Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

BREAKING: Supreme Court puts transgender teen’s case challenging school bathroom ban on hold

Transgender Rights

The U.S. Supreme Court. Attribution: Jeff Kubina
The U.S. Supreme Court. Attribution: Jeff Kubina
The US Supreme Court has granted the Gloucester County School Board’s request to stay the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ mandate in GG v. Gloucester County School Board, a transgender teenager’s challenge to their policy blocking him from using the bathroom at school.

The order appears to be 5-3.

As Justice Breyer wrote a concurrence stating that he voted to grant the request to keep the status quo in place since the Court is currently in summer recess, and the three other more liberal Justices noted their dissent, it appears that the only Justices besides Breyer to vote for a stay were the four conservatives: Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy.

The fact that the stay was granted – pending the filing of a petition for review – means that the mandate will be on hold during at least the first part of the school year. It also may signal the Court’s willingness to grant review.

The order notes that if the Court were to deny full review, the stay would terminate and the mandate would be in place again, though it would remain halted were the Court to grant review. In that situation, nothing would happen until the Court hears argument and issues a final decision sometime during the October 2016 session.

UPDATE: The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) said in a press release, ““While disappointing, today’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court is just a temporary delay. Especially in light of Justice Breyer’s statement that his vote for a stay was a mere ‘courtesy’ to preserve the status quo while the Court considers whether to review the decision, this should not be taken as any sign of where a majority of the Court is leaning on the substantive question of whether Title IX protects transgender students. Across the country, courts and policymakers are recognizing that discrimination against transgender people is sex discrimination. We are confident that if and when this issue reaches the Supreme Court, the Court will affirm that recognition.””

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings


  • 1. allan120102  |  August 3, 2016 at 3:17 pm

    Bad news also coming from Indonesia as the top court will hear a case to criminalize gay sex. If they rule in favor of this group then the ruling will affect all the islands and not only the part that were subject to sharia law.,7340,L-4837142

  • 2. allan120102  |  August 3, 2016 at 4:08 pm

    Good news. bigot have been served. one of the most homophobic man in congress have lost re election bit. happy to see him gone.

  • 3. VIRick  |  August 3, 2016 at 10:12 pm

    The very influential Argentine television network, TeleSUR TV, has launched a pro-marriage-equality public-message ad campaign in an effort to obtain a wider public acceptance of same-sex marriage throughout Spanish-speaking Latin America. Some examples of their positive ad messaging:

    Sabías que Argentina fue la primera nación Latina en aprobar el matrimonio igualitario.

    You know that Argentina was the first Latin nation to approve marriage equality.

    Sabías que el 62 por ciento de los uruguayos aprueba del matrimonio homosexual.

    You know that 62% of Uruguayans approve of same-sex marriage.

    Sabías que Colombia fue el cuarto país de la región en aprobar el matrimonio igualitario.

    You know that Colombia was the fourth country in the region to approve marriage equality.

    En 2013 Brasil se convirtió en el tercer país de América Latina en aprobar una resolución a favor del casamiento igualitario.

    In 2013, Brasil became the third country in Latin America to approve a resolution in favor of marriage equality.

  • 4. allan120102  |  August 3, 2016 at 10:38 pm

    Excellent summary of what is happening in Belize. I hope we reach a good veredict so the last ban on Homosexuality falls in Central America. I feel sad to all lgbt people living in countries that ban something that is so logical. The ruling will be hand it on August 10. That means next Wednesday.

  • 5. VIRick  |  August 4, 2016 at 12:53 pm

    Call It the Isle of Men: Grooms Married in First Same-Sex Wedding

    History was made on the Isle of Man, when Luke Carine and his boyfriend, Zac Tomlinson, were officially wed Saturday, 30 July 2016, reported the BBC. Although another couple preceded them in legally converting their same-sex partnership into a marriage, Carine and Tomlinson were the first to be married since it became legal there last month.

    The Isle of Man, located nearly equidistant from England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, is what’s called a self-governing British Crown dependency, with its own laws and government. The Marriage and Civil Partnership Act that made same-sex marriage legal became effective on 22 July 2016.

  • 6. allan120102  |  August 4, 2016 at 4:28 pm

    Breaking. Chiapas to have marriage equality resolution from the supreme court between October or Novemeber. The same thing that happen in Jalisco will soon pass in Chiapas. Next in line will be Puebla.

  • 7. allan120102  |  August 4, 2016 at 4:57 pm

    Georgia closer and closer to ban ssm in its constitution sadly. Now the PM have come in favor and have assure their people that if he get a super majority in congress it will happen.
    Btw the commisions of elections have approve the referendum after bigots recollect more than the 200,000 signatures need. Now it needs the approval of the president and the PM and we see the position of the PM. So sad.

  • 8. theperchybird  |  August 4, 2016 at 9:08 pm

    Georgian Dream is alliance of parties all over the spectrum and used to have 85 seats as an alliance, but smaller parties left and it's now 48. They need 3/4 approval so that's 112 Yeses out of 150.

    Reading the description of each Parliamentary party, it seems most, even the ones labeled conservative, are pro-EU. In fact, the country's waiting with bated breath for their visa-free entry to the Schengen Area. The Venice Commission should work double time to stop this.

  • 9. JayJonson  |  August 5, 2016 at 6:04 am

    If Georgia bans ssm in their constitution, I hope that the EU will act swiftly to deny Georgia's visa-free entry to Europe and make certain that they can resign themselves to the tender mercies of Putin if they cannot provide equal rights to their lgbt citizens.

  • 10. allan120102  |  August 5, 2016 at 8:12 am

    The EU is doing nothing to stop Romania which is a member to stop the referendum to ban ssm. They did nothing when Slovakia did it so they dont care or cant do anything at all.

  • 11. montezuma58  |  August 4, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    Poor ole Roy Moore. The Clown Prince of "states' rights" gets a lesson in "states' rights." I think Alanis Morissette had a song about this a few years ago.

    "Albritton stated in his opinion that the Supreme Court of the United States has long recognized the importance that federal courts should not interfere with ongoing state court proceedings, except under very limited circumstances."

    Federal judge dismisses Roy Moore lawsuit against Judicial Inquiry Commission

  • 12. Sagesse  |  August 5, 2016 at 5:57 am

    HRC puts billboard near courthouse.

    Billboard criticizing Roy Moore placed in downtown Montgomery by gay rights group []

    Is corruption a prerequisite for elected office in Alabama, or just 'nice to have'? From the article,

    "[Mat] Staver, [Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, which represents Moore,] pointed to Moore being the top potential candidate for Alabama governor in a recent poll as proof of the judge's popularity in Alabama."

  • 13. montezuma58  |  August 5, 2016 at 12:29 pm

    The idea of Moore becoming governor is laughable. He's tried twice and failed miserably both times. He was popular with the uber conservative crowd due to his 10 Commandments shenanigans but that didn't give him much of a boost at the polls.

  • 14. 1grod  |  August 5, 2016 at 1:26 pm

    Ole Roy Moore on Aug 8 will face the Alabama Court of the Judiciary on ethics charges. AL's suspended Chief Justice is seeking dismissal of those charges at that hearing and the Judicial Inquiry Comission wants the Court to rule on its motion seeking immediate action against Moore without a trial.

  • 15. Sagesse  |  August 5, 2016 at 6:05 am

    Well, that's a relief.

    Biden unlikely to be punished over role at same-sex marriage [CathNews]

    "Princeton's Robert George called for Mr Biden's excommunication soon after Mr Biden's wedding duty was reported.

    But although the Church doesn't sanctify gay marriage and considers homosexual behaviour a sin, Mr Biden didn't actually break Church law, said Fr James Bretzke, a theologian at Boston College.

    A Catholic can only be excommunicated on "canonical grounds," he said. "It's not like voting the person off the island."

  • 16. weaverbear  |  August 5, 2016 at 1:40 pm

    What part of a civil ceremony did Mr George not get? The Vice President presided at a CIVIL ceremony and NOT a religious one. He is acting as an agent of the state and the state alone and not as an agent of the Catholic Church. This was a couple who sought a civil ceremony only and not a religious one.

  • 17. sfbob  |  August 5, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    What part of a civil ceremony did George not get? The "civil" part. Many on the religious right would prefer not to recognize civil marriages as actual marriages.

  • 18. davepCA  |  August 5, 2016 at 3:58 pm

    Yup, these folks claim to know all about marriage but they often don't even know that marriage existed as a purely secular 'business' arrangement between the families long before any religion decided to get itself involved by 'blessing' certain marriages within that religion with a symbolic religious 'wedding ceremony'. The Catholic Church felt that it had no business being involved in people's marriages until several centuries after that religion was formed. Their own records prove this.

    Of course, once they decided to do so, they then began to presume to speak from authority about what marriage was or was not, and whose marriages were 'right' or 'real' and whose were not.

    It is the equivalent of a religion deciding to ceremoniously 'bless' the opening of a new bridge, or the 'christening' of a new sailing ship, and then behaving as if they somehow have any business regulating the bridge building or ship building industries. Idiots.

  • 19. VIRick  |  August 5, 2016 at 4:52 pm

    Chilean Senate Commission Approves Trans Rights Measure

    On Wednesday, 3 August 2016, members of the Chilean Senate Human Rights Commission approved a proposal that would allow transgender adults to legally change their name and gender without going before a judge. The Senate’s Human Rights Commission voted 4-1 in favor of the proposal.

    The proposal would allow unmarried trans Chileans over the age of 18 and those who have permanent residency in the South American country to legally change their name and gender at a Civil Registry office. It is part of a broader trans rights bill that would, among other things, allow people to legally change their name and gender without undergoing sex-reassignment surgery.

    “The gender identity of each person should be determined by themselves and not by a judge,” said Luis Larraín, executive director of Fundación Iguales, a Chilean LGBT advocacy group, on Wednesday in a statement. “We celebrate that the commission has welcomed our position.”

    The trans rights bill is supported by President Michelle Bachelet.

  • 20. VIRick  |  August 5, 2016 at 5:04 pm

    A Reminder Regarding the Marriage Equality Suits Pending before Ecuador's Supreme Court

    In a tweet from Fredy Lobato on 5 August 2016, 9 hours ago:

    Cómo vuela el tiempo! Hace tres años inició la demanda por matrimonio igualitario en Ecuador que este gobierno retrógrado bloquea por todo medio.

    How time flies! Three years ago, the demand for marriage equality in Ecuador was initiated which this retrograde government blocks by any means.

    The marriage equality campaign in Ecuador was launched on 5 August 2013 when Pamela Troya filed the first suit in order to marry her same-sex partner, after being denied a marriage license by the Civil Registry in Quito.

    Ecuador does recognize same-sex civil unions, and has done so ever since its new constitution was adopted on 21 October 2008.

  • 21. allan120102  |  August 6, 2016 at 10:34 am

    Prospects of amending Mexico constittution to allow ssm does not look good as a deputy explain. Winning a majority will not be hard as Pri , PRD and other small groups will certainly vote to allow it, but to amend the constittution it needs to 2/3 of deputies to vote in favor something they dont have. They need some members of PAN and PES to vote along with them something she doesnt see it happen as PAN and Pes have already say they will vote against. Looks like their mind is set. In any case if it doesnt work we will continue to fight state by state. With the legislatures or with a supreme court order.

  • 22. allan120102  |  August 6, 2016 at 10:41 am

    Good news coming from Venezuela. Venezuela constittutional court is asking the president of the assembly and members of congress why they havent discuss the marriage bill. They state that an initiative from the people should be discussed in the session it was file or in the next one, if not they are breaking the law. The bill was file in 2014 and the supreme court state the bill should had been discussed between Sep to Dec of 2014. Though the supreme court also state if the change in its constittuion should come from a referendum approve by the people or if the legislators have the power to modify that article.

  • 23. VIRick  |  August 6, 2016 at 7:50 pm

    Venezuela: Supreme Court Questions Legislative Inaction on Marriage Equality

    On 5 August 2016, the Venezuela Supreme Court (TSJ) has issued an opinion asking the president of the legislative assembly and the members of the Venezuela Congress why they have not discussed the marriage bill legalizing same-sex marriage. The court stated that an initiative from the people should be discussed in the legislative session in which it was filed, or in the next session immediately thereafter. Furthermore, according to the court, if it is not thus discussed, then the Congress is breaking the law.

    The bill in question was originally filed as a popular initiative on 31 January 2014, and the Supreme Court stated that said bill should then have been discussed between 15 September and 15 December 2014. Still, the court will look to clarify whether the change in Venezuela's civil code should be submitted to a referendum approved by the people or whether the legislators must complete their obligation to debate the modification to Article 44 to legalize same-sex marriage.

    Currently, Venezuela is one of the few countries in the region which has not taken any steps to recognize the rights of LGBT persons.

    The names of the seven Justices of the Venezuela Supreme Court (TSJ) are: Gladys Gutiérrez (Chief Justice), Arcadio Delgado Rosales, Carmen Zuleta de Merchán (ponente), Juan José Mendoza, Calixto Ortega, Lourdes Suárez, and Luis Damiani.

    In addition to Henry Ramos Allup, the president of the legislative assembly, the following individuals have also been called upon by the Supreme Court to answer for their inaction: la fiscal general de la República, Luisa Ortega Díaz; el defensor del Pueblo, Tarek William Saab; and el procurador encargado de la República, Reinaldo Múñoz.

    Reading between the lines, and noting the similar situation which recently occurred in Colombia, whose legal system is almost identical to that of Venezuela, it would appear that the Venezuela Supreme Court is now in the process of determining that the legislative time-frame for action (as in Colombia) has already elapsed, and thus, once such determination has definitively been made, would clear the way for the Supreme Court to strike down the civil code provision whose modification has never yet been debated in the legislature.

  • 24. VIRick  |  August 6, 2016 at 8:21 pm

    For further context, here's the English-language translation of an earlier post wherein which the Venezuela Supreme Court announced its acceptance of the unconstitutionality request against Article 44 of the Venezuela Civil Code, a provision which limits marriage to one man, one woman:

    Venezuela: Supreme Court Accepts Unconstitutionality Request against Article 44

    Today, 28 April 2016, on the website of the Supreme Court is published Decision 313 of the Constitutional Court giving admission to the Request for Annulment by Unconstitutionality of Article 44 of the Civil Code that was in the hands of Justice Gladys María Gutiérrez Alvarado, President of Venezuela's highest judicial body.

    The lawsuit was filed on 29 January 2015 by AC Venezuela Igualitaria Attorney José Manuel Simons and its President, Giovanni Piermattei, and which was the subject of several accessions from social movements, NGOs, and private parties during the subsequent months seeking partial annulment of Article 44 of the Venezuelan Civil Code (as last amended in 1982), which one believes is the only legal instrument that expressly prohibits marriage between persons of the same sex and/or gender, and which would mean the definitive opening for a Law of Civil Marriage Equality.

    It should be noted that at the end of the request of this filing it clearly calls for "the declaration of the constitutionality of the right to access the institution of marriage, as well as to the stable de facto unions of couples [i.e. common-law marriage] formed by persons of the same sex and/or gender."

  • 25. VIRick  |  August 6, 2016 at 11:45 am

    Alabama Judge Who Wouldn’t Marry Gays Suspended over Sexual Messages

    An Alabama probate judge accused of sending sexually charged messages and nude photos to a woman he met when she went to his office to marry another man has agreed to a six-month unpaid suspension, his lawyer said Thursday, 4 August 2016.

    Tallapoosa County Probate Judge Leon Archer regrets his actions and cooperated fully with a probe that resulted in charges filed Wednesday, 3 August 2016, by the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission, said Randy Haynes, an attorney for Archer.

    The complaint said Archer met a woman in 2013 when she was 34 and went to the probate office to marry a 68-year-old man. Archer performed the ceremony and noted the large age difference between the two, the complaint said. In January, Archer began sending the woman sexually explicit messages and nude photos on Facebook, investigators alleged.

    The messages ended after an east Alabama newspaper, "The Alexander City Outlook," reported on them. The newspaper reported that Archer had admitted his actions at the time and apologized

    The judge, who is not a lawyer, reached a settlement with judicial investigators in which he agreed to a six-month suspension without pay, Haynes said. The suspension will begin Monday, 8 August 2016, provided the Alabama Court of the Judiciary, which hears administrative cases against judges, approves the settlement during a hearing, Haynes said.

    Archer, a Republican who took office in January 2013, is among the Alabama probate judges who quit performing marriages last year rather than allow same-sex couples to marry in his office. However, his staff does issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples.

  • 26. davepCA  |  August 6, 2016 at 3:22 pm

    HAA HAA HAA!!!! Yeah, the bigoted Alabama "judge" sure must have a lot of "respect for the sanctity of marriage"!! This is just classic.

  • 27. 1grod  |  August 8, 2016 at 11:32 am

    Dave: Tallapoosa County's Leon Archer is not one of the dozen holdouts who are not offering licenses, or offering licenses to only straights. G

  • 28. davepCA  |  August 8, 2016 at 12:57 pm

    So the article's headline and the last paragraph of the article are not correct?

  • 29. allan120102  |  August 8, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    The last paragraph is correct. Archer is not marrying the couples but his staff is issuing marriage licenses to everyone.

  • 30. VIRick  |  August 9, 2016 at 11:30 am

    Dave, like many registrars/probate judges in north Florida, and all over Alabama, once same-sex marriage had been rendered legal in those jurisdictions, "judge" Archer immediately stopped performing courthouse civil marriage ceremonies for ALL couples, lest he be deemed to be "discriminating" against any same-sex couples, in the event that any such might appear before him. In the meantime, his staff in Tallapoosa County continue to issue marriage licenses to all couples.

    Tallapoosa County is not one of the 12 Alabama counties that have completely suspended issuing all marriage licenses to everyone.

    Note: The woman who was the subject of Archer's sexual harassment was married before him in 2013, prior to the legalization of same-sex marriage, and prior to his suspension of performing courthouse civil marriage ceremonies.

  • 31. 1grod  |  August 8, 2016 at 11:23 am

    RIck, it is unlikely the Court of the Judiciary will consider Archer's case when they meet this afternoon in the Supreme Court Building to hear Roy Moore's case [Now in session] . Mr. Moore's attorneys seeks dismissal of ethics charges. Attorneys for the Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC) seek a determination without a trial. will provide live updates from today's hearing.

  • 32. 1grod  |  August 8, 2016 at 2:34 pm

    Decision expected within days:

  • 33. davepCA  |  August 8, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    I think I'm going to enjoy this…….

  • 34. VIRick  |  August 9, 2016 at 11:47 am

    Graeme, yes, the Alabama Court of the Judiciary is definitely keeping itself busy, simultaneously cleaning up several messes, what with the immediate hearing in the Roy Moore case, followed by the soon-to-be-heard matter of the newly-exposed Archer case.

    Despite the insanity of Alabama voters electing these bigots as "judges" in the first instance, at least the state has a retroactive method in place to remove/punish them.

    Still, Alabama is just that "special," isn't it? Bless their hearts.

  • 35. Rakihi  |  August 7, 2016 at 12:38 pm

    9th Circuit Court upholds dismissal of Hawai'i Marriage Equality Act challenge

    "The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Thursday the dismissal of a challenge to Hawaii’s Marriage Equality Act.

    In its opinion, the court found that Hawaii District Court Judge Susan Mollway “properly dismissed (plaintiff Kaui) Amsterdam’s action because Amsterdam’s moral and cultural objections to same-sex marriages are generalized grievances and are insufficient to confer Article III standing.”

  • 36. JayJonson  |  August 8, 2016 at 7:33 am

    OT but if anyone is interested in Olympic diving, there is an interesting blog at New Civil Rights Movement about Matthew Mitcham and Tom Daley. Daley, as you might know, is engaged to Dustin Lance Black, who won an Oscar for his screenplay of "Milk" and wrote "8," the play based on Judge Vaughn Walker's history trial about Prop 8 in federal court.

  • 37. VIRick  |  August 8, 2016 at 1:53 pm

    Uruguay: Third Anniversary of Marriage Equality

    On 7 August 2016, in celebration of the third anniversary of marriage equality in Uruguay, Uruguay's Teledoce TV (Channel 12 TV) aired a program, Cámara Testigo, featuring married same-sex couples who have lived the experience. As they phrased it:

    "Desde Agosto de 2013 rige la ley de matrimonio igualitario, que reconoce como legítimo el matrimonio civil entre personas del mismo sexo. Hablamos sobre este tema con parejas que han vivido esta experiencia."

    "Since August 2013, the marriage equality law governs, a law which recognizes as legitimate civil marriage between persons of the same sex. We talked about this with couples who have lived this experience."

    Traditionally, Uruguay has been the marriage (and divorce) capital of South America. Unlike many other Latin countries, neither party need be a resident or citizen of Uruguay in order to be married (or divorced) there.

  • 38. VIRick  |  August 8, 2016 at 5:27 pm

    North Carolina’s Other Anti-Gay Law Went to Court Today

    In "Ansley v. North Carolina," US District Judge Max Cogburn scheduled a hearing in Asheville for Monday, 8 August 2016, in part to consider a motion by the state to dismiss their lawsuit altogether. Separately, Republican legislative leaders and some magistrates also want to be added as defendants to the case, saying they don’t trust Democratic Attorney-General Roy Cooper to defend the state law.

    Roughly 5 percent of North Carolina‘s magistrates are refusing to marry same-sex couples for religious reasons, while lawyers for the state say people suing in federal court have no standing to challenge these opt-outs as unconstitutional. Three couples, two lesbian and one (inter-racial) heterosexual, (a couple who had previously been denied a marriage license in North Carolina for "religious" reasons, and who had sued the state because of it, prior to the full implementation of the "Loving" decision), say taxpayer dollars are being spent to implement the 2015 opt-out law that treats them as second-class citizens and favors one set of religious views over another. “It allows judicial officers to opt out of upholding the constitution,” said Jake Sussman, one of their attorneys. “We don’t believe that the law appropriately balanced issues of religious liberty and these constitutional obligations.”

    Now that Mississippi‘s broad religious-objection law is blocked in court, North Carolina and Utah are the only states enabling government officials to recuse themselves for religious reasons, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Alexander County Magistrate Brenda Bumgarner is among the 31 of North Carolina’s 670 magistrates who now have invoked the law. It exempts magistrates and certain workers in Register of Deeds offices from all marriage transactions, same-sex and heterosexual, for at least six months, if they fill out a religious objection form.

    In North Carolina, Registers of Deeds offices issue marriage licenses while magistrates can officiate over a civil marriage. The law provides for a chief District Court judge or county Register of Deeds, both elected officials, to carry out marriage transactions if no one else is available. Additional workers also can be brought in from adjoining counties as substitutes to fill in.

    Cogburn, an appointee of President Barack Obama, was the first judge to formally strike down North Carolina’s same-sex marriage ban in October 2014.

    Note: In a classic instance of "Been There, Done That," many years apart, this is the second time that that same inter-racial heterosexual couple has sued the state over state officials' refusal to issue marriage licenses.

  • 39. VIRick  |  August 8, 2016 at 7:01 pm

    An up-date, with additional detail, following today's hearing in "Ansley v. North Carolina" can be found here, per the "Asheville Citizen-Times:"

  • 40. Rick55845  |  August 9, 2016 at 7:44 am

    If Judge Cogburn determines that the plaintiffs don't have standing to challenge the law, as he intimated, then who would have standing? Someone must have standing to challenge what amounts to an establishment of religion. It seems like everyone is harmed by that because of the potential for a denial of constitutional guarantees, even if no one can point to a specific, particularized instance of harm.

    Edit: I haven't read the court filings, but the up-date article that VIRick posted above suggests that the plaintiffs are challenging the constitutionality of the North Carolina SB2 law on a taxpayer basis, at least. That seems to be pretty much the only way to challenge an establishment clause violation.

    However, taxpayer standing to challenge the constitutionality of laws that violate the establishment clause has been severely limited in recent years by decisions of the Supreme Court, led by the conservative members of the court.

    Some background on this, for any who may be interested:

    I have some hope that the plaintiff's standing will be upheld in this case. The state has authorized spending to pay for substitute magistrates to marry couples in counties where the magistrate and deputies have opted out on SB2 religious grounds. That is a cost to taxpayers.

    Since the state is not denying marriage licenses or marriage to any couple, same or opposite sex, only at most reducing the number of hours per week that such services are available in affected counties, and because opting out of performing same-sex marriages on religious grounds also renders the magistrate or judge ineligible to perform opposite-sex marriages, it's not clear that a Due Process or Equal Protection challenge would succeed either.

  • 41. RobW303  |  August 9, 2016 at 4:21 pm

    I hope the plaintiffs have made the point that the supposed religious objection is narrowly (i.e. prejudicially) scoped in law and transparently hypocritical on the part of the objectors, since they did not object to issuing licenses to adulterers, divorcés, atheists, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and other heterosexual offenders of their professed religious code prior to same-sex marriage being determined to be an inalienable right. It's very clear that this law was hastily passed as an end-run to exempt officials from giving licenses to same-sex couples, and those alone. If there is the least inconvenience to same-sex couples (specifically) as a result of this law, religious "accommodation" cannot stand as an excuse.

    Officials who wish to pick and choose their duties based on whom they may have to serve should be summarily dismissed.

  • 42. VIRick  |  August 9, 2016 at 5:59 pm

    One of the 3 couples who sued are an unmarried same-sex couple from McDowell County NC, the very county most effected, given the fact that ALL magistrates in that county have recused themselves on "religious" grounds, thus meaning that no magistrate is available in that county whatsoever to marry anyone. As a result, state officials from a neighboring county must be brought in at extra state expense in order to provide for a truncated marriage license session in Mc Dowell County, one day per week. In all other North Carolina counties, such marriage license service is available the normal 5 days per week.

    There are grounds for complaint, given the extra state expense (read taxpayer expense), as well as given the discriminatorily truncated hours of service.

    McDowell County NC straddles I-40, the next county immediately east of Asheville. Its county seat is Marion NC. Officials have had to be brought in from Rutherford County, the next county directly south of McDowell County, in order to provide for the truncated service.

    OK, now that I've just written this, I am suddenly wondering whether Rutherford County may also be adversely affected by its having to "share" its officials with McDowell County, given the distinct possibility that marriage service there may only be available 4 days a week.

  • 43. allan120102  |  August 8, 2016 at 8:22 pm

    Looks like Baja California nor Colima are recognizing a marriage that judge juez María del Rosario Silva officiate saying that nor an amparo was granted to the couple nor same sex marriage was legal at the time in Colima when the marriage occur. What is worrisome is that the civil registry might not valid the marriages that judge Maria Silva officiate before ssm was legalize in Colima without amparos.

    Tijuana.- Veronica Ibarra and Karina Tejada were married in Tijuana on 11 September 2015, in front of a judge of the Civil Registry of Cuauhtémoc, Colima, so lacks official validity. In spite of this, they allege that they were refused to register the small René by discrimination, who was born on the basis of a insemination.

    The Civil Registry of the delegation of the Bureau denied having the surname of both because the act of marriage of Colima is invalid, both in Baja California to that State, and although claims to have a certification of the act, the director of the Civil Registry, Arturo Gonzalez, reported to the official 02, Silvia Angelica Garcia, that is not in the official book of Colima; without its approval, the minutes do not formalizes the union.

    It was a collective wedding which was convened by the PRD in Baja California, where participated five couples of the same sex, including Veronica and Karina; the difference with a formal wedding in Tijuana is that was with the judge Maria del Rosario Silva, Colima, reportedly backed by the exalcaldesa until 2015, Indira Vizcaã No, or at least so declared that day the leader of the PRD, Abraham Correa.

    "Five pairs of persons of the same sex have decided to marry, civil marriage, decision taken and that the Commission on sexual diversity has supported, to establish this marriage in Tijuana with the presence of the judge of the Civil Registry of Cuauhtémoc, Colima, with the support of the municipal president of beyond, Indira Vizcaã No, which is very young, that does not exceed the 25 years, and has been very successful and has won the battle in Colima by persons of the same sex to enter into marriage, and with this we excited that allow us to be with these couples," said on that day the belt.

    In Baja California, the only way for two people of the same sex to enter into marriage before the authority is through the promotion of an amparo, these couples did not do so in 2015.

    On 25 April this year, Karina Tejada conceived to a baby in the hospital 1 of the IMSS in Tijuana, hence the registered under the name of René Tejada Ibarra. Fifteen days after attended the civil registration with the journal 02, who has had to reject the request for a record homoparental.

    The journal 02 of the Civil Registry of the delegation of the Bureau replied that it was denied the right to a birth certificate to the small René, much less that he has been discriminated against and seek leave without legal document to the small, because it is part of their human rights, only that when it sought registration of your marriage in the municipality of Cuauhtémoc, nor in Colima nor in Baja California you have official validity of the act.

    "Returned (Veronica) and brought the legalization of the Act on the part of the Secretariat of the Government, I go back to communicate to Colima, and the director of the Civil Registry, Arturo González, I said 'I am not going to certify this Act', which leaves me unable to accept the act because it has no support. Is what I do know and, for the purposes of not to leave without registration to girl, I say 'regístrala and then we see the legal situation for you to put your affiliation of pair', in that we walk," replied the official 02, Silvia Angelica Garcia.

  • 44. VIRick  |  August 9, 2016 at 1:03 pm

    Baja California: More Marriage Recognition Obfuscation

    This article of 3 August 2016, from "El Sol de Tijuana," is entirely written from the point of view of several obfuscating officials from Baja California who refuse to understand the present governing law in Mexico.

    According to the very important 2011 judicial reforms, once a given Mexican state has hit or exceeded 5 amparos, judicially-granted on the same matter, and written in the same language, the offending portion of the state civil code is then set aside and rendered inoperative. In this instance, the offending portion(s) are those article(s) in the civil code which limit marriage to one man, one woman. That is why we're even bothering to keep count of the number of amparos granted on the subject of same-sex marriage, state by state, in Mexico.

    Tiny Colima state was the very first Mexican state to hit, and then exceed, 5 amparos granted, thus overturning the state's civil code marriage limitation. Baja California state also hit the required number of amparos fairly early into this process, a point which also rendered Baja California's marriage limitation to be held in abeyance from that moment on, a fact which seems not to be understood by certain officials in Baja California who continued to push to appeal (when it was still possible to do so) absolutely every amparo decision granted in the state.

    Something over 300 amparos have been granted in Colima state, most by the very person in question, María del Rosario Silva, judge of the Civil Registry of Cuauhtémoc, Colima, the so-called "travelling judge from Colima," and one of the most important unsung heroes of the marriage equality movement in Mexico.

    Judge Silva had the 5 couples in question travel to Colima where she then proceeded to grant each an amparo in order for them to marry, and did so well after Colima had already exceeded 5 amparos granted to other same-sex couples for the same purpose. However, in this instance, rather than be married before the mayor of Cuauhtémoc, Indira Vizcaíno, as was the usual practice, the 5 couples in question returned to Tijuana, along with Judge Silva, who subsequently married all 5 couples in a mass civil ceremony in Tijuana, the first same-sex marriages performed in Tijuana (without a locally-granted amparo), in a public act which occurred on 11 September 2015, just days after amparo #5 had been granted in Baja California to another couple. Judge Silva then subsequently registered said marriages with the Civil Registry in Tijuana.

    So now, state officials in Baja California are refusing to issue a birth certificate to the baby born to one of these 5 couples by artificial insemination, a birth certificate which would show the names of both as parents. These same officials are attempting to claim that certain of Judge Silva's actions are "invalid;" however, officials in Colima (and the judge herself) have not said a word,– yet. Thus, the opposing point of view has not been expressed.

  • 45. VIRick  |  August 9, 2016 at 2:06 pm

    Mass March for Marriage Equality in Toluca, Edomex

    Per Rex Wockner, Ricardo Baruch, Por La Igualdad, Diversity Mx, Matrimonio Igualitario, and Morelos Sin Discrimina, among others:

    Multiple proponents for marriage equality are preparing for a mass march for marriage equality in Toluca, the capital city of Estado de Mexico (Edomex), to be held there on Saturday, 13 August 2016, commencing from 10:00 AM.

  • 46. VIRick  |  August 9, 2016 at 2:34 pm

    Roy Moore to Go to Trial over Anti-Gay Order

    Montgomery AL – On Monday, 8 August 2016, a state judicial panel refused to dismiss an ethics complaint against Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, saying that Moore will go to trial in September on accusations that he urged 68 probate judges to defy the federal courts on same-sex marriage.

    The Alabama Court of the Judiciary, a state panel that disciplines judges, refused dueling requests to either dismiss the complaint against Moore outright or go ahead and remove him from office. Chief Judge Michael Joiner said the case will go to trial on 28 September. The panel of nine judges will hear the case and decide whether Moore violated judicial ethics, and if so, what punishment he will face.

    The decision came down shortly after the conclusion of a 60-minute hearing in which Moore was alternately portrayed as a politician on a mission to block gay couples from marrying in Alabama or a judge who was merely trying answer questions from confused probate judges. Moore, who was ousted from office by the court in 2003 for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building, could be removed as chief justice for a second time.

    “We are here to talk about Chief Justice Roy Moore and his repeated refusal to follow the rule of law,” John Carroll, a former federal magistrate representing the Judicial Inquiry Commission, told the court. Carroll said Moore abused his power as chief justice to promote a private agenda against same-sex marriage.

    The complaint stems from a 6 January 2016 memo he sent probate judges. In it, Moore wrote that a March 2015 order from the state Supreme Court to refuse marriage licenses to same-sex couples remained in full force and effect. The order came even though the US Supreme Court had effectively legalized same-sex marriage nationwide six months prior, and a federal judge said Alabama should follow that decision.

  • 47. Sagesse  |  August 9, 2016 at 2:38 pm

    it will be interesting to see if the court gives any credence to his 'oh, but I was just offering clarification' routine.

  • 48. fatihin  |  April 4, 2017 at 3:14 am

    undangan pernikahan kalender
    undangan pernikahan bahasa inggris islam
    undangan pernikahan islami
    undangan pernikahan unik dan murah
    undangan pernikahan modern
    undangan pernikahan online
    undangan pernikahan
    undangan pernikahan amplop surat
    undangan pernikahan simple
    undangan pernikahan murah
    undangan pernikahan unik
    undangan pernikahan artis
    undangan pernikahan modern
    undangan pernikahan artis
    undangan pernikahan arab
    undangan pernikahan
    undangan pernikahan
    Masker kefir<a/>
    masker kefir murni<a/>
    jual masker kefir<a/>

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