance. Besides, legislatures (despite their own pretenses) are rather superfluous in the face of binding Supreme Court rulings and gubernatorial executive orders.