Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Supreme Court takes no action in transgender teen’s case

LGBT Legal Cases Transgender Rights

The U.S. Supreme Court. Attribution: Jeff Kubina
The U.S. Supreme Court. Attribution: Jeff Kubina
This morning, the Supreme Court released orders from its private conference last week, in which, among other cases, it reviewed whether to take up Gloucester County School Board v. GG. That case involves a transgender teenager who is seeking to use the restroom at his school.

The Court took no action in the case, which is not unexpected. They’ve tended to look at some cases more than once before deciding to grant or deny. The case will likely be rescheduled for the next conference, on October 28. There’s no time limit for the Court to make its decision, though the school year started months ago.

If the case is denied, the stay will dissolve and the order in favor of the student will go into effect, allowing him to use the school restroom.


  • 1. F_Young  |  October 17, 2016 at 10:04 am

    USA: The most important gay rights case since marriage equality was won

    Americans enjoy a fundamental right to marry, regardless of whether they are straight, bisexual, or gay. Yet, in more than half of the states, “a person can be married on Saturday and then fired on Monday for just that act,” as one federal court explained in a recent opinion.

    There is no federal law that explicitly protects workers from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Moreover, while there are very strong arguments that existing protections against gender discrimination are broad enough to protect sexual minorities in the workplace, the courts have largely rejected these arguments. As a result, if you live in one of the 28 states that does not forbid discrimination against gay and bisexual workers, you can be fired because of the person you love.

    A federal appeals court appears poised to change that, however, at least in the three states overseen by that court. And should the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit hold, in a case known as Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, that current law already protects workers who are attracted to members of the same sex, the case would likely be on the fast track to the Supreme Court.

    Hively, or a similar case, could transform the nation’s LGBT rights landscape no less than the Court’s marriage equality decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. And there are strong signs that the Seventh Circuit is prepared to rule in favor of workplace equality.

    Read more:

  • 2. scream4ever  |  October 17, 2016 at 11:13 am

    A positive ruling from the Supreme Court would essentially make the Equality Act (or at least the ENDA portion of it) redundant.

  • 3. FredDorner  |  October 17, 2016 at 1:16 pm

    Note that there's a big difference in practical effect between a judicial review standard and a statute which requires equal treatment, so ENDA is definitely necessary.

  • 4. ebohlman  |  October 17, 2016 at 5:30 pm

    Actually, Hively is a statutory interpretation case, not a 5th or 14th Amendment case. If there's a positive ruling from the SCOTUS, it would mean that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has, all along, contained the protections required to provide equal treatment but they (erroneously) just haven't been enforced in the past.

  • 5. FredDorner  |  October 17, 2016 at 1:14 pm

    The Ivy Tech case in the 7th Circuit is comparable to the "High Tech Gays v Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office" case in the 9th, an adverse precedent which was effectively reversed in 2014 by the appellate review of the gay juror exclusion in the "Smithkline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories" case. The SCOTUS appeal of that ruling was denied cert.
    So sexual orientation is due heightened scrutiny in the 9th circuit today, thanks ultimately to the Windsor v US ruling. I'd fully expect the more enlightened circuits (like the 7th) to follow suit. The 5th and the 11th will be dead last on this issue unless SCOTUS hears a relevant appeal……but as long as the appellate courts keep ruling the right way they won't need to do that.

  • 6. VIRick  |  October 17, 2016 at 2:05 pm

    The appellate ruling in the "Smithkline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories" case in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was also the basis for their overturning the negative ruling in the marriage case from Nevada (which in the interim, and as a direct result of "Smithkline," the state had summarily ceased defending), in their denying appellate review of the Idaho marriage case, in their denying appellate review of the Alaska marriage case, as well as in their denying en banc review of these latter two, Idaho and Alaska.

  • 7. allan120102  |  October 17, 2016 at 3:03 pm

    I disagree. Actually the 11th circuit is cover by more democratic appointees than republicans. IMO the 5TH and the 8th would be the last ones.

  • 8. VIRick  |  October 17, 2016 at 1:28 pm

    "And there are strong signs that the Seventh Circuit is prepared to rule in favor of workplace equality."

    Indeed. If that were not true, then the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals never would have granted the petition to re-hear the case in an en banc review. I recently read on SCOTUSblog that the granting of en banc reviews are so rare that such reviews average only slightly above one case per year per circuit (or about 15 or 16 cases per year, all circuit courts taken together).

    But the next question is trickier. Will Indiana then appeal? And can it? Are en banc decisions even appeallable? And/or does that Indiana community college even have the actual authority to appeal the decision on its own? So, can it? Or would it?

    At the moment, most of these are impossible questions to answer. Most likely, by the time the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals finalizes its ruling, there could well be an entire regime change within the state government of Indiana (and thus, an entirely different attitude toward equality within state government) . Pence will no longer be governor, as he's not running for re-election (however, we could have guaranteed that HE would have appealed the case, as he certainly went nuts appealing anything and everything regarding the multiple Indiana marriage equality cases two years ago,– and then topped it off by signing that discriminatory RFRA legislation as a last-ditch effort to stave off what he considered to be all the "dire" consequences of ushering in a modicum of true equality in Indiana). But it will be up to the next governor and/or Attorney-General to decide what to do,– and the election to determine those positions is still three weeks away.

    But in addition, from SCOTUSblog, it is my understanding that (the rare) decisions rendered by en banc reviews by the various appeals courts, overturning previous precedent within that circuit, are deemed to be final, binding decisions, and thus, are not appeallable to SCOTUS.

  • 9. VIRick  |  October 17, 2016 at 3:37 pm

    Just for the record, Ivy Tech Community College, operates in 32 separate degree-issuing locations, scattered all over the state of Indiana. The campus in South Bend is the one which happens to be the defendant in this particular case, but without autonomy, is part and parcel to the entire 32-campus system. Ivy Tech was founded in 1963 as the Indiana Vocational Technical College, and currently, with 170,000 students, claims to be the largest singly-accredited statewide community college system in the entire country.

    In addition to South Bend, Ivy Tech has additional campuses in East Chicago, Gary, Michigan City, Valparaiso, Warsaw, Elkhart, Fort Wayne, Wabash, Logansport, Marion, Kokomo, Lafayette, Crawfordsville, Noblesville, Anderson, Muncie, Richmond, Henry County, Connersville, Downtown Indianapolis, Greencastle, Terre Haute, Bloomington, Franklin, Columbus, Batesville, Lawrenceburg, Madison, Sellersburg, Tell City, and Evansville. In offers two-year associate degrees in a variety of health, tech, and service fields.

  • 10. TheVirginian722  |  October 17, 2016 at 6:06 pm

    And presiding over the Ivy Tech empire is one Sue Ellspermann, who was installed in the job earlier this year. She pulls down a nice $300,000 annual salary plus $100,000 bonus.

    To accept her new position, she had to resign as Mike Pence's Lieutenant Governor. Pence selected her as his 2012 running-mate after she had served just a single two-year term in the Indiana House of Representatives. During that term, she had quickly become the point person for extremist views on social issues, so it is no surprise that Pence would recruit her to run with him in 2012 and to take over Ivy Tech in 2016.

  • 11. VIRick  |  October 17, 2016 at 7:22 pm

    OK, so we need to add at least one more factor into the mix. Will Sue Ellspermann still be the presiding officer in charge of Ivy Tech when the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals finally issues its en banc ruling in "Hively v. Ivy Tech," or will she have been replaced by the new governor of Indiana with someone who is less extreme in their social views?

    It is entirely possible that there could soon be a thorough regime change in Indiana, and that, as a result, Sue Ellspermann may suddenly be more concerned about her office door hitting her in the a$$ on her way out, well before any court ruling is announced.

  • 12. TheVirginian722  |  October 18, 2016 at 2:05 am

    Sue Ellspermann was hired by Ivy Tech's 14-member Board of Trustees, all of whom were appointed by Governor Pence. There was press speculation that Pence wasn't all that sorry to see her leave her post as Lieutenant Governor and that she had even expressed some misgivings about the way Pence handled his "Religious Freedom Act" debacle in 2015.

    The Board of Trustees wasted $120,000 hiring a firm to scour the nation in search of the perfect candidate for Ivy Tech's presidency. Wonder of wonders, the ideal choice was sitting right there under the dome in Indianapolis! Pence wrote a glowing endorsement letter to the trustees in support of Ellspermann's bid for the job.

    As to what a future Governor Gregg would be able to do, he would be able to appoint new trustees as the old ones' terms expire. (The trustees are appointed for terms of three years with several appointments made each year.) Because the university did not divulge the complete content of Ellspermann's employment contract, we can't know what guarantees were made to her. She made $88,000 as Lieutenant Governor compared to $400,000 as Ivy Tech President. And the school has a long history of hiring politicians to lucrative administrative positions.

    Of the students who enroll in two-year Associates degree programs, only 5% actually earn a degree within two years, one of the worst completion records in the United States. Indiana taxpayers, who pick up 50% of the tab to run this sorry institution, will be judging Sue by her success in improving these statistics. Any time wasted persecuting LGBT students or faculty will only retard her ability to accomplish that and retain her big-bucks gig.


  • 13. sfbob  |  October 17, 2016 at 5:29 pm

    I don't believe you're right about en banc cases Rick. In several of the marriage equality cases the losers (the anti-equality folks in all instances) either discussed or requested an en banc hearing. None were granted. But they would surely have not even attempted this step if losing would have foreclosed the possibility of going to SCOTUS. It would have been such a foolish move that not even Liberty Counsel would have gone that route.
    To the extent I can find anything pertinent it appears that federal court rules treat the results of an en banc appeal just as they would treat any other appeal.

  • 14. bayareajohn  |  October 17, 2016 at 6:00 pm

    +1 on the appealability of en banc decisions. "SUPREME" court doesn't just mean court with sour cream and tomato.

  • 15. VIRick  |  October 17, 2016 at 7:46 pm

    Bob, in reviewing my earlier post, you appear to be correct,– I am mixing apples with oranges. But the original article, as cited by F_Young, was jumping ahead, too far, too fast, invoking a possible Supreme Court ruling. We're not there yet,– if ever. Plus, en banc reviews are so rare that, admittedly, I do not have a good grounding on the full procedure.

    So, for the moment, let me simply stick with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. That court has granted an en banc review so that (presumably) they can rule in favor of the plaintiff, thus overturning the previous precedent already well-established within that circuit. As per Judge Rovner, the judge who wrote the 3-judge panel decision in "Hively v. Ivy Tech" in July, 3-judge panels must follow circuit precedent. Established circuit precedent can only be overturned with finality (and that's where the word "finality" properly belongs) by one of two means:

    1. By an en banc review on the part of all the active judges within said circuit (senior judges being excluded), duly overturning the previous out-dated precedent (for that circuit).

    2. By a Supreme Court ruling overturning the previous precedent (for all circuits not already in accord).

    Since Judge Rovner recommended the first approach, so as to effectively overturn the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals' out-dated precedent, the plaintiff's attorneys have dutifully followed her recommendation. Obviously, Judge Rovner is most concerned with the 7th Circuit Court and its precedent.

    No mention was made of the Supreme Court. That might come about later, but for the moment, that's not the immediate focus of the current appeal. Nor, for that matter, was there any mention made of sour cream, nor of tomatoes. However, there's always the outside possibility that Posner may again gleefully invoke the parable of the "slowly-boiled frog."

  • 16. Charapinta  |  October 17, 2016 at 6:08 pm

    According to la Jornada, the civil registry of Queretaro erased the records of five same sex marriages.

  • 17. VIRick  |  October 17, 2016 at 9:39 pm

    On the issue of same-sex marriage, we need to remember that the state and city of Querétaro have been in a state of flux for some time. Within Ciudad Querétaro (otherwise known as Santiago de Querétaro, the state capital), same-sex couples have been able to register their marriages for the last several years,– within most districts,– without the need of first obtaining an amparo granting them permission to marry. However, this decision has been based solely on the authority of the city's civil registrar, citing the non-discrimination clause in Mexico's Federal Constitution. Apparently, one or more of his deputies in certain districts (or perhaps someone at the state level) have not been in accord with this decision, and have been attempting to undermine it.

    One such couple whose names were struck from the register (after the fact) have filed a complaint with Miguel Nava Alvarado, presidente de la Defensoría de los Derechos Humanos en Querétaro (DDHQ). Upon investigation, he discovered 4 more such instances. So far, he has demanded that all 5 instances be re-integrated back into the data base.

    In general, in Mexico, one does not want to piss off the DDHH, as they have the power to carry such citizens' complaints all the way to the Supreme Court. Recently, as a polite preliminary warning, Nava Alvarado held a meeting with all the deputy registrars, re-emphasizing and clarifying their duties for them.

    In searching for any/all up-dated details, I note that Rex Wockner has elevated the city of San Pedro Cholula in Puebla state as another example, like Santiago de Querétaro, wherein which the city's civil registrar has unilaterally dispensed with the requirement of making same-sex couples first obtain an amparo before their civil marriage is recorded (never mind that neither state, Querétaro nor Puebla, have changed their state's marriage codes to allow same-sex couples to marry). However, both states have already surpassed the 5-amparo limitation on the marriage ban, so both cities' civil registrars are perfectly free to enact this change on their own.

    Here's Rex Wockner's complete list (one with which I am in full accord), indicating that all of, or portions of, 13 separate jurisdictions (of 32) now have marriage equality:

    • Campeche (legislative)
    • Chihuahua (administrative)
    • Coahuila (legislative)
    • Colima (legislative)
    • Guerrero (administrative; may not be statewide)
    • Jalisco (SCJN ruling)
    • Michoacán (legislative)
    • Morelos (legislative)
    • Nayarit (legislative)
    • Quintana Roo (administrative)
    • Mexico City (Distrito Federal) (legislative)
    • There are also cities that have stopped enforcing their state's ban:
    Santiago de Querétaro, capital of Querétaro state
    San Pedro Cholula in Puebla state.

  • 18. F_Young  |  October 18, 2016 at 10:52 am

    USA: The defense bill’s anti-LGBT poison pill

    …..Earlier this year, Rep. Steve Russell (R-Okla.) successfully offered, late at night and with very limited debate, an amendment that would require every federal agency to allow religiously affiliated contractors and grantees (including large institutions like hospitals and universities) to discriminate in hiring with taxpayer funds.

    …..Now, according to press reports, the Russell Amendment is one of just a handful of issues that is preventing a final agreement on the defense bill.

    Read more:

  • 19. VIRick  |  October 18, 2016 at 3:49 pm

    Mexico: Guanajuato: Now at 23 Same-Sex Marriages and Counting

    Guanajuato, Gto.- Desde el 2014 y hasta la fecha, en el estado de Guanajuato se han casado 23 parejas del mismo sexo y está próxima a celebrarse la boda número 24 con una pareja de capitalinas, señaló el secretario de Gobierno, Antonio Salvador García López.

    Señaló que a través de la Dirección General del Registro Civil se atiende a cualquier pareja del mismo sexo que quiera contraer matrimonio si es que tienen un amparo a su favor.

    Guanajuato, Gto.- In the state of Guanajuato, from 2014 to today's date, there have been 23 same-sex couples who have married, and the next marriage to be held, number 24, will be between a female couple from the state's capital, said Secretary of Government, Antonio Salvador García López.

    He also noted that any same-sex couple who wants to marry in Guanajuato can do so through the Directorate General of the Civil Registry, if they have been granted an injunction in their favor.

    NOTE: Just two months ago, in mid-August, amparo #10 in Guanajuato state had recently been granted to a same-sex couple (in Salamanca) so that they could marry. So, despite the disclaimer in this news article to the contrary, there has been a rapid increase in the number of same-sex couples being granted amparos in Guanajuato by the federal judiciary, in effect, suddenly more than doubling the total number issued since the first such was granted in Guanajuato state in September 2013, over three years ago (to a female couple who then married in March 2014). Viewed slightly differently, in our count, it took almost 3 years to reach amparo #10, but only two additional months to arrive at amparo #24.

  • 20. VIRick  |  October 18, 2016 at 9:08 pm

    Mississippi: Federal Court Up-Date on HB 1523

    Per Equality Case Files:

    On 17 October 2016, in "Alford v. Moulder," the ACLU's federal challenge to Mississippi's discriminatory, anti-LGBT law, HB 1523, Judge Reeves has granted a defense motion to put this case on hold while the state appeals the preliminary injunction already issued in "Barber v. Bryant," the other case challenging HB 1523. The preliminary injunction in "Barber" remains in place, thus keeping HB1523 from going into effect.

    The Order granting the stay is linked here:

  • 21. VIRick  |  October 18, 2016 at 9:34 pm

    North Carolina: HB2 U, Pat

    North Carolina's anti-gay governor was trolled on his birthday, 17 October 2016, with a full-page newspaper ad.

    Gov. Pat McCrory is having a hard time finding friends these days, as he recently told a room full of anti-LGBTQ pastors just hours before deadly Hurricane Matthew hit North Carolina. McCrory, it just so happens, allowed a bill to go through in August moving $500,000 from disaster relief to a defense fund of the discriminatory bill he signed into law, HB2, which nullified all non-discrimination ordinances in the state, doing away with LGBTQ protections.

    The bill has cost the state millions of dollars and thousands of jobs. It could likely cause him to lose his own job November, as his opponent, Attorney-General Roy Cooper, has begun to open up a lead according to polls.

    A group calling itself "Writers for a Progressive North Carolina" wants to make sure everyone remembers the damage that McCrory has done to the state, even if it is his birthday, and people might be tempted to be nice to him for a change. The group purchased a full-page newspaper ad in today’s Charlotte "News & Observer" with a headline reading, “HB2 U, PAT” and a picture of a rainbow layer cake with a single candle on top.

  • 22. VIRick  |  October 18, 2016 at 9:46 pm

    Wyoming and Matthew Shepard's Mother, Judy Shepard

    We can add an iconic voice of the LGBT rights movement to the chorus denouncing the increasingly reviled Republican candidate. Judy Shepard, mother of anti-gay hate crime victim, Matthew Shepard, appears in a new ad denouncing Trump’s hate-filled rhetoric.

    “I’ve seen what can happen as the result of hate,” Shepard says in the ad released by pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA. “When I see the hate that Donald Trump has brought to his campaign for president, it terrifies me,” she continues between the now familiar clips of Trump mocking a disabled reporter, attempting to discredit a federal judge because of his Mexican heritage, and using violent language at his rallies.

    Shepard knows what she’s talking about when it comes to the devastating impact of hate speech. She and husband Dennis were propelled to the forefront of the fight against homophobia when their son Matthew was brutally beaten and left for dead in the middle of nowhere in Wyoming in an act of anti-gay violence. And while the Priorities USA ad doesn’t directly address any of the Trump-Pence campaign’s positions on LGBT issues, it draws a clear parallel between Trump’s hateful statements about minorities and the disabled, not to mention his literal calls for violence against protestors, and the ways that homophobic rhetoric can inspire acts of violence against the LGBT community.

    “Words have an influence. Violence causes pain. Hate can rip us apart,” Shepard explains. “I know what can happen as a result of hate, and Donald Trump should never be our president.”

  • 23. allan120102  |  October 19, 2016 at 4:14 pm

    Three more Alabama counties are issuing same sex licenses to ss couples. Those are Marengo, Bibb and Coosa. Coosa have finally start issuing licenses supposedly to lgbt couples after months and months of lying about not having the paperwork ready. They are still sadly 9 counties were same sex and straight cannot married. Those are Elmore, Washignton, Autauga , Geneva, Pike,Clarke,Covington,Chocktaw and Cleburne. I hope they find plaintiffs so they can sue the the hell out of this judges.

  • 24. VIRick  |  October 20, 2016 at 3:52 pm

    Alabama: Up-Date on Marriage License Issuance by County

    In early January 2016, prior to Roy Moore's "Orders," it was reported that there were 9 unrepentant Alabama counties which had not issued any marriage licenses to anyone since shortly after the Obergefell decision. Those counties were:


    In the immediate aftermath of Roy Moore's issuance of his "Administrative Order" of 6 January 2016, these additional counties also suddenly stopped issuing marriage licenses to all comers:

    •Crenshaw (temporarily)
    •Lamar (temporarily)
    •Walker (temporarily)

    By 20 January 2016, it was reported that these 13 counties had closed their marriage license offices entirely, and were refusing to issue licenses to any couple, LGBT or straight. Those 13 counties were:


    As of the most-recent report on 19 October 2016, there were still 9 Alabama counties refusing to issue marriage licenses to anyone:


    This would presumably indicate that Bibb, Chambers, Coosa, and Marengo counties have re-instated their marriage licensing at some point within the past number of months. Still, we also need to remember that we've been dealing with a set of probate judges here who have been less than totally forthcoming in publicly expressing their intransigence.

  • 25. theperchybird  |  October 19, 2016 at 11:09 pm

    Gibraltar's marriage bill is slated for a debate/vote today (20th), but could still be moved if the previous items on the agenda aren't discussed in time. I'll keep you all posted.

  • 26. scream4ever  |  October 20, 2016 at 10:10 am

    Australia's Marriage Plebiscite has passed the House of Representatives. It now heads to the Senate, where it's expected to be voted down, as 40 Senators (out of 76 total) have already vowed. Whatever happens next will certainly be interesting:

  • 27. allan120102  |  October 20, 2016 at 10:43 am

    Things are getting heat in Central America. First lgbt groups are pushing a bill for ss couples to get married in CR were bigot legislators are stalling the issue of it being discussed. Then an action on unconstitutionality was filed against El Salvador civil code to declare the ban on ssm unconstitutional. Now its the turn of Panama were a same sex couple that married in UK filed an action of unconstitutionality against the civil code of that country so there marriage can be recognize. Even if we dont win any of those actions are being done. Once the first ban in Central America falls,I can assure you the others will follow,even though it will take time.

  • 28. VIRick  |  October 20, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    Concern Arises at the Possibility Over Marriage Equality Being Recognized in Panamá

    Surge Preocupación ante Recurso para que se Reconozca el Matrimonio Igualitario en Panamá

    Corina Cano, abogado de familia, manifestó este jueves, 20 de octubre 2016, su preocupación ante una advertencia de inconstitucionalidad presentada ante la Corte Suprema de Justicia (CSJ), contra el Artículo 26 del Código de la Familia, que establece el matrimonio entre un hombre y una mujer, con el objetivo de que se reconozca el matrimonio igualitario entre personas del mismo sexo en Panamá.

    “Tenemos conocimiento de que las personas que están interponiendo este tipo de procesos se casaron en Reino Unido y que realmente tiene la intención de buscar la inconstitucionalidad de este Artículo 26 para poder que se le reconozca el tema del matrimonio igualitario," manifestó.

    On Thursday, 20 October 2016, Corina Cano, family lawyer, expressed her concern toward an action of unconstitutionality already filed before the Supreme Court (CSJ) directed against Article 26 of the Family Code, which establishes marriage between a man and a woman, with the over-all objective of recognizing same-sex marriage in Panamá.

    "We have learned that the persons who filed this type of process were married in the UK, and that they really intend to seek the unconstitutionality of this Article 26 so as to recognize marriage equality," she stated.

    This news article, written from the point of view of the opposition, still carries the gist of the information that an action of unconstitutionality has already been filed with the Supreme Court of Panamá against Article 26 of Panamá's Family Code.

    I have always enjoyed the fact that the word in both Spanish and Portuguese used to express the concept of "worry" or "concern" happens to be "preocupación/preocupação," which looks exactly like "pre-occupation," given that the hard-core opposition is definitely quite pre-occupied inventing lots of "dire" consequences over their own imagined "sky-is-falling" agenda.

    And yes, in addition now to Panamá, an action of unconstitutionality was also filed on 17 August 2016 in El Salvador against that country's Article 11 of its Family Code, as well as against Article 32 of the Constitution of the Republic.

  • 29. allan120102  |  October 20, 2016 at 3:02 pm

    Decision on marriage equality expected next week in Romania. If the court rules in our favor which I doubt as many other more liberal courts have not, Then Romania will be the first eastern European to have marriage equality. I am doubtful of a favoring ruling as not even a central european country have marriage equality.

  • 30. scream4ever  |  October 20, 2016 at 6:44 pm

    Slovenia's inability to lead on this issue pisses me off so much.

  • 31. Christian0811  |  October 20, 2016 at 7:02 pm

    I was giving this some thought, if in the unlikely but happy chance that they rule in our favor I think it will nullify the pending constitutional referendum because prior to that time they hadn't held that marriage for same sex couples was a right.

    I think with Obergefell and the jurisprudence from Mexico and Colombia having been published it will increase the odds of a positive result bc they're persuasive authority and it marks a sea-change in attitudes among constitutional jurists

    Obviously it's unlikely, given the generally conservative attitudes in even western European courts let alone in the East, buuut having a neutral mindset is better than being negative 😛

    As for Slovenia, I remain hopeful that when the CC gets the question before it in a direct manner they'll rule favorably.

  • 32. scream4ever  |  October 20, 2016 at 8:55 pm

    Exactly. I don't get why they don't do that.

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