Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Open thread


This is an open thread for discussion.


  • 1. VIRick  |  November 2, 2016 at 11:48 am

    LGBT Hopefuls Face Steep Odds in Bids for Congress

    There are 10 openly LGBT non-incumbent candidates running for seats in the US House and US Senate in 2016, including two candidates who are the first-ever openly transgender people to win nominations from a major US political party, two openly gay Republicans, and a candidate who’d be the first out lesbian with children elected to Congress.

    The best prospect in this lot is middle-school teacher Angie Craig, a lesbian Democrat running against Republican Jason Lewis to represent Minnesota’s 2nd congressional district, which comprises suburbs of the Twin Cities. According to a KSTP/SurveyUSA poll published on 17 October, Craig has a lead with 46 percent of the vote compared to the 41 percent who support her opponent, although 12 percent of voters were undecided.

    A victory for Craig would mean Democrats retake a seat held by Republicans for 13 years, most recently by anti-LGBT Rep. John Kline (R-MN), who’s retiring this year. Additionally, it would mark the first time since Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) left the House to serve in the Senate that an out lesbian served in the House, as well as the first time a married lesbian with children served in Congress.

    Another bright spot lies in the six incumbent openly LGB members of the US House, all of whom ought to be re-elected. Reps. Jared Polis (D-CO), David Cicilline (D-RI), Mark Takano (D-CA), Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), Mark Pocan (D-WI), and Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY) are all Democrats, and relatively safe as they pursue re-election during a presidential year with Hillary Clinton at the top of the ballot.

    But the good news ends there for LGBT congressional candidates. The two openly LGBT candidates running for seats in the US Senate — Lexington Mayor Jim Gray in Kentucky and Misty Snow in Utah — face daunting odds, according to polls. In Kentucky, Gray is challenging Republican presidential candidate and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who has overwhelming name recognition in the Bluegrass State. Gray’s election would double the openly gay representation in the US Senate, but that doesn’t look to be in the cards. In Utah, Snow made history by being the first openly transgender person nominated by a major US party for a US Senate seat, but faces overwhelming odds against incumbent Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT).

    The other seven congressional candidates, all behind in the polls, most running against incumbents, are:

    Misty Plowright, D, CO 5th district (transgender)
    Clay Cope, R, CT 5th district
    Paul Babeau, R, AZ 1st district (the outed gay sheriff)
    Bao Nguyen, D, CA 46th district (in a race D v. D, against Lou Correa, an Hispanic)
    Brady Walkinshaw, D, WA 7th district (in a race D v. D, against Pramila Jayapal, a South Asian)
    Matt Heinz, D, AZ 2nd district
    Denise Juneau, D, MT at-large

    Both California and Washington select the top two vote-getters in the primary to run against each other in the general election.

  • 2. salton22  |  November 2, 2016 at 4:04 pm

    Many, many thanks to you, VIRick, for your relentless contribution to EoT.

  • 3. Randolph_Finder  |  November 7, 2016 at 6:58 am

    I've been following Snow's candidacy some. "Overwhelming" is an understatement. No Democrat with any political experience was willing to run against Senator Mike Lee, and Snow was one of two Democrats to make the State Democratic Convention, neither he not his opponent, Swinton (who was a self described conservative Democrat, Pro-life and wanted to investigate Planned Parenthood) made 50% at the convention, and Snow won the Primary. Snow is currently a Grocery cashier, Swinton is a marriage and family therapist…

    Getting a Democrat elected in Utah (beyond Salt Lake City) takes a lot of things politically, and Snow doesn't really have any of them. The Democratic opponent to Lee took 32.8% six years ago, I'd be very surprised if Snow got 30%.

    The show in Utah in this election is whether McMullin can beat out either or both of the Major Party candidates…

  • 4. Phoenix_12  |  November 2, 2016 at 11:58 am

    Voters in the canton of Zurich in Switzerland will be voting on 27 November on a anti-gay marriage initiative. The initiative, proposed by the ultra conservative anti-gay Federal Democratic Union, seeks to change the definition of marriage in the Constitution of Zurich to man-woman instead of the current gender-neutral one. The cantonal Parliament reject it in June this year, 110-52, with only the conservative Swiss People's Party and the FDU supporting it. Even the christian and evangelical parties oppose it. But the FDU had enough signatures to force a referendum. Zurich is very liberal so I doubt it will pass.

  • 5. theperchybird  |  November 2, 2016 at 4:28 pm

    Queensland extends the right to full adoption, that just leaves Northern Territory and South Australia who both have a center-left majority:

    Laws allowing same-sex couples and other previously-excluded groups to adopt children in Queensland have passed in the state parliament.

    The changes, which were debated late on Wednesday night, will broaden the pool of potential adoptive parents to also include single people and those undergoing fertility treatment.

    Same-sex couples are able to adopt children elsewhere in Australia, apart from in Queensland, South Australia and the Northern Territory.

    Child Safety Minister Shannon Fentiman told parliament the changes would remove a discriminatory barrier.

    "While Queensland may not be the first to break down this barrier, I am determined we will not be the last," she said.

    The LNP and two Katter's Australian Party MPs voted against the changes

    Ms Trad was forced to withdraw the comment after LNP MP Trevor Watts took offence.

    The laws passed with the support of Speaker Peter Wellington and Independent MPs Rob Pyne and Billy Gordon.

  • 6. VIRick  |  November 2, 2016 at 9:56 pm

    North Carolina: "Charlotte Observer" v. NC GOP

    The "Charlotte Observer" reports:

    The North Carolina Republican Party has filed an elections board complaint against the "Charlotte Observer," and others, who are planning a public forum about HB2, alleging that the event will serve as an “infomercial" for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Roy Cooper. On Wednesday night, 2 November, the "Observer" plans to host a forum on HB2, the controversial law that limits protections to people who are gay or transgender.

    The forum, which is sponsored by Charlotte-area marketing firm Red Ventures, is scheduled to include gay and transgender advocates, as well as former Republican Charlotte mayor Richard Vinroot and Mitch Kokai of the John Locke Foundation, a conservative think tank. In a complaint filed Tuesday, 1 November, the state GOP is asking the North Carolina elections board to launch an investigation and force the cancellation of the forum.

    Republican Gov. Pat McCrory, who is seeking re-election, has defended HB2. Cooper, however, has called for the law to be repealed, saying it has caused significant economic damage. Red Ventures CEO Ric Elias and his wife, Brenda, have contributed $20,400 to Cooper’s campaign during the 2016 primary and general election cycles, the complaint notes. Elias also gave $1,000 to McCrory. The editorial board of the "Observer" has endorsed Cooper, in addition to 25 other Democrats and 10 Republicans.

    The forum took place at 7PM, as scheduled.

  • 7. FredDorner  |  November 3, 2016 at 1:35 am

    The GOP passed HB2 as an election year wedge issue so it's nice to see it really blow up in their face.

  • 8. guitaristbl  |  November 3, 2016 at 8:14 am

    As I have said in the past a victory for Cooper here will mean a lot more than simple satisfaction for ousting a bigot.
    With NC being a light shade of red state, a governor there losing his position over an anti-LGBT law will send strong messages all around the board against such initiatives.
    Especially states close to those affected such as heavily GOP South Carolina who have benefitted by the backlash in NC will not entertain such ideas any time soon.

  • 9. VIRick  |  November 2, 2016 at 10:59 pm

    Federal Case Against New Jersey Infertility Law

    On 1 November 2016, in "Krupa v. Badolato," a case wherein which a group of women in same-sex relationships are suing New Jersey in federal court over the state law requiring couples to have engaged in heterosexual intercourse before (state regulated) insurance can pay for infertility treatment, a second amended complaint was filed.

    This complaint has all the same parties and causes of action as the prior complaint. However, in this latest complaint, the defendants are sued only in their official capacity. The prior complaint sued defendants in both their individual and official capacities.

    The Second Amended Complaint is here:

  • 10. Christian0811  |  November 4, 2016 at 1:03 am

    Wouldn't it have been more simple to get a NJ court to abrogate the law on the basis of the previous precedent mandating equal treatment? Or are they more clogged than the federal court there

  • 11. ianbirmingham  |  November 4, 2016 at 2:30 pm

    No. Federal judges are independent judges, appointed for life, and by far your best bet when trying to enforce the federal Constitution. State judges are less independent (often elected every few years), and cannot be relied upon to enforce the federal Constitution.

  • 12. VIRick  |  November 2, 2016 at 11:16 pm

    Sexual Orientation Employment Discrimination Case at 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals

    At the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, in "Christiansen v. Omnicom Group," an employee's appeal of the lower court order dismissing his claim of sexual orientation employment discrimination under Title VII, oral argument in the case has been set for 20 January 2017.

  • 13. scream4ever  |  November 2, 2016 at 11:21 pm

    These cases should hit the Supreme Court in the 2018 session. If all goes as expected (Democrats taking the White House and the Senate), we will be poised for positive rulings (and also for gender identity as well).

  • 14. ianbirmingham  |  November 4, 2016 at 2:32 pm


  • 15. VIRick  |  November 3, 2016 at 12:26 am

    As an up-dated refresher, here's an edited version of what I posted on 27 June 2016 concerning this same case, "Christiansen v. Omnicom Group," at a slightly earlier stage in its litigation:

    New York Federal Case, Likely Key for Establishing Gay Legal Protections

    Over the past four years, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has extensively and repeatedly pressed the case for expanding the interpretation of existing civil rights protections to cover discrimination against LGBT people. The EEOC decided back in 2012 that the sex discrimination ban in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars anti-transgender discrimination. By July 2015, the EEOC was arguing that sexual orientation-based discrimination also should be barred under existing civil rights laws that ban sex discrimination.

    On Tuesday, 28 June 2016, amicus — friend of the court — briefs are due in a key case pending in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. In his case against Omnicom Group, Inc., Matthew Christiansen argues that the appeals court should follow the EEOC’s interpretation, and hold that “sexual orientation is inherently a ‘sex-based’ consideration that deserves Title VII protection.” The EEOC reached that decision a little less than a year ago, in July 2015, although it had signaled before then that it was headed in that direction.

    The trial court judge in Christiansen’s case ruled against him on this point, but US District Court Judge Katherine Polk Failla also wrote that she was bound by a prior decision from the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling that sexual orientation-based claims are not a type of sex-based discrimination. She did not, however, think that that ruling was correct, and urged the appeals court to “erase” the line between the two types of discrimination that had been previously drawn by the Court. Noting the EEOC’s ruling in the matter and what Failla called the “impracticability” of treating sexual orientation discrimination as a “categorically” different thing than sex discrimination, she wrote that “one might reasonably ask — and, lest there be any doubt, this Court is asking — whether that line should be erased.”

    Christiansen appealed the decision and asked that the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals to do just that, filing his brief on 21 June 2016. A win in the appeal would allow him to return to the trial court and argue that Omnicom discriminated against him because he is gay. Under the appeals court’s rules, briefs supporting his appeal are due on Tuesday, 28 June 2016.

    As a further note, this case goes hand-in-glove with the case against Ivy Tech currently under en banc review before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.

  • 16. VIRick  |  November 2, 2016 at 11:40 pm

    Kim Davis Redux Ad Nauseum

    On 31 October 2016, in "Miller v. Davis," the case which infamously involved the Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses, the said infamous defendant has filed an Opposition to the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.

    The actual dollar amount in contention is $233,058.

    Her opposition is here:
    Rowan County's opposition, filed on 27 October 2016, is here:

  • 17. VIRick  |  November 3, 2016 at 11:01 am

    Mexico: Positive Message from the Government of Morelos State

    Gobierno de Morelos, 3 de noviembre 2016

    En Morelos, construimos una Sociedad de Derechos, rompemos paradigmas, y el Matrimonio Igualitario es una realidad. El matrimonio igualitario en Morelos, no es un privilegio, es un derecho. Piensa diferente.

    In Morelos, we are building a society of rights, breaking paradigms, and marriage equality is a reality. Marriage equality in Morelos is not a privilege, it is a right. Think differently.

    The government of Morelos state has launched a major PR campaign to convince the rest of Mexico to take notice of their out-front, forward thinking, and to then follow their lead, remembering that Morelos state has already ratified a state constitutional amendment guaranteeing marriage equality.

  • 18. VIRick  |  November 3, 2016 at 9:45 pm

    Texas Files Amicus Brief in Mississippi HB1523 Appeal at 5th Circuit Court of Appeals

    The "Austin Statesman" reports:

    Joined Thursday, 3 November 2016, by Republican officials from eight other states, Texas Attorney-General Ken Paxton urged a federal appeals court to reinstate a Mississippi law that had been struck down as discriminatory against gay and transgender people. The Mississippi law, HB1523, Paxton told the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in a legal brief, was intended to protect citizens from being forced by the government into taking actions that violate their religious beliefs, particularly if they oppose same-sex marriage. “Americans have the right to peacefully live and work according to their deeply-held beliefs, in accordance with the religious freedoms enshrined in our Constitution,” Paxton said.

    Although civil rights and gay rights advocates say the Mississippi law allowed for government-sanctioned discrimination, socially conservative Republicans in Texas have vowed to pass similar laws when their Legislature convenes in January 2017, a strategy that would be endangered if the appeals court ruled that the Mississippi law was unconstitutional. Precedents set by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals apply to Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

    Overturning the law, Paxton told the appeals court, would threaten “the ability of states to enact legislation to protect their citizens’ rights” to freely exercise their religion. On Thursday, Paxton filed the friend-of-the-court brief in support of Mississippi Gov. Bryant, and was joined by Maine Gov. Paul LePage and the attorneys-general from Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Utah.

    Paxton, who is currently under indictment for securities fraud, is also readying a bill for Texas that would mirror North Carolina’s HB2.

    And here's Judge Reeves' decision which is being appealed:

    "Under the guise of providing additional protection for religious exercise, (Mississippi) HB 1523 creates a vehicle for state-sanctioned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. . . . The majority of Mississippians were granted special rights to not serve LGBT citizens, and were immunized from the consequences of their actions. LGBT Mississippians, in turn, were 'put in a solitary class with respect to transactions and relations in both the private and governmental sphere' to symbolize their second-class status. As in Romer, Windsor, and Obergefell, this 'status-based enactment' deprived LGBT citizens of equal treatment and equal dignity under the law. . . . The deprivation of equal protection of the laws is HB 1523’s very essence. It violates the Fourteenth Amendment.”

  • 19. JayJonson  |  November 4, 2016 at 7:06 am

    More on the remarkable Judge Carlton Reeves:

  • 20. salton22  |  November 4, 2016 at 2:21 pm

    Judge Carlton Reeves should be Madame Clinton's choice for SCOTUS. He could be another Thurgood Marshall.

  • 21. ianbirmingham  |  November 4, 2016 at 2:40 pm

    Judge Carlton Reeves would need to be confirmed by the Senate, which right now has a Republican majority. VOTE to change that on November 8th!!

  • 22. salton22  |  November 4, 2016 at 3:36 pm

    I am optimistic and think the Senate will turn blue with a Clinton's victory. And you're right, VOTE.

  • 23. VIRick  |  November 3, 2016 at 10:56 pm

    Spanish Word-for-the-Day: Plumofobia

    From Bolivia: Here's what can happen in a society where transgender rights leap way ahead of gay rights, thus resulting in a phenomenon called "plumofobia," as per Ronald Céspedes via Rex Wockner:

    Plumofobia: rechazo de lo afeminado entre varones homosexuales: discriminar a quienes "jotean."

    Plumofobia: rejection of those who are effeminate among masculine gay men: to discriminate against those who "jotean." But literally, it means "feather-phobia," while being used in the rude, alternate sense, just as the French expression, "la plume de ma tante" carries a coarsely crude "double-entendre" meaning.

    "Jotean" is also a rude slang used to describe what "girly bottoms" might be prone to do, and is a dig at transgender women, given that they have moved way up on the local "social acceptance" scale in Bolivia, while the much more numerous masculine gay men have not.

  • 24. VIRick  |  November 4, 2016 at 12:07 am

    Costa Rica and the CIDH

    On 18 May 2016, Costa Rica submitted a request for an advisory opinion to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the following subjects:

    1. Pertaining to the recognition of a person’s name change, according to their gender identity.

    2. Pertaining to the recognition of property rights derived from a bond between same-sex couples.

    The President of the Court has established 9 December 2016 as the deadline for the submission of written observations.

    From this, it would appear that Costa Rica is in the process of recognizing both points, and is seeking advice from the CIDH on various legalities and technicalities to streamline the changes.

  • 25. allan120102  |  November 4, 2016 at 12:21 pm

    Activism is being shown in almost every country of Central America right now. I would had never imagine a two or three years ago that the bans on ssm would be challenge in some CA countries and up to date we had two of them, El Salvador and Panama on court. Panama challenge might come after the ban on Colombia was struck down this year. Making activist hopeful of a win. I really think that in 20 years from now all 6 spanish countries will have marriage equality. I am hopeful too as I want to get married someday in the country I was born.

  • 26. allan120102  |  November 4, 2016 at 2:12 pm

    Conservative municiaplities in Jalisco the ones outside metropolitan cities are still denying the right to marry to ss couples arguing that the senate of the state still havent modify the civil code which still define marriage as a union between a man and a women. These municiapalities are fighting with fire as the supreme court directly nullify the ban of Jalisco . Technically a change in law by the seante is not needed as the supreme court already did the job the Jalisco was suppose to do, but it would be nice if they modify the article so events like this does not occur.

  • 27. allan120102  |  November 4, 2016 at 2:17 pm

    Veracruz. Legislators in Veracruz modify almost completely the civil code in terms of now allowing express divorce or people living together without getting married having the same rights as married couple. The only thing they didnt agree was to allow ssm in the entity. That means that sadly this will take another year or two before Veracruz might get marriage equality without the intervention of the supreme court, as a panist majority is expected to continue in power. I am not sure if lgbt groups may sue Veracruz in this case after modifying the articles pertaining marriage and not modifying to allow ssc to marry.

  • 28. VIRick  |  November 4, 2016 at 3:13 pm

    Once these modifications to the state marriage code have been published in the state's official gazette, and thus officially come into force as law, then LGBT groups will have 30 days from that date to file an "action of unconstitutionality" directly with Mexico's Supreme Court against the state of Veracruz for failing to comply, as the Court has already issued its jurisprudence on the subject, mandating that each and every state in Mexico legalize same-sex marriage.

    As per the Quadratin news article, these modifications to the state's civil code were just passed and approved today, 4 November 2016. It will take 7-10 days, or even a bit longer, for them to be published in the state's official gazette. Then, from that date, the 30-day countdown will begin.

    The most startling change is this, as this will be the one which will cause the "action of unconstitutionality" to succeed:

    Unmarried (hetero) couples simply living together (concubinato) will henceforth have the same rights as married (hetero) couples (matrimonio). (And they were under court mandate to make this change, as well, despite the fact that they did not admit it, and obviously, did not go far enough.)

    But also notice, in their allowing for express divorce (divorcio exprés), the legislators specifically cite, as their rationale: “es algo establecido por la corte por jurisprudencia." (it is something established by the court by jurisprudence). So, they acknowledge that they were under judicial obligation to make that specific change. However, the same identical point applies to their legalizing same-sex marriage,– whether they care to admit it or not.

  • 29. VIRick  |  November 4, 2016 at 5:37 pm

    Ohio: Trump Campaign Appeals To 6th Circuit Court Over Ban On Watching, Intimidating, Harassing Voters

    The "Washington Post" reports:

    A written order from a federal judge in Ohio seeks to prevent Republican Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and others from taking part in certain activity that could intimidate voters. On Friday, 4 November 2016, in "Ohio Democratic Party v. Ohio Republican Party, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.; Roger J. Stone, Jr.; and Stop the Steal, Inc.," federal District Judge James Gwin in Cleveland ruled that anyone who engages in intimidation or harassment inside or near polling places, regardless of political alliance, would face contempt of court charges.

    Gwin’s decision to grant a temporary restraining order follows a complaint filed by the Ohio Democratic Party against Trump’s campaign and Republican political operative Roger Stone. Gwin dismissed the Ohio Republican Party as a defendant in the case. The judge’s written order blocks activities from both campaigns that include unauthorized poll watching, the admonishing or questioning of voters, and taking photos or recording voters inside or near polling places.

    Almost immediately thereafter, the Trump Campaign appealed the even-handed ruling to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

    See more here, including the actual appeal:

    And here:

  • 30. VIRick  |  November 4, 2016 at 5:53 pm

    Raleigh NC — Today, 4 November 2016, a federal judge has ordered local elections boards in North Carolina to restore voters to the rolls after they were purged too close to Election Day. US District Judge Loretta Biggs issued the ruling after an emergency hearing earlier in the week on NAACP allegations that at least three counties purged voter rolls through a process disproportionately targeting blacks.

    The voters' names were removed through challenges filed by activists, which the NAACP said was illegal under federal law less than 90 days before an election. The NAACP sued earlier this week over thousands of challenges filed in Cumberland, Moore, and Beaufort counties.

  • 31. VIRick  |  November 4, 2016 at 7:11 pm

    Pennsylvania: EEOC Wins Sexual Orientation Discrimination Suit

    Per Equality Case Files:

    Today, 4 November 2016, in federal district court in Pittsburgh, in the case, "EEOC v. Scott Medical Health Center," an employment sex discrimination claim under Title VII based on sexual orientation, an Order was issued denying the defendant's motion to dismiss, and holding instead, that "discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a subset of sexual stereotyping and thus covered by Title VII’s prohibitions on discrimination 'because of sex'”

    "That someone can be subjected to a barrage of insults, humiliation, hostility and/or changes to the terms and conditions of their employment, based upon nothing more than the aggressor’s view of what it means to be a man or a woman, is exactly the evil Title VII was designed to eradicate. Because this Court concludes that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a subset of sexual stereotyping and thus covered by Title VII’s prohibitions on discrimination 'because of sex,' Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the EEOC’s Complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted will be denied."

    Furthermore, in what has to be the perfect quote on this entire subject, US District Court Judge Cathy Bissoon wrote: "There is no more obvious form of sex stereotyping than making a determination that a person should conform to heterosexuality."

    Explaining further, she cited to an earlier US Supreme Court case, "Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins," which held that sex stereotyping is a type of banned sex discrimination under Title VII. “Forcing an employee to fit into a gendered expectation — whether that expectation involves physical traits, clothing, mannerisms, or sexual attraction — constitutes sex stereotyping and, under 'Price Waterhouse,' violates Title VII,” she wrote.

    See more here:

  • 32. JayJonson  |  November 5, 2016 at 7:12 am

    This is wonderful news. We should hear from the Seventh Circuit soon as to whether they will also adopt this interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

    There are also other cases in the pipeline. For more info, see:

  • 33. allan120102  |  November 4, 2016 at 8:49 pm

    Saint Helena marriage law is expected to be vote on Nov 15 by the executive committee.

  • 34. JayJonson  |  November 6, 2016 at 7:52 am

    New Civil Rights Movement article on the presidential election, placing the 2016 election in the context of the 2012 election, and warning that all the progress we have made in the last 8 years are imperiled if Hillary is not elected. Some nice videos from both 2012 and 2016.

  • 35. VIRick  |  November 6, 2016 at 12:31 pm

    Pakistan: Woman Files Court Petition Seeking Gender Re-assignment Surgery

    A 24-year-old woman in Pakistan has filed a petition to the Lahore High Court to seek permission to have gender re-assignment surgery. Doctors in the country initially refused to perform the surgery without a court order.

    The woman filed the petition with the help of trans advocate Naseer Husain Sindhu. Sindhu said there is no bar in the Pakistani law to prevent one from undergoing sex change surgery. “Since some social stigma is attached to this kind of thing, surgeons are usually apprehensive and shy away from performing such procedures here,” Sindhu said. Violence against the transgender community in Pakistan is rife.

  • 36. VIRick  |  November 6, 2016 at 12:57 pm

    Mexican Legislators to Take up President's Marriage Equality Plan on 9 November

    Per Rex Wockner:

    See Milenio:… …

    And Jornada:
    Ciudad de México. La Comisión de Puntos Constitucionales de la Cámara de Diputados discutirá el miércoles, 9 de noviembre 2016, la iniciativa del presidente Enrique Peña Nieto que busca garantizar en la Constitución el matrimonio entre personas de mismo sexo y plantea que el debate se dé a partir de "considerar a la dignidad y a la igualdad humana como ejes centrales de los derechos humanos."

    Mexico City. The Committee on Constitutional Points of the Chamber of Deputies will discuss on Wednesday, 9 November 2016, the initiative of President Enrique Peña Nieto which seeks the Constitutional guarantee of marriage between persons of the same sex and argues that the debate is given in order to "consider human dignity and equality as central to human rights."

  • 37. scream4ever  |  November 6, 2016 at 6:16 pm

    Good to hear. Even if it doesn't pass, it's still a start.

  • 38. VIRick  |  November 6, 2016 at 1:19 pm

    Spain: 4th Anniversary of the Constitutionality of Marriage Equality

    Spanish-language social media is filled with anniversary reminders, like this one from the Federación Est. LGTB:

    Hoy, 6 de noviembre 2016, hace 4 años, el Tribunal Constitucional ratificó la constitucionalidad del Matrimonio Igualitario. En hora buena a la ciudadanía de España.

    Today, 6 November 2016, is the 4th anniversary of the Constitutional Tribunal ratifying the constitutionality of marriage equality in Spain. A beautiful hour for the citizens of Spain.

    Note: Spain has had marriage equality for over 11 years, since 2005. However, subsequent to that, the right-wing political party, Partido Popular, attempted to mount a court challenge to nullify it. On this date, 4 years ago, the Constitutional Tribunal in Spain declared that the legislative change was indeed constitutional.

    The after-effects of this judicial decision by the highest court in Spain continue to reverberate throughout Latin America, given that most Hispanic countries have legal/judicial systems grounded in Spanish law.

  • 39. theperchybird  |  November 6, 2016 at 10:30 pm

    No articles since it's a direct message from the local LGBT Rights Group, but they told me that the Faroese expect the Danes to wrap everything up in their marriage/adoption law by December.

    Then we just need Jersey to have the final vote on their marriage law. Should be soon. That would end the territorial pending legislation in that part of the world.

    After that, it's back to mainland Europe (and Malta/Cyprus) to play catch up.

  • 40. Randolph_Finder  |  November 7, 2016 at 7:07 am

    I *think* that when they get their act together that the closest non-Marriage Equality point to the non-ME Northern Ireland will be Heligoland (Germany).

  • 41. guitaristbl  |  November 7, 2016 at 8:09 am

    Malta is probably next, there has been radical progress both in the legislative sphere and social perceptions there. Cautiously optimistic about Swittzerland as well.Everyone else is very far from marriage equality any time soon.

  • 42. theperchybird  |  November 7, 2016 at 10:54 am

    I wish Austrian lower courts would stop dismissing the cases. One needs to reach their Constitutional Court already.

  • 43. Christian0811  |  November 7, 2016 at 4:10 pm

    The CC has heard marriage cases in 2010 and 2012, unfortunately they're well within their rights to dismiss these cases. Most CC's copy SCOTUS's doctrine of not revisiting an issue until there's been a "sea change" in the legal and public attitude. Which is an ambiguous approach at best but it does provide stability in case law.

  • 44. theperchybird  |  November 8, 2016 at 12:05 am

    Their past marriage rulings talked about "preserving family" and how one isn't like the other, but now that they legalized full adoption rights, in-vitro and basically equalized the definition of family, I think they will issue a positive ruling if a case reaches them from the bottom.

  • 45. Christian0811  |  November 8, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    I mean, they *should* strike down the ban and reverse themselves but I think for now it's a matter of judicial restraint

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