Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Open thread


This is an open thread for discussion. We will report on any order from the Supreme Court in the Alabama adoption case when it comes down. We will also report on any other breaking news throughout the day.


  • 1. JayJonson  |  December 7, 2015 at 10:04 am

    As readers of EoT will remember from a recent thread about Judge Posner's evisceration of Justice Scalia in the New York Times, Posner ended his article by a rhetorical question: "And can Justice Scalia want his own decisions to have diminished and perhaps negligible force until separate lawsuits are brought in each state to enforce them? That implies that state and local officials are free to ignore his gun-friendly decision in "District of Columbia v. Heller" (holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own a gun). Perhaps a few state and local officials will take Justice Scalia up on that offer."

    The answer, of course, is that Scalia certainly wants his rulings on firearms obeyed. Today, the Supreme Court denied cert to a case out of Illinois in which the Appeals Court on which Judge Posner serves ruled that bans on assault weapons are constitutional. In response, Scalia and Thomas wrote a dissent protesting the denial of cert.

    More pointedly, Scalia and Thomas that the appeals court ruling "flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents." Both justices said if they were given a chance to rule on the case, they would overturn the ban on semi-automatic weapons.

    To clarify: they think that states should be allowed to ignore Obergefell, but that they must scrupulously follow their own rulings, even those which are apparently not supported by a majority of the Court.

    Makes one wonder if Judge Posner had advanced knowledge of how SCOTUS had ruled on the cert petition and of the Thomas-Scalia dissent.

  • 2. RnL2008  |  December 7, 2015 at 12:05 pm

    Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas need to be removed from the High bench as both are menaces to the true meaning of Justice and our Constitution!!!

    See, either one can IGNORE all rulings from SCOTUS or one CAN'T ignore ANY ruling from SCOTUS…….people DON'T get to pick and choose, which is what Justice Scalia is trying to do….one MUST follow MY rulings, but hey, it's okay to IGNORE the other rulings……..and again that's NOT how our system works!!!

    Justice Scalia should and probably does KNOW that!!!

  • 3. David_Las_Cruces_NM  |  December 7, 2015 at 12:19 pm

    Self-deceived hypocrites pick and choose which passages of their sacred books to follow and which to ignore. Seems consistent that Scalia and Thomas might want to do the same.

  • 4. VIRick  |  December 7, 2015 at 12:25 pm

    "Makes one wonder if Judge Posner had advanced knowledge of how SCOTUS had ruled on the cert petition and of the Thomas-Scalia dissent."

    Jay, Posner's "advanced knowledge" comes from the fact that he has already nailed Scalia's number, and can thus reliably predict how Scalia will rule (or would want to rule, given the current reality) whenever it comes to one of Scalia's pet issues or causes.

  • 5. David_Las_Cruces_NM  |  December 7, 2015 at 12:10 pm

    For thousands of Christians, Christmas was completely ruined when some of their neighbors lit candles and ate jelly doughnuts Sunday evening to celebrate a non-Christian December holiday.

    "Mur'ka is a Christian nation," said Joe-Bob Bubba Moroni Young-Smith, President of the National December is for Christian Families Alliance, "and the celebration of these non-Christian holidays is an attack on our religious liberty."

    When asked to comment, next-door neighbor Bubbe Tzeitel said a few phrases in Yiddish that cannot be repeated on a family friendly web site.


    Happy Holidays and a Joyous New Year to all, even the willfully self-deceived hypocrites.

  • 6. weaverbear  |  December 7, 2015 at 7:01 pm

    Ah David, you're mixing Sephardi and Ashkenazi traditions. Any Jew celebrating Hanukkah with Jelly donuts is Sephardi and would not likely be a Yiddish speaker, but rather Ladino. Perhaps, a plate of potato latkes instead, with sides of sour cream and apple sauce would work better for Bubbe Tzeitel?

  • 7. David_Las_Cruces_NM  |  December 7, 2015 at 8:03 pm

    Here in Las Cruces, both latkes and jelly donuts were served at the First Night menorah lighting ceremony (according to the local newspaper). I love both. Maybe Grandma Tzeitel does too. Wink.

  • 8. VIRick  |  December 7, 2015 at 12:18 pm

    "…. Bubbe Tzeitel said a few phrases in Yiddish that cannot be repeated on a family-friendly web site."

    Well, why not? If it's Yiddish, one can get away with it. Besides, schmuck means "jewel," and katzdrecht is, um …. katzdrecht.

  • 9. David_Las_Cruces_NM  |  December 7, 2015 at 12:25 pm


  • 10. RnL2008  |  December 7, 2015 at 12:41 pm

    So, I saw this site on facebook and took a look at it. Seems they have been picking the right President since 1975 and have predicated that Bernie Sanders will be our President in 2017:

  • 11. VIRick  |  December 7, 2015 at 1:08 pm

    Bernie Sanders Wins TIME Magazine’s 2015 Person Of The Year Readers’ Poll, Kim Davis Places 55th

    On 7 December 2015, TIME Magazine reports:

    Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has won the online readers’ poll for TIME Person of the Year, topping some of the world’s best-known politicians, activists, and cultural figures as the most influential person of 2015 among those who voted. The Vermont Senator won with a little more than 10% of the vote when the poll closed Sunday at midnight. That’s well ahead of Pakistani girls’ education activist Malala Yousafzai, who was in second place at 5.2%, and Pope Francis, TIME’s 2013 Person of the Year, who finished third with 3.7%. Sanders also placed far ahead of President Obama (3.5%) and ahead of other 2016 candidates, including Republican Donald Trump (1.8%) and Democratic rival Hillary Clinton (1.4%).

    Kim Davis finished with 0.6% – which is exactly where she stood when the Liberty Counsel launched their campaign for her to win. TIME’s editors will announce this year’s Person Of The Year on Wednesday.

    Apparently, Kim Davis fans are actually fairly scarce, and/or don't read, or at least don't read TIME Magazine.

    Plus, as LGBTQ Nation notes, she polled behind the likes of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Syrian President Bashar Assad, and Vladimir Putin.

  • 12. aiislander  |  December 7, 2015 at 3:57 pm

    And yet, TIME today announced the shortlist for Man of the Year (the eight finalists) and neither Bernie nor Malala are even on the list!

    The short list (the descriptions are Time's) is, in alphabetical order:

    Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, who as leader of ISIS has inspired followers to both fight in his self-declared caliphate of Iraq and Syria, and also stage attacks in countries like Tunisia and France.

    Black Lives Matter activists, who have protested inequality towards African Americans, especially in their treatment by law enforcement.

    Caitlyn Jenner, whose coming out as a transgender woman prompted widespread conversations about gender identity and issues of equality for the LGBT community.

    Travis Kalanick, who as CEO of Uber drove his car-hailing company to a nearly $70 billion valuation, but also drew criticism about the downside of the sharing economy.

    Angela Merkel, who as German chancellor has been at the center of major news events this year, from economic strife in the Eurozone to Europe’s ongoing migrant crisis.

    Vladimir Putin, who as president of Russia has defied Western sanctions over his country’s military activity in Ukraine to play a critical but precarious role in the war on ISIS.

    Hassan Rouhani, who as president of Iran is seeking to bring his country out of pariah status and repair its sanctions-crippled economy by pursuing a nuclear deal with the West.

    Donald Trump, whose populist rhetoric has made him frontrunner in the race for the Republican presidential candidacy and stirred debate about the party’s future.

    My guess is they'll pick Trump.

  • 13. SethInMaryland  |  December 7, 2015 at 9:37 pm

    It either be Trump or the ISIS leader. Both insane

  • 14. allan120102  |  December 7, 2015 at 3:33 pm

    Breaking. The supreme court of Mexico would invalidate for once and for all the ban on Jalisco by the end of January if 8 of the 11 supreme court justices declare them uncunstitutional.

  • 15. VIRick  |  December 7, 2015 at 4:42 pm

    Discute Pleno de la Corte Matrimonios Gay

    MÉXICO, DF, 6 Diciembre 2015 – La Suprema Corte de Justicia estudia un proyecto de sentencia que legalizaría con efectos generales los matrimonios entre personas del mismo sexo en Jalisco, y otro que, por razones técnicas, no analizaría el mismo tema en Baja California.

    El Ministro José Ramón Cossío turnó a sus colegas proyectos para sendas acciones de inconstitucionalidad promovidas por la CNDH (Comision Nacional de Derechos Humanos), que buscan echar abajo la definición legal del matrimonio como unión entre un hombre y una mujer, y serán discutidas en el Pleno de la Corte.

    El caso de Baja California es tercero en la lista del Pleno y podría ser discutido esta semana, mientras que el de Jalisco sería visto hacia finales de enero.

    Desde 2012, la Primera Sala de la Corte ha concedido múltiples amparos contra códigos civiles estatales por su definición tradicional del matrimonio, que los ministros han encontrado discriminatoria de las parejas homosexuales. Ahora el tema llega al Pleno.

    Los amparos no invalidan los códigos ni tienen efectos generales, por lo que los interesados tienen que litigar judicialmente cuando el Registro Civil respectivo se niega a casarlos. Las acciones de inconstitucionalidad, en cambio, sí pueden llevar a la invalidez total de una ley, pero se requiere el voto de ocho de los once ministros.

    En el caso de Baja California, Cossío propuso desechar la acción de la CNDH, que impugnó una reforma de diciembre de 2014 a la Constitución local en la que se define matrimonio como unión de hombre y mujer.

    Full Court to Discuss Same-Sex Marriage

    MEXICO CITY, 6 December 2015 – The Supreme Court is considering a draft statement that would legalize marriages with general effect between same-sex couples in Jalisco, and another which, for technical reasons, would likely not be discussing the same topic in Baja California.

    Justice José Ramón Cossío turned over to his colleagues the drafts pertaining to the unconstitutionality promoted by the CNDH (National Human Rights Commission), which seek to overturn the legal definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and which will be discussed at the plenary session of the Full Court.

    The case of Baja California is third on the list of the full court and could be discussed this week, while the Jalisco case would be heard toward the end of January.

    Since 2012, the First Chamber of the Court has granted multiple amparo protections against state civil codes for their traditional definition of marriage, which the justices have found to be discriminatory toward same-sex couples. Now the issue comes to the Full Court.

    The amparos do not invalidate the codes nor do they have general effect, so that interested parties still have to litigate in court whenever the respective Registrars refuse to marry them. However, the actions of unconstitutionality can lead to total invalidity of a law, but the vote for it from eight of the eleven justices is required.

    In the case of Baja California, Cossío proposed scrapping the action of the CNDH, which challenged a reform of December 2014 to the local constitution in which it defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

  • 16. VIRick  |  December 7, 2015 at 5:17 pm

    So, the matter has just been ramped up a few more notches, given the appeals filed by the CNDH in favor of same-sex marriage and against the unconstitutionality of the many state prohibitions. Plus, the entire matter has now been escalated from the First Room of the Supreme Court to the Full Court which will finally rule with finality.

    And the appeal in the Baja California case goes first, despite some technical problem, simply because that case was filed first, months ago, in early 2015, and is a direct result of the continuing fracas in Mexicali. The case in Jalisco, which has better technical grounds, was filed much more recently. But both have been accepted, and both will be heard. However, we may not get a final ruling until after the Jalisco case has run its course.

    But the CNDH, a competent, esteemed federal institution, will win this one for us. Remember, months and months ago, when I stated that we would probably eventually have to call in the federales? The CNDH are the federales. I smelled the beginning of the end when the CNDH was called in to deal with the mess in Mexicali BC.

    Next question: Sinaloa's umpteenth appeal of the appeal was supposed to be in between (based on the filing date), but wasn't mentioned in the article, leading me to wonder what became of it.

  • 17. allan120102  |  December 7, 2015 at 5:33 pm

    So Rick question if the supreme court void the Jalisco ban´s does this mean that the next state to appeal their ban would see it struck as Jalisco or would be just an amparo granted? I am not sure why Jalisco´s ban is the one to make the difference as they are more amparos from Yucatan than Jalisco. Btw I talk by phone to one of my friends and he told me that they are municipalities in Guerrero that are not granting marriage licenses to same sex couples.He also told me that he is not sure why Wikipedia when looking for same sex marriage in Mexico have different information because in Spanish it says that same sex couples might marry in all 31 states which is not correct and in English in some but he told me like I say that guerreros municipalities are not complying so is confusing. He told me Chihuahua is actually marrying same sex couples but they are not doing a lot of noise so people don´t know is legal so they can marry the less same sex couples as possible.

  • 18. VIRick  |  December 7, 2015 at 6:17 pm

    Some months ago, in reference to Guerrero, I saw some announcement that if a same-sex couple planned to marry there that they should stick with the association of registrars affiliated with Acapulco, as many rural registrars in wild Guerrero either don't know or don't want to know that the governor himself, after issuing his executive decree, then personally officiated at the first public, mass same-sex marriage ceremony in downtown Acapulco, replete with much fanfare.

    On the other hand, the fact that officials in Chihuahua are marrying same-sex couples, but are also keeping a low profile about it, also does not surprise me, as officials in Nayarit and Colima are doing the same. And since July, the registrar in Ciudad Querétaro in Querétaro state has also moved forward on marrying same-sex couples,– and no one there has stopped him. However, that also does not prove that other registrars in other cities in Querétaro state have then followed his lead locally (despite the fact that that state has 5 amparos already granted, and that he has urged his fellow registrars in that state to do as he has been doing). And even in Baja California, we have the running feud between Mexicali adamantly refusing, while Tijuana and Ensenada are moving forward on it (and with the rest of the state completely unknown).

  • 19. VIRick  |  December 7, 2015 at 9:50 pm

    " I am not sure why Jalisco´s ban is the one to make the difference as there are more amparos from Yucatán than Jalisco."

    Indeed, but the Jalisco case has gotten there first, based on the earlier filing date, and on Cossío's draft recommendation, despite the fact that the Yucatán case still must be heard, as the ruling from the Yucatán state Supreme Court must be reversed.

    It appears, perhaps, that the full Court sees more imperative in going after the big cojones, big in both size and population, which together, constitute the "heart of Mexico," namely the two adjacent states of Jalisco and Michoacán. The Jalisco case has always been about the city of Guadalajara, which, after Mexico City itself, is the next largest in the nation.

    Both the Baja California case and the Jalisco case have been pursued by the CNDH, and in each, they can cite violations of human rights, namely that the civil authorities in both Mexicali (from amparo #2) and Guadalajara (from amparo #3) refused to marry the couples in question, even after each had been granted an amparo.

    And according to José Ramón Cossío's recommendation, one of the 11 justices, the CNDH documentation from Jalisco is cleaner than from Baja California, which he asserts contains some technical glitch.

    In any event, the arrival of the CNDH with its appeals going before the full court upends all of my earlier predictions as to which case might be next-in-line, as it not only elevates the entire issue to a higher level, but it actively brings this federal commission into the cases to argue in favor of our side as a result of their documentation of the systematic violation of human rights. These are no longer individual cases, but rather, have become federal agency appeals. The CNDH in Mexico is similar to the Dept. of Justice in the USA.

  • 20. allan120102  |  December 7, 2015 at 11:18 pm

    In any case we should not celebrate still as we lost two of our allies judges in the court and we need 8/11 to strike the ban in Jalisco and I have read on Mexican news that Pan and Pri support two conservative judges who oppose same dex marriage. in the court we have one that always vote aganist us and one that is a maybe. That leaves 8. The exact number to strike the ban. I hope none change its heart before the decision.

  • 21. VIRick  |  December 8, 2015 at 12:34 pm

    Per Rex Wockner:

    Mexico: Full Supreme Court is now looking at gay marriage. Unlike the First Chamber, the Full Court can force total repeal of bans.… …

  • 22. scream4ever  |  December 8, 2015 at 12:46 pm


  • 23. VIRick  |  December 7, 2015 at 11:01 pm

    Arkansas Amends Birth Certificates for Some — but Not All — Same-Sex Couples

    Little Rock AR — The Arkansas Health Department has decided to issue amended birth certificates for children of same-sex couples who can prove they were married before the child was born, an agency spokeswoman confirmed Monday, 7 December 2015.

    The department reviewed an order in "Pavan v. Smith" from Pulaski County Circuit Court Judge Tim Fox and decided to amend those specific birth certificates starting last Friday, 4 December 2015, department spokeswoman Meg Mirivel said. As of Monday morning, Mirivel said “a few” couples had applied for the amended certificates.

    The amendments “may change depending on the Arkansas Supreme Court’s decision on (the department’s) request for a stay,” Mirivel wrote. “Because this is a legal matter that continues to develop, this is all the information we have to share at this time.”

    Fox issued a written ruling last week striking down a portion of the state’s birth certificate law and saying Arkansas must amend the birth certificates to list both spouses as parents. The ruling expanded a verbal order he issued from the bench late last month that allowed the three same-sex couples who sued the Department of Health for refusing to name both spouses on the birth certificates of their children to amend the documents and list both names.

    Attorney General Leslie Rutledge asked the high court to stay that ruling pending the state’s appeal. As of Monday morning, 7 December 2015, the court had not ruled on that request. Rutledge spokesman Judd Deere said the office was aware of the department’s decision.

  • 24. VIRick  |  December 8, 2015 at 4:34 pm

    Mexico: Federal Deputy Presents Initiative for Marriage Equality

    Mexico, 3 December 2015 – The federal deputy, Vidal Llerenas Morales, today presented to the full House of Representatives a proposal for an initiative to reform the Federal Civil Code, to include equal marriage. At a press conference, he reported that this legislative proposal would mainly benefit the legal union of persons of the same sex, and would especially highlight respect for human rights.

    He explained that the proposal "is part of the struggle to defend the human rights of those who belong to sexual diversity, specifically the marriages of same-sex couples across the country." The Morena lawmaker recalled that the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) declared unconstitutional the ban on same-sex marriage, forcing people with same-sex sexual preference to request amparos to legalize their relationship.

    Vidal Llerenas was joined at the press conference by the National Secretary of Sexual Diversity for his political party, Temístocles Villanueva Ramos, who said, "with this idea from Morena, we begin a path to pressure state legislatures to modify their civil codes and to ensure marriage equality."

    Morena (the Spanish acronym for Movimiento de Renovación Nacional) is a political party based in Yucatán state in eastern Mexico.

  • 25. VIRick  |  December 8, 2015 at 8:26 pm

    Czech Republic Recognizes Gay Couple as Legal Parents of Adopted Children

    Per a news article dated 8 December 2015, the Czech Republic has made a landmark ruling in favor of same-sex adoption. Last month, the court in Prostějov, south Moravia, ruled in favor of the adoption of 10-year-old twins by a gay couple, who live in the USA.

    The gay married couple had earlier adopted the children as babies in San Francisco, but as one of them is French, he had no right to Czech citizenship. After the twins visited their grandmother in the Czech Republic, the twins were granted Czech citizenship.

    The French father says it will make travelling in Europe easier. The Czech father, a financial director in the USA, said: “Now we can be granted Czech citizenship, thanks to which, we can move to the Czech Republic," told local media. “Our travelling across Europe will be easier and the boys will have their door to Czech schools open,” he continued. “The twins feel very well in the Czech Republic, and they would like to stay here.”

    The ruling was enabled by a change in legislation, which allows Czech courts to recognize foreign rulings on adoption (as in Germany). While a wide-reaching ruling on same-sex adoption is still to come, the original adoption decision took over three years to be reached in the courts in the USA (a ruling which has just now been recognized in a Czech court), and provides a glimmer of hope to the gay community in the Czech Republic.

  • 26. allan120102  |  December 8, 2015 at 9:19 pm

    As expected things are moving forward for Costa Rica to become the first country in CA to legalize same sex marriage. Not sure if its going to happen right now but this is promising.

  • 27. VIRick  |  December 8, 2015 at 10:16 pm

    Nuevo Proyecto de Matrimonio Igualitario Llegará con 55.000 Firmas de Apoyo al Congreso

    San José, 08 diciembre ( – El Frente por los Derechos Igualitarios (FDI), respaldados por diputados del Partido Acción Ciudadana, Liberación Nacional, y Frente Amplio presentarán este 10 de diciembre un nuevo proyecto de Ley sobre matrimonio igualitario a la corriente legislativa. La nueva iniciativa fue consensuada entre organizaciones y activistas sociales y tiene el respaldo de 55.000 firmas de costarricenses, así como de diversas diputaciones.

    De acuerdo con Larissa Arroyo, vocera del FDI, este proyecto viene a proteger legalmente la vida en común de las parejas del mismo sexo, con los mismos derechos y deberes que cualquier otra pareja. No se presentará mediante el mecanismo de iniciativa popular, sino que llevará las firmas de los legisladores que se acerquen a dar su apoyo.

    New Marriage Equality Draft Law to Come to Congress with 55,000 Signatures of Support

    San José, 8 December ( – The Front for Equal Rights (FDI), backed by deputies from the Partido Acción Ciudadana, Liberación Nacional, and Frente Amplio will present on 10 December a new draft law on equal marriage to the current legislative. The new initiative was agreed between social activists and organizations and is supported by 55,000 signatures from Costa Rica, as well as various councils.

    According to Larissa Arroyo, FDI spokeswoman, this draft law will legally protect the joint life of same-sex couples with the same rights and duties as any other couple. It is not presented through the mechanism of a popular initiative, but rather, is to be signed by the legislators who should be expected to give their support.

  • 28. allan120102  |  December 8, 2015 at 9:24 pm

    The ruling made by a judge in Bermuda will come into effect Feb 29 after he denied the stay asked by the government.

  • 29. allan120102  |  December 8, 2015 at 9:27 pm

    Trans man Declare innocent in El Salvador. Good news from two Central America nations. I am shock.

  • 30. scream4ever  |  December 8, 2015 at 10:21 pm

    Some updates from Slovenia:

    It appears that there is a real lack of organized opposition to the bill, which is surprising considering the vote is only 10 days away. Also, one of the polls conducted is strongly suggesting that turnout will be low, suggesting that the law will stand if nothing else due to opponents not breaking the 20% threshold required for repeal.

  • 31. allan120102  |  December 8, 2015 at 11:09 pm

    That is awesome that would be so cool. Thanks.

  • 32. itscoldoutside  |  December 10, 2015 at 1:53 pm

    Actually, with every debate we lose more support as the haters manage to scare more and more people with lies that include stealing their kids (honestly!) and mandatory gender studies in schools.

    It really doesn't look good right now, a little more than a week away from the referendum. I think people will ultimately vote against just to be on the safe side. The status quo is very comforting, after all.

  • 33. scream4ever  |  December 10, 2015 at 2:03 pm

    What are you basing that on? If anything the polls seem to show shifts in our favor.

  • 34. itscoldoutside  |  December 10, 2015 at 2:20 pm

    The debate on the national television channel this evening (one of the last ones before the vote takes place) was explosive, to say the least. And enough to convince the unconvinced on either side.

    Those polls were done weeks ago and have in the past proved to be very unreliable when it comes to referenda.

  • 35. itscoldoutside  |  December 10, 2015 at 3:17 pm

    The only bit of good news lately is that only around 1.400 out of 97.000 eligible voters who live abroad have decided to cast their vote. The haters were very disappointed with this so it must be a good thing.

  • 36. allan120102  |  December 10, 2015 at 3:37 pm

    Be optimistic. I am hoping for a good result. If the law is approved would same sex couples marry inmediately or would they wait weeks to marry?

  • 37. itscoldoutside  |  December 10, 2015 at 4:09 pm

    After the result is known, it will be quickly signed by the president and promulgated via the Official Gazette. All of this should take a couple of weeks. It will take another half a year for it to go into effect. Which is standard practice for any law of this kind.

    That is of course if no one challenges it any further at the Constitutional Court which probably won't happen until after it takes effect.

    I am cautiously optimistic but the haters are getting more desperate and thus nastier by the minute. I just hope the pope keeps his mouth shut on this. If he says anything, it will all be over. Then there's only one person in the world who could undo that damage. And she sure as hell has better things to do.

  • 38. Christian0811  |  December 10, 2015 at 4:39 pm

    And who is "she" exactly?

  • 39. itscoldoutside  |  December 10, 2015 at 5:18 pm

    Your next president. It's hard to explain but she is considered somewhat of a living saint around here. Even the shortest message of support would probably guarantee our victory.

    But of course she has far more important things on her plate than to be concerned with this, especially when so few people would actually get the right to marry as in our case. The only impact of our marriage equality would be on other Slavic countries, which again, no one really cares about as all eyes are fixed on Germany.

  • 40. allan120102  |  December 8, 2015 at 11:57 pm

    Bad news from Malawi, sadly the sodomy law is still in effect.

  • 41. Christian0811  |  December 9, 2015 at 8:02 am

    Wasn't the law supposed to go before their Supreme Court for adjudication?

  • 42. allan120102  |  December 9, 2015 at 2:31 pm

    The law was stayed pending the decision of the SC I have read ,
    but after outcry from conservative groups the law went into effect again. this article is of June 2014

  • 43. EricKoszyk  |  December 9, 2015 at 5:15 am

    Lawsuit filed in NC against phony "religious liberty" law.

  • 44. David_Las_Cruces_NM  |  December 9, 2015 at 9:24 am

    Government employees who are paid from taxpayer funds and/or government fees should do their FLIPPING jobs or resign.

  • 45. FredDorner  |  December 9, 2015 at 10:48 am

    I'm not sure what standing they have since they're already married, but one of the plaintiffs is a mixed-race couple who were denied a marriage license in effing 1976 by two racist and theocratic magistrates in NC.

    The couple wrote a great op-ed a few months ago protesting the new law:

  • 46. Eric  |  December 9, 2015 at 1:24 pm

    Plaintiffs have standing as state taxpayers under Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968), as they challenge a specific state law—known as Senate Bill 2—that authorizes public spending for an expressed and primary religious purpose in violation of the First Amendment.

  • 47. EricKoszyk  |  December 9, 2015 at 5:17 am

    Does anyone know what is going on in Colombia? I thought their highest court was supposed to rule in a marriage equality case last month. What's the delay?

  • 48. scream4ever  |  December 9, 2015 at 7:01 am

    There was a delay due to a complaint lodged by the opposition saying that three of the judges should recuse themselves. However, the general consensus is that they will not, and the court is still expected to rule in our favor at any time.

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