Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Open thread


This is an open thread for discussion.


  • 1. Montezuma58_1  |  November 19, 2015 at 9:20 am

    Apparently, Josh Duggar likes to beat up on prostitutes.

  • 2. Elihu_Bystander  |  November 19, 2015 at 10:11 am

    USCCB Voting Guide Retains Focus on Marriage, Against Protests by Some Bishops

    Despite protests from several vocal bishops, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) passed a revised version of the election-year guide, “Forming Conscience for Faithful Citizenship,” retaining a key emphasis on their opposition to same-gender marriage, now the law of the land throughout the U.S.

    David Gibson of Religion News Service noted that the bishops’ discussion of the document at their annual Baltimore meeting revealed “unusually sharp disagreements on how much they can, and should, adjust their priorities to match those of Pope Francis.”

    The document states:

    “Some issues involve principles that can never be abandoned such as the fundamental right to life and marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

    According to Rachel Zoll of the Associated Press, the bishops cautioned voters against voting for candidates which support these issues:

    Gibson reported:

    “‘In the most impassioned objection to the voter guide, San Diego Bishop Robert McElroy took the floor to argue that the document…should be scrapped because it did not reflect the way that Francis has elevated the battle against poverty and for the environment as central concerns for the Catholic Church since his election in 2013.

    . . .

    “Apparently referring to political conservatives who argue that Catholics cannot vote for candidates who support abortion rights or gay marriage, McElroy said the new draft still ‘provides a warrant for those who will misuse this document outside this room to exclude poverty and exclude the environment as key issues and say they are secondary, and cite this document as they have done for the last two election cycles.’”

    Writing before the vote on the document was taken, the National Catholic Reporter’s Michael Sean Winters offered…

    “If the bishops adopt the proposed draft of ‘Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,’ their quadrennial document issued in presidential election years on the responsibilities of Catholics as citizens, they should have the honesty to rename it ‘Forming Consciences for Fighting Same-Sex Marriage.’ […]

    You can read the full blog here:

  • 3. 1grod  |  November 19, 2015 at 2:34 pm

    Elihu: " CCB's Social Teaching Trainwreck" – Michael Sean Winters: "By my count, same sex marriage is mentioned 10 times [in the Guide], which is strange. First, Pope Francis did not think it necessary to mention the issue directly even once during the six days he was here in the U.S. Secondly, the issue will not appear on any ballots next year, candidates may speak about it but they cannot really propose to do anything about it unless there is a court-packing scheme of which I am unaware. Finally, at a time when racial tensions are at their worst in my adult lifetime, the proposed text equates same-sex marriage with racism, calling them both intrinsic evils, even though civil same-sex marriage is not, and cannot be, an intrinsic evil. I can scarcely imagine a comparison better designed to alienate young Catholics.“…. Welcome to the inanity of being an alienated gay catholic in America.

  • 4. TheVirginian722  |  November 20, 2015 at 6:14 am

    "… the issue will not appear on any ballots next year, candidates may speak about it but they cannot really propose to do anything about it unless there is a court-packing scheme of which I am unaware."

    These opponents of marriage equality are fully engaged in promoting the election of an anti-marriage President and an anti-marriage majority in the U. S. Senate as a means of appointing at least one more anti-marriage justice to the Supreme Court and anti-marriage judges to the Circuit and District Courts.

    Just as the Supreme Court reversed itself in Lawrence v. Texas (overturning Hardwick v. Bowers), it can easily reverse the Obergefell decision. That's why our opponents constantly say, "This isn't over."

    If that doesn't constitute "a court-packing scheme," I don't know what does. And I don't think any of us are "unaware" of it.

  • 5. SethInMaryland  |  November 19, 2015 at 12:29 pm

    any news from the Colombia Supreme Court?

  • 6. allan120102  |  November 19, 2015 at 12:52 pm

    Breaking. Colombia supreme court will not issue its ruling because a conservative group have ask three of the judges to recuse themselves. Now the supreme court will need to see if those judges recuse. the ruling was suppose 5-3 in striking the ban. If the three judges recuse the decision might go the other way .

  • 7. scream4ever  |  November 19, 2015 at 2:07 pm

    A simple stalling tactic and nothing more. Such actions have been attempted many times, but have never been successful. Plus, for them to recuse themselves after the decision has been indicated would be very unprofessional to say the least.

  • 8. guitaristbl  |  November 19, 2015 at 2:44 pm

    I am not aware on what grounds they ask for recusal but should they can, LGBT groups should ask for the recusal of any of the dissenting justices.

  • 9. VIRick  |  November 19, 2015 at 7:54 pm

    Corte Constitucional Aplaza Decisión Sobre Matrimonio Gay

    Este jueves la Corte Constitucional no decidirá sobre la legalización del matrimonio entre parejas del mismo sexo. La corporación ha considerado que tiene que analizar con mayor detenimiento la determinación.

    A esto se suma las tres recusaciones hechas por la Fundación Marido y Mujer en contra de los magistrados María Victoria Calle, Jorge Iván Palacio, y Luis Ernesto Vargas por haberse pronunciado con anterioridad frente a las parejas del mismo sexo.

    BLU Radio conoció que la ponencia del magistrado Jorge Pretelt sería derrotada en la discusión. Por lo menos habría cinco votos a favor del matrimonio entre homosexuales y los magistrados que votarían a favor serían Gloria Inés Ortiz, Jorge Iván Palacios, Luis Ernesto Vargas, Alberto Rojas Ríos, y María Victoria Calle. También habría opositores fijos que serían Pretelt, Mendoza, y Guerrero

    (Constitutional Court Postpones Decision on Gay Marriage

    On Thursday,19 November 2015, the Constitutional Court did not decide on the legalization of marriage between same-sex couples. The members have considered that they have to analyze the determination in more detail.

    To this, there are three objections raised by the Fundación Marido y Mujer (Husband and Wife Foundation) against Justices Maria Victoria Calle, Jorge Ivan Palacio, and Luis Ernesto Vargas for having previously spoken before same-sex couples. (which holds about as much water as the allegations for recusal presented against Justice Ginsberg prior to the 26 June ruling by the US Supreme court for having officiated at a same-sex marriage).

    Bluradio realizes that the presentation by Judge Jorge Pretelt would be defeated in the discussion. There would be at least five votes in favor of same-sex marriage, those Justices being Gloria Inés Ortiz, Jorge Iván Palacios, Luis Ernesto Vargas, Alberto Rojas Rios, and Maria Victoria Calle. The fixed opponents would be Pretelt, Mendoza, and Guerrero.

  • 10. scream4ever  |  November 19, 2015 at 9:36 pm

    Hopefully this will all be dealt with quickly.

  • 11. Christian0811  |  November 20, 2015 at 3:19 pm

    Are there any legal briefs that are availed to the public in this case? I haven't read anything that would lend to the idea that colombia's constitution doesn't ban same sex marriage. If there are briefs that explain why article 42 should be disregarded, I'd like to read them.

  • 12. VIRick  |  November 19, 2015 at 2:23 pm

    Huckabee Sued Over Music At Kim Davis Rally

    A member of the group, Survivor, yesterday, 18 November 2015, filed a lawsuit against Mike Huckabee for playing "Eye Of The Tiger" during the rally celebrating Kim Davis’ release from jail.

    Rude Music, operated by founding Survivor member and song co-author Frank M. Sullivan III, filed suit in an Illinois federal court alleging that the former Arkansas governor violated a copyright in September when he escorted Kentucky county clerk, Kim Davis, out of the Carter County Detention Center to the “Eye of the Tiger” tune.

  • 13. VIRick  |  November 19, 2015 at 2:38 pm

    Ohio Lawmakers Push Proposed Ban on LGBTQ Conversion Therapy

    Columbus OH — Two Democratic state lawmakers in Ohio are using this week’s Transgender Day of Remembrance (observed tomorrow, Friday, 20 November) as an opportunity to push their bill seeking a ban on therapy aimed at changing the sexual orientation of minors.

    State Reps. Denise Driehaus of Cincinnati and Debbie Phillips of Albany held a news conference this week to draw attention to legislation they introduced in June. Driehaus said conversion therapy can hurt children struggling with their sexual orientation or gender identity. Philips said “no child should be forced to change who they are or how they feel.”

    A 17-year-old transgender teen, Leelah Alcorn, with idiotically ignorant evangelical parents into some sort of religiously-based "conversion therapy," committed suicide last December in a very traumatic, and very public, incident on I-71 in Warren County, north of Cincinnati, when she deliberately walked into the path of an oncoming 18-wheeler.

    In an online blog, Alcorn says her parents would not acknowledge that she was transgender and took her to Christian therapists who did not treat her depression. Disagreements between the three also led Alcorn’s family to pull her out from public school.

    This incident is discussed in its entirety here:

  • 14. VIRick  |  November 19, 2015 at 3:13 pm

    Per Equality Case Files:

    Up-Date from Chris Geidner at BuzzFeed in the Alabama Adoption Case at SCOTUS

    The court-appointed representative of the children in V.L. and E.L.’s litigation weighed in at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, 18 November 2015, seeking a stay of the Alabama Supreme Court’s judgment in order to give the children access to both of their mothers.
    Writing that it is “beyond dispute” that the three children “are presently being harmed and that the harm will continue absent a stay,” the guardian ad litem, representing the children’s interests, argues that the current circumstances — the Alabama Supreme Court order holding that V.L.’s adoption of their children is void — “are antithetical to the children’s best interests and the reality that they have known their whole lives.” The guardian ad litem, represented by lawyers with Morrison & Foerster LLP, also noted that it “intends to file a response in support of the certiorari petition” that was filed by V.L.

    The facts of the dispute and ruling led Adam Unikowsky, a partner at Jenner & Block, to join the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the Alabama lawyers for V.L. in filing the petition for certiorari in the case at the Supreme Court on Monday, 16 November 2015. Unikowsky also enlisted the help of fellow Jenner & Block partner Paul Smith, best known in gay legal circles for arguing successfully against sodomy laws at the Supreme Court in 2003.

    “The thing about it is, it’s so glaringly, clearly wrong to have a judge in one state decide that the court in the other state got that state’s law wrong — and make it jurisdictional on top of that, for no reason — is just trampling on the basic principles of full faith and credit,” Smith told BuzzFeed News on Monday afternoon. “And, it’s doing it in the adoption context, which is the area where you want to have finality most of all. You can’t tell someone they’re no longer a parent 8 years later based on what state you’re in. It’s a terrible decision.”

    Unikowsky, a former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, is the counsel of record in the certiorari petition to the justices, as well as a request, also filed on Monday, 16 November 2015, asking for expedited consideration of a request to “recall and stay” the Alabama Supreme Court’s judgement in the case. That request was submitted to Justice Clarence Thomas, who can decide the request on his own or refer the matter to the full court.

    Notably, the certiorari petition presents the issue as a procedural case, not as a “gay rights” case, declaring, “This Court should grant certiorari. The decision of the Alabama Supreme Court conflicts with a century of this Court’s Full Faith and Credit case law and deals a serious blow to the principles of comity and finality underlying the Clause.”

  • 15. VIRick  |  November 19, 2015 at 5:09 pm

    Up-Date on Marriage Equality at the State Congress in Sinaloa, MX

    From a series of tweets from Sandra Lara Díaz, the state congresswoman who is the sponsor of the marriage equality legislation before the Sinaloa state Congress, and which is ultimately intended to replace the current unconstitutional language in the Sinaloa state Family Code, I see that she invited Lic. Alex Alí Méndez Díaz, the head of Matrimonio Igualitario Mexico, to discuss and share with the Joint Commission on the Initiative for Marriage Equality of the state Congress, his experience on the matter. He duly accepted the invitation. Said congressional hearing occurred earlier today, 19 November 2015.

    Deputy Sandra Lara Díaz originally launched the initiative to amend articles 40 and 165 of the Family Code of Sinaloa and allow for same-sex marriage in the state well over a year ago, on 2 September 2014, relatively early on by Mexican standards,– except for the fact that Sinaloa's ban, in the count to 5, was case #3 to be declared unconstitutional by Mexico's Supreme Court.

  • 16. KryptonKid  |  November 19, 2015 at 7:11 pm

    I was wondering if anyone has a link to a map showing the number of court cases we've won in each of the Mexican states (as five are needed). If so, I would be eternally grateful.

  • 17. VIRick  |  November 19, 2015 at 8:24 pm

    For starters, you can look here:

    However, we're not in full agreement with them. They're not perfectly up-to-date because they're not keeping as close a track of the amparo count as one might like, your precise question.

    Marriage equality is reality, either due to legislation or by executive order, in these jurisdictions:

    1 Chihuahua
    2 Coahuila
    3 Federal District
    4 Guerrero
    5 Quintana Roo

    Marriage equality is also reality, due to sufficient amparos, in these states:

    6 Baja California, at least in Tijuana and Ensenada (with at least 6 amparos)
    7 Colima statewide (with at least 5 amparos)
    8 Nayarit statewide (with at least 5 amparos)
    9 Querétaro, at least in Ciudad Querétaro (with at least 5 amparos)

    Marriage equality ought to be reality (except for the endless obfuscation) in these states:

    10 Michoacán (with at least 26 amparos and counting, with several judges in Morelia getting pissed at the slowness of the state congress and governor in changing the code, thus granting at least 19 recent amparos in quick succession)
    11 Morelos (with at least 6-8 amparos and counting)
    12 Yucatán (with at least 10 amparos and counting)

    That leaves 20 states with only 4, or fewer, amparos granted.

    In addition, these states' bans have been declared unconstitutional by Mexico's Supreme Court, which gives us the necessary 5 rulings to set the jurisprudence:

    Baja California
    State of Mexico

    In addition, these states still allow same-sex couples to form civil unions, despite the fact that Mexico's Supreme Court has also determined that "separate but unequal" is uncontitutional:


    Colima, on the other hand, converted all of its civil unions to marriage.

  • 18. KryptonKid  |  November 20, 2015 at 7:13 am

    Thank you so much!

  • 19. Randolph_Finder  |  November 20, 2015 at 10:09 am

    Let me know if you want help to update the page. Note, references do *not* have to be in English, but they are needed.~~~~

  • 20. VIRick  |  November 20, 2015 at 2:24 pm

    Randolph, the problem is this: It appears that no one of late is minding the store at Wikipedia when it comes to the issue of same-sex marriage in Mexico.

    I'm continuing to post whatever is new, in English, complete with links to the news source, usually in Spanish, here and on several other sites. So is Allan from Honduras.

    But no one is picking it up at Wikipedia. I don't have the time to go there and fight with anyone, nor do I feel the need to repeat the whole thing all over again just for them. I'm doing enough, right here, right now.

    Recent examples of being ignored:

    This past July, the civil registrar for Ciudad Querétaro, Leonel Rojo Montes, announced he was prepared to issue marriage licenses to all couples, following the granting of a mass, collective amparo (#5 in the state). I translated and posted the info several times here, complete with links to the Spanish language news source. No one at Wikipedia noticed, most likely because no one is there. (By the way, I just googled his name, and brought up an entire page of news articles, all in support, plus pics, address, and phone number).

    More recently, earlier in November, Allan posted a news item here about the granting of another mass, collective amparo in San Luis Potosí (amparo #3), complete with links to the Spanish news source. I translated the article and re-posted it. No one at Wikipedia noticed, again most likely because no one is there.

    Just ahead of that, in October, no one at Wikipedia noticed that amparo #4 for Sonora state had been filed by a rights group in Nogales.

    And then there's the rapidly shifting situation in Baja California, particularly from late-August into mid-September 2015, where we've all been totally ignored. Rex Wockner (in San Diego), in both English and Spanish, has been tweeting the marriage news from Baja for a long time, complete with links to the Spanish language news source. I've been copying him, and re-posting the info here, using the same links. No one at Wikipedia has noticed any of it, most likely because no one is there.

    Plus, there's the travelling judge from Colima state, the Judge of the Civil Registry of Cuauhtémoc, Colima, María del Rosario Silva, who has been touring Mexico, marrying same-sex couples all over the place, after they have obtained their marriage licenses in Colima. I've posted about her adventures multiple times, complete with links, but again, no one at Wikipedia has ever acknowledged her efforts, at all, anywhere. You see, Colima quietly abided by Mexico's Supreme Court decision, and is now at the very vanguard of marriage equality in Mexico. Wikipedia still seems to be waiting for some grand pronouncement emanating from Colima which they can then cite as proof of this change. However, Colima is well past that stage, and did it calmly without fuss. Big picture: We've already won in Colima, and it's unlikely for there to be any further news. Wikipedia simply missed it, most likely because no one there was paying attention to the big picture.

    If you wish, click on my username. Everything is still archived here at EoT, in reverse chronological order, by date. And every entry has a link to a news source. You're welcome to copy and re-post whatever you like.

    Or you can access the same info here:

  • 21. allan120102  |  November 20, 2015 at 3:49 pm

    Yeah, I am not sure why wiki haven´t update the maps in Mexico and usually news the first site they look to see the marriage laws is Wikipedia, which is not always correct. Anyways here are two new articles one is about another amparo granted in Jalisco which 9 same sex couples were granted its right to marry. It its interesting what is says so you should check it out Rick, Jalisco might soon end its ban if some legislators decide that the issue its already finish as courts are obviously bound by their supreme court <a href="http://.” target=”_blank”>.
    In this one its just about lgbt groups asking the State of Mexico, I am not sure but I believe its the most populous to change its marriage laws according to the supreme court tesis before the end of the year.… I hope people that are in wiki change the maps to reflect this changes. Please.

  • 22. VIRick  |  November 20, 2015 at 4:43 pm

    Wikipedia's Mexico marriage map is better than nothing, but it appears to be somewhat frozen in time, from a point in early 2015.

    Here's another one for the Wikipedia Mexico map change request:

    And Lic. Alex Alí Méndez Díaz asserts that he personally won an amparo for a client in Hidalgo state months ago. Yet, Wikipedia's map still shows Hidalgo shaded to indicate zero amparos granted.

  • 23. allan120102  |  November 20, 2015 at 5:11 pm

    I would personally update it but I can´t because I don´t know how to change colors or stay in state borders if not I would do it without complain. In Hidalgo I have this link but the decision was against the marriage so I am not sure about Hidalgo.

  • 24. Randolph_Finder  |  November 26, 2015 at 8:02 pm

    It is an svg file, you can use Inkscape which is open source.

  • 25. Fortguy  |  November 29, 2015 at 9:31 pm

    Please see the instructions on this post that I've posted on a more recent thread. Editing the map does not require Inkscape or any other specialized software. You can use your computer's native text editor to do it.

  • 26. VIRick  |  November 20, 2015 at 5:18 pm

    First, let me correct the link:

    Ganan Nueve Parejas Gay Amparo Para Poder Casarse en Jalisco

    El 10 de julio pasado, Isabel y Marisol acudieron al Registro Civil número 1 de Guadalajara –junto con otras ocho parejas– a solicitar matrimonio, sin embargo, el oficial que las atendió anticipaba la negativa: “estamos sujetos aún a la Ley Estatal del Código Civil para el Estado de Jalisco, donde menciona que el matrimonio es únicamente entre un hombre y una mujer”; cuatro meses después, estas nueve parejas han ganado un amparo que, si no es atacado por el Congreso de Jalisco –como ha ocurrido en otras ocasiones– les permitirá casarse pronto.

    Ayer miércoles, algunas de las parejas que el 30 de octubre pasado obtuvieron el amparo acudieron al Congreso de Jalisco para solicitar a los legisladores que respeten sus derechos y eviten interponer un recurso de revisión contra la resolución que les otorgó el Juez Cuarto en materia civil.

    Nine Gay Couples Gain an Amparo to Marry in Jalisco

    On 10 July, Isabel and Marisol went to the Guadalajara Civil Registry number 1, along with eight other couples, to request marriage. However, the official responded with the anticipated negative: "We are still subject to the State Civil Law Code for the State of Jalisco, where it states that marriage is only between a man and a woman." Four months later, these nine couples have won an injunction that, if it is not attacked by the Congress of Jalisco as has happened on other occasions, will allow them to get married soon.

    On Wednesday (18 November 2015), some of the couples who obtained the amparo on 30 October, attended the Congress of Jalisco to ask legislators to respect their rights and avoid an appeal for review against the resolution already given to them by the Fourth Judge in civil matters.

    However, most importantly for Jalisco, going forward, this is either amparo #4, or much more importantly, amparo #5. My count for this state is not entirely clear. Still, I suspect that this ruling has pushed Jalisco over the limit.

  • 27. allan120102  |  November 20, 2015 at 5:40 pm

    Great, I hope that if it is the 5th amparo then Jalisco surrender and let the couples throught the state get married.

  • 28. VIRick  |  November 20, 2015 at 5:56 pm

    Allan, that is very likely one of the reasons for such a lengthly article, going on into quite a lot of detail regarding the legislative process, already well under way.

    This article carries today's date, 20 November 2015, but is actually immediately referring back to the legislative session of Wednesday, 18 November. Almost in passing, it cites the date when the amparo was granted,– 30 October,– three week ago. Previously, no one had even noticed.

    Most of the recent focus, in Jalisco and elsewhere, has been on obtaining the necessary legislative change, rather than continuing to watch the amparo count.

    Judges in Mexico no longer have discretion. They must grant the amparo when presented with a request from a same-sex couple wishing to marry, citing previously-set jurisprudence from Mexico's Supreme Court. All state laws to the contrary have been deemed to be unconstitutional, and must be changed. It's simply a matter of time, but can be dragged out (and is) by the obfuscators obfuscating.

  • 29. VIRick  |  November 21, 2015 at 12:14 am

    Further down in the linked Jalisco article, it says:

    Hasta el momento, en Jalisco han logrado contraer matrimonio por la vía del amparo 16 parejas de personas del mismo sexo y además de la solicitud de las nueve parejas que lograron este amparo colectivo, al menos otras tres han solicitado matrimonio en el Registro Civil número 1 de Guadalajara.

    So far, in Jalisco, 16 same-sex couples have achieved marriage by way of an amparo, in addition to the application of the nine couples who have achieved this collective amparo, and not including at least three other couples who have requested marriage at the Guadalajara Civil Registry Number 1.

    Thus, in order to reach 16 couples, at the very least, the amparo recently-granted to the 9 couples must be #5. But it could also be #6, or even #7:

    #1 One couple
    #2 Twelve couples
    #3 One couple
    #4 Two couples??? Or two separate amparos granted???
    #5 Nine couples (amparo just issued)
    #6 Three couples still waiting

    Plus, somewhere in between, there was an additional collective amparo filed for 10 more couples by the rights group, CLADEM, for which I do not know the outcome. Jalisco is a very populous state, with Guadalajara being Mexico's second-largest city.

  • 30. VIRick  |  November 26, 2015 at 9:06 pm

    "#4 Two couples??? Or two separate amparos granted???"

    This question has just been answered. On 25 November 2015, Mexico's Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling by ratifying the single amparo (#4) already granted to 2 same-sex couples by finally striking down Jalisco's ban on same-sex marriage, once and for all, while harshly admonishing both the Jalisco legislature and the Civil Registry for having bothered to appeal the decision in the first instance.

    Apparently, the 3 earlier amparos previously granted in Jalisco were not appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

  • 31. Randolph_Finder  |  November 26, 2015 at 7:58 pm

    Sorry for the delay, If there is anyone that you have fought with over on that page, I will be happy to help you with it. And there are many articles that are simply not well attended especially on such a complex issue as the amparos in a language not understood by many editors on the english language wikipedia. 🙁

  • 32. VIRick  |  November 26, 2015 at 8:55 pm

    Randolph, just copy/paste anything you like that's already been posted here at EoT, and re-post it at Wikipedia. They're falling way behind on the amparo count and on the judicial decisions, leading me to suspect that no one is any longer minding the store. As a beginning, the very recent decision striking down Jalisco's ban needs to be recorded there.

    I never fought with anyone at Wikipedia, but in the past, I see that others have. That past argumentative performance has put me off from even sticking my face in the Wikipedia door, as I'd rather not debate/discuss my own personal credentials regarding the Mexican legal system with anyone.

  • 33. VIRick  |  November 26, 2015 at 10:37 pm

    In just a weeks' time, we can add two more Mexican states to our summary list, in this category:

    Marriage equality ought to be reality (except for the endless obfuscation) in these states:

    13 Sinaloa (5 amparos and counting)
    14 Jalisco (5-6 amparos and counting)

  • 34. allan120102  |  November 26, 2015 at 11:27 pm

    We might take out San Luis Potosi as some a**es deputies of PRI and PAN want to consult people for a referendum, so tired of some Mexican state legislatures doing all they can to slow down progress. I hope this deputy who is in our favor can make the bill be voted in December 15 as it was planned but now I doubt.

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