Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Open thread

Community/Meta Transgender Rights

The only recent news is that the Fourth Circuit will hear arguments in the case of the boy who is banned from using the correct bathroom from his school on January 27. The appeals court begins oral argument at 9:30AM but it typically hears more than one case and the order of cases can change. We also, according to Equality Case Files, won’t know the identities of the judges on the panel until the morning of argument.

This is an open thread.

We’ll be back on Monday, after the Thanksgiving holiday. Happy Thanksgiving!


  • 1. allan120102  |  November 25, 2015 at 7:32 pm

    Well in Latin American lgbt daily news I have some updates from four different LA countries.

    Cuba: A law allowing ssm will be propose to the congress from lgbt groups.
    Bolivia: A law in favor of transexuals will be moving forward.Still nothing in terms of the civil unions propose a while back. Really surprise that LGBT groups give an estimate that they are 150,000 bolivians who identify as gay, lesbian and bisexual not sure if they are counting transexuals as it only says Homosexuals.
    And another amparo was granted to two same sex couples from Jalisco by the supreme court……again. This state just need to give up.
    Paraguay: A senadora or deputy I imagine have propose to the Paraguayan senate a law that would outlaw discrimination in terms of sexua orientation. I have my doubts this law will be passed as Paraguay is the most conservative country in SA without counting Guyana. The deputy say that Paraguay is in dept with various international communities and groups in this issue.

  • 2. VIRick  |  November 26, 2015 at 7:06 pm

    The latest on an advance in LGBT rights in Bolivia:

    Bolivia Avanza Ley en Favor de Transexuales pero No Habla de Matrimonio

    El gobierno boliviano planteó el miércoles un proyecto de ley para permitir el cambio de identidad y sexo de personas transexuales y transgénero, aunque la misma no aborda el matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo. Esta norma sigue un trámite desde 2011 cuando una red nacional de personas trans entregó una propuesta al Viceministerio de Igualdad de Oportunidades.

    La ministra de Justicia, Virginia Velasco, manifestó en rueda de prensa que la propuesta "consiste en establecer el procedimiento para el cambio de datos, de nombre, de sexo para las personas transexuales y transgénero. Ahora las hermanas y los hermanos que quieran cambiar de nombre y de sexo, mediante una resolución administrativa, pueden cambiar sus datos en Segip (Servicio General de Identificación Personal), Sereci (Servicio de Registro Cívico), Rejap (Registro Judicial de Antecedentes Penales) y en otras instituciones," sostuvo.

    En la actualidad, quien pretende cambiar de identidad de género debe encarar engorrosos e inciertos trámites judiciales.

    Bolivia Advances a Bill in Favor of Transsexuals but Does Not Address Marriage

    On Wednseday, 25 November 2015, the Bolivian government put forth a bill to allow the change of identity and sex of transsexual and transgender people, although it does not address same-sex marriage. The new bill follows a standard procedure since 2011 when a national network of trans people submitted a proposal to the Deputy Minister for Equal Opportunities.

    Today, the Minister of Justice, Virginia Velasco, said at a press conference that the proposal "is to establish the procedure for changing data, name, and sex for transsexuals and transgender people. With the new law, those who want to change their name and sex by administrative fiat will be able to change their information at Segip (General Service Personal Identification Number), at Sereci (Civil Registry Service), at Rejap (Judicial Background Registry ) and other institutions."

    Currently, anyone wishing to change gender identity must face cumbersome and uncertain judicial proceedings.

  • 3. VIRick  |  November 28, 2015 at 5:25 pm

    The Spanish-language news article, quoted immediately above, comes from Telemetro, a relatively reliable news source based in Panamá. The words, "avanza ley (advances law) and "un proyecto de ley" (a project of law), which in both instances I translated to mean, "a bill," and "la propuesta" (the proposal) fully convey an unfinished anticipatory law measure, which, if successful, would be implemented at some future date.

    Yet, today, 28 November 2015, while referring to the same press conference of 25 November 2015 held by the Justice Minister, we suddenly have this English-language headline announcing the same measure, but as a done-deal through a soon-to-be-implemented policy change:

    Trans People Win Right to Change Name and Gender in Bolivia

    The policy was announced by the country’s justice minister this past week. Transgender people in Bolivia will soon be able to legally change their name, sex and gender, Bolivia’s justice minister has announced

    Virginia Velasco Condori unveiled the new policy on Wednesday (25 November 2015), meaning trans Bolivians will soon be able to register legal documentation using their new identities. In a statement regarding the change, (Velasco) Condori said that people who want to alter their name and sex on official identity documents must apply to the Ministry of Justice, where a “psychological examination will be held to approve the process.”

    The move, which was first suggested over three years ago, is being seen as a huge victory for the trans community of the country, who have faced increased discrimination in recent months.

    Bolivia's new, sweeping gender-neutral family code has been in effect since late August 2015. So, perhaps,– perhaps, — no new law is needed, other than the necessary policy change to bring government's practice on handling trans matters up to the standard required by this new gender-neutral code. If so, then the same could well apply to same-sex couples. Here's why:

    The new gender-neutral Family Code, in the section pertaining to "uniones libres" (civil unions) states that cohabiting couples can register on the first day of coexistence and not after two years, as is done now.

    So, Bolivia's Constitution prohibits marriage between same-sex couples. However, this same constitution is utterly silent on the subject of "uniones libres," whether registered or not. Plus, not only that, but now, such "uniones libres" can be registered immediately without having to wait two years. In addition, the new gender-neutral Family Code utilizes "cónyuge" (spouse) throughout. Thus, whether they intended it or not, in their sweeping effort toward non-discrimination, it would appear that Bolivia may well have legalized same-sex civil unions, a point which is particularly encouraging if such unions can also be immediately registered.

  • 4. VIRick  |  November 25, 2015 at 9:13 pm

    Allan, this ruling against Jalisco is actually an important ruling, and one that I've been waiting for, as it was next-in-line to be struck down, and now we have it. Mexico's Supreme Court, finally and most directly, declared Jalisco's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, even reprimanding Jalicso's legislature and civil registrar for having bothered to appeal the matter.

    Ampara la Corte Matrimonio Entre Dos Parejas del Mismo Sexo en Jalisco

    De nueva cuenta, la primera sala de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (SCJN) amparó a parejas del mismo sexo contra leyes y autoridades locales que les impedían contraer matrimonio.

    En ésta ocasión, los ministros ampararon en sendos asuntos, a dos parejas en contra del artículo 258 del Código Civil de dicha entidad por limitar la celebración del matrimonio a un hombre y una mujer. Excluyendo así a las parejas del mismo sexo, "lo que conlleva una discriminación basada en la preferencia sexual de las personas, lo cual es una categoría prohibida por el artículo primero constitucional."

    La sentencia vincula a todas las autoridades del Estado de Jalisco "a tomar en consideración la inconstitucionalidad del mensaje transmitido por el precepto impugnado, por lo cual no podrán utilizarlo como base para negar a los quejosos beneficios o establecer las cargas relacionadas con la regulación del matrimonio, lo que es un efecto propio de la concesión de un amparo contra leyes, que es la inaplicación futura de la ley."

    En el caso, una pareja de mujeres y una de hombres presentaron su solicitud de matrimonio ante la Oficialía del Registro Civil correspondiente, misma que con fundamento en el artículo impugnado las consideró improcedentes.

    En contra de esta resolución, tanto el Congreso del Estado como el Oficial del citado Registro interpusieron recurso de revisión, el cual fue negado en definitiva por la Suprema Corte.

    Court Protects the Marriage Between Two Same-Sex Couples in Jalisco

    Once again, on 25 November 2015, Mexico's Supreme Court (SCJN) upheld same-sex couples against the laws and the local authorities preventing them from marrying.

    On this occasion, the justices granted in favor of two couples and against Article 258 of the Civil Code of Jalisco which limits marriage to a man and a woman. This latter excludes same-sex couples, "which entails discrimination based on sexual preference of people, a category which is prohibited by the first constitutional article."

    The ruling is binding on all authorities of the State of Jalisco "to consider the constitutionality of the message conveyed by the contested provision, and therefore, understand that it can not be used as a basis for denying benefits to claimants, or to set standards related to the regulation of marriage, which is a proper effect of granting an injunction against laws which have no future application as law."

    In this case, a female couple and a male couple presented their marriage application to the Administrative Office of the corresponding Civil Registry, precisely according to the impugned, inadmissible article (and were denied. Later, they were then granted an amparo to marry by a lower court.)

    Against this resolution, both the State Congress, as well as the official registry, have brought an action for review (of the granting of the amparo), which has ultimately been denied by the Supreme Court.

  • 5. allan120102  |  November 25, 2015 at 10:52 pm

    Rick who is the man you follow to know which states are the next ones to have their ban struck down? I am waiting for a ruling against the civil unions Michoacan legalize as they are discriminatory and the SC already struck down a similar Colima´s law in January? Btw if States like Jalisco continue to deny the right to marry to sscouples can they ask for legal fees once their amparo is granted or is different than the US once a law is struck down and plaintiffs can ask for the state to pay them?

  • 6. VIRick  |  November 25, 2015 at 11:26 pm

    One is Rex Wockner, a bi-lingual blogger from San Diego who keeps a close watch on northwestern Mexico:

    Another is Geraldina Gonzalez de la Vega, a clerk at Mexico's Supreme Court:

    A third one is Lic. Alex Alí Méndez Díaz, the lawyer who came up with the plan to file all these amparos requesting same-sex marriage all over Mexico:

    In Mexico, the winning plaintiffs do not have the luxury to make the state pay for their legal expenses. This is why the various Rights Groups have been so very important in financing these lawsuits, and also why couples have banded together in massive numbers to share the burden of paying for the legal expenses by filing what are called amparos colectivos, another brain-child of Alex.

    Remember, the order here is only a guess, based on the filing dates, in sequence, oldest first, but we still have pending cases awaiting from Nuevo León, Yucatán, Durango, and Puebla (in that filing order). Plus, both Baja California and Sinaloa apparently want more review of the remaining amparos already granted in both states,– as if either will obtain a different ruling the third or fourth time around. Like Jalisco, both are already over the limit, besides being #2 and #3 within the Supreme Court's count establishing their jurisprudence.

  • 7. allan120102  |  November 26, 2015 at 2:48 pm

    Thanks Rick for the link I really appreciate it. Yeah I was reading a while back that the supreme court in Yucatan upheld the ban, but even if it is found unconstitutional it will need legislators to change the law. Btw if the ban in Nuevo Leon was struck by their supreme court shouldn´t same sex marriage occur inmediately. After the supreme court of Mexico upheld it? Similar to what happen in New Mexico, Massachussetts and Connecticut? As it was a state supreme court that struck the law not just a regular court.

  • 8. VIRick  |  November 25, 2015 at 11:50 pm

    "I am waiting for a ruling against the civil unions Michoacán legalized …."

    Since July, Michoacán has had much bigger problems which they should have dealt with immediately,– namely, their legislature has exceeded the 100-day court-ordered deadline (of 26 October 2015) to legalize same-sex marriage, and is now in contempt of court, subject to escalating fines. Passing alternate legislation, allowing for same-sex civil unions, does not adhere to the court's ruling.

  • 9. VIRick  |  November 26, 2015 at 12:03 pm

    Allan, actually, I need to provide a separate post here, highlighting the urgency of the Yucatán case (which could cause this case to jump ahead of Nuevo León and be next-in-line to be heard). Here's why:

    Unlike most other recent appeals before Mexico's Supreme Court, wherein which local officials/legislatures have been seeking review of amparos already granted by lower (federal) courts, the Yucatán case is completely different. Instead, it reminds me of the very recent appeal by the plaintiff in the adoption case, challenging the adverse ruling of the Alabama State Supreme Court to the US Supreme Court.

    In this instance, the Yucatán State Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Yucatán state ban on same-sex marriage. The plaintiffs, of course, have challenged this ruling to Mexico's Supreme Court.

    In the earlier case, yet to be heard, the Nuevo León State Supreme Court declared the Nuevo León state ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. Local officials then challenged this ruling to Mexico's Supreme Court.

    Needless to say, the favorable ruling from Nuevo León will be upheld, while the adverse ruling from Yucatán must be heard, and then struck down, and struck down hard.

  • 10. VIRick  |  November 26, 2015 at 4:31 pm

    Per Geraldina Gonzalez de la Vega:

    Here's the actual ruling, issued yesterday, 25 November 2015, directly from Mexico's Supreme Court, striking down Jalisco's ban on same-sex marriage:

    La Primera Sala Determinó que Art. 258 de Código Civil de Jalisco que Limita Matrimonio entre Hombre y Mujer Es Inconstitucional

    Mexico's Supreme Court Ruled that Article 258 of Jalisco's Civil Code which Limits Marriage to a Man and a Woman Is Unconstitutional

  • 11. allan120102  |  November 26, 2015 at 6:45 pm

    There is a video but there is no decision to be read? or you were just posting the video?

  • 12. VIRick  |  November 26, 2015 at 10:04 pm

    Allan, hmmm, on my version of the page, there's a written synopsis of the decision below the video, basically restating what you've already posted from another excellent source.

    For the moment, Canal Judicial is about as official as it gets regarding Mexico's Supreme Court and its decisions.

    Remember, in Mexico, there's about a 10-day delay between the announcement of a decision (like this one, announced yesterday), and the release of the full-text written version.

  • 13. jcmeiners  |  November 26, 2015 at 10:27 am

    Completely off topic – if you can be on an open thread:

    Happy Thanksgiving!

    I enjoyed the coverage of EOT, and the comments. I learned more here than on any other blog. So all the best wishes to everyone on here.

  • 14. SethInMaryland  |  November 26, 2015 at 10:28 am

    News from Colombia yet?

  • 15. GregInTN  |  November 26, 2015 at 12:01 pm

    Rubio says same-sex marriage ‘not settled law’

    Despite his previous assertion the U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of same-sex marriage is the law of the land, Marco Rubio now says he’s committed to efforts to reverse the decision and it’s “not settled law.”

  • 16. David_Las_Cruces_NM  |  November 27, 2015 at 4:25 pm

    Rubio and his ilk are pandering to self-deceived hypocrites who believe that The Golden Rule applies only to people who believe the same stuff the self-deceived hypocrites believe.

  • 17. VIRick  |  November 26, 2015 at 12:49 pm

    Cyprus: Parliament Approves Civil Unions

    Via ILGA-Europe:

    On 26 November 2015, the Cypriot parliament has voted in favor of the Civil Partnership Bill, meaning that same-sex couples in Cyprus will be legally recognized for the first time. The legislation, which has generated lots of debate nationally, will offer couples the same rights as civil marriage. However, joint adoption rights are not included as part of the civil union law. There were 39 members of parliament who voted in favor of the bill, while 12 were against, and 3 abstained.

    The effective date for the commencement of registration of Civil Partnerships in Cyprus is still pending.

  • 18. SethInMaryland  |  November 26, 2015 at 12:57 pm

    Maybe that will give more courage to our Greek friends next door to approve their own bill soon.

  • 19. guitaristbl  |  November 26, 2015 at 1:22 pm

    The bill will be coming to the greek parliament within the next 10 days according to a governmental source.

  • 20. Christian0811  |  November 26, 2015 at 8:09 pm

    Isn't the marriage ban before the Supreme Court?

  • 21. guitaristbl  |  November 27, 2015 at 3:34 pm

    I think this case has ended ? It may have not
    Nobody pays any attention anyway. The Areios Pagos (Court of Cassation) – the supreme court of Greece – is extremely conservative with some of its members being known to have their judicial views influenced by their religious views. They may even question the legality of the civil union law if a challenge comew before them.

  • 22. Christian0811  |  November 27, 2015 at 4:03 pm

    Oh does it have priori review?

  • 23. SethInMaryland  |  November 26, 2015 at 2:43 pm

    Still nothing from Colombia?

  • 24. allan120102  |  November 26, 2015 at 3:00 pm

    Sad to say that one of our greatest ally in the supreme court of Mexico is leaving today. Justice Olga Sanchez Cordero was like the justice Ginsburg of the USA supreme court. She was an ally of women and lgbt and minorities. She will be missed.

  • 25. allan120102  |  November 26, 2015 at 6:43 pm

    Austrian ban brought to court by children of same sex couples asking the court to lift the ban of same sex marriage. They were five challenges and the first was heard today. I found this comment in the article interesting that Austria already took the second, third, four and fifth step to equality but not the first that is marriage. If the ban is lifted Austria would become the first country Central Europe to legalize ssm if the Slovenian law is repealed.

  • 26. SethInMaryland  |  November 26, 2015 at 6:53 pm

    The court will do it likely. They have been tired Parliament and they let parliament know in its last previous LGBT decision.

  • 27. Christian0811  |  November 26, 2015 at 8:01 pm

    They've heard two challenges already and rejected both…idk if they'll succeed

  • 28. allan120102  |  November 26, 2015 at 8:09 pm

    That was before I believe the last challenge was in 2012.Maybe the court this time would strike it down. Hopeful they do the correct thing.

  • 29. Christian0811  |  November 27, 2015 at 9:02 pm

    Never before has a European constitutional court struck down a marriage ban for same sex couples, I would not get my hopes up again….that said I'm actually still hoping for judicial intervention in both Slovenia and Austria.

  • 30. scream4ever  |  November 27, 2015 at 11:06 pm

    Indeed, especially now that the European Parliament has declared same-sex marriage to be a fundamental, human right.

  • 31. Christian0811  |  November 27, 2015 at 11:20 pm

    Yo wait what, when did that happen?

  • 32. DevilWearsZrada  |  November 28, 2015 at 1:55 am

    12 March 2015, resolution P8_TA(2015)0076
    [The European Parliament] Takes note of the legalisation of same-sex marriage or same-sex civil unions in an increasing number of countries – 17 to date – around the world; encourages the EU institutions and the Member States to further contribute to reflection on the recognition of same-sex marriage or same-sex civil union as a political, social and human and civil rights issue;

  • 33. NXA  |  November 29, 2015 at 1:01 am

    Encouraging reflection is not quite the same as declaring a fundamental right…

  • 34. itscoldoutside  |  November 29, 2015 at 8:41 am

    Please don't get your hopes up for judicial intervention in Slovenia. No one has any intention of appealing the result of the referendum. It was allowed and that's the end of it. We have to live with whatever result we get on December 20th.

    LGBT groups could however challenge any number of discriminatory laws but that would take at least five years, if not more.

    It's Germany getting marriage equality that would really speed things up in Europe and that is nowhere in sight.

  • 35. Christian0811  |  November 29, 2015 at 9:32 am

    All the CC said was that the NA is incompetent to decide the constitutionality of laws. Plus the ruling was 5:4, there's a real possibility of a return to the court, even so what you say has some truth to it.

  • 36. scream4ever  |  November 29, 2015 at 11:29 am

    Eh, I still suspect Germany will have it by the end of the decade.

  • 37. allan120102  |  November 29, 2015 at 12:11 pm

    I am hoping first for an Asian country to join as its the remaining continent without marriage equality.

  • 38. scream4ever  |  November 27, 2015 at 10:53 am

    NOM has released their 990s for 2014!!!

    Have a gander at them here:

    A couple surface points:

    -funding dropped by roughly 20% for both the main organization and the educational fund.

    -they are now down to just one major donor, who contributed half of the total funds for the main organization.

  • 39. 1grod  |  November 27, 2015 at 11:44 am

    scream: 19 donors, with the<span style="background-color: #FFFF00"&gt;Yellow>median</span>donation to NOM being $15000 and mode being $10,000.

  • 40. Eric  |  November 27, 2015 at 8:19 pm

    Interesting that the education fund has loaned close to 100% of its revenue to the main NOM organization.

  • 41. scream4ever  |  November 27, 2015 at 9:08 pm

    Indeed. I believe that may also be illegal since NOM has not paid them back in full.

    I also always like to look at who they donated to, and see if it was worth it to them. For 2014 campaigns/PACs they gave:

    -$10,500 to Indiana Family Action, the main organization pushing for the ban on same sex marriage in the state. After the already passed version failed to pass the legislature a second time, it was amended, thus "starting the clock over". All of this was of course moot after the state's marriage ban was struck down in federal court.

    -$10,000 to Friends of Keith Matune, a Republican candidate for the Illinois House of Representatives. He failed to advance past the primary.

    -$5,000 to the California Republican Association leadership PAC, likely to support the referendum attempt to overturn the transgendered student's rights bill. The effort was led by longtime NOM collaborator Frank Schubert, and it failed to qualify for the ballot.

    -$5,000 to the Minnesota Family Council. This was likely to oppose efforts to pass an anti-bullying bill, which was ultimately passed.

    -$5,000 to the NOM NY PAC. Apparently they still believe that they hold some sway there lol.

    In addition, they gave $20,000 to The Family Leader, Bob Vander Platts Iowa based organization, which recently hosted the incredibly anti-gay Iowa Family Forum for the Republican Presidential candidates.

    One thing that really strikes me is how their donations/grants hve almost totally disappeared. In 2012, it was in the millions. Now, it's not even $60,000 (2013 yielded a similar number). Granted, 2012 was a big year, but so was 2013.

  • 42. Sagesse  |  November 28, 2015 at 3:49 am

    It is possible (not sure how likely) that they have moved some of their funding base to the international organization (International Organization for Marriage) they formed to pursue anti-gay legislation in other countries… like Russia.

  • 43. scream4ever  |  November 28, 2015 at 3:23 pm

    I thought that wasn't an official organization yet, that it is just something Brian Brown was considering/planning to launch.

  • 44. VIRick  |  November 27, 2015 at 1:58 pm

    Bermuda Supreme Court Issues Landmark Equality Decision

    Per Equality Case Files:

    The Bermuda Supreme Court has ruled that those in same-sex partnerships with Bermudians should have the same rights to reside and seek employment as spouses of Bermudians. The landmark ruling comes as a result of a legal action brought by the Bermuda Bred Company against both the Minister of Home Affairs and the Attorney-General.

    The company, who described themselves as a group of Bermudians in “binational relationships," argued that the Immigration and Protection Act must be read in conjunction with the Human Rights Act, which does not allow discrimination on the grounds of marital status or sexual orientation.

    In a judgment delivered this afternoon, 27 November 2015, Chief Justice Ian Kawaley ruled in favour of the Bermuda Bred Company.

    Following the ruling, the Bermuda Government requested that the effects of the judgment be suspended for a parliamentary year to allow them to comply, stating that the ruling could lead to a myriad of changes in the Island’s laws. Chief Justice Dr Justice Kawaley adjourned that argument to a date to be fixed within the next two weeks.

    This afternoon, shortly after the ruling, Michael Fahy, the Minister of Home Affairs, called a press conference to provide information on the ramifications of the judgment. He stated that the judgment could have a range of effects on legislation relating to: bankruptcy, estates, wills, succession rules, the right to inherit or receive bequests, health insurance legislation, pensions and social insurance.

    A spokesman for the Bermuda Bred Company said they welcomed the judgment, saying: “We firmly believe in equality in these areas and in levelling the playing field for same-sex families. The effect of the decision is very specific: the non-Bermudian same-sex partners of Bermudians, who are in committed relationships, are entitled to live and work in Bermuda without immigration restriction. The decision does not deal with the recognition of marriage equality."

    The full judgment is available here:

  • 45. SethInMaryland  |  November 27, 2015 at 2:31 pm

    Wow that is amazing. Bermuda has just token its first step toward full equality

  • 46. allan120102  |  November 27, 2015 at 3:07 pm

    Looks like marriage equality might be closer than many of us expected. Bermuda might get marriage equality in less than 5 years imho. Their chief justice is pro equality not like Justice Roberts in the states.

  • 47. VIRick  |  November 27, 2015 at 4:22 pm

    Normally, I wouldn't bother to read the comments posted on a newspaper website, let alone recommend them to anyone else. But some comments posted on the website of the "Bermuda Royal Gazette," are exceptionally well-thought-out and well-written. For example, in terms of future court probabilities based on precedent, and thus, the fairly certain likelihood of full marriage equality, one reader posited:

    "This should end up being a major court decision in terms of setting the new precedent. If the Government is forced by the courts to recognize a same-sex marriage that was performed outside of Bermuda for immigration purposes, it soon becomes a matter of semantics. Same-Sex couples can now challenge that the Government recognizes their relationship for some rights and not others (pension, healthcare coverage etc.), which the Government would be powerless to argue with legally. If taken to court, they would then be forced to recognize same-sex couples for other rights and privileges of married couples that are currently denied to them. After such a court ruling, it would be essentially the same court ruling that took place in the U.S. earlier this year – that it is against the constitution and the laws of the country for the Government to recognize some marriages and not others. That is a big step, even if the Government doesn't legalize same-sex marriages being performed here. They would no longer be able to deny gay Bermudian couples the same rights that other Bermudian couples have. After a while, with gay marriages being recognized, it's kind of pointless to then say that you recognize them, but you can't do them here. People could fly to Miami, get married, and fly back in the same day. Eventually, marriage equality will be dictated to the Government through the courts, yet again proving that decisions about what constitutes fair and ethical public policy cannot be entrusted to either (a) the voting public or (b) the elected officials. The Supreme Court will decide for us, and based on this decision, we're on our way."

  • 48. VIRick  |  November 27, 2015 at 2:50 pm

    And on the very same date, more Bermuda news:

    Bermuda Hotel Shuns Anti-Gay Marriage Forums

    HAMILTON, Bermuda (CMC) — The Hamilton Princess, Bermuda's oldest hotel, has declined to host two talks by a prominent overseas same-sex marriage opponent. Same-sex marriage is not legal in Bermuda but the topic has divided opinion in this British Overseas Territory.

    The forums, featuring Ryan Anderson, a member of the conservative American think-tank, the Heritage Foundation, were due to take place at the hotel next week. Allan Federer, general manager of the hotel, which is "opposed to discrimination of any kind", said in a statement "it has come to our attention that a meeting to oppose gay marriage was to be held at our hotel."

    "Immediately upon learning of the nature of the meeting, we called the organisation to explain that our policy is one that celebrates diversity and that the hotel is not a venue for anti-diversity discussions. It is a standard hotel practice that upon making a reservation, groups disclose the nature of meetings that will take place on our premises. This meeting originally was reserved under a different guise and would never have been accepted if the group had disclosed its intentions at the time of the reservation. The Hamilton Princess does not accept any booking that promotes discrimination of any kind."

    The forums were publicised on Tuesday by the group Concerned Citizens of Bermuda but Federer said the booking was made under a different name. He said he was not aware of the nature of the forums until stories about the two free talks appeared in the media.

    Please note: The Jamaica Observer is based in Kingston Jamaica, so the double-whammy of the Bermuda Supreme Court ruling and the Bermuda hotel cancellation of the anti-gay forums is already having a far-reaching effect.

  • 49. FredDorner  |  November 27, 2015 at 6:37 pm

    LOL…..the implication is that NOM and Heritage realize that they're viewed as unethical bigots and have to use subterfuge to book a hotel.

  • 50. tx64jm  |  November 29, 2015 at 10:52 am

    Apparently the hotel is lying:

    "Mr Federer told The Royal Gazette he was not aware of the nature of the forums until media coverage. But the organisers said the hotel never asked for specifics about the talk."

    “Hamilton Princess was fully informed that the venue and arrangements were being made for and on behalf of Preserve Marriage,” said their statement. “Hamilton Princess never asked Preserve Marriage to disclose the nature of the meeting that would take place, which is a civil presentation of Why Marriage Matters."

    “All questions were answered truthfully and fully. Availability was confirmed and then the process later discontinued by the general manager. We were shocked by the representations made by Hamilton Princess to the contrary and will be taking this serious misrepresentation of the facts up with the general management directly.”

  • 51. davepCA  |  November 29, 2015 at 12:49 pm

    So you've just revealed that the anti-gay bigots lied AGAIN if in fact they told the hotel that the event was "a civil presentation of Why Marriage Matters", when in fact the organization is not focused on that at all, and is actually bent on PREVENTING certain citizens from being allowed to marry. It would have been accurate if they had told the hotel that the event was 'a presentation on why we want to DENY the rights and legal protections of marriage to certain citizens'. Shoo, troll.

  • 52. tx64jm  |  November 29, 2015 at 5:45 pm

    "So you've just revealed that the anti-gay bigots lied AGAIN if in fact they told the hotel that the event was "a civil presentation of Why Marriage Matters"

    “Hamilton Princess never asked Preserve Marriage to disclose the nature of the meeting that would take place"

    So, no they didnt lie.

  • 53. davepCA  |  November 29, 2015 at 6:27 pm

    "A civil presentation of why marriage matters" is a lie. That is not what the event was about at all. Shoo, troll.

  • 54. tx64jm  |  November 29, 2015 at 10:34 am

    Leading Bermuda Human Rights Lawyer says hotel violated law:

    A hotel may find itself in hot water over its decision to axe two talks by a same-sex marriage opponent, according to one of the Island’s leading human rights lawyers.

    Tim Marshall, of Marshall Diel & Myers, told The Royal Gazette he believed Hamilton Princess, Bermuda was in breach of the Human Rights Act 1981 for refusing to host the free public forums featuring American right-wing commentator Ryan Anderson.

    "Mr Marshall said: “In my opinion, any hotel in Bermuda that refuses to permit a booking because of a customer’s religious or political opinions would be in breach of section five of the Human Rights Act.”

    The legislation bans discrimination in the supply of any goods, facilities or services because of religion, belief or politics, among other things.

    Preserve Marriage has not said if it will file a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, but did say it was denied “goods and services” and would seek “immediate redress”.

    Mr Marshall said he believed the hotel made a mistake and should have allowed Dr Anderson, a member of the conservative American think-tank the Heritage Foundation, to speak on the premises.

    “Because a hotel is a public place you shouldn’t prevent, as a hotel owner, the free expression of ideas for those people who wish to book a meeting room,” said Mr Marshall.

    Another lawyer with human rights expertise, who asked not to be named, agreed. “I do think the Princess has got a problem. What you ask yourself is whether opposing same-sex marriage is a political opinion. As far as I am concerned, any fool can see that [it is].”

  • 55. VIRick  |  November 29, 2015 at 2:58 pm

    On the day when we had the overdose of Bermuda news, the "Bermuda Royal Gazette" did a full-coverage report on the Bermuda Supreme Court's same-sex partnership decision.

    On the other hand, the "Jamaica Observer" went straight after the cancellation of the hotel booking made on behalf of, and under some sort of disguise, for some virulently anti-gay presentations to be made by the unmarried and undoctored, but "virginal" and highly-closeted, Ryan T. Anderson of the USA's Heritage Foundation, who is reported to be as gay as a goose. And here's why:

    People all over in these Caribbean islands are fed up with the outside "expert" interference provoked by self-touting agitators from the Mainland, who having lost the battle there, still insist on spreading their venom, while simultaneously claiming their vacation to be a tax-free business write-off because they presented some spurious talk somewhere. Jamaica, in particular, has been subject to this same abusiveness by anti-gay outside agitators.

    Besides, in Bermuda at least, any "talk" to agitate the mini-throng of "true believers" is too late. The Bermuda Supreme Court has issued its decision (just hours ahead of the hotel cancellation), a decision which eventually will have far-reaching effects throughout the rest of the British and ex-British Caribbean, given that they all share the same court system.

  • 56. allan120102  |  November 27, 2015 at 3:05 pm

    BCS MX. PAN which is a political party in Mexico. Its a conservative party nonetheless have say that they will respect the decision made by the supreme court. This might prompt deputies to legaize ssm in this state after more than 70 people have been granted amparos. Just want to say that one by one the states of Mexico might fall in line to marriage equality.

  • 57. VIRick  |  November 27, 2015 at 8:59 pm

    Perhaps, this is the political break-through we've been looking for. PAN is the right-wing, pro-business, anti same-sex marriage political party which has long held up the passage of the required legislation needed to effect the changes to the Family Codes in the majority of Mexico's states so as to allow for same-sex marriage, as per the rulings of Mexico's Supreme Court.

    As least their showing respect for the Supreme Court and its decisions is a start:

    PAN en BCS Respetará Decisión de la SCJN Sobre el Matrimonio Gay

    La Paz, Baja California Sur (BCS). El diputado del Partido Acción Nacional (PAN) en el Congreso del Estado de Baja California Sur, Marco Antonio Almendáriz Puppo, declaró que su partido respetará la disposición de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (SCJN) sobre el derecho de contraer matrimonio entre las personas del mismo sexo.

    “Nosotros somos muy respetuosos en el tema de la Suprema Corte de Justicia; sabemos que hay alrededor de 60 a 70 personas que sean amparado aquí en el estado de BCS, nosotros estaremos pendientes de las demás fuerzas políticas, y obviamente, si hay manera de hacer mesas de trabajo, de abrirlo la sociedad, estamos en toda la disposición de hacerlo."

    El diputado panista mencionó que, aunque el PAN tiene sus posturas frente a este tema de la unión entre personas del mismo género, en lo local, respetan las decisiones de los magistrados, y que serán las autoridades Civiles quienes llevan el tema.

    PAN in BCS Will Respect the Supreme Court's Decision on Same-Sex Marriage

    La Paz, Baja California Sur (BCS). The deputy of the National Action Party (PAN) in the Congress of the State of Baja California Sur, Marco Antonio Almendáriz Puppo, declared that his party will respect the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) on the right of marriage between people of the same sex.

    "We are very respectful on the issue of the Supreme Court; we know that there are about 60-70 people who have received amparos here in the state of BCS, we will be watching the other political forces, and obviously, if there's a way to make it happen, to open it to the society, we are all set to do it."

    The PAN representative said that while the PAN has its positions regarding this issue of marriage between persons of the same gender, in that locale, they respect the decisions of judges and the civil authorities who carry them out.

    Based on my count, 110 people (potentially 55 couples) were approved in the granting of the first 3 amparos in Baja California Sur, where amparos colectivos started big and proceeded to become bigger. This politician isn't specifically clear enough, but if by his count, he states "around 60-70 people," then I'm not certain how he arrived at that figure, other than to point out that he's underplaying the numbers:

    #1 amparo for 18 people (or 9 couples)
    #2 amparo for 20 people (or 10 couples)
    #3 amparo for 72 people (or 36 couples)

  • 58. allan120102  |  November 27, 2015 at 11:16 pm

    More Mexican news Rick. The supreme court struck again the civil unions that was in place in Colima not sure why as they ceased to exist in June or July when they first struck it down. Maybe the supreme court wants Colima to legislate marriage equality instead of not having nothing for sscouples.
    And in here the court says that ss couples should have the same rights as straight in terms of adoption, not sure if this is for a state in particular or all Mexico.

  • 59. VIRick  |  November 28, 2015 at 1:05 am

    Allan, in both instances, these are published "seminars" providing further clarity and instructions with additional detail regarding recent, previous rulings.

    In the first one, notice that the word, "Matrimonio," is repeatedly highlighted. As you stated, and as the Supreme Court itself repeatedly repeated, they have already struck down Colima's "separate but unequal" same-sex civil union provision. And in July 2015, as a direct result, Colima converted all of its same-sex civil unions to marriage.

    So, instead, this re-iteration, with the word, "Matrimonio," boldly highlighted 8 times, is not for Colima's benefit, (nor is it a second ruling against Colima), but rather, this clarification is for the benefit of the misguided lawmakers in Michoacán (and any other state) who might incorrectly assume that their alternate passage of a law legalizing same-sex civil unions (enlace conyugal) might be deemed "good enough." Mexico's Supreme Court just re-iterated that, "No, it is NOT good enough." As a major clue, one word alone is highlighted: "Matrimonio."

    In the second instance, earlier this year, the Supreme Court struck down Campeche's ban denying same-sex couples the ability to adopt. Drawing upon that singular ruling against one state's law, and combining it with nationwide marriage equality, they are now extending the adoption ruling nationwide: All married same-sex couples have the right to be considered able to adopt, equally under the same conditions as married hetero couples. Just in case it wasn't clear to everyone before, they made the point quite clear now. However, to be fair, most other states' Family Codes are silent on this issue, and most have not been discriminating against same-sex couples. Campeche was one of only 2 or 3 states which specifically banned same-sex couples from adopting.

    And by the way, this site is a major pain, as it won't allow me to copy/paste, complicating my translation efforts.

  • 60. Elihu_Bystander  |  November 28, 2015 at 5:38 am

    "And by the way, this site is a major pain, as it won't allow me to copy/paste, complicating my translation efforts."

    A work around for this problem that may work for some sites is to use the "Print Screen" (prt sc) key and then paste the generated jpeg image into MS Word. Using the full Acrobat Program convert the word image to PDF. Using the Acrobat OCR function converts it to a functional word processing document.

  • 61. bayareajohn  |  November 28, 2015 at 1:27 pm

    That linked page will indeed copy and paste. It simply disables right-click menus.
    So just highlight the area you want, then CONTROL-C copies. Paste anywhere. Works…..


    Los artículos citados al rubro contemplan dos regímenes jurídicos expresamente diferenciados a los que pueden acceder las parejas en función de sus preferencias sexuales: el "matrimonio" para las parejas de distinto sexo y el "enlace conyugal" para las parejas del mismo sexo. Estas normas hacen una diferenciación basada en una categoría sospechosa en términos del artículo 1o. constitucional, toda vez que la distinción que trazan para determinar quiénes pueden utilizar el poder normativo para crear un vínculo matrimonial o un enlace conyugal se apoya en las preferencias sexuales de las personas, de tal manera que debe realizarse un escrutinio estricto de la medida. En este sentido, la distinción entre "matrimonio" y "enlace conyugal" es claramente inconstitucional, puesto que ni siquiera persigue una finalidad constitucionalmente admisible. En aquellos casos en los que la ley niega el acceso al matrimonio a las parejas del mismo sexo, la existencia de un régimen jurídico diferenciado al cual puedan optar las parejas homosexuales en lugar de casarse, incluso si la figura en cuestión tuviera los mismos derechos que el matrimonio, evoca a las medidas avaladas por la conocida doctrina de "separados pero iguales" surgida en Estados Unidos en el contexto de la discriminación racial de finales del siglo XIX. Los modelos para el reconocimiento de las parejas del mismo sexo, sin importar que su única diferencia con el matrimonio sea la denominación que se da a ambos tipos de instituciones, son inherentemente discriminatorios. Una distinción como ésta resulta totalmente inaceptable en un Estado constitucional de derecho que aspira a tratar con igual consideración y respeto a todos sus ciudadanos, ya que únicamente se basa en un sentimiento de desaprobación hacia un grupo de personas en específico: las personas con preferencias homosexuales. La exclusión de las parejas homosexuales del matrimonio está basada en los prejuicios que históricamente han existido en contra de los homosexuales, de tal manera que con ella se perpetúa la noción de que las parejas del mismo sexo son menos merecedoras de reconocimiento que las heterosexuales, ofendiendo con ello su dignidad como personas. De esta manera, el régimen "separado al matrimonio" para las parejas homosexuales que establecen los artículos 147 de la Constitución de Colima y 145 del Código Civil para el Estado de Colima, bajo el rubro de "enlace conyugal", vulnera el derecho a la igualdad y no discriminación, lo que significa que no sólo son inconstitucionales esas disposiciones, sino también todas las porciones normativas de los artículos en los que se establece como condición de aplicación de esas normas ser una persona que haya celebrado un "enlace conyugal".


    Amparo en revisión 735/2014. 18 de marzo de 2015. Mayoría de cuatro votos de los Ministros Arturo Zaldívar Lelo de Larrea, José Ramón Cossío Díaz, quien formuló voto concurrente, Olga Sánchez Cordero de García Villegas y Alfredo Gutiérrez Ortiz Mena. Disidente: Jorge Mario Pardo Rebolledo, quien formuló voto particular. Ponente: Arturo Zaldívar Lelo de Larrea. Secretario: Arturo Bárcena Zubieta.

  • 62. bayareajohn  |  November 28, 2015 at 1:33 pm

    Translated by Google… with NO cleanup…

    MARRIAGE MARRIAGE AND SEARCH. THE EXPRESS LEGAL differentiation between both regimes, provided for in Articles 147 of the Constitution of Colima and 145 of the Civil Code for the State of Colima, violates the right to equality and non-discrimination.

    The articles cited the heading expressly provide for two distinct legal regimes that couples can access based on their sexual preferences, the "marriage" for opposite-sex couples and the "conjugal bond" for same-sex couples. These rules make a distinction based on a suspect category in terms of article 1. constitutional, since the distinction drawn to determine who can use the regulatory power to create a marriage or conjugal bond is based on the sexual preferences of individuals, so that strict scrutiny of the measure should be performed. In this sense, the distinction between "marriage" and "marriage bond" is clearly unconstitutional, since even a constitutionally admissible aim pursued. In those cases in which the law denied access to marriage to same-sex couples, the existence of a separate legal regime to which gay couples can opt instead to marry, even if the figure in question had the same rights as marriage, evokes the measures endorsed by the familiar doctrine of "separate but equal" that emerged in the US in the context of racial discrimination in the late nineteenth century. The models for the recognition of same-sex couples, regardless of their marriage only difference is the name given to both types of institutions are inherently discriminatory. A distinction like this is totally unacceptable in a constitutional rule of law that aims to deal with equal consideration and respect for all citizens, as it only relies on a sense of disapproval of a group of people in particular: people with homosexual preferences . The exclusion of homosexual couples from marriage is based on the prejudices that have historically existed against homosexuals, so that with it the notion that same-sex couples are less worthy of recognition as heterosexual, offending is perpetuated thus their dignity as persons. Thus, the "separate marriage" for homosexual couples under Articles 147 of the Constitution of Colima and 145 of the Civil Code for the State of Colima, under the heading of "marital bond" regime violates the right to the equality and non-discrimination, which means that not only are these provisions unconstitutional, but also all the rules of the articles in which it is set as a condition for the application of these standards to be a person who has entered into a "marriage bond" portions.


    Amparo 735/2014 review. March 18, 2015. Most of four votes of Ministers Arturo Zaldívar Lelo de Larrea, Jose Ramon Cossio Diaz, who made concurring opinion, Olga Sánchez Cordero Garcia Villegas and Alfredo Gutiérrez Ortiz Mena. Dissident Jorge Mario Pardo Rebolledo, who made dissent. Speaker: Arturo Zaldivar Lelo de Larrea. Secretary: Arturo Barcena Zubieta.

  • 63. VIRick  |  November 28, 2015 at 6:13 pm

    And now you see why I also have to "translate" the English!!

  • 64. allan120102  |  November 27, 2015 at 7:38 pm

    Can someone please provide me a link when each country decrimilize Homosexuality as I know the map in wiki is wrong at least in Honduras. I have talk to many of my friends that study law and they told me the laws in terms of criminalization of homosexuality were scrapped in the 1980s when the new constitutution was adopted. I believe it was at the same time of Costa Rica, it was not in the 1899 like wikipedia show.

  • 65. Christian0811  |  November 28, 2015 at 2:17 pm

    I've been looking through the statute books, the most recent penal code dates back to 1985 and several articles under its sexual offenses heading have since been repealed. However the repealed articles give no date of their deletion or citation for the repealing acts, nor do they say what the laws repealed were. It could be however safe to assume that any laws banning homosexual activity were repealed by the adoption of the current penal code, a common tactic among legal reformers, or that the sodomy laws were repealed afterwards in 1989 and the Wikipedia article saying it happened earlier was the result of a typo.

    I'm sorry if this is incorrect or unhelpful :/

  • 66. allan120102  |  November 28, 2015 at 2:54 pm

    Thanks I really appreciate it. you help me more than most articles in google. I am hoping that someone that can edit in wiki corrects the map as I can't. I am also a little angry in terms of the marriage map Mexico is currently show as it is outdated .Again thanks Christian for looking more info didn 't think anyone would answer me:D.

  • 67. Christian0811  |  November 28, 2015 at 3:20 pm

    My pleasure 🙂

    I often take it upon myself to edit Wikipedia too (if I can find primary documents to supply the relevant facts) but I don't have the tools or 'know-how' to edit the map of Mexico. Plus it's hard to keep up with the bizarre constitutional practices of the country, so even if I did have technical knowledge I wouldn't know which states have legalized it or need more amparos. Otherwise I'd do it myself haha

  • 68. Fortguy  |  November 28, 2015 at 11:19 pm

    Ouch! Updating the map would be a challenge. I examined the source code, and it does not identify which SVG paths belong to their corresponding federal entities. The map was originally based upon this easily editable map but has undergone many different revisions since then. Some of these revisions are good things such as removing arbitrary and unnecessary white space around the borders of the federal republic. Others, particularly changing SVG path ID's from recognizable abbreviations to arbitrary numeric identifiers, makes the map difficult to edit.

    A true effort to update the map, and it would consume a lot of time, would hopefully include renaming the path ID's to something easily searchable in a text editor.

  • 69. Fortguy  |  November 29, 2015 at 8:30 pm

    I have updated the map on Wikimedia Commons. To edit, download the source code and open it in your web browser to view the map and in a text editor such as Wordpad. To change the status of a state, look up the state's three-letter ISO 3166-2 abbreviation and use the text editor's Find tool to search the correct path ID. For instance, to edit Colima, type the following into the Find tool dialog:


    The document will then scroll to that line with the text string highlighted. Immediately following that string will be a style declaration with various attributes and values. You only need to be concerned with the "fill" attribute, not "fill-opacity" or any of the stroke attributes. For instance:

    style="fill:#cc9933;[other attributes and assigned values]"

    This gives the state a light brown color indicating the state has five or more court orders requiring marriage. To change to a dark blue indicating full marriage compliance, change the attribute value to:


    The colors used on the map are as follow:

    #002255 (dark blue): Marriage compliance
    #0066ff (light blue): Civil unions
    #cc9933 (light brown): 5 or more court orders compelling marriage
    #e4d69d (light tan): 1-4 court orders
    #ffaaaa (pink): No court orders yet

    If more colors are needed to clarify a local situation, be sure to add them to the key on the map's Commons page, and please be consistent with other SSM maps elsewhere on Wikipedia. Save your changes, as simple text rather than rich text and with an .svg file extension, and refresh your browser to ensure they display correctly. When done, upload your new map following the "Upload a new version of this file" link below the table of previous revisions. Be sure the state's new status is documented with properly sourced citations on the Same-sex marriage in Mexico article on Wikipedia.

  • 70. VIRick  |  November 29, 2015 at 10:55 pm

    Yay!! Thank you.

    Now, in addition to Colima, Nayarit, and Yucatan, these additional states should be shaded in the same golden-brown color to indicate 5 or more amparos:

    Baja California

    Also, since both Jalisco and Michoacán are now over 5 amparos, those two should both be striped light blue/golden brown.

  • 71. Fortguy  |  November 29, 2015 at 11:51 pm

    As long as a timeline of at least five, preferably all, amparos can be cited in the article, then edit away. The citations need not be in English but must be from reputable sources. I don't know if the map supports striping presently, but the coding to do that could be copied from old U.S. state maps, if necessary. After all, the Mexican Supremes have held civil union laws to be inherently unequal.

    Coloring states such as Colima or Nayarit dark blue is possible with supporting reports showing that ME is effectively practiced throughout by state administrative policy. Texas marriages are legally valid even if the Lege will no time soon repeal the SSM ban or even the pre-Lawrence sodomy criminal laws.

    States such as BC may need a different color (or maybe stripes?) if not all local jurisdictions are in compliance, but the state honors those marriages that occur within municipios that do comply.

  • 72. aiislander  |  November 27, 2015 at 8:13 pm

    NOM has FINALLY filed and posted their (redacted) 2014 Form 990. For those interested you can find it here:

  • 73. VIRick  |  November 28, 2015 at 12:12 am

    Per Rex Wockner:

    USA: Same-Sex Marriage Is Legal, but Not on Most Tribal Lands

    Only about a dozen of the USA's 567 Native American tribes have marriage equality.

    Flagstaff AZ, 27 November 2015

    Cleo Pablo married her longtime partner when same-sex marriage became legal in Arizona and looked forward to the day when her wife and their children could move into her home in the small Native American community outside Phoenix where she grew up. That day never came. The Ak-Chin Indian Community doesn't recognize same-sex marriages and has a law that prohibits unmarried couples from living together. So Pablo voluntarily gave up her tribal home and now is suing the tribe in tribal court to have her marriage validated.

    "I want equal opportunity," Pablo said. "I want what every married couple has."

    Pablo's situation reflects an overlooked story line following the U.S. Supreme Court's historic decision this year that legalized same-sex marriages nationwide: American Indian reservations are not bound by the decision and many continue to forbid gay marriages and deny insurance and other benefits.

    But Pablo argues in her lawsuit that members of the Tribal Council are violating the Ak-Chin constitution by denying her equal protection and due process — rights also guaranteed under the federal Indian Civil Rights Act. Her lawyer, Sonia Martinez, said tribal members could have a persuasive argument against gay-marriage bans if their tribe incorporated federal constitutional rights into tribal laws, which she says is the case on the Ak-Chin reservation.

    The Ak-Chin Indian Community is located in the Santa Cruz Valley of Southern Arizona. The Community lies 58 miles south of Phoenix in the northwestern part of Pinal County, and is one segment of the larger Maricopa Indian Tribe.

  • 74. allan120102  |  November 28, 2015 at 9:30 pm

    Guanajuato MX. The fifth wedding have occur at the state, not sure how many amparo have been granted to that state but I believe its a conservative state. I believe only Zacatecas and Tlaxcala have been granted one.

  • 75. VIRick  |  November 28, 2015 at 11:29 pm

    Allan, this news article, from León, Guanajuato, dated 28 November 2015, specifically states "the 5th wedding of a same-sex couple," but almost by definition, given Guanajuato's amparo history, this couple would also have to have received the 5th amparo (or higher) in the state.

    Here's why:

    #1 amparo granted, 1 couple (already married)
    #2 amparo granted, 1 couple (already married)
    #3 amparo granted, ??? (already married)
    #4 amparo granted, ??? (already married)
    #5 amparo granted, 1 couple (just married, being the 5th wedding)

    In addition, the following amparos have also been filed (with outcomes unknown/uncertain):

    45 couples, individually requesting 45 separate amparos (the most in any one state)
    30 couples, jointly filing 1 amparo colectivo
    160 couples, jointly filing 1 amparo colectivo (the most massive anywhere in Mexico)

    If either collective amparo had been previously granted, today's news article would not be talking about the 5th wedding just occurring. Instead, there would have been a lot more weddings already having taken place in Guanajuato.

    As the only other alternative, a certain portion of those 45 individually-filed amparos must be in the process of being granted, pushing the count up to 5 (at a minimum), or more (as other couples may have also received their amparo, but haven't yet scheduled their wedding). As a result, almost without question, Guanajuato has hit or exceeded 5 amparos already granted, with the actual number possibly considerably higher.

    Several more points about Guanajuato: The state legislature began working on a proposal to change their state code as soon as the first amparo was granted in early 2014 (but still has not finished). In the meantime, no officials in the state in any capacity whatsoever have appealed any of the judicial decisions granting an amparo in Guanajuato. This state is the heart of the Bajío, a relatively progressive, safe area, with the highest quality of life in Mexico. The state capital, León, is usually ranked #1 on Mexico's livability index.

  • 76. allan120102  |  November 29, 2015 at 12:18 pm

    Rick here is more info its actually the fourth wedding not the fifth. They are some info you might interesting about two other amparos that are about to be approve.

  • 77. VIRick  |  November 29, 2015 at 4:18 pm

    The latter portion of that news article from Celaya presents us with exactly the type of information we need, giving us the entire history, with precise dates and amparo numbers all grouped together, beginning with the same wedding of 28 November 2015. Excellent find, as it fills in all the gaps in my notes. Thank you.

    Registran en León la Cuarta Boda Gay

    Con este matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo ya serán cuatro en el municipio de León. Fidel Negrete, presidente del Colectivo León Gay, informó que aún están pendientes de resolución dos solicitudes de matrimonio en Irapuato y una más en Dolores Hidalgo.

    El primer matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo en Guanajuato fue en marzo del año pasado en esta ciudad, entre dos mujeres, Lucha, de 32 años y Mary, de 34 años. Con el apoyo de la asociación Colectivo León Gay, ambas interpusieron un amparo ante el Juzgado Tercero de Distrito en León en septiembre del año antepasado, luego de que la Dirección General del Registro Civil les negó la solicitud para contraer matrimonio el 15 de agosto del 2013. La resolución le fue notificada a la pareja el 14 de febrero, cinco meses después de haber presentado la solicitud de amparo 1157/2013.

    El segundo matrimonio gay se llevó a cabo el 18 de enero de este año, contrajeron matrimonio Ricardo y Julio César, la boda incluyó una marcha por el Centro Histórico, en la que participaron cerca de 150 personas.

    La tercera unión fue hace algunas semanas y la pareja formada por Vicente y Héctor, decidieron que no se hiciera pública.

    León Records Its Fourth Same-Sex Wedding

    (As discussed above), this same-sex marriage will be the fourth in the city of León. Fidel Negrete, president of the Colectivo León Gay, said there are still two pending requests for marriage in Irapuato, and one more in Dolores Hidalgo.

    The first same-sex marriage in Guanajuato was in March 2014 in León, between two women, Lucha and Mary. With the support of the association, Colectivo León Gay, they filed an amparo before the Third District Court in León in September 2013, after the Directorate General of the Civil Registry denied their request to marry on 15 August 2013. The couple was notified of the judicial approval on 14 February 2014, five months after filing the application under 1157/2013.

    The second same-sex marriage took place on 18 January 2015, with Ricardo and Julio César contracting marriage. The wedding included a march through the historic center of León, in which about 150 people participated.

    The third marriage was a few weeks ago, the pairing of Vicente and Héctor, who decided not to make it public. (and thus, we missed it).

  • 78. 1grod  |  November 29, 2015 at 12:15 pm

    Seeking Same Gender Marriage to be Legal on Ak-Chin Tribal Land (Ariz)

  • 79. VIRick  |  November 29, 2015 at 4:51 pm

    JAPAN: 51% Back Same-Sex Marriage In New Poll

    Bloomberg reports, 29 November 2015:

    A majority of Japanese support changing the country’s laws to allow same-sex unions, with the highest backing coming from younger respondents, according to a poll. Fifty-one percent of people polled by researchers from universities and the National Institute of Population and Social Security Research back such partnerships, the Asahi newspaper reported. Support exceeded 70 percent among respondents in their 20s and 30s, while 38 percent in their 60s and 24 percent in their 70s were in favor, the Asahi said. This year, Tokyo’s Shibuya Ward became the country’s first local authority to recognize same-sex partnerships and this month started issuing “equivalency to marriage” certificates to gay couples. While the move has helped build momentum for same-sex marriage, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and some senior members of his party are cautious on the issue.

    Same-sex marriage has yet to be approved by any Asian nation.

  • 80. VIRick  |  November 29, 2015 at 7:11 pm

    Per Rex Wockner, dated 29 November 2015:

    Tijuana BC — En Tijuana, 44 personas ganan 1er amparo colectivo de matrimonio igualitario en estado de Baja California. Todos pueden casarse.

    Tijuana BC — In Tijuana, 44 people win first collective amparo for marriage equality in the state of Baja California. They can all marry now.

    "La Comunidad Cultural de Tijuana LGBTI tiene le gusto de informar que se ganó el 1er Amparo Colectivo de Matrimonios Igualitarios en Baja California, beneficiendo as 44 personas que firmaron.

    Seguiremos con el juicio para estabelecer los precedentes que se requieron para generar la jurisprudencia y que se obligue al Congreso a modificar la ley como corresponde.

    Agradecemos al Lic. Alex Alí Méndez Díaz por su labor y entrega a la causa, ya que sin su guía no se podríamos ir avanzando en este proceso de defensa de este derecho."

    "The Comunidad Cultural de Tijuana LGBTI is pleased to report that they have won the first Collective Amparo for Equal Marriage in Baja California, benefiting the 44 people who signed it.

    We will continue with the judicial process to establish the precedent required to generate the jurisprudence, and to compel the state Congress to amend the law accordingly.

    We thank Lic. Alex Alí Méndez Díaz for his work and dedication to the cause, without whose guidance we could not move forward in this process of defending this right."

    Although the second paragraph gives the impression that precedent still needs to be set, by my count, this collective amparo is #6 for Baja California:

    #1 2013-14 Lesbian couple in Mexicali (married early January 2014)
    #2 2013-14 Male couple in Ensenada (married October 2014)
    #3 2013-15 Male couple in Mexicali (to Supreme Court and back) (married 17 January 2015)
    #4 2014-15 Male couple in Tijuana (married 26 August 2015)
    #5 2014-15 Female couple in Ensenada (to Supreme Court and back) (Married 14 September 2015)

    In between wedding #4 and #5, but with both of those amparos already approved, just to put the frosting on the cake, in a very public ceremony, the travelling judge from Colima (who knows what she's doing) showed up, and married 5 same-sex couples in Tijuana on 11 September 2015, none of whom had had an amparo granted to them by a Baja California court. (However, all 5 couples did have amparos granted to them by the same travelling judge from Colima in Colima ahead of time, and who, following the public wedding ceremony, then proceeded to successfully register all 5 marriages at the Civil Registry in Tijuana).

    #6 The collective amparo just granted to 44 people (22 couples) in Tijuana.

    #7, #8, when granted – Two more collective amparos, covering a total of 40 same-sex couples, were filed in Ensenada in September 2015.

  • 81. allan120102  |  November 29, 2015 at 10:42 pm

    Rick question why when even we get the 5 amparos needed same sex couples still cannot register their marriage without one?
    Btw I found the one page where they ask the supreme court to declare the ban in Hidalgo uncunstitutional. Looks like the supreme court still have not granted.
    This one say that there only three states where same sex couples can marry not counting Guerrero as one.
    Looks like governors can force states to approve same sex marriages without legislative action something that in the states cannot happen.

  • 82. VIRick  |  November 30, 2015 at 12:10 am

    "…. why when even we get the 5 amparos needed, same-sex couples still cannot register their marriage without one?"

    In Baja California, there's an on-going feud between the officials in Mexicali (the state capital) and their counterparts in Tijuana and Ensenada. The ones in Mexicali are disputing the BC amparo count, and want a complete review. The others are disgusted with the antics and the delaying tactics. So is the travelling judge from Colima. That's why she went to Tijuana, and did what she did (but came prepared by arranging matters beforehand).

    I think the judge from Colima was attempting to impress on the Mexicali officials that they can't hold same-sex couples hostage, as said couples can get married in another state (or across the border in the USA), but still, I do like her style:

    "Here, I'll personally come and marry those deserving couples right in your face." And she did.

    By the way, my BC amparo count matches with that of the officials in both Tijuana and Ensenada. On the other hand, I believe Mexicali is pretending to only recognize the two granted by Mexico's Supreme Court.

  • 83. VIRick  |  November 30, 2015 at 12:37 am

    "…. they ask the Supreme Court to declare the ban in Hidalgo unconstitutional."

    So, whether or not an amparo was ever granted in this case from Hidalgo involving 6 persons, the case itself has been appealed to Mexico's Supreme Court for a ruling on the unconstitutionality of Articles 8, 11, and 143 of the Law for the Family of Hidalgo state.

    I thought this case had been settled, with amparo granted. Instead, it was appealed.

  • 84. VIRick  |  November 30, 2015 at 2:09 am

    "…. Looks like governors can force states to approve same-sex marriages without legislative action …."

    Yes, definitely (despite the fact that it kills off the silly notion of "democracy").

    I am aware of 4 jurisdictions where governors recently issued executive orders legalizing same-sex marriage, two in Mexico (Chihuahua and Guerrero) and two in the USA (Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands). In Mexico, if those TWO state governors can do it, then ALL of them can do the same, as they all have equal power. It would greatly simplify the process, and bring this whole ordeal to an end rather quickly. I am disgusted that more state governors in Mexico haven't yet followed suit.

    The Governor of Puerto Rico (having inherited the Spanish law code) and the Governor of the US Virgin Islands (having inherited the Danish law code) have more executive power than do the governors of the 50 states of the USA.

    Earlier, in Brasil, before their Supreme Court issued its nationwide ruling, a number of state governors legalized same-sex marriage by executive order.

  • 85. allan120102  |  November 29, 2015 at 11:09 pm

    Mexican news this are from a while back
    A same sex couple became the second in the state of Yucatan to register as parents of their children thanks to an Amparo. This is from Nov 16 or 14 2015
    Not sure if this mean same sex couples can adopt in Chihuahua as supposedly even single people can adopt. It says that Chihuahua adoption laws are different than the rest of the states in Mexico.

  • 86. VIRick  |  November 30, 2015 at 1:25 am

    Allan, in Yucatan, this is the second same-sex couple who registered themselves as parents of their children. Since in both instances, an amparo was needed in order for them to do so, this tells me that (besides Campeche) Yucatan still has an out-dated law (already declared unconstitutional in Campeche, and recently extended nationwide) prohibiting same-sex couples from adopting.

    Besides Campeche and Yucatan, there may only be one other state still with such a ban.

    But it's not Chihuahua. There, the difference is this: the age of eligibility for adopting is lower (18 instead of 25). Otherwise, any two persons, married, or whatever other union one can have between two persons, or even a single person, can adopt.

  • 87. JayJonson  |  November 30, 2015 at 6:15 am

    Same-sex couples and their children in Austria are suing to change the law banning same-sex marriage.

    The children and their parents have taken their cases arguing for same-sex marriage to the Administrative Court in Vienna, and hope to change the law so that the children can become ‘legitimate'.

    Austria grants equal parenting rights to same-sex couples – including second-parent adoption, joint adoption and medically assisted conception – but not equal marriage rights.

    Campaigners from the Ehe Gleich group have set up a petition to lift the ban on same-sex couples and so far more than 45,000 people have signed it.

    Dr Helmut Graupner is representing the families (four couples) and says that Austria must allow equal marriage, “for the sake of the children”. He said that he expects a ruling on the cases in January or February.

    The Austrian government remains divided on the issue of gay marriage, with Social Democrat Chancellor Werner Faymann in favour and the conservative People’s Party against it.

  • 88. Christian0811  |  November 30, 2015 at 9:27 am

    Round 3 here we go…

    Does the Administrative Court have to approve a referral to the CC like in France, why're they there?

  • 89. guitaristbl  |  November 30, 2015 at 2:54 pm

    The courts are the only way Austria will get marriage equality. Funny that the article mentions the social democratic and the conservative party but not the far right freedom party which leads every poll now in Austria and has a typical heinous far right agenda on LGBG rights.

  • 90. Christian0811  |  November 30, 2015 at 7:25 pm

    Apparently the Austrian constitution has no bill of rights (or other equivalent), so now I'm puzzled as to what constitutional grounds are being used to pursue civil liberties?

  • 91. Christian0811  |  November 30, 2015 at 9:40 am

    Besides Austria on adoption and the US Supreme Court in Obergefell (both this year, and Mexican jurisprudence is a mess I barely count the MSC as a constitutional court), why hasn't same sex marriage and adoption been winning at the constitutional courts of the world? The logic is sound as is the argument of ethics, and yet there is a long list of defeats for same sex couples at the court suing for due recognition.

    Italy (2010), France(2011), Austria (2010 and 2014) Portugal(2010), Germany (2002)….all highly developed western states and yet they have the judicial enlightenment of maybe the 80s ECoHR. And speaking of international judicial bodies, we lost at the ECoHR (2010) and the UN (1999).

    I'm just curious about this phenomenon…

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