Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Open Thread 1/18/2016


While Scottie continues to get better, we’re going to keep posting weekly open threads for all your comments. Here’s the open thread for the week of January 18th!


  • 1. Elihu_Bystander  |  January 18, 2016 at 8:25 am

    As we celebrate Martin Luther King Day let us reflect on the meaning of this day. I found this blog site post for today particularly poignant:

  • 2. aiislander  |  January 18, 2016 at 9:36 am

    Progress in Vietnam!

    Time magazine reports that the Vietnam government has lifted the ban on same sex marriages, although it has not granted legal protections to same sex spouses:

  • 3. allan120102  |  January 18, 2016 at 2:03 pm

    I am really feeling a deja vu with this. I am pretty sure I saw this law being passed in Vietnam in 2015.

  • 4. VIRick  |  January 18, 2016 at 3:17 pm

    Allan, I had the same feeling, especially when I realized that the above-cited "Time" article is undated. So, I checked through my archives, and quickly came upon this entry which seems to state the same information, from just over a year ago, dated 10 January 2015:

    Vietnam: Same-Sex Marriage Now Legal, but Without Government Recognition

    Hanoi, Vietnam — Same-sex marriage is now legal in Vietnam under a revised law which went into effect on 1 January 2015, abolishing regulations that “prohibit marriage between people of the same sex.” But while same-sex marriages can now take place, the government still does not recognize them nor provide legal protections in cases of disputes.

    The revised law, however, places the Communist country at the forefront of countries in Asia becoming more accepting of gay people. The National Assembly’s move is expected to attract more LGBT travelers and boost Vietnam’s $9 billion tourism industry. “No other country in Southeast Asia has taken as big a step toward accepting same-sex marriage as Vietnam,” said Phil Robertson, Human Rights Watch deputy director in Asia.

    Vietnam’s lawmakers had initially considered recognizing same-sex marriage, but believed the country wasn’t ready for it, according to Luong The Huy, legal officer at the Institute for Studies of Society, Economy and Environment (ISEE), a Vietnamese group that advocates for minority rights. “They say the society in Vietnam needs some time to accept gay and lesbians in general,” he said, adding that the revision in the law signals to the country that “same-sex marriage is not harmful to society.”

  • 5. bayareajohn  |  January 18, 2016 at 5:42 pm

    Note that the TIME article, undated, cites BLOOMBERG NEWS as the source, with a link at the end of the article. That link takes you to a more detailed article at Bloomberg, properly dated January 7, 2015 — 9:00 AM PST Updated on January 7, 2015 — 10:13 PM PST

    The internets can be a challenging ghost house of mirrors, with links far into the past. You'd guess that TIME MAGAZINE would be more cognizant of the importance of TIME, however. And you'd be wrong.

    I've written to the "author" at TIME who copied the Bloomberg content and put their byline on it… asking that they correct this.

    UPDATE: The "author" has replied and said a correction will be made. Not in "Time" to prevent the "news" from circulating through AP and all the other copycat "journalistic" sites as "news".

  • 6. bayareajohn  |  January 18, 2016 at 7:20 pm

    Further update:
    The TIME article is now patched to look like they intended to report that although the law changed a year ago, full rights are "still" not had. A "correction" at the bottom now states that the article now says the law changed a year ago…. slimy fake journalism to my eyes. They can't admit that their "researcher" blew a dateline and reran a year old story as his own new work.

    This sort of circular "reporting" happens a lot more than you might imagine. Partly due to the Internet blogs and everyone now being their own news source, a career in journalism today is about as prestigious as one at the burger king grill. There's no money in it now for competent reporting and no time for research. Content feeds on itself, sometimes entirely automatically, without regard to reality.

  • 7. VIRick  |  January 18, 2016 at 12:08 pm

    Montana: Democratic Gov. Bullock Signs Order Protecting LGBT State Employees from Discrimination

    In a press conference earlier today, 18 January 2016, Governor Bullock celebrated Martin Luther King Jr. Day by noting that it is time to “recommit to King’s values of compassion and equity” by expanding protections for LGBT people in Montana. He also spoke to Montana’s private business owners, stating “while an executive order applies to state government only, I encourage private businesses to examine their policies as well.”

    “Discrimination in any form is wrong, and through his actions today, Governor Bullock has taken a bold step to expand equality and fairness for all,” said HRC President Chad Griffin. “We commend him for doing everything in his administrative power to fight for the rights of LGBT Montanans, and hope his actions encourage other government officials to make safeguarding protections for all residents and visitors a priority.”

    Currently there is no federal law or regulation that explicitly bans workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and Montana is one of 31 states where people are at risk of being fired or refused employment based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

    The order takes effect immediately. Bullock was elected in November 2012 after one term as Montana’s attorney-general. He issued a celebratory press release following the November 2014 overturning of Montana’s ban on same-sex marriage.

  • 8. VIRick  |  January 18, 2016 at 12:17 pm

    Russia: Duma Committee Rejects Coming-Out Ban

    Today, 18 January 2016, a committee of Russia’s lower national legislative chamber rejected a bill that would have fined and/or jailed LGBT citizens for coming out. Radio Free Europe reports:

    The bill, initiated by lawmakers from the Communist Party, called for a fine of up to 5,000 rubles (about $65) for publicly expressing personal “nontraditional sexual orientation.” According to the draft bill, the punishment would have been up to 15 days in prison for making such expressions at educational or cultural facilities for youth. The Duma committee rejected the draft bill.

    In 2013, the Duma, Russia’s lower house of parliament, passed a controversial law that bans the promotion of gay “propaganda” to minors.

  • 9. Christian0811  |  January 20, 2016 at 9:40 am

    Putin must've killed the bill, it's not as though the Duma is very independent. But I wonder why…. What's the catch?

  • 10. JayJonson  |  January 20, 2016 at 9:59 am

    Probably it has to do with the fall of the price of oil, which, coupled with their military bills from their adventures in the Ukraine and Syria, will soon bankrupt the Russian economy. Putin knows that he may ultimately have to seek handouts from Western Europe or his pal Trump.

  • 11. iocbyux  |  January 24, 2016 at 12:12 pm

    Russia's Gays Go Back In The Closet

    SOCHI, Russia — Most Russian gay couples hide their love and many have given up struggling for their rights. But still the pressure on them grows.

    Last week, members of the lower house of the Russian parliament, or Duma, considered a new bill banning homosexuals from public displays of affection. They would be fined for kissing in the street or holding hands on the subway. Homosexuality, the bill’s authors contended, is a Western ideology planted in the minds of Russia’s young people in order to reduce the country’s population.

    But even before the Duma voted on the homophobic bill, and before any police began to grab gays for holding hands or kissing in public, many homosexuals withdrew deeper into hiding, away from the eyes of strangers. Fewer and fewer people are brave enough to demonstrate in the streets with rainbow flags. They’ve seen the violent attacks and beatings inflicted on dozens of LGBT activists all across the country. In the provinces, it’s rare to find any place where gays can congregate openly.

    But the city of Sochi, the Black Sea resort that was the home of the 2014 Winter Olympics, was until recently something of an exception. It was generally less homophobic, and it had at least one night spot, the Kabaret Mayak, that openly positioned itself as a gay club. It offered great food, friendly service and some of best variety shows in the country.

    Now, that’s over. After more than a decade, the gay couple who own the club, Andrei Tanichev and Roman Kochagov, have decided to move their establishment to a hotel restaurant and change its famous status. “Our new bar is not going to be a gay club, but it will stay tolerant and welcome guests with any sexual orientation,” Kochagov told The Daily Beast.

    “The country is less tolerant in general,” said Kochagov, reflecting on the Duma debate about PDAs. “Russia is not ready, our society is not ready, to see it; in Spain gay couples can be seen kissing everywhere, but not here.”

    One of Kabaret Mayak’s fans, Lena, a beautiful, cosmopolitan 30-year-old lesbian, told The Daily Beast that she preferred to conduct her personal life behind closed doors. How about kisses under Sochi’s palm trees, or under the stars on the Black Sea shore? Lena shook her head, firmly rejecting the idea: “I kiss in my room,” she said.

    In practice, it hasn’t been the police so much as neighors and passing strangers who have made daily life miserable for gays.

    Anton Krasovsky, a well-known journalist, is one of a handful of LGBT activists left in Moscow. Once, hooligans attacked Krasovsky and his partner Nikita when they were walking along New Arbat, one of the most touristy streets in Moscow.

    (Continued in next post)

  • 12. iocbyux  |  January 24, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    "Another time our neighbor spotted how Nikita, who thought that nobody could see us, hugged me by the elevator of our apartment building. She started screaming, so the entire house could hear her: 'Faggots, I am going to call cops!'"

    Meduza media asked the author of the new bill discussed at the Duma, Deputy Ivan Nikitchuk, what he thought of Hillary Clinton’s statement that gay rights are human rights. “Listen, we do not need to talk about human rights!” he said. Gays, he insisted, were “sick and insane people.”

    Last month a club for intellectuals in Sochi watched a British movie, “Pride,” about gay activists helping miners during the ferocious strike of 1984.

    During a discussion somebody from the audience exclaimed in disgust: “How can you play these sort of movies here!” Most of the spectators mocked the comment for being homophobic, uncool and ignorant.

    Homosexuals are not the only people who’ve been tempted to give up the fight for their rights: 77 percent of Russians say protesting on the streets in support of their rights is unlikely to bring about any changes, according to a recent poll by the Levada Center.

    At the annual anti-fascist marches in Moscow and St. Petersburg earlier this week, in memory of lawyer Stanislav Markelov and journalist Anastasia Baburova killed seven years ago, a few gay activists joined in.

    An Orthodox Church activist called authorities to try to prevent the march because of LGBT participation, according to blog reports. In the end, a few hundred people walked in the center of Moscow with banners and placards condemning fascism, denouncing threats by Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov to kill liberal public figures, and deploring homophobia.

    “Not many came out with rainbow flags, but people did join us, and carried our banners,” said Elena Kostyuchenko, a Moscow journalist and LGBT activist, in a Facebook post. “A young man and a woman walked next to me and every time we passed by a darkened archway, they walked in front of me for my protection.”

    In the end, the bill in the Duma failed to pass. Perhaps the many closeted homosexuals in Russia’s business and political elite frustrated the legislation. But there is no guarantee it will not resurface.

    “The state’s job is to protect the rights of minorities; but in the case of the gay minority, the state inspires hostility and hatred,” Krasovsky said.

  • 13. DeadHead  |  January 24, 2016 at 1:51 pm

    “In a separate "letter to the international pro-family movement," Scott Lively declared that "the Leaders and Activists of the LGBT movement are malicious deceivers and evil-doers, deliberately subverting civilized society and viciously attacking all opponents to advance their selfish and self-destructive interests" and called for anti-gay activists to focus on preventing the passage of antidiscrimination ordinances that protect sexual orientation in places where they don't already exist and repealing them where they do. Lively went on to recommend that his fellow anti-gay activists likewise work to pass Russian-style laws banning gay "propaganda" in America and around the world:

    “We need to build international pro-family solidarity on a foundation of genuine moral authority, meaning it must rest on the premise that homosexuality itself is personally and socially harmful, and not pretend that our only social and political interests are the "welfare of children" or the "definition of marriage." That pretense is a product of the same diseased pro-family "leadership" that marched the American pro-family movement from one disastrous defeat to the next for the past three decades, and it is now being exported to the rest of the world by the same men.

    The beauty of the Russian law is it cuts right to the heart of the real problem of LGBT advocacy: the recruitment of children. What I mean by recruitment of children is not primarily the sexual exploitation of young people by adult homosexuals, though that represents a dark current within the larger “gay” culture, especially among the men. What I mean is the normalization of homosexual conduct and culture to children and youths, leading them to engage in homosexual experimentation among themselves and subsequently self-identify as "gay." An entire generation of American, British and Canadian children has been enslaved to this corrupt culture and ideology through the very propaganda that Russia has now banned.

    While numerous countries of the African continent have chosen a much stricter approach, seeking to deter all homosexual conduct through harsh criminal sanctions, the Russian law balances the privacy rights of adult homosexuals (who choose to live discretely outside the mainstream of society) with the need of the nation to protect its children from the ravages of sexual perversion. It deters the LGBT lobby from attempting to mainstream the "gay" lifestyle, while granting the individual members of its community the "right to be left alone" that was the original stated goal of their movement in its early years, before it adopted the militant fascist tactics it is known for today.” Read more at

  • 14. VIRick  |  January 18, 2016 at 1:14 pm

    Chile: Senadores Lily Pérez y Alfonso de Urresti Piden Acelerar el Envío al Congreso del Proyecto de Matrimonio Igualitario

    Chile: Senators Lily Pérez and Alfonso de Urresti Ask Congress to Speed up Passage of Equal Marriage Proposal

    El 18 Enero 2016, Senadores Lily Pérez y Alfonso de Urresti piden acelerar el envío al Congreso del proyecto de matrimonio igualitario. Ambos legisladores se mostraron favorables a aprobar la legislación y también la adopción homoparental como parte de una agenda antidiscriminación en la que debe avanzar el Poder Legislativo.

    La igualdad en derechos y el impulso de leyes para ir en detrimento de la discriminación fueron los ejes centrales de un nuevo capítulo de Hablando De, programa de TVSenado donde los senadores Lily Pérez y Alfonso de Urresti enfatizaron en la necesidad de legislar para establecer el matrimonio igualitario en Chile.

    On 18 January 2016, Senators Lily Pérez and Alfonso de Urresti asked Congress to accelerate passage of the equal marriage proposal. Both lawmakers were in favor of passing the legislation, as well as that of homoparental adoption, as part of an anti-discrimination agenda that must advance through the legislature.

    Equal rights and the promotion of laws detrimental to discrimination were the cornerstones of a new chapter of Talking About, a program by TVSenado, where Senators Lily Pérez and Alfonso de Urresti emphasized the need to legislate for marriage equality in Chile.

    And from Fundación Iguales ‏@IgualesChile in Providencia, Chile, we have this quote:

    Marcelo Díaz, Ministro Secretario General de Gobierno, acerca del Matrimonio Igualitario: "Nosotros estimamos que la sociedad está preparada."

    Marcelo Díaz, Minister Secretary General of Government, about equal marriage: "We estimate that society is prepared."

  • 15. allan120102  |  January 18, 2016 at 4:27 pm

    Breaking. Tlaxcala just got its first same sex marriage. After an amparo was granted.That leaves Zacatecas as the only holdout. It would not take long as a gay couple already fill for an amparo in there.

  • 16. VIRick  |  January 18, 2016 at 7:19 pm

    Celebra Tlaxcala Primer Matrimonio Igualitario

    Tlaxcala Celebrates First Same-Sex Marriage

    Tras obtener el amparo y la protección de la justicia federal, una pareja de mujeres contrajo este lunes, 18 de enero 2016, el primer matrimonio igualitario en la historia de Tlaxcala. Inicialmente, la Coordinación del Registro Civil negó la petición de la unión matrimonial, motivo por el cual la pareja solicitó la intervención de la Comisión Estatal de Derechos Humanos (CEDH).

    El primer matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo registrado en la entidad tuvo lugar en las instalaciones de la CEDH. La ceremonia estuvo a cargo del oficial del Registro Civil, Fortino Altamirano Sosa, y al acto asistieron, como testigos, el ombudsman Francisco Mixcoatl Antonio, la diputada Eréndira Jiménez Montiel, y personas afines a las contrayentes.

    El pasado 27 de noviembre, el Juzgado de Distrito concedió el amparo a las quejosas porque consideró que el artículo 46 del Código Civil para el Estado Libre y Soberano de Tlaxcala es violatorio de los principios constitucionales de igualdad y no discriminación, en virtud de que hace una diferencia con base en la orientación sexual de las personas.

    After obtaining the amparo and the protection of the federal courts, a pair of women on Monday, 18 January 2016, contracted the first same-sex marriage in the history of Tlaxcala. Initially, the Coordinator of the Civil Registry denied the request for marriage, so the couple sought the intervention of the State Commission of Human Rights (CEDH).

    The first same-sex marriage registered in the state took place on the premises of the CEDH. The ceremony was headed by the Civil Registry official, Fortino Altamirano Sosa, and as witnesses to the event, was attended by the ombudsman, Francisco Mixcoatl Antonio, Deputy Eréndira Jiménez Montiel, as well as relatives of the contracting couple.

    On 27 November 2015, the District Court granted the amparo to the petitioners after determining that Article 46 of the Civil Code for the Free and Sovereign State of Tlaxcala violates the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination by virtue of the fact that it differentiates based on sexual orientation.

  • 17. Fortguy  |  January 18, 2016 at 11:59 pm

    Tlaxcala updated on Wikimedia Commons map. SSM in Mexico Wikipedia article talk page has reference to news report cited above.

  • 18. allan120102  |  January 22, 2016 at 3:41 pm

    Fortguy do you think this link is enough to change Guerrero to a state with amparos instead of marriage equality? Because I really cant change it. dont know if to use wizard or how to choose the state I want to change.I am not even sure if I need to downloading it and then use paint or something. Thanks for your patience and sorry again for bothering you in doing this task. This is the link. it had also been share by noticias LGBT that is a trustworthy twitter acount of lgbt news. So I believe this is true.

  • 19. Fortguy  |  January 22, 2016 at 8:29 pm

    Marriage can be construed to be legal in Guerrero by an executive order from the state's governor, same as in Chihuahua. The Acapulco civil registrar in the article you linked sounds more like he's throwing a Kim Davis-style hissy fit. The local official can either try to sue the governor and get smacked down in court in the process, or wait to be sued by anyone whose marriage rights he violates. I doubt anyone in Acapulco's tourist industry appreciates their city being promoted as a less-than-welcoming wedding destination. Locally, he will be standing alone in his crusade.

    Feel free to open a new discussion thread on the Wikipedia article's talk page and see how other editors feel.

  • 20. VIRick  |  January 18, 2016 at 5:03 pm

    Gay Cop Elected Head of DC Police Union

    Sgt. Matthew Mahl, a gay 11-year veteran at the DC Metropolitan Police Department and a former supervisor of the department’s LGBT Liaison Unit, won election on 12 January 2016, as head of the police union. Mahl’s election by a 2-to-1 margin as chairman of the Labor Committee of the Fraternal Order of Police, the official title of the union, came as a surprise to department observers, who view the development as a clear decision by rank and file members to oust their current leader, Sgt. Delroy Burton.

    – See more at:

  • 21. scream4ever  |  January 18, 2016 at 11:06 pm

    Confirmation hearing for first openly gay Secretary of the Army scheduled for Thursday at 9:30 AM:

    Also of note, Patrick Murphy, the former Congressman from Pennsylvania who led the effort to repeal DADT, has been confirmed as the new Undersecretary of the Army.

  • 22. scream4ever  |  January 18, 2016 at 11:21 pm

    Decision to lift trans military ban expected by late spring:

  • 23. 1grod  |  January 19, 2016 at 8:17 am

    Moore & others defend role of AL's chief justice. It is unfortunate that someone from that state does not point out that the 11th Circuit Appeals Court [ Gerald Tjoflat, Charles Wilson and Frank Hull ] on October 20 addressed an appeal of Strawser v Strange decision of May 21. On the March 03 2015 (ex parte State of Alabama) injunction against issuing marriage licenses, the Appeals Court said that Obergefell trumped – actually 'abrograted' the AL Supreme Court's decision. Moore ignores this, as well as the same day same Appeal Judges' decision to declined to take up three appeals of aspects of the May 21 district court's decision related to probate judges being a class bound by that court's decisions on marriage equality in AL. Given the period of further appeal expired on December 21 with not action just what is the legal grounds for Roy Moore's January beef? and

  • 24. 1grod  |  January 20, 2016 at 11:28 am

    desperate given Judge Granade's July 1st order.

  • 25. FredDorner  |  January 20, 2016 at 12:01 pm

    The best part is that all but one of the probate judges are ignoring Moore's order.

  • 26. VIRick  |  January 19, 2016 at 12:25 pm

    Per Equality Case Files:

    This morning, 19 January 2016, the US Supreme Court issued its order list from its conference of 15 January 2016. The Court took no action in "V.L. v. E.L.," the case in which the Alabama Supreme Court voided a mother's Georgia adoption. We can expect it to be relisted for a future conference.

  • 27. JayJonson  |  January 20, 2016 at 5:56 am

    British couple's honeymoon tragedy exposes the need for marriage equality in Australia.

    Marco Bulmer-Rizzi told BuzzFeed News that after his newly-wed husband David died in an accident on their honeymoon in Adelaide, South Australia, he was told the death certificate had to read “never married” and could not simply be left blank because it “wasn’t one of the drop-down options on the computer”.

    He was also not regarded as the next of kin, meaning all decisions relating to David’s death had to be approved by David’s father, Nigel.

    “Every single question I was asked – whether or not I wanted David cremated, whether or not I wanted David to have a service, or be washed, even the cost of the coffin they were to use – after I gave my answer, David’s father was consulted,” he said.

    “[David’s father] was also specifically asked, ‘Do you want to look this over before it’s signed?’ It was outright discrimination. If I didn’t get on with my in-laws I don’t know that I would have any rights.”

    National director of Australian Marriage Equality Rodney Croome said Bulmer-Rizzi’s situation highlighted the urgency of marriage reform.

    The story received an outpouring of rage from Australians, who labelled the situation “embarrassing”, “insulting”, and “devastating”.

    South Australian Premier Jay Weatherwill said he would introduce legislation this year to address numerous questions of discrimination against gay couples.

    Weatherill has personally telephoned Bulmer-Rizzi to apologise for what happened.

    Speaking to BuzzFeed News on Wednesday, Bulmer-Rizzi, who was told that his late husband’s death certificate would read “never married” because South Australia does not accept overseas same-sex marriages, said Weatherill “phoned me directly. We were on the phone for a good 10 minutes. He apologised. He said he would work on ways they can bring a change to avoid this happening in the future.”

    Bulmer-Rizzi, 38, added: “They are looking to actively change it through legislation and he told me it would happen in the next few months. He promised me that they would reissue the death certificate once that has happened.”

  • 28. SethInMaryland  |  January 20, 2016 at 9:36 am

    Anyone see that the HRC endorsed Hillary? I was disappointed by that decision. The HRC has become too much attached to the Democratic establishment. Sanders had a 100% voting record on LGBT rights. I was hoping they would at least remain neutral and instead wait till the nominee is picked,

  • 29. VIRick  |  January 20, 2016 at 10:07 am

    Tennessee: Sponsor of Anti-Gay Marriage Bill Undaunted by $8.5B Cost

    Nashville TN — The Tennessee lawmaker whose bill would bar the state from following the US Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling says he is undeterred by a projected loss of $8.5 billion in federal funds if the proposal becomes law. State Rep. Mark Pody said at a state Capitol rally on Tuesday, 19 January 2016, that the proposal he has dubbed the “Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act” is worth any cost, and the Republican from the Nashville suburb of Lebanon disputed the estimated loss of federal funds.

    “The right to who we are is at stake,” Pody said. He cited a 2006 amendment to the state constitution that defined marriage as being only between a man and a woman and declared that any judicial interpretation to the contrary “shall be void and unenforceable in Tennessee.” That amendment passed with more than 80 percent of the vote a decade ago. “We’re only upholding what we’ve already voted on,” Pody said. “They trampled our constitution.” Last year’s decision by the nation’s highest court was based on cases in four states including Tennessee, where three couples had sued to have their out-of-state marriages recognized.

    Pody’s proposal is scheduled for its first hearing in a House subcommittee Wednesday afternoon, 20 January 2016. Pody urged supporters to contact the five members of the panel to persuade them not to kill the bill. Legislative analysts estimated that if the state refuses services to same-sex couples, Tennessee stands to lose $6.5 billion in federal Medicaid money and another $2 billion in food stamp and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families funds.

    Committee member Bill Beck, a Nashville Democrat, said he won’t support the measure. “The Supreme Court dictates the law of the land,” Beck said. “Are we going to secede from the union?” Beck dismissed Pody’s proposal as “red meat” for conservatives. “They love it, and Pody will keep it playing as long as he can,” Beck said.

  • 30. Zack12  |  January 20, 2016 at 12:55 pm

    You can't fix stupid, you really can't.

  • 31. GregInTN  |  January 20, 2016 at 2:34 pm

    Failed in s/c Civil Justice Subcommittee of Civil Justice Committee on 1/20/2016….

  • 32. VIRick  |  January 20, 2016 at 10:14 am

    New Idaho Bill Would Ban Gay Discrimination

    Boise ID — A bill has been introduced in the Idaho Senate that seeks to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Legislation introduced Tuesday, 19 January 2016, by Boise Democratic Sens. Grant Burgoyne and Cherie Buckner-Webb adds sexual orientation and gender identity to the Idaho Human Rights Act, which would prohibit discrimination on those grounds in housing, employment, and public accommodations.

    A similar bill failed to pass through the House State Affairs Committee on a party-line vote last year. The difference with the new legislation is that it provides definitions for the terms, sexual orientation and gender identity, addressing questions that came up during last year’s hearing. Burgoyne says he’s working with a bipartisan group of lawmakers to address additional concerns, including questions about religious liberty.

  • 33. VIRick  |  January 20, 2016 at 1:39 pm

    First LGBT Member of Guatemala Congress Takes Office

    The first openly LGBT person elected to Guatemala’s Congress took office last week. Sandra Morán, a lesbian woman who is a member of Convergencia, a left-leaning political movement that advocates on behalf of indigenous Guatemalans and other under-represented groups in the Central American country, was sworn in on 14 January 2016.

    Voters in Guatemala City elected Morán to Congress last September. She is one of 158 members of the Guatemala Congress who took office on 14 January. Morán, 56, in 1981 sought exile in neighboring Mexico amid Guatemala’s civil war. She lived in Nicaragua and Canada before returning to Guatemala in 1994. Morán over the last two decades has become a prominent figure within the Guatemalan women’s and feminist movements. She has also publicly supported LGBT-specific issues in the Central American country.

    She said discrimination and violence against trans and lesbian women remains pervasive in the Central American country. Morán also noted that anti-LGBT attitudes persist among many Guatemalan families, and that trans people are unable to legally change their gender.

    – See more at:

  • 34. VIRick  |  January 20, 2016 at 2:29 pm

    Exposing the Religious Bigots

    Per Equality Case Files:

    Religious schools that receive federal money, yet obtain federal exemptions to discriminate against LGBT students and employees, will have their waivers posted online for public view, under a decision by the Department of Education.

    Announced today, 20 January 2016, in a letter to lawmakers that was obtained by BuzzFeed News, the decision comes one month after eight US senators requested more transparency into the practice of granting school waivers from Title IX of the Education Act.

    The assistant secretary for civil rights at the Education Department, Catherine Lhamon, told the senators today that her office is planning to post the waiver requests and the government’s reply letters “on our website with a basic search tool so that applicants, students, parents, and others can be better informed about which educational institutions have sought and/or received a religious exemption.”

  • 35. FredDorner  |  January 23, 2016 at 8:03 am

    This was a really smart move. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

  • 36. VIRick  |  January 20, 2016 at 2:49 pm

    Employer to Pay Transgender Woman $115,000 in Job Discrimination Settlement

    Per Equality Case Files:

    In the case, "EEOC v. Deluxe Financial Services," a federal government discrimination lawsuit on behalf of a transgender employee, the parties have reached an agreement. The Consent Decree was filed with the federal court today, 20 January 2016, in Minneapolis. Even though the discrimination occurred at the financial services' branch in Phoenix AZ, the case was filed in federal court in Minnesota, as the company's headquarters are located in Minneapolis.

    While the settlement does not establish precedent in other cases, it reflects the EEOC’s ongoing efforts to advance its 2012 decision finding that transgender discrimination is illegal as a form of sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While the decision is not binding on courts, it is binding on federal agencies and is being applied by the EEOC in its role of investigating and seeking resolution to employment discrimination complaints.

    Even in states that lack a ban on transgender discrimination, and despite the absence of federal law explicitly banning transgender discrimination, the settlement shows that there already can be consequences for employers who discriminate against transgender employees.

    See more here:

  • 37. VIRick  |  January 20, 2016 at 3:25 pm

    Kentucky Shrew Is Back in Court, at the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Defiant as Ever

    Kim Davis and her lawyers took her fight to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati today, 20 January 2016, in hopes they could finally convince a judge she was within her rights when she defied a judge’s order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Davis, through her attorneys, Mat Staver and the religious-right law firm, Liberty Counsel, argues in their appeal that she is the victim, “a prisoner of conscience,” and that her individual freedoms were violated, along with her “undisputed sincerely-held religious beliefs about marriage."

    Staver’s case hinges on the idea that the applicants for marriage licenses had no rights based on the law and that denying them licenses did not place a burden on their right to marry: “No precedent from this Court or the Supreme Court establishes a fundamental constitutional right to obtain a marriage license in a particular county authorized and signed by a particular person.”

    Davis’s attorneys also argue that former Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear could have given her an accommodation, but refused. His successor, Governor Matthew Bevin, is named in the suit by the eight plaintiffs who were refused licenses.

    But without doubt, the most ballsy line in the appeal filed with the court is the one where Staver and his legal eagles quote the Supreme Court decision in "Obergefell v. Hodges," the ruling announced on 26 June 2015 guaranteeing marriage equality throughout the United States, to support their claim that Judge David Bunning “eviscerated” Davis’s rights to due process, rights under Kentucky’s Religious Freedom Reform Act, and “flouted principles of federalism:”

    “This Court should also reverse the district court’s subsequent orders that valued expediency over basic principles of jurisdiction and callously trampled upon Davis’ due process rights for the purpose of vindicating the district court’s own authority. This Court cannot allow such overreaching judicial decisions lacking in jurisdiction, and inquisition-like proceedings lacking in fundamental due process protections, to stand—especially when the consequences of those error-laden rulings placed a duly-elected, public official in jail because she sought a simple religious accommodation as a person who subscribes to a view about marriage that ‘long has been held—and continues to be held—in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world.’”

    The appeal asks, in addition to having the judge’s injunctions against Davis reversed, that the court’s 3 September contempt order that landed her behind bars also be reversed. In fact, the appeal makes note that if it stands, Davis may well find herself again in violation of the order and back in jail.

  • 38. Elihu_Bystander  |  January 21, 2016 at 7:36 am

    Let us know when you get a link to the actual brief, thanks

  • 39. GregInTN  |  January 21, 2016 at 3:21 pm

    Here's the link to the actual brief on Equality Case Files:

  • 40. sfbob  |  January 21, 2016 at 5:13 pm

    I'm sure that the court of appeals will look kindly on Staver's suggestion that the federal courts lack jurisdiction to rule on the implementation of a US Supreme Court ruling.

    This one really cracks me up:

    "No precedent from this Court or the Supreme Court establishes a fundamental constitutional right to obtain a marriage license in a particular county authorized and signed by a particular person."

    Working backwards, this of course not about the right of the county clerk as a "person" but as an officer of the state. The state's statute clearly requires that the county clerk's NAME appear on a marriage license. Bevins almost certainly overstepped his authority in ordering the form of the state's marriage licenses to be changed.

    Going on from there it's pretty simple to rebut that just because a specific couple might not be inconvenienced by needing to obtain their license from a county they don't reside in, there is more importantly no constitutional permission for anyone to have to travel away from their home in order to vindicate a fundamental right.

    Basically Staver is simply following the time-honored tradition: when neither the facts nor the law support your case, pound on the table.

  • 41. VIRick  |  January 21, 2016 at 7:18 pm

    "No precedent from this Court or the Supreme Court establishes a fundamental constitutional right to obtain a marriage license in a particular county authorized and signed by a particular person."

    If I recall correctly, that statement parrots Davis' original admonition to various couples seeking to obtain their marriage license in Rowan County KY that they should "Go to the next county."

    She tended to re-direct them to Carter County KY, the same county in whose holding facility she would later spend 5 days contemplating the walls while being held in contempt.

  • 42. sfbob  |  January 22, 2016 at 4:56 pm

    So here's the thing that it took me another 24 hours to realize: directing gay/lesbian couples to another county while issuing marriage licenses to heterosexual couples constitutes disparate treatment of a sort which is clearly a violation of Obergefell. It doesn't matter whether those male/male or female/female couples were inconvenienced by having to drive a five miles further or whether they had to delay their marriage because they had no means of getting to a different county. The result is still the same and no accommodation of any individual's religion is going to be able to stand up to that.

  • 43. FredDorner  |  January 23, 2016 at 8:30 am

    Davis was denying licenses to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples and thus claimed "equal treatment", but the district court saw through that pretext immediately. Davis' clear intent was to harm same-sex couples.

    Given that they've lost every single ruling to date, at this point Staver and Davis are just posturing in order to keep their gullible supporters donating money.

  • 44. GregInTN  |  January 24, 2016 at 2:17 pm

    After the new Governor issued his Executive Order, there was a discussion on this board when it was noted that the new form only removed the Clerk's name & office from the first part of the form but not from the final (recording) part of the form. In this brief, Davis explicitly says that she has never claimed a problem with recording the documents.

    "Furthermore, Davis has never claimed that the mere "administrative" act of recording a document substantially burdens her religious freedom. To the contrary, Davis indisputably believes that providing the marriage authorization "demanded by" former Gov. Beshear's SSM Mandate on the marriage license form he revised and required is "connected with" SSM "in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral" for her to authorize the proposed union and place her name on it."

    Elsewhere in the brief, I found what I presume to be a typographical error that caused me to chuckle…

    When comparing a cited case dealing with abortion, they mention an analogy about voting rights by quoting the other case as saying "not every ballet access limitation amounts to an infringement of the right to vote"

    Not sure what limiting access to the ballet has to do with voting rights.

  • 45. VIRick  |  January 20, 2016 at 4:41 pm

    11 to 15 Alabama Counties Still Refusing to Comply with "Obergefell" Ruling

    Per Campaign for Southern Equality (CSE) and their report released on 20 January 2016:

    Same-sex marriage became the law of the land in June 2015, but Alabama has yet to fully comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling. Eleven counties across the state have shuttered their marriage license offices entirely. Four additional counties refuse to state whether or not they are providing marriage licenses to LGBT couples. Those 4 counties are:

    Between July 2015 and January 2016, the Campaign for Southern Equality has repeatedly called Probate Court offices in each of these counties to ask a simple question: Do you issue marriage licenses to gay couples? But answers have been elusive, as staff say they are unable to answer the question and cannot say when an answer will be available.

    “It is discouraging that there are still judges in our state that refuse to follow the law. The fact is all Americans now have a fundamental right to marry the person they love no matter where they live. Allowing same-sex couples the right to marry in Alabama harms no one and it is time these judges start doing their job,” says Cari Searcy, a plaintiff in "Searcy v. Strange."

    On 23 January 2015, US District Court Judge Callie Granade ruled in "Searcy v. Strange" that the state of Alabama’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriages was unconstitutional. Additionally, Judge Granade ordered the Alabama Attorney-General to stop enforcing the bans on marriage equality.

    Alabama is the only known state in the country where non-compliance with the "Obergefell" ruling persists. “Gay couples live in every county across Alabama and they have a fundamental right to marry. They deserve to be treated fairly when they go to the marriage license office in their home county. We are calling upon Coosa, Chambers, Crenshaw and Lamar Counties to immediately begin issuing marriage licenses to LGBT couples,” says Rev. Jasmine Beach-Ferrara, Executive Director of the Campaign for Southern Equality.

    Beyond the four counties with unknown practices, 11 counties have closed their marriage license offices entirely, and are refusing to issue licenses to any couple, LGBT or straight. Those 11 counties are:

    On 26 June 2015, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling in "Obergefell v. Hodges" recognizing the fundamental right of same-sex couples to marry across our country. On 1 July 2015, Judge Callie Granade of the US District Court for the Southern District of Alabama once again ruled that all probate judges in Alabama must immediately begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

  • 46. 1grod  |  January 21, 2016 at 11:57 am

    Rick and Fred: Assuming these fifteen counties are not issuing licenses to citizens of the state, that represents 8.6% of the population of the state who do not have full access, with Elmore and Autauga together representing 134,817 citizens. Considering the number of marriages that occurred in 2013 as a typical year, these counties had 3,530 marriages (a reasonable proxy for the number of licenses/yr). That represented 9.3% of all the marriages in the state. Elmore and Autauga had 1,036 marriages……
    Of the 15 probate judges as members of Granade's defendant class: Alfred Booth, Autauga Co; Stephanie Kemmer, Bibb; Brandy Easlick, Chamber; Michael Armistead, Choctaw; Valarie Bradford Davis, Clarke; Ryan Robertson, Cleburne; Terry Mitchell, Cossa; Ben Bowden, Covington, William Tate, Crenshaw, John Enslen, Elmore; Fred Hamic, Geneva; Johnny Rogers, Lamar; Laurie Shoultz Hall, Marengo; Wes Allen, Pike and Nick Williams, Washington Co. the most troubling is Stephanie Kemmer JD, who was appointed by Governor R Bentley last September. Despite his early summer statement that the State would fully comply with Obergefell, and assuming this appointee is an example of what he and his AG mean by 'fully comply', one might conclude the Executive is duplicitous in the resistance of these officers of the court…… Assuming the same or greater number of marriages [licenses] as occurred in 2013, how is it that in 2015/2016, no one [straight/non-straight] has apparently come forward to bringing an action against them? Would not 1 or 2 couples be sufficient?

  • 47. VIRick  |  January 21, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    "Would not 1 or 2 couples be sufficient?"


    Also bear in mind that this report, as prepared and just released by the Campaign for Southern Equality (CSE), is about as official as one could hope for, and is about as current as one could also hope for. CSE is obviously monitoring the situation in Alabama VERY closely, given that they detected several additional renegade probate judges about whom we had not been previously aware.

    Most importantly too, for all involved, we need to remember that it was this same organization, CSE, who successfully undertook the daunting task of suing the state of Mississippi for marriage equality there.

    One can reach them here:
    [email protected]
    Phone: 828.242.1559
    Snail mail: PO Box 364, Asheville, NC 28802

  • 48. allan120102  |  January 20, 2016 at 6:55 pm

    Breaking news. The supreme court of Mexico is expect to finally invalidate the ban on same sex marriage of Jalisco. supposely they have the 8 votes need to invalidate down a law. It will be the first time it happens as this was suppose to happen to Chihuahua but the governor legalize ssm before the court act. This happens as Jalisco again and again didnt care what the court told them. This might help to push other states to legalize ssm. I just hope that we have the 8 votes needed.

  • 49. VIRick  |  January 20, 2016 at 8:22 pm

    Per Rex Wockner:

    México: La SCJN podría legalizar el matrimonio del mismo sexo en el estado de Jalisco mañana, 21 de enero 2016, con efecto inmediato.

    Mexico's Supreme Court on Thursday, 21 January 2016, may legalize same-sex marriage in Jalisco state (Guadalajara) with immediate effect.

    Perfilan legalizar bodas gay en Jalisco

    Expected to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage in Jalisco

    Cd. de México, México (20 enero 2016).- La Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (SCJN) podría legalizar este jueves, 21 de enero 2016, con efectos generales, los matrimonios entre personas del mismo sexo en Jalisco.

    El Pleno discutirá un proyecto del Ministro José Ramón Cossío que invalida la porción del artículo 260 del Código Civil de ese Estado, que define al matrimonio como la unión entre un hombre y una mujer, por discriminar a las parejas homosexuales.

    Fuentes de la Corte estimaron que alcanzará los ocho votos necesarios para la invalidez, con lo que, por primera vez, el máximo tribunal estaría imponiendo a todos los registros civiles de una entidad la obligación de casar a parejas distintas de las heterosexuales.

    Leer más:

    Cd. De Mexico, Mexico (20 January 2016) .- On Thursday, 21 January 2016, Mexico's Supreme Court (SCJN) could legalize, with general effect, marriages between same-sex couples in Jalisco.

    The Full Court will discuss the draft from Justice José Ramón Cossío invalidating the portion of article 260 of the Civil Code of this State, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, for discriminating against gay couples.

    Court sources estimate that they will attain the eight votes needed for invalidtion, which, for the first time, the Supreme Court would then be imposing on all civil registrars of a state the obligation to marry couples who are distinct from heterosexual couples.

  • 50. allan120102  |  January 20, 2016 at 8:54 pm

    When granting amparos or declaring a law unconstittutional usually only a chamber acts, whether the frist or second. When they grant review to invalidate a law completely the full court acts. I really believe Rick that we got those 8 necessary votes. I know one judge always vote against us and another is always a toss up. The 2 new judges might be decisive in here. Sadly I will be at uni when they invalidate the law, well if they do it. Good luck to all my lgbt friends in Jalisco.

  • 51. VIRick  |  January 20, 2016 at 8:59 pm

    And then, we have this further double-note on the same matter, per Geraldina González de la Vega, a clerk at Mexico's Supreme Court:

    El pleno tiene listada para mañana la AI 28/2015 promovida por "CNDH v. CC de Jalisco."

    The full court has listed for tomorrow the case, Al 28/2015, promoted by the CNDH, known as "CNDH v. CC de Jalisco."

    Y la 11/2015 sobre el mismo tema, "CNDH v. CC de Baja California."

    And 11/2015, on the same subject, "CNDH v. CC de Baja California."

    So, the CNDH has two pending cases before the full court tomorrow, one filed against Jalisco, and another filed against Baja California.

    It will thus be doubly beautiful when both are struck down with finality.

    The first word on the official decision(s) ought to be forthcoming via Geraldina, given that she is our reliable "inside" source. However, given that the draft decision itself has already been written by Justice José Ramón Cossío, we can fairly confidently anticipate that it has been written in our favor.

  • 52. allan120102  |  January 20, 2016 at 10:35 pm

    I am pretty sure Jalisco's ban will be struck down, I have read though that Baja California will be dismissed on technical groulds. I just hope its not true. It will be so beautiful to have two bans invalidated at once.

  • 53. allan120102  |  January 21, 2016 at 3:56 pm

    Jalisco's ban likely to be struck on tuesday. This will be an increble feat, as now the civil codes could go to the full court instead of the first chamber. I believe they said the first chamber have found uncunstitutional 17 or 18 civil codes. Mexican states better legalize ssm by their legislature or the full court will do it. One by one if necessary.

  • 54. VIRick  |  January 24, 2016 at 11:36 am

    Allan, the First Chamber of Mexico's Supreme Court has already declared 19 different state civil codes (of 31 states) unconstitutional for discriminating against same-sex couples, with a number of them, like Baja California, Oaxaca, and Sinaloa, having been struck down several times around.

    That only leaves 12 states' civil codes still standing, 5 of which have already been changed, either legislatively or by executive order, to comply (Chihuahua, Coahuila, Guerrero, Nayarit, and Quintana Roo), which really leaves only 7 still unconsidered. Three of those would be last states to grant any amparos (Hidalgo, Tlaxcala, and Zacatecas), as cases in those states have yet to proceed far enough. The other 4 would appear to be Baja California Sur, Durango, Tamaulipas, and Veracruz. And probably one more (Aguascalientes?), as I do believe that Chihuahua's was struck down by the First Chamber prior to the governor's issuance of his executive order. The governor of Chihuahua only out-maneuvered the First Chamber with his executive order when the Court was poised to strike it down the second time around. Still, they slapped Chihuahua with punitive damages and are making them pay for all the legal expenses of the 31 separate plaintiff same-sex couples who sued in 31 separate cases. Similar punitive damage claims, plus contempt charges, are pending against Baja California, Jalisco, Michoacán, and likely against Sinaloa, among others.

  • 55. allan120102  |  January 24, 2016 at 12:34 pm

    Rick, Remember that Tlaxcala have already an amparo and another is underway. That leaves only Hidalgo and Zacatecas as the Holdouts. Guerrero is not marrying new couples and the new governor looks that he is not ok with the executive orders from his predecesor. Civil registers in Guerrero say they are not marrying couples unless they get an amparo. Even the director of the civil registers of Guerrero say the previous marriages were void and not legal. Yes Chihuahua prefer to legalize same sex marriage than pay all the plaintiffs that were coming to ask more amparos, and you are correct they are paying the ones already granted. I imagine that morelos will be the next state of marriage equality. I remember that an lgbt organization in Mexico said that it would take years to get marriage equality in all states, but at the rate we are going I am not going to be surprised to get all mexico by 4 years from today or 5.

  • 56. VIRick  |  January 24, 2016 at 6:27 pm

    In Mexico, most amparos have been granted by lower-level Federal District Court judges, and in most instances, those decisions were NOT appealed. Such was the amparo recently granted in Tlaxcala. No appeal.

    Even in hard-core situations like Baja California (2 out of 6) and Sinaloa (2 out of 5), state authorities only pursued certain cases all the way to Mexico's Supreme Court (only to have their offending state code provision deemed unconstitutional whenever they did).

    However, earlier on, before Mexico's Supreme Court required all judges at all levels to grant all requested amparos, any number of plaintiffs who were denied, then appealed their denial all the way to the Supreme Court, where they finally successfully received their amparo request at this highest level (after the offending state code provision had been duly deemed unconstitutional). At least one late filing (Hidalgo) in this category has yet to be ruled upon.

  • 57. Fortguy  |  January 24, 2016 at 9:43 pm

    Allan is correct in one aspect that he did not make clear in his previous posts:

    Guerrero is not marrying new couples and the new governor looks that he is not ok with the executive orders from his predecessor.

    The new governor of Guerrero is Héctor Astudillo Flores (PRI) whose predecessor was Rogelio Ortega Martínez (PRD) a ME ally. Unfortunately, the new, re-imagined PRI under Mexico's emerging three-party era, doesn't have to stand for any consistent principles. It maintains its historically progressive, socialistic, and secular ideals in states such as in the north and in the Yucatán peninsula, where the PRD is weak and where the PAN is their chief opposition, while whoring themselves out to the right in southern and western states where the PRD is their primary opponent and the PAN has no impact.

    Still, Allan has not offered any reference to any news report or public decree that the new governor is in fact reversing his predecessor's executive order.

    Even the director of the civil registers of Guerrero say the previous marriages were void and not legal.

    The link Allan provided in his previous post stated that the Civil Registrar in Acapulco was being obstinate–a potentially career-ending stance in a tourism-dependent city that projects itself as a wedding destination. He claims that the director of civil registrars is taking the stance that SSM is not the law in Guerrero, but he does so without citation or even naming this individual. Nor does he provide evidence that other civil registrars elsewhere have changed course and stopped marrying gay couples. This unnamed director is free to believe what he wishes, whether unicorns, bigfoot, or whatever, but the federal judiciary is closing around him and smothering his bigotry out of the system.

  • 58. allan120102  |  January 26, 2016 at 2:43 pm

    You are correct, my mistake it was the the head of the civil registry of Acapulco that warn that there is no marriage equality in the state, but at the same time there are no news of couples getting married in Guerrero and the weddings that have occur in Guerrero were in Acapulco and this Man Ricardo Martinez is the head of the registry there so he say those that occur were not valid, I have gone to a lot of lgbt news concerning Mexico and they have conflict results with Guerrero some saying there is no marriage equality there and others yes. So That is why I dont count Guerrero of having marriage equality.The news I post were the most recent coming from Guerrero and from a man holding a job in the registry so I believe what is he saying. Now that the ban on Jalisco have been struck down most news dont count Guerrero as having ssm as most ommit it and the count DF and the other states.

  • 59. scream4ever  |  January 26, 2016 at 11:57 pm

    Another source which does count Guerrero.

    Personally, I view it as similar to the Alabama fiasco. Despite what some sources claimed, I still considered it to be the 37th state with same-sex marriage. It seems Guerrero currently is in "conflict".

    Also of note, I was unaware that the city of Santiago de Queretaro has been marrying same-sex couples without the need of an amparo.

  • 60. VIRick  |  January 27, 2016 at 11:37 am

    Scream4ever, here's a complete transcript of my original posting on the subject of Querétaro and same-sex marriage, as posted here at EoT on 22 July 2015. You apparently weren't the only individual who missed this announcement, as everyone at Wikipedia did, as well:

    From Rex Wockner via Geraldina Gonzalez de la Vega:

    En Querétaro, Parejas Homosexuales ya No Necesitan Amparo para Casarse
    (In Querétaro, Gay Couples No Longer Need an Amparo to Marry)

    English translation below, in two parts:

    Querétaro, 21 Julio 2015 – En lo que va del año en el Municipio de Querétaro se han realizado 3 bodas entre personas del mismo sexo y una está por casarse, comunicó Leonel Rojo Montes, titular del Registro Civil de este municipio, explicando que en total entre el año pasado y este suman 4 bodas concretadas.

    Mientras que a este número pudiera sumarse una solicitud más que ya se encuentra en trámite, derivada de otro amparo ganado el año pasado, en este contexto indicó no conoce el amparo colectivo ganado recientemente por 50 personas que lo tramitaron a título personal.

    (Querétaro, 21 July 2015 – So far, in the city of Querétaro, three weddings between same-sex couples have already occurred, and another is about to marry, reported Leonel Rojo Montes, head of the Civil Registry of the municipality, explaining that the total between last year and this year added up to four concretized weddings.

    Besides this number, more could join the pending request, derived from another win this year, that is, from the collective amparo recently won by 50 persons, but which will be processed on a personal basis. (the Big #5, was won this year, not last year, as reported))

    Recordó que después de haber realizado un análisis de lo dictaminado recientemente por la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación; por lo menos en el Registro Civil del Ayuntamiento de Querétaro, si alguna pareja homosexual desea contraer matrimonio ya no es necesario ampararse para poder realizar la unión. ("Estas parejas) ya podrían acudir a cualquier oficina del registro civil y solicitar matrimonio."

    (The registrar stated that after performing an analysis of recent rulings by the Supreme Court of Justice; at least in the Civil Registry of the City of Querétaro, if a same-sex couple wishes to marry, it is no longer necessary for them to rely on an amparo. ("These couples) could go to any registrar's office and apply for marriage.")….

    Whoever else here knows Spanish, please double-check on my translation, as this one proved difficult. There have been 5 successful amparos granted in Querétaro, the last of which was a collective amparo covering 55 couples (not 50 persons, as reported). The article, as written, is incorrectly focusing on the number of marriages, rather than on the number of successful amparos.

    Per Wikipedia itself, amparo #5 for 55 couples was granted on 23 April 2015. Ever since, Querétaro should have been colored dark blue. The article, quoted above, says why.

  • 61. Shmoozo  |  January 21, 2016 at 4:40 pm

    Christian activist files suit aimed at revisiting top court's gay marriage ruling
    January 21st, 2016 by Andy Sher

    NASHVILLE — A day after Tennessee Republican lawmakers shot down a bill that purported to "nullify" the U.S. Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decision, former state Sen. David Fowler filed a lawsuit in state courts he believes poses a realistic challenge to the gay marriage ruling.

    "It does not deny that the Supreme Court ruled our state marriage license law invalid," Fowler, an attorney and head of the Family Action Council of Tennessee, told reporters today after filing the lawsuit against Williamson County Clerk Elaine Anderson in that county's Chancery Court.

    But the former Signal Mountain Republican said what it does do is pose legal questions he is convinced Tennessee courts need to answer since Tennessee's existing law restricting marriage to unions between a man and woman is now invalid.

    "Namely, how does anyone, regardless of the sexes of the party get a valid marriage license pursuant to an invalid law?" Fowler said.

    Fowler filed the suit on behalf of three ministers and along with two "citizen" plaintiffs Tim McCorkle and Deborah Deaver. It seeks a declaratory judgment from the court.

    "In particular," the suit says, "all Plaintiffs seek a declaration that those provisions of the Tennessee law relative to the licensing of marriages are no longer valid and enforceable since the Obergefell decision and that the continued issuance of marriage licenses under those circumstances violates their aforesaid rights under the Tennessee Constitution."

    In short, Fowler is hoping the litigation and the questions it raises will bump the case up through state courts and eventual force it into federal courts and ultimately back to the U.S. Supreme Court, narrowly and bitterly decided the Obergefell decision last year in a 5-4 ruling.

    On Wednesday, the state House's Civil Justice Subcommittee shot down a bill called the Tennessee Defense of Natural Marriage Act, which claimed to "nullify" the Supreme Court's ruling. Fowler and Rep. Mike Carter, R-Ooltewah, a member of the panel, both said that wouldn't work.

    Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Yarbro, D-Nashville, an attorney, doesn't think Fowler's line of argument will work either.

    "I think the courts will make quick work of that lawsuit," Yarbro said.

  • 62. FredDorner  |  January 23, 2016 at 7:53 am

    No court will treat that line of argument as having any merit whatsoever. Otherwise Tennessee would have been unable to license any marriages after Loving v Virginia.

  • 63. VIRick  |  January 21, 2016 at 5:42 pm

    Former Botswana President Speaks in Support of LGBT Rights

    Former Botswanan President Festus Mogae has expressed his support for LGBT rights in Africa. “While I admit that the West often push their agendas on Africa, which we must be wary of, I also believe that we must, as Africans, admit that the world is changing,” said Mogae. “This means often abandoning some of our long-held convictions about life.” Mogae defended LGBT rights advocates in Botswana who continue to campaign for the decriminalization of consensual same-sex sexual relations.

    He also specifically spoke about Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe’s anti-LGBT rhetoric, which includes an assertion he made last September during his speech to the U.N. General Assembly that people in his country “are not gays.” “President Mugabe has said that he hates homosexuals and is on record as saying they are worse than pigs and dogs,” said Mogae in the Africa Renewal interview. “That is still his position.Leadership is not always about you,” he added. “It is about people and often circumstances. I call upon African leaders to open up to second generation rights.”

    Mogae was Botswana’s president from 1998-2008. He is among the growing number of former African heads of state — former Mozambique President Joaquim Chissano and former Zambia First Lady Christine Kaseba-Sata, among others — who have publicly spoken in support of LGBT rights.

    – See more at:

  • 64. VIRick  |  January 21, 2016 at 6:14 pm

    Bucking Trend, Court Denies Anti-Gay Bias is Gender Discrimination

    A federal judge has denied sexual orientation discrimination amounts to gender bias under current law. Bucking the recent trend in the courts, a federal judge on Wednesday, 20 January 2016, dismissed claims workplace harassment based on sexual orientation violates current civil rights law.

    In the seven-page decision by US District Judge Andrea Wood, an Obama appointee, in "Igasaki v. Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulations," writes “sexual orientation is not a protected class under Title VII,” which is contrary to legal interpretations of the prohibition of gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964 which makes unlawful workplace bias based on sexual orientation. David Igasaki, a former staff attorney for the medical prosecutions unit at the Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulations, filed the lawsuit last year after he allegedly experienced anti-gay discrimination when his boss learned he was gay.

    “Thus, as alleged, Igasaki’s complaints regarding discrimination due to sex stereotyping are more accurately described as complaints about discrimination on the basis of his sexual orientation,” Wood writes. “Accordingly, Igasaki has failed to state a claim for sex discrimination and that claim is dismissed without prejudice.” Wood cites as precedent a case decided in 2000 by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, "Gary Hamner v. St. Vincent Hospital & Health Care Center," which determined anti-gay discrimination isn’t covered under Title VII.

    The state of Illinois made the case in the lawsuit that Igasaki’s lawsuit must be dismissed because sexual orientation is not a protected class under Title VII, citing precedent in the 7th Circuit. “Our arguments and the court’s order were completely controlled by the existing case law from the 7th Circuit Court,” Annie Thompson, spokesperson for Attorney-General Lisa Madigan said. “The court dismissed the case without prejudice. As a result, based on the court’s order, the plaintiff can now revise and re-file his complaint if he chooses to do so.”

    Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, said the case isn’t over, noting the judge grants Igasaki the opportunity to file a new complaint under sex stereotyping claims. Almeida also pointed out another case, "Hively vs. Ivy Tech," is pending before the 7th Circuit and could change precedent. “At oral argument, a Republican-appointed 7th Circuit Judge Ilana Rovner said ‘Why would Title VII protect the white woman married to an African-American man, but not a woman married to another woman?'” Almeida added. “That point is exactly right, and we’re hopeful that the 7th Circuit will give deference to the EEOC’s "Baldwin" ruling and join the four federal courts and counting that have recently ruled that sexual orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination already banned by the Civil Rights Act.”

    – See more at:

  • 65. VIRick  |  January 21, 2016 at 7:40 pm

    Italian Justice Minister Calls for Same-Sex Civil Unions

    In a statement made today, 21 January 2016, the Italian Justice Minister Andrea Orlando has said his country must introduce same-sex civil unions. Orlando said Italy must meet the demands of the Strasbourg courts and legally recognize the relationships of same-sex couples. He said “an intervention is necessary, it’s a fact we have to face.”

    A bill has been drafted by Premier Matteo Renzi’s government which would extend civil unions to same-sex couples. However, the bill has found staunch opposition, including from the Catholic Church, and in particular, in arguments against surrogacy, which some say will be legalized if adoption is allowed as part of the legislation.

    Renzi has said MPs should be able to vote with their conscience on the bill which has been delayed for a long time. Supporters of the bill reject suggestions that it breaches the Italian constitution.

  • 66. SethInMaryland  |  January 21, 2016 at 8:39 pm

    The bill for civil unions, introduced by Premier Matteo Renzi’s Government, will be debated on 28 January in the Senate.

    Although it faces fierce opposition in the Catholic country, it is expected to pass.

    However supporters of measures for civil unions or same-sex marriage, say they fear amendments will be added to sabotage or water down the legislation

  • 67. SethInMaryland  |  January 21, 2016 at 9:42 pm

    President Obama talked about LGBT rights with out youtube star Ingrid Nilsen. She made sure to bring up Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore.

    skip to the 5:45 mark

  • 68. DeadHead  |  January 22, 2016 at 4:40 am

    Kim Davis Is Back in Court, Defiant as Ever… Kim Davis and her lawyers took her fight to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati today, in hopes they could finally convince a judge she was within her rights when she defied another judge’s order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

  • 69. DeadHead  |  January 22, 2016 at 4:41 am

    Read the appeal filed at the 6th Circuit by Liberty Counsel on behalf of Kim Davis at

  • 70. allan120102  |  January 22, 2016 at 11:14 am

    100 couples are expect to get married on Tuesday if the full chamber of the court invalidates the ban on same sex marriage. Jalisco is the 4th most populous entity on Mexico I believe so that would really increase numbers of people that lives in state where same sex marriage occur. If they invalidate Jalisco´s ban then we know that they would do it to other bans when there turns come. I am waiting for them to invalidate Yucatan and Baja California as they have continue to ignore the court. btw this method would be easier than waiting for all state legislatures to act.

  • 71. scream4ever  |  January 22, 2016 at 12:38 pm

    I thought they were supposed to release their ruling yesterday?

  • 72. VIRick  |  January 22, 2016 at 2:24 pm

    The draft of the decision has already been written by Justice José Ramón Cossío. The Full Court held their discussion of the draft yesterday, 21 January 2016, and did not issue an immediate ruling. We now believe that their decision will be released on Tuesday, 26 January 2016.

    From what I understood from the discussion, Articles 258, 260, and 267 BIS of the Civil Code of Jalisco will be stuck down as unconstitutional, and that this decision, which apparently will be unanimous, will have immediate effect, as least for Jalisco, where same-sex marriages can then proceed, effective from the same day.

    We're less certain about their ruling in the second case, the one from Baja California.

  • 73. allan120102  |  January 22, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    Well I thought so too, but it looks like the court took yesterday to see if plaintiffs have standing. The court agree uninamously that yeah. Now on Thursday they would give the vote and the effect would be inmediately. I have read that Baja California lawsuit was not correctly done so I believe that case would be dismissed.

  • 74. VIRick  |  January 22, 2016 at 4:36 pm

    Except for the fact that Geraldina Gonzalez de la Vega noted that the case from Baja California is also before the Full Court simultaneously with the case from Jalisco, I have not seen another word concerning it. All the discussion, so far, has been focused on striking down the Jalisco ban.

    Still, given the extended assholery that has occurred in Mexicali, the Baja California ban deserves to be struck down just because.

  • 75. VIRick  |  January 22, 2016 at 3:04 pm

    Per Rex Wockner:

    México. Jalisco. SCJN. Martes. Matrimonio igualitario. Sin amparo. El fallo tendría efecto inmediato.

    Mexican Supremes are now expected to bring marriage equality to Jalisco state on Tuesday, 26 January 2016. They didn't finish up yesterday. The decision will have immediate effect.

  • 76. VIRick  |  January 22, 2016 at 3:40 pm

    La acción 28/2015 fue presentada por la CNDH contra el Congreso y el gobierno del estado, por la modificación que se hizo en abril del año pasado al artículo 260 del Código Civil, para establecer que sólo pueden contraer matrimonio en Jalisco las personas mayores de 18 años. En ese artículo se hace la referencia a la unión de “el hombre y la mujer”, la cual se repite en los artículos 258, el cual define qué es el matrimonio, y 267 BIS.

    En su defensa, los poderes Ejecutivo y Legislativo argumentaron que la reforma del año pasado se refería sólo a la edad y no al texto relacionado con el matrimonio entre un hombre y una mujer, por lo que pidieron que la acción de inconstitucionalidad se declarara improcedente.

    Los ministros resolvieron por unanimidad que con la reforma que se hizo al Código Civil “cualquiera que sea el cambio o aun no habiéndolo”, se abre la puerta a la impugnación a través de la acción de inconstitucionalidad.

    De esta forma, la corte rechazó la petición de improcedencia que hicieron los diputados locales y el gobierno de Jorge Aristóteles Sandoval Díaz.

    Además, los ministros decidieron que el próximo martes se resolverá el fondo del asunto, contenido en el proyecto de sentencia que comenzó a discutirse ayer, a partir de la página 19 y hasta la página 33. Esto se refiere a la petición que hace la CNDH para que se declare la invalidez de los tres artículos del Código Civil de Jalisco.

    En dicho proyecto se plantea la posibilidad de que los tres artículos del Código Civil sean declarados “inconstitucionales por discriminatorios”, porque contravienen lo establecido en los artículos 1 y 4 de la Constitución federal, relativo al derecho a la libre autodeterminación de las personas, el derecho al desarrollo de la libre personalidad, además de violar el principio de igualdad, pues se da un trato diferente a las parejas del mismo sexo al excluirlos de la posibilidad de contraer matrimonio.

    Como antecedente, la corte cita las jurisprudencias emitidas por la Primera Sala 43/2015 y 46/2015. La primera de éstas es la resolución que señala que todos los Códigos Civiles de los estados que establezcan que el matrimonio sólo puede ser entre un hombre y una mujer son inconstitucionales

    Hasta el momento, y sólo debido a que cuentan con un amparo, 16 parejas del mismo sexo han logrado casarse en Jalisco. Apenas en noviembre nueve parejas homosexuales recibieron un amparo colectivo para poder casarse en el estado.

    The case, 28/2015, was filed by the CNDH against the Congress and the state government, given the modification that was made in April last year to Article 260 of the Civil Code to establish that in Jalisco only those 18 and over can marry. In that Article, there is a reference to the union of "man and woman", which is repeated in Article 258, which defines what marriage is, and also in 267 BIS.

    In its defense, the executive and legislative powers argued that last year's reform only referred to the age and not to the text associated with marriage between a man and a woman, so they requested that the action of unconstitutionality be declared inadmissible.

    The Justices unanimously resolved that the reform that became the Civil Code "whatever change, or even whether they had not done so" opens the door to the challenge of unconstitutionality through this action. Thus, the court rejected the petition of inadmissibility made by the deputies and the government of Jorge Aristoteles Sandoval Diaz.

    In addition, the justices decided that next Tuesday, 26 January 2016, the merits be resolved, as contained in the draft statement that began to be discussed yesterday, from page 19 to page 33. This refers to the request made by the CNDH to declare as invalid the three articles of the Civil Code of Jalisco.

    In this project, the possibility arises that all three articles of the Civil Code are declared "unconstitutionally discriminatory" because they contravene the provisions of Articles 1 and 4 of the Federal Constitution concerning the right to self-determination of the people, and the right to the free development of personality, in addition to violating the principle of equality because different treatment is given to same-sex couples to exclude the possibility of marriage.

    As background, the court cited the jurisprudence issued by the First Chamber, 43/2015 and 46/2015. The first of these is the resolution that assertss that all civil codes of the states that establish that marriage can only be between a man and a woman are unconstitutional.

    So far, due only to having an amparo, 16 same-sex couples have married in Jalisco. This past November, 9 same-sex couples received a collective amparo to marry in the state.

  • 77. VIRick  |  January 22, 2016 at 11:56 am

    Ex-President Sarkozy No Longer Seeks Repeal of French Marriage Law

    Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy says he no longer supports a repeal of his country’s same-sex marriage law. "Le Figaro," a French newspaper, on Thursday, 21 January 2016, published excerpts of Sarkozy’s new book in which he says he has “evolved” on the issue.

    “I do no wish to legislate it again because the priority should be to bring the French people together,” Sarkozy writes, according to Le Figaro. “This is a point upon which, I assume, I have evolved.” France’s same-sex marriage law that President François Hollande signed took effect in 2013.

    Sarkozy is expected to challenge Hollande in next year’s presidential election.

    – See more at:

  • 78. guitaristbl  |  January 25, 2016 at 8:40 am

    I dont trust this slug one bit. But since I trust far right Le Pen even less and the 2nd round of the presidential elections seems to be between those 2 I have to welcome cautiously this statement.

  • 79. VIRick  |  January 22, 2016 at 12:11 pm

    Marriage Ruling Cited in Brief to Overturn California Prostitution Law

    In "Erotic Service Providers Legal, Education, and Research Project v. California," the constitutional principles cited in the US Supreme Court’s ruling last June legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide are being used to support a lawsuit seeking to overturn California’s anti-prostitution law. Lawyers representing a sex workers rights group and five of its constituents argue in a court brief filed on 15 January 2016 in the US District Court for Northern California that the high court’s marriage decision known as "Obergefell v. Hodges" supports their contention that the state’s ban on prostitution involving consenting adults violates their clients’ constitutional rights.

    “Plaintiffs commenced this lawsuit to challenge California’s intrusion upon their fundamental liberty interest in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex,” the lawyers state in their brief. “'Obergefell' continues the Supreme Court’s jurisprudential theme of shielding private, sexual relationships from governmental oversight,” the brief says. “'Obergefell' confirms that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment allows individuals to engage in intimate conduct without unwarranted governmental intrusion,” it says.

    The lawsuit, which was filed in March 2015, names as defendants California Attorney-General Kamala Harris, a longtime LGBT rights supporter; the District Attorney of the city and county of San Francisco, George Gascon; and the district attorneys of the nearby counties of Marin, Alameda and Sonoma. Each of the defendants is being sued in his or her “official capacity only,” the lawsuit says, in their role as enforcers of Section 647(b) of the California Penal Code. That section of the code, among other things, declares that every person who “solicits or who agrees to engage in or who engages in any act of prostitution” is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor under state law.

    In addition to citing the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the lawsuit says the state’s anti-prostitution statute also violates the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of association; and violates similar provisions in the California Constitution. In May, Harris, acting in her official capacity as state attorney-general, filed a motion to dismiss the case on grounds that the lawsuit fails to “state a claim as a matter of law.”

    – See more at:

  • 80. Christian0811  |  January 22, 2016 at 1:06 pm

    Imo they should've cited 'Lawrence' which is much more privacy-focused

  • 81. VIRick  |  January 22, 2016 at 2:32 pm

    Ahhh, but they did!

    The brief that O’Connor and the other lawyers filed last week also cites the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision of "Lawrence v. Texas," which struck down state laws criminalizing sodomy between consenting adults in private. The brief says the "Lawrence" decision is yet another interpretation of the constitution by the high court that can be interpreted to support the contention that anti-prostitution laws are unconstitutional.
    – See more at:

  • 82. VIRick  |  January 22, 2016 at 12:39 pm

    Minnesota: Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton Names State’s First Openly Gay Supreme Court Justice

    The Minneapolis "Star-Tribune" reports:

    Gov. Mark Dayton announced Friday, 22 January 206, that he would appoint Court of Appeals Judge Margaret H. Chutich as associate justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court. Chutich would be the first openly gay member on the state’s highest court.

    She would fill the vacancy left by Wilhelmina M. Wright, who was confirmed by the US Senate this week to the US District Court of Minnesota as the state’s first black female federal judge.

    Dayton appointed Chutich to her position as at-large judge on the Court of Appeals in 2012. She also served as assistant dean at University of Minnesota’s Humphrey School of Public Affairs, as Deputy Attorney-General of the Law Enforcement Section with the Minnesota Attorney-General’s Office, and as an assistant US Attorney for the District of Minnesota.

    Chutich follows openly gay state Supreme Court justices in Oregon, Colorado, Massachusetts, Hawaii, and Vermont.

  • 83. A_Jayne  |  January 22, 2016 at 7:54 pm

    Scottie, just saw this on The Weather Channel updates:

    "8:04 p.m. EST: Snow is falling as far south as southern Alabama, where the National Weather Service reported flurries at Mobile Regional Airport at 6:49 p.m. local time, or 7:49 p.m. EST."

    Hope you're getting better and staying safe and warm.

  • 84. VIRick  |  January 22, 2016 at 11:13 pm

    One time, during a January storm in Jacksonville FL, my car was completely encased in a solid sheet of ice, about 1/2 inch thick, all around, as the humidity in the air simply froze to anything and everything.

    Non-southerners laugh when the South is paralyzed by a trace of snow. No, the South becomes paralyzed by the encasing ice, and the cavalier attitude: "Y'all wait a day or two. No hurry. It'll melt." Besides, in the meantime, it kills off all the bugs.

  • 85. waxr  |  January 23, 2016 at 9:20 am

    Fine. I moved to Florida from southern California. Somebody should have told me that two years ago.

  • 86. Sagesse  |  January 23, 2016 at 1:28 pm

    Move to change policy plank for Canada's Conservative Party.

    LGBT Tories organizing to change party's policy on same-sex marriage

    "A group of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Tories says now is the time to drop language opposing same-sex marriage from Conservative party policy."

  • 87. allan120102  |  January 23, 2016 at 2:07 pm

    Morelos. a municipality of Morelos will become the first to start marrying same sex couples without a change to their civil code. That is because they are tired of waiting the legislative body to act. So I imagine couples throughout all of Morelos will go to marry. The change will take effect on Feb 10

  • 88. VIRick  |  January 23, 2016 at 4:34 pm

    Per "El Sol de Cuautla:"

    Cuautla es el primer municipio del estado (de Morelos) donde parejas del mismo sexo podrán contraer matrimonio este 14 de febrero. Sin necesidad de amparo, este 14 de febrero podrán parejas del mismo sexo contraer matrimonio civil, siendo Cuautla el primer municipio de Morelos en lograrlo; acto que se sustentara en la nueva Ley para Prevenir y Erradicar la Discriminación.

    Lo anterior fue informado por Andrés Salas Salgado, integrantes de la comunidad de la Diversidad y promotor de la misma, quien dijo que, tras un diálogo con el presidente municipal, Raúl Tadeo Nava, se logró su autorización para llevar a cabo las Bodas de la Diversidad. Salas Salgado dijo que para ello se tiene el apoyo del Registro Civil.

    Dijo que de acuerdo con lo que manifiesta el artículo 120 del Código Civil el matrimonio será entre un hombre y mujer, sin embargo, fue la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (SCJN) quien estableció que esto es discriminatorio, por lo cual, amparándose en el artículo primero de la Constitución Mexicana, donde dice que todos los mexicanos somos iguales ante la ley y en la nueva Ley para Prevenir y Erradicar la Discriminación que ya está en vigor y se debe de acatar, se logró el que una pareja del mismo sexo pueda contraer matrimonio civil sin la necesidad de ampararse.

    On 14 Febraury 2016, Cuautla will become the first municipality in the state (of Morelos) where same-sex couples can marry. Without the need for an amparo, from 14 February, same-sex couples can contract civil marriage, with Cuautla being the first municipality in Morelos to do so; an act that will be based on the new Law on the Prevention and Eradication of Discrimination.

    According to Andrés Salas Salgado, a community member of Diversity and a promoter of it, after a dialogue with the mayor, Raúl Tadeo Nava, authorization was obtained to conduct Weddings of Diversity. Salas Salgado said that they also have the support of the Civil Registry.

    He said that, ostensibly, according to Article 120 of the Civil Code, that marriage is to be between a man and woman. However, Mexico's Supreme Court has stated that this provision is discriminatory and therefore, relying on the first article of the Mexican Constitution, which says that all Mexicans are equal before the law, as well as on the new Law on the Prevention and Eradication of Discrimination, which is already in force and which must be followed, it becomes possible for a same-sex couple to contract civil marriage without the need to obtain an amparo.

    One also notes that, during 2015, at least 6 amparos (more than sufficient) were granted for same-sex couples to marry in Morelos, that last July the state governor Graco Ramírez submitted a proposal to the state legislature to legalize same-sex marriage in Morelos, and that by December, he was analyzing the prospects of legalizing same-sex marriage in Morelos by executive order (an order which has now been promised for issuance during the first quarter of 2016). For good measure, one further notes that the travelling judge from Colima will be on hand for the event in Cuautla on 14 February.

  • 89. allan120102  |  January 23, 2016 at 7:29 pm

    That travelling judge from Colima have really gone to a lot of western states to marry couples. I like her. 🙂

  • 90. VIRick  |  January 23, 2016 at 7:46 pm

    She's my favorite unsung heroine in the entire marriage equality saga in Mexico, having (so far) travelled from Tijuana to Cuautla, and LOTS of other places in between, seemingly marrying same-sex couples wherever she goes, of which, well over 200 have already been registered in tiny Colima alone.

    And just to give credit where credit is long overdue, we are talking about the singular efforts of the Judge of the Civil Registry of Cuauhtémoc, Colima, María del Rosario Silva.

  • 91. Zack12  |  January 23, 2016 at 3:15 pm

    O/T But I hope everyone in the path of the blizzard is staying safe!

  • 92. VIRick  |  January 23, 2016 at 6:50 pm

    Arizona: Bill to Toss Adoption Preference for Hetero Couples

    Phoenix — Democrats in the Arizona Legislature want a law which requires judges to give preferences to married heterosexual couples in adoption to be stricken from the books.

    The legislation introduced in both the Senate and House removes current language giving preferences to a husband and wife over others in adoptions. Backers say the US Supreme Court‘s decision last year legalizing same-sex marriage now bans laws giving preferences to heterosexual couple over gay couples.

    Sen. Steve Farley, D-Tucson, also said single parents shouldn’t be given second-tier status on adoptions, so the proposal completely eliminates preferences for married couples. He said single parents are just as qualified and sometimes more so to be good parents.

  • 93. VIRick  |  January 23, 2016 at 7:00 pm

    Tens of Thousands in Street Protests in Italy for Same-Sex Civil Unions

    Rome — Tens of thousands of people demonstrated Saturday, 23 January 2016, in nearly 100 cities across Italy to urge the government to permit gay and lesbian couples to have civil unions and legally-recognized families. The gay rights group Arcigay estimated that 1 million people participated in the demonstrations, calling it “an historic day for our country.”

    The Italian government has pledged to pass legislation on civil unions for same-sex couples, along with measures allowing both parents, not just the biological parent, custody in a same-sex union. Campaigners say the lack of parental recognition causes problems on a daily basis for gay parents, from simple school permission forms to health care decisions.

    Italy lags behind many of its European neighbors in conferring such rights due to strong opposition in this predominantly Roman Catholic nation. The opposition has submitted over 6,000 amendments to the proposed civil unions legislation in a bid to stop its passage. It is scheduled to be debated on Thursday, 28 January 2016, in the Senate.

  • 94. F_Young  |  January 24, 2016 at 1:46 am

    Thanks for all your work keeping us up-to-date, VIRick,

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