Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Open thread


Open thread.


  • 1. Rakihi  |  December 10, 2015 at 9:24 am

    3 Weeks in Jail for Man Who Disrupted Gay Marriage Arguments

    No word yet on the amount of jail time that will be served by public officials who unconstitutionally denied to gay couples' their right to marry. :-/

  • 2. aiislander  |  December 10, 2015 at 2:02 pm

    Does anyone know if these three weeks will have to be served consecutively as the prosecutors requested, or intermittently (weekends) as defense lawyers requested to not interfere with his job? I certainly hope it's consecutive.

  • 3. allan120102  |  December 10, 2015 at 3:17 pm

    Costa rica. 12 deputies show support to a propose to legalize ssm.

  • 4. allan120102  |  December 10, 2015 at 3:56 pm

    Bolivia: pastors of the prostestant church are urging the government to throw out the propose of gender identity.
    Colombia: Senate to debate same sex marriage. The president , interior misters, and many senators in favor of giving same sex couples marriage rights. Anyhow the time for Colombia´s congress to legalize same sex marriage is ticking as the supreme court is expect to strike down the ban on same sex marriage. Might be this month or the other, or they could wait and see if congress allow it or not. Meanwhile as Manuel santos continues to be the president I am not worried as he always vote for justices in favor of equality. I make that comment if by some reason a judge time ticks off before rendering a decision.

  • 5. allan120102  |  December 10, 2015 at 4:04 pm

    Another marriage in Sonora.

  • 6. VIRick  |  December 10, 2015 at 5:02 pm

    Per TV Azteca Sonora:

    Hoy contrae matrimonio la primer pareja de hombres en Hermosillo, Alberto Saldaña y Miguel ángel Cisneros.

    Today, 10 December 2015, the first male same-sex couple in Hermosillo, Sonora, have married, Alberto Saldaña and Miguel ángel Cisneros.

    For Sonora, I believe that this is marriage #3 from amparo #3, an amparo request which was originally filed as an amparo colectivo by 6 couples in Hermosillo in May 2015.

    Amparo #4 was filed more recently in Nogales.

  • 7. allan120102  |  December 10, 2015 at 4:12 pm

    I prefer this map than the one used in English, it detailed much better.

  • 8. Fortguy  |  December 10, 2015 at 4:56 pm

    From the Keep Austin Weird department:

    Mac McMann, The Austin Chronicle: Mock Shooting Now Just Near UT Campus

    For some background, Texas' new campus carry law will take effect next year. The law requires public colleges and universities to allow students to pack heat on campus, but permits schools to establish gun-free zones on their campuses. The law allows private schools to opt out of the requirement. So far, Incarnate Word, Rice, St. Mary's, TCU, and Texas Lutheran have chosen to opt out with Baylor, SMU, Trinity, Austin College, and Paul Quinn College having said they plan to do so.

    Tomorrow, gun supporters will hold a "Life and Liberty Walk to End Gun Free Zones" that will include a "theatrical" performance of a fake mass shooting including fake blood, cardboard weapons, sounds of gunfire from bullhorns, and actors portraying perpetrators, victims, and "armed heroes". The group will troll campus carry opponents by having their "victims" wear Gun Free UT t-shirts.

    The group is not sponsored by any UT student organization. The UT administration apparently has given the performance a very bad Rotten Tomatoes review and has told the group they will press for criminal trespass charges if they demonstrate on campus. Notably, many UT students will be studying for finals, and the university doesn't feel like the sounds of gunshots over loudspeakers would be appropriate. The demonstration will now be held on public land just off campus using the campus as a "backdrop".

    Jessica Jin, organizer of the #CocksNotGlocks campaign, has suggested that the group can borrow from her arsenal of dildos instead of using cardboard gun cutouts. Another group calling itself "Austin residents and friends of the UT community" is planning a "mass farting demonstration" to counter-protest the mass shooting using "fart noisemakers including toys, smart phone apps, whoopee cushions, their hands and potentially their own butts."

  • 9. David_Las_Cruces_NM  |  December 12, 2015 at 8:23 am

    R O F L M F A O (at the farting demonstration). The mock mass shooting garbage makes we want to vomit.

  • 10. Fortguy  |  December 13, 2015 at 11:53 pm

    The reviews are in. The mass shooting "performance" was a complete flop. Perhaps the preceding trailers that the networks and cable that have been running seemingly weekly for years on end lacked sufficient artistic direction. Meanwhile, it appears that the aficionados of political theater found public farting to be a much more entertaining spectacle. I hope next year's #CocksNotGlocks drama provides fodder to inspire a wonderful Broadway musical.

    Judd Legum, Think Progress: Mock Mass Shooting By Pro-Gun Activists Drowned Out By Farts

  • 11. VIRick  |  December 10, 2015 at 5:37 pm

    For First Time, Puerto Rico Allows Same-Sex Couple to Adopt

    San Juan PR — A Puerto Rico court has for the first time allowed a same-sex couple to adopt a child. The ruling on 9 December 2015 involves a woman whose longtime partner gave birth to a girl through artificial insemination. This same woman had been fighting to adopt the girl for two years.

    Justice Secretary Cesar Miranda calls it an historic decision and says it represents a new civil rights achievement. Puerto Rico until recently prohibited same-sex marriages and the recognition of such marriages. However, the government struck down those laws after a landmark US Supreme Court decision in late June that required every state to recognize such marriages.

    Gov. Alejandro Garcia Padilla previously signed orders that allow transgender and transsexual people to change their gender on their driver’s licenses and that protect their rights when seeking medical services.

  • 12. Fortguy  |  December 10, 2015 at 5:49 pm

    The city of Pharr is located near McAllen in the lower Rio Grande Valley.

    Madalyn Mendoza, San Antonio Express-News: South Texas elderly couple tired of living on 'Gay Drive' loses battle with city to rename street

    After more than 40 years of living at their current residence, an elderly South Texas couple decided they didn’t want to own a home on “Gay Drive,” so they petitioned city officials for a street name change and lost.

    Mel and Maria Villarreal told they are pleased with their home and neighborhood but have grown to dislike scribbling down the word “gay” as their street name on address lines.

    "The word 'gay' used to be a word that the meaning was being jolly, being happy, and now they've added another meaning to it and they define themselves as 'gay people'" Mel Villarreal told the website. "I don't have anything against gay people, it's just that it has that meaning.”

    They managed to muster up 11 signatures for their petition asking the city to change the name from “Gay Drive” to “Los Unicos Street,” an ode to Mel Villarreal’s former Tejano group, but it wasn’t enough to sway the Pharr City Commission. It was struck down by a 6-1 vote in a November meeting because a name change could hamper emergency services, according to

    The Villarreals are not taking “no” for an answer, they told the site of their plans to ask for another name change, even if that means settling for a merge of “gay” and “Los Unicos.”

    It's unclear whether they were born on "Gay Drive" or if they chose to move there.

  • 13. VIRick  |  December 10, 2015 at 7:10 pm

    OMG! A "merger" of the two, re-naming their street "Los Unicos Gay," would push the entire issue completely over the top, giving new meaning to both terms!!

  • 14. allan120102  |  December 10, 2015 at 5:59 pm

    News from Italy.

  • 15. VIRick  |  December 10, 2015 at 6:00 pm

    Kentucky Supreme Court Examines Same-Sex Parental Rights

    Frankfort KY — The Kentucky Supreme Court is considering whether a woman has a right to intervene in an adoption case involving the child of her former same-sex partner. One of the women, identified only as M.L. in court documents, had a child with the help of a sperm donor in 2006. The couple split up in 2011. The biological mother has since ended contact with her former partner, identified in documents as A.H., and has married a man. That man is trying to adopt the child, but A.H. is trying to block the adoption and is seeking shared custody.

    Lawyers for both sides argued their case in oral presentations before the state Supreme Court on Thursday, 10 December 2015. It is one of several cases across the country seeking to sort out the parental rights of same-sex couples.

  • 16. VIRick  |  December 10, 2015 at 6:30 pm

    Arkansas Supreme Court Suspends Part of Birth Certificate Ruling

    Little Rock AR — The Arkansas Supreme Court has suspended a judge’s decision striking down part of the state’s birth certificate law, but not his order that three same-sex couples be listed on their children’s birth certificates as parents. On Thursday, 10 December 2015, Justices granted the state’s motion to stay Pulaski County Judge Tim Fox’s ruling that part of the birth certificate law was unconstitutional following the US Supreme Court’s June decision legalizing same-sex marriage.

    The court, however, said it would not block Fox’s order that the state must issue amended birth certificates to three couples who sued the state. A Health Department spokeswoman said Thursday other same-sex couples will need a court order to get their children’s certificates amended given that the stay was issued.

  • 17. VIRick  |  December 10, 2015 at 6:38 pm

    Per Equality Case Files:

    Savannah GA – Today, 10 December 2015, the Mayor and the Savannah City Council voted unanimously to pass a non-discrimination ordinance that will protect city employees and applicants for employment from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, and disability status. Included in the ordinance are similar protections for licensing and permitting.

  • 18. VIRick  |  December 10, 2015 at 6:53 pm

    An Up-Date on the Nebraska Same-Sex Marriage Suit

    Per Equality Case Files:

    As previously reported, in "Waters v. Ricketts," the Nebraska same-sex marriage suit, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction, rejected the state’s suggestion that the case was moot, and then remanded the case back to the district court for final judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

    Back In district court, the plaintiffs have asked to supplement their pending motion for summary judgment with evidence of the state’s practices as to birth certificates of children born to same-sex couples. See here:

    The state defendants object to including the evidence in the record, saying it relates to new claims not previously at issue in this case.

    In a 20 October 2015 order, the Court allowed the evidence to be filed and set a schedule for the parties to submit additional briefs or material for final resolution of the case. Parties have now filed those briefs (see below)

    In the defendants’ supplemental opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (linked below), the state argues that the Court should declare the contested marriage laws unconstitutional but should not issue an injunction. The defendants also continue to object to the plaintiffs' inclusion of the birth certificates issue, alleging violation of procedural rules, and arguing that even if the Court issues an injunction, the injunction should not address birth certificates.

    • Court’s Order on supplemental evidence:
    • Defendants’ Supplemental Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment: 8:14-cv-00356 #91
    — Defendants’ Supplemental Index:
    • Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Supplemental Opposition:

  • 19. Zack12  |  December 10, 2015 at 7:36 pm

    And you just know they gritted their teeth the whole time they wrote this ruling out.
    I have no doubt that if not for the 6th ruling against us first, the 8th circuit would have gladly done so again.

  • 20. VIRick  |  December 10, 2015 at 8:01 pm

    Zack, there are a number of reasons as to why the Nebraska marriage suit has yet to be finalized these many months later. In addition to what you have alluded to, the state itself has fought, and still continues to fight, every inch of the way, despite the fact that they must know they've already lost, and that Judge Bataillon is still in charge.

    Judge Bataillon's initial ruling striking down the marriage ban was a preliminary injunction. Thus, when the case was finally returned to him from the 8th Circuit so that he could then issue the permanent injunction, the plaintiffs added in an additional complaint, namely that the state was still not listing both parents on the birth certificates of children of married same-sex couples. Rather than file a separate suit on this matter (as in Florida, Indiana, Arkansas, Wisconsin, etc.), since the original Nebraska marriage case had not yet been finalized, they had the opportunity to do so as this juncture, and took advantage of it to add in the additional complaint.

    Briefing is now complete on both aspects.

  • 21. Zack12  |  December 11, 2015 at 11:23 am

    Not a surprise Nebraska is still fighting equality tooth and nail considering they were on board early with the bigotry train.
    By the time the marriage ban craze swept the states in 04 for W's reelection, Nebraska's marriage ban had been on the book for four years.
    And it was one of the most draconian of the bunch, banning not only marriage but civil unions and domestic partnerships as well, which simply showed the anti-gay animus behind it, not that the "judges" on the 8th circuit cared.
    The bigots in Nebraska know they have lost but they will keep fighting just to stick it to those icky ghez.

  • 22. allan120102  |  December 10, 2015 at 9:02 pm

    I am pretty sure that yeah the 8th would have been the first to rule against us if it was not for the 6th. The usual conservative 5th circuit would have been in our favor base on the trial with the 3 judges. That means that by the time SCOTUS rule only 5 would had been without marriage equality ( North and South Dakota , Nebraska , Arkansas and Missouri) although there could have been states that would have probably take the Kansas way of marrying but not recognizing those marriages. I imagines states like Texas, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana would have taken this route.

  • 23. scream4ever  |  December 13, 2015 at 1:52 pm

    Keep in mind too that it would've also delayed a final ruling from the Supreme Court by up to a year.

  • 24. VIRick  |  December 10, 2015 at 8:13 pm

    Guernsey Approves Commitment to Introduce Same-Sex Marriage

    The island of Guernsey is to have same-sex marriage, as its legislature voted through a measure agreeing to introduce it. The government voted 37-7 to introduce same-sex marriage legislation.

    It also rejected the introduction of same-sex civil partnerships or a single legal form of civil unions, or Unions Civiles. Today's legislation does not legalize same-sex marriage, and separate legislation will now need to be voted through. It simply pinpoints what they intend to do, while eliminating several alternatives.

    Jersey has already done the same several months ago, while the Isle of Man is at a more preliminary consultative stage.

  • 25. allan120102  |  December 10, 2015 at 9:19 pm

    Two news judges have been approve for the Mexican supreme court one is a moderate and the other a conservative, I hope this does not slow down the progress we have made in Mexico. Btw the supreme court justices in Mexico are vote for 15 years not for life.

  • 26. JayJonson  |  December 11, 2015 at 6:17 am

    Colorado clerk posts Bible verse to tell same-sex couples that their marriages violate God's law.

    The county clerk in Elbert County, Colorado placed a poster in the clerk’s office that has a picture of a bride and a groom alongside a Bible passage that refers to marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

    The clerk, Dallas Schroeder, placed the poster where couples receive marriage licenses. The poster (above) reads, “…each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.”

    Read more here:

    And here:

  • 27. davepCA  |  December 11, 2015 at 8:41 am

    Couples requesting a Certificate of Civil Marriage from this jackass ought to bring their own copy of the United States Constitution to the counter with them, roll it up, and swap the clerk on the nose while saying "NO. Bad clerk. BAAAAD".

  • 28. VIRick  |  December 11, 2015 at 9:06 pm

    '…. swap the clerk on the nose while saying "NO. Bad clerk. BAAAAD."'

    Dave, that's such a wonderful visual!!

  • 29. David_Las_Cruces_NM  |  December 12, 2015 at 8:31 am

    That's what I do when the puppy chews up a shoe. I doubt the technique would be as effective on a human bigot.

  • 30. VIRick  |  December 13, 2015 at 2:37 pm

    David, the offending clerk has already removed the offending sign before anyone had a chance to sue.

    So, just the merest suggestion of the clerk getting swapped on the nose, with Dave firmly declaring, "NO. Bad clerk. BAAAAD," had the desired effect. LOL

    By the way, lest anyone not yet realize it, Dave is quite good at obedience training.

  • 31. A_Jayne  |  December 11, 2015 at 10:38 pm

    Update: Marriage poster removed from clerk's office –

  • 32. Zack12  |  December 12, 2015 at 2:29 am

    As it should have been.
    A clerk's office isn't a church and there is no place to push religious views like that.
    I've said it once and I"ll say it again, if giving licenses to same sex couples violates your religious beliefs, then resign and find another job.

  • 33. 1grod  |  December 13, 2015 at 2:55 pm

    Zack: tell that to the 9 AL probate judges, in particular to Judge Nick Williams of Washington County, whose other job is associate pastor of the Rivers Baptist Church. [Apparently he sees no need to resign.]

  • 34. allan120102  |  December 13, 2015 at 5:15 pm

    Well, I haven´t see a lawsuit yet to any probate judge in Alabama. I only lived there and about to marry I would sue any of them. I really can´t believe no one have sue them.

  • 35. JayJonson  |  December 12, 2015 at 7:07 am

    Alas, I was hoping that this douchebag would be humiliated in court and his county fined for contempt. I guess he lacks the fortitude of Kim Davis, though he no doubt was tempted by the allure of becoming a poster child of the loony right. His name is "Dallas Schroeder." I suspect he must be a Mormon, since Dallas is a popular name among Mormons.

  • 36. allan120102  |  December 11, 2015 at 3:17 pm

    first same sex wedding in los Cabos BCS.
    Btw I am not sure if this were amparos granted today or were previously amparos and they just list them. Rick you might help me in here.

  • 37. VIRick  |  December 11, 2015 at 8:35 pm

    Allan, the opening paragraph to the article in BCS Noticias gives us a good, quick summary history of marriage equality in BCS:

    Los Cabos, Baja California Sur (BCS). El 9 de enero del próximo año, Edith y Nayeli unirán sus vidas firmando un acta de matrimonio en el Registro Civil de Cabo San Lucas; se trata del primer matrimonio igualitario en el municipio de Los Cabos, y el tercero en Baja California Sur, producto de los amparos promovidos en La Paz por la abogada Nolzully Almodóvar Gracia ante el Poder Judicial de la Federación.

    Los Cabos, Baja California Sur (BCS). On 9 January 2016, Edith and Nayeli join their lives together by signing a marriage certificate at the Civil Registry of Cabo San Lucas; It is the first same-sex marriage in the municipality of Los Cabos, and the third in Baja California Sur, a product of the amparos in La Paz obtained by lawyer Nolzully Almodóvar Gracia before the Federal Judiciary.

    At least in Mexican Spanish, there are two distinct words for two distinct occasions/ceremonies. On the one hand, we have "matrimonio civil," (civil marriage) which consists of the couple signing their marriage certificate and then having the civil registry officials register their marriage at city hall. In the case of a same-sex couple, they would also have to produce the signed judicial amparo approving their marriage. Many couples also wish to have an actual civil marriage ceremony at city hall, put on by the civil registry officials with a lot of pomp, fanfare, and splash. For that, they have to request and reserve a date some time in the future, like this one, announcing that the couple plans to be married at city hall on 9 January.

    Afterward, if the couple wish "una boda" (a wedding), that is a completely optional ceremony, whether it takes place in a church or not. In fact, in Mexico, the two activities are so divorced from each other that "una boda" can be considered an "extra-marital" activity.

    Counting amparos already granted in BCS is a trick. Here's why: The first one was an amparo colectivo for 9 couples. The second was another amparo colectivo for 36 couples. That's 45 couples, and we're only on the third marriage. Still, it's rather possible that this marriage announcement was due to the issuance of a third amparo, as it appears that everything mentioned at each step is related to Los Cabos. The first two amparos colectivos were both granted in La Paz (and this article even reconfirms that point).

  • 38. allan120102  |  December 11, 2015 at 9:37 pm

    The one in Dropbox the second link, I am not sure if are all the amparos the supreme court granted today , or are all the previous amparos they have granted since 2012, I hope you can help me with that issue.

  • 39. VIRick  |  December 13, 2015 at 1:23 pm

    "Btw I am not sure if this were amparos granted today or were previously amparos and they just list them. Rick you might help me in here."

    Allan, again, this is another one of those supplemental "clarifications" regarding the intent and scope of earlier rulings on the subject of same-sex marriage. The "amparos en revisión," dating back to 2012, which are cited, are done so to show recent court precedent, the application of which is considered to be obligatory from 14 December 2015.

  • 40. allan120102  |  December 11, 2015 at 10:00 pm

    Greece to extend civil unions this month.

  • 41. VIRick  |  December 12, 2015 at 12:12 pm

    Ohio Publicizes Judge’s Same-Sex Marriage Ruling with Web Posting

    Columbus OH — Ohio has complied with a federal judge’s order to publicize his ruling in favor of same-sex marriage by posting it on a state website. Cincinnati federal Judge Timothy Black had given the Ohio Department of Health a month to publicize the decision and said a web posting was sufficient. The state filed notice Thursday, 9 December 2015, that it had created a link to the decision.

    Black had previously ruled in favor of gay couples in two cases, and last month issued final orders based on last summer’s 5-4 US Supreme Court ruling in "Obergefell" legalizing same-sex marriage across the country.

  • 42. VIRick  |  December 12, 2015 at 12:52 pm

    DC Council Approves Domestic Partnership ‘Termination’ Bill

    The DC City Council voted unanimously on 1 December 2015 to give final approval to the Domestic Partnership Termination Recognition Amendment Act of 2015. The legislation calls for amending the city’s existing domestic partnership law to allow couples that had domestic partnerships legally registered in another jurisdiction to terminate those partnerships by judicial decree in the District.

    Supporters say the bill will correct an unintended legal interpretation of the existing law that prevents couples who moved to DC from another jurisdiction from terminating their partnerships unless they reestablish residency in the state in which the partnership was originally registered. LGBT activists have said DC’s domestic partnership law, which recognizes same-sex and opposite-sex partnerships, has been used less frequently by same-sex couples in recent years since same-sex marriage became legal in DC in 2010.

    – See more at:

  • 43. VIRick  |  December 12, 2015 at 1:06 pm

    Australia: Fourth State Recognizes Foreign Marriages

    Gay Star News reports:

    Same-sex couples who have married overseas will now have those marriages given legal recognition when they return home to the Australian state of Victoria after lawmakers passed the Relationships Amendment Bill.

    Same-sex marriage is still not legal in Australia despite overwhelming support from the Australian people, so many Australian states have created relationship registers to allow same-sex couples to formalize their relationships for legal purposes. The Relationships Amendment Bill will see overseas civil unions and same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions automatically given the same legal weight as registered relationships.

    Victoria joins the states of New South Wales, Queensland, and Tasmania in recognizing overseas same-sex marriages – meaning a majority of the Australian states now legally recognize the existence of same-sex marriages in some way.

  • 44. VIRick  |  December 12, 2015 at 3:49 pm

    Jamaica: Leading Local Newspaper Denounces “Buggery” Law

    Several days ago, a Jamaican activist filed a lawsuit which seeks to overturn his country’s colonial-era criminalization of homosexuality. Today, 11 December 2015, Jamaica’s most-prestigious and most-read newspaper, "The Gleaner," endorsed his attempt. From their editorial:

    "Hopefully, Maurice Tomlinson has greater insulation than was available to Javed Jaghai, so as to allow him to sustain, to the final tier of the court system, if necessary, his constitutional challenge to Jamaica’s anti-sodomy, or buggery, laws. For we, like Mr Tomlinson and many other rational Jamaicans, know instinctively that not only are those laws offensive to the universal principles of individual rights and freedoms, but they are probably contrary to guarantees afforded by Jamaica’s Constitution.

    In this atmosphere of intimidation, it is not unexpected that homosexual males, but for those pushed to psychological disturbance or exhibitionism, are driven underground, fearful of accessing services such as health care, lest they have to reveal their status. Little wonder that Jamaica has among the hemisphere’s highest rates of HIV-AIDS among men who have sex with men. So, there is a public-health problem that is exacerbated by this silly old law.

    Further, as we often argue, this newspaper sees no logic to the Jamaican State setting itself up as a kind of voyeuristic commissar of sexual practices. It certainly has no right in people’s bedrooms to determine the acts in which they engage, whatever the gender
    or status of the participants."

    "Gay Star News" notes that today’s editorial comes one day after anti-gay activists rallied in Kingston to keep the law.

  • 45. allan120102  |  December 12, 2015 at 5:34 pm

    Guanajuato, another amparo was granted and the wedding is scheduled for January.
    Group urging the legislature of Tamaulipas to legalize same sex marriage.

  • 46. VIRick  |  December 12, 2015 at 5:57 pm

    Amparo #5 for Guanajuato!

    Guanajuato: Celebrarán Primera Boda Gay en Irapuato en Enero

    Irapuato, Guanajuato, 12 de diciembre de 2015.- En enero del próximo año se podría celebrar el primer matrimonio por la vía civil entre personas del mismo sexo en la ciudad de Irapuato, así lo dio a conocer Arturo Álvarez Martínez, presidente de la asociación Desarrollo Humano y Sexualidad A.C. (DEHUSEX).

    Añadió que la pareja conformada por María Concepción Zavala Ramírez y Taniana Hernández Paredes recibió la sentencia de amparo 802/2015, tramitada en el Juzgado Décimo de Irapuato la cual resuelve que la oficial del Registro Civil número 1, las una en matrimonio con las formalidades que la ley establece.

    "Este matrimonio ya está autorizado, ya tenemos la notificación, del otro estamos a la espera aún, hay que comenzar a introducir la papelería que solicitan para cualquier matrimonio, lo mismo que piden para cualquier pareja", dijo.

    Guanajuato: First Same-Sex Marriage Is to Be Celebrated in Irapuato in January

    Irapuato, Guanajuato, 12 December 2015 – The first civil marriage between a same-sex couple in the city of Irapuato will be marked in January 2016, as announced by Arturo Alvarez Martinez, president of the Sexuality and Human Development Association (DEHUSEX). He added that the couple formed by María Concepción Zavala Ramírez and Taniana Hernández Paredes received the authorization of amparo 802/2015, filed in the Tenth Court of Irapuato, which resolves that the official of Civil Registry Number 1 will unite them in marriage with the formalities that the law establishes.

    "This marriage is already authorized, and we already have the notification, and thus will begin to enter the paperwork for others to apply for marriage, the same as any other couple," he said.

    This is quite definitely amparo #5 for Guanajuato state, and they know it. But this state is easy to count because the first four amparos were all granted in León. Now comes #5, granted in Irapuato.

    Plus, they've now begun the paperwork so that henceforward, in Guanajuato state, any/all further same-sex couples can directly apply for a marriage license, without an amparo, just as any other couple in the state.

  • 47. Car_Pool_Cookie  |  December 12, 2015 at 7:29 pm

    Where does this case stand? (Philadelphia gay couple hospitalized after beating by group of 12 Catholic School Alumni, male and female.) This was over a year ago.

  • 48. Shmoozo  |  December 13, 2015 at 8:48 am

    At least two of the people who participated in the attack have pleaded guilty, one more is currently on trial.

  • 49. Car_Pool_Cookie  |  December 13, 2015 at 9:34 am


  • 50. VIRick  |  December 12, 2015 at 7:30 pm

    Another Indiana City Approves Local LGBT Rights Ordinance

    Anderson IN — Officials in another Indiana city have approved banning discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity ahead of an expected debate in the state Legislature over whether to stop allowing such local ordinances. The Anderson City Council voted unanimously Thursday, 10 December 2015, to extend local protections on housing, education, employment, and public accommodations. The "Herald Bulletin" reports two residents spoke against the proposal, but Councilman Russ Willis said laws are sometimes needed so people do what is right.

    Carmel, Columbus, Terre Haute, and Hammond are among the cities adopting similar protections since last spring’s uproar over Indiana’s religious objections law. A current bill proposed by Senate Republicans would extend state civil rights protections to LGBT people, but allow wide exemptions for religious institutions and some small businesses, while prohibiting stricter local ordinances.

  • 51. VIRick  |  December 13, 2015 at 11:18 am

    Houston Elects Democratic Mayor

    The haters may have turned back LGBT rights in Houston, but they couldn’t keep the mayor’s office out of Democratic hands. The "New York Times" reports:

    State Representative Sylvester Turner, defeated his rival, Bill King, as rainy weather appeared to have lessened turnout in the runoff election. The vote represented a political crossroads of sorts for the country’s fourth-most populous city. For nearly six years, Houston has been led by Mayor Annise D. Parker, a Democrat who became one of the first openly gay mayors in America after winning office in December 2009. Houston has long been more diverse and Democratic-leaning than most other parts of Texas, and although officially the mayor’s seat is nonpartisan, it has been nearly 40 years since a Republican was elected mayor. (The last one was Jim McConn, who served from 1978 to 1982.)

    Turner hasn’t said whether he’ll back any effort to restore Houston’s LGBT laws. Outgoing Mayor Parker has said that she’s not interested in running for Congress, but may pursue an appointment to the federal bench.

  • 52. Fortguy  |  December 13, 2015 at 10:21 pm

    This one was a very scary squeaker. Turner's margin of victory was 4,082 votes out of 212,696 cast–Turner received just 50.96% of votes cast.

    Charles Kuffner, Off the Kuff: Turner defeats King

    Kuffner, a Houston politics blogger, provides his whip count for HERO among the newly elected city council in a separate post. Currently, he sees HERO 2.0 passing the council by a 9-7 vote including that of Mayor-Elect Turner. He also regards two of the opposition votes as potentially persuadable, and that their persuasion would be ideal in order to avoid the embarrassment of having HERO 2.0 pass in the city council with fewer votes than the original HERO.

    Failing that persuasion, he suggests a 2019 strategy when one council opponent will be term-limited and two others could be targeted. He concedes that the seats of three term-limited supporters also must be defended. Frankly, I think that strategy sucks. Kuffner is a strong ally of ours, but he is also a married straight guy. I really don't think he connects on an emotional level the urgency we feel and the need to build upon the momentum from the remarkable string of successes we've achieved.

    Charles Kuffner, Off the Kuff: Other runoff results

  • 53. Mike_Baltimore  |  December 13, 2015 at 12:27 pm

    Empire State Pride to shut down at end of 2016:

  • 54. allan120102  |  December 13, 2015 at 2:21 pm

    Amazing article of the two same sex couples in CR on with civil unions and thee other with marriage. Its interesting as CR is moving forward other countries in CA have advanced to pass lgbt more favorable laws to LGBT specially El Salvador were gay discrimination is prohibit.

  • 55. VIRick  |  December 13, 2015 at 4:36 pm

    France: Far-Right Loses Every Regional Election

    In a surprising turn-out, considering recent events, as "The Independent" reports:

    The far-right Front National (FN) was unexpectedly vanquished in all parts of France last night, 12 December 2015, after disgruntled moderate voters surged back to the polls in the second round of regional elections. In a nationwide vote watched with anxiety all over Europe, Marine Le Pen’s deodorized far-right party failed to build on its triumphs in the first round on the previous Sunday, when it had topped the poll in six of the 12 newly-drawn regions of mainland France.

    The Prime Minister, Mr Valls, hailed the result as a “victory for the Republic” and the “values of fraternity, common sense, and togetherness” which had always triumphed in the “darkest moments of our country’s history”. The FN candidates – including Ms Le Pen herself in the Calais-Lille-Amiens area in the north, and her 26-year-old niece Marion Maréchal-Le Pen in the south-east – were heavily defeated by a combination of left-wing tactical voting and an avalanche of 3.5 million previous non-voters who returned to the polling booths yesterday.

    Le Pen plans on running for president in 2017. Her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, founded the Front National Party and has been charged multiple times for denying that the Holocaust happened. Front National is a backer of the anti-LGBT and NOM-affiliated Manif Pour Tous.

  • 56. ronbk  |  December 13, 2015 at 4:50 pm

    Rubio Outlines Plan To End Marriage Equality | ThinkProgress

    In the landmark case of Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court found that same-sex marriage is a Constitutional right protected by the 14th Amendment.

    Sunday on NBC’s Meet The Press, Marco Rubio pledged, as President, to change that.

    Rubio said that he would not attempt to pass a constitutional amendment to return the question of same-sex marriage back to the sates. Rather, after numerous deflections, Rubio said he would simply appoint new Supreme Court justices who would overturn Obergefell.

    CHUCK TODD: Are you going to work to overturn the same sex marriage?

    MARCO RUBIO: I disagree with it on constitutional grounds. As I have said–

    CHUCK TODD: But are you going to work to overturn this?

    MARCO RUBIO: I think it’s bad law. And for the following reason. If you want to change the definition of marriage, then you need to go to state legislatures and get them to change it. Because states have always defined marriage. And that’s why some people get married in Las Vegas by an Elvis impersonator. And in Florida, you have to wait a couple days when you get your permit. Every state has different marriage laws. But I do not believe that the court system was the right way to do it because I don’t believe–

    CHUCK TODD: But it’s done now. Are you going to work to overturn it?

    MARCO RUBIO: You can’t work to overturn it. What you–

    CHUCK TODD: Sure. You can do a constitutional amendment.

    MARCO RUBIO: As I’ve said, that would be conceding that the current Constitution is somehow wrong and needs to be fixed. I don’t think the current Constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate marriage. That belongs at the state and local level. And that’s why if you want to change the definition of marriage, which is what this argument is about.

    It’s not about discrimination. It is about the definition of a very specific, traditional, and age-old institution. If you want to change it, you have a right to petition your state legislature and your elected representatives to do it. What is wrong is that the Supreme Court has found this hidden constitutional right that 200 years of jurisprudence had not discovered and basically overturn the will of voters in Florida where over 60% passed a constitutional amendment that defined marriage in the state constitution as the union of one man and one woman.

    CHUCK TODD: So are you accepting the idea of same sex marriage in perpetuity?

    MARCO RUBIO: It is the current law. I don’t believe any case law is settled law. Any future Supreme Court can change it. And ultimately, I will appoint Supreme Court justices that will interpret the Constitution as originally constructed.

    The next president is likely to appoint multiple Supreme Court justices. By the time he or she is sworn in, one-third of the justices will be in their 80s.

    Three of the five justices who voted in favor of marriage equality — Ruth Bader Ginsburg (82), Anthony Kennedy (79) and Stephen Breyer (77) — are among the oldest on the court.

    Rubio’s pronouncement is significant because under the principle of stare decisis, justices traditionally respect the judgement of their predecessors even if they disagree. There are very conservative justices who disagree with the Obergefell decision but would vote to uphold it for that reason. Rubio is saying that he will appoint new justices who do not intend to respect the Obergefell decision.


  • 57. davepCA  |  December 13, 2015 at 5:18 pm

    And Rubio isn't the only one with plans like this. Every one of the Republican candidates is well aware that a big part of their legacy will be because of the way they change the Supreme Court during their presidency. VOTE, goddammit. VOTE. And do whatever you can to get everyone else to vote to keep the republicans out of the white house next year.

  • 58. JayJonson  |  December 14, 2015 at 6:47 am

    And, out of the Senate, as well. It is crucial that the Democrats regain control of the Senate. Should a Republican win the White House, a Democratic Senate could stop the confirmation of an extremist appointee to SCOTUS. Should Hillary or Bernie win the White House, she or he will need a Democratic Senate to confirm a pro-gay appointee to SCOTUS.

  • 59. Zack12  |  December 14, 2015 at 12:56 pm

    Or a least a moderate.
    The names being floated as possible SCOTUS nominees under a Rubio or Cruz make Scalia look a moderate.

  • 60. 1grod  |  December 13, 2015 at 9:38 pm

    Ron, what surprises me is ease by which decisions of the Supreme Court can, by the Courts own initiative be reversed. At least in Rubio's mind… In Canada, Conservative prime minister Harper, vowing to change the outcome of cases before the Court, had an opportunity over 9 years to appoint 8 justices to a 9 member court. During Harper's time in office, the Court consistently found flaws in the legislation initiated by his government often by wide margins. – must to the PM's chagrin. Good Luck Marco.

  • 61. ebohlman  |  December 14, 2015 at 3:56 am

    Rubio seems to be unaware of a little thing called Article III standing. For a future SCOTUS to overturn Obergefell, someone would need to demonstrate that they had been directly injured by it.

  • 62. wes228  |  December 14, 2015 at 8:40 am

    What would happen is that states would simply start enforcing their anti-gay marriage laws again. A couple would need to sue to get a marriage license; it would go up to the Supreme Court; and they would reverse Obergefell.

  • 63. JayJonson  |  December 14, 2015 at 10:23 am

    ebohlman, I think you are much too sanguine about Article III standing. Look how the states (with the support of SCOTUS) have dialed back abortion rights. There are some states in which it is as difficult for women to obtain abortions now as it was in the 1960s, thanks to laws ostensibly regulating abortion clinics but that are really intended to shut them down.

    Our enemies are not going to give up. They are going to concoct ways to get before the Court through challenges to adoption rights or other apparently tangential issues. And when they have a majority on the Court, they will then attempt to overturn Obergefell in its entirety. Stare decisis is not meaningful to them. (And, in fairness, it is not meaningful to us when the shoe is on the other foot: after all, we worked hard to have Hardwick overturned by Lawrence.)

  • 64. Zack12  |  December 14, 2015 at 12:57 pm

    Indeed, the fight is NEVER over with religious extremists who want to turn this country into a theocracy.
    We declare victory at our own peril.

  • 65. scream4ever  |  December 14, 2015 at 1:04 pm

    I think the worst they would do would be ruling that clerks can refuse to issue licenses.

  • 66. Zack12  |  December 14, 2015 at 6:56 pm

    Indeed, it would be like abortion clinics.
    You can get your legal license but you'll have to drive hours to get it.

  • 67. Fortguy  |  December 14, 2015 at 7:56 pm

    If abortion rights and gun rights are both constitutional rights, then conservatives must support legislation making buying a gun just as difficult as obtaining an abortion or else shut up forever about pretending to be "pro-life".

  • 68. 1grod  |  December 14, 2015 at 11:22 am

    Indeed, most of his choices of Justices rejected on constitutional grounds one of Mr. Harper's choices, despite the fellow turning up for work there. Was Mr. Harper pissed – how dare they do that to Him. They did! The judiciary is supposed to be an independent arm of government.

  • 69. itscoldoutside  |  December 14, 2015 at 1:19 pm

    Six days until the referendum in Slovenia and I can say I've lost all hope. The debates have energized the opponents even more than for the previous referendum three years ago. They also can't be bothered to spend money on their campaign so they've vandalised our ads with spray paint. The direct result of an unholy alliance between skinheads and Catholics. They hate us even more than the Syrian refugees.

    I've binged through Transparent season 2 over the weekend (perhaps that's where my pessimism comes from) and all I can see now is the same fascism as back then, just wearing different faces. We never learn and it will never stop.

    I honestly think this law came at least a decade too soon. It really doesn't help that young people are emigrating en masse and leaving behind only the most pious who can't fathom the existence of a different world outside their parish.

  • 70. Christian0811  |  December 14, 2015 at 1:50 pm

    They should've gone straight to the CC, maybe get slapped down but avoid the drug out embarrassment of a referendum. Roll the dice and we might've gotten to have our cake (marriage) and eat it too (not endure a referendum).

    I digress tho

  • 71. guitaristbl  |  December 14, 2015 at 4:44 pm

    Gosh what pesimism when the most recent eurobarometer showed 54 % in favour of marriage equality in Slovenia. Look honestly if you want to whine, whine, like that will change anything. I honestly believe you should see some doctor for that utter depression you are constantly in, its not normal. We get it, you hate your country that's why you probably did not bother to mobilize and get out to vote.

    If my opinion matters, I believe the law will be preserved as the turnout will be insufficient. And you can sit around and whine about bad Slovenia instead of organizing to DO something.

  • 72. allan120102  |  December 14, 2015 at 5:06 pm

    I really think the law would be preserved. Slovenia is the most liberal of the slavic states. I really hope Slovenian law is conserved. That would make my day on Sunday.

  • 73. itscoldoutside  |  December 15, 2015 at 4:15 am

    I did volunteer for one of the organizations that has officially registered for active campaign. You diagnosing me with depression is a bit tactless, I have to say. I only shared my views on the matter, based on closely observing the (social) media.

    But on the other hand, I do have limited time on this planet. Why should I fight for this when I could simply relocate to where it's already possible?

    You aren't entirely correct, though. I don't hate the country, just the people living in it.

  • 74. VIRick  |  December 15, 2015 at 8:24 am

    "Why should I fight for this when I could simply relocate to where it's already possible?"

    This is an entirely understandable reaction, one that I personally experienced more than once during the time interval when the USA was split between "enemy" territory and "friendly" territory on this issue. At one point on one of my road-trips, Maryland was "friendly" territory, while both Virginia and Pennsylvania, on either side of it, were "enemy" territory.

    At the present moment, one can also experience this same duality in Mexico. Why stay in Tlaxcala or Puebla and put up with the continuing hassle, when one can simply make a rather short journey to the Federal District which has had same-sex marriage without a problem since 2010?

  • 75. Zack12  |  December 15, 2015 at 1:00 pm

    Heh, I like your take on the "friendly" and "enemy" territories.
    As someone who lived in NY during our marriage equality battle and know people in MD who did the same, it was far from friendly.
    It was downright vicious and ugly and took a lot of heartbreak and tears to get to the finish line.

  • 76. scream4ever  |  December 15, 2015 at 5:46 am

    I concur.

    Let me tell you, I worked on the campaign to defeat the anti-marriage referendum. At times it felt like all hope was lost, even towards the end. In the final days though, something amazing happened. Volunteers absolutely crowded our office (most had done nothing like this before), and we came out on top by 5 percentage points.

    Also, in regards to turnout, itscoldoutside mentioned on another thread that only 1,400 of the 97,000 Slovenians living abroad who are eligible. If this is an indication, turnout indeed is going to be very low, which bodes well for our side.

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