Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

UPDATED: North Carolina’s legislature may adjourn without reconsidering the anti-LGBT law known as HB2/ repeal has failed

Transgender Rights

UPDATE: The NC House has voted to adjourn without passing HB2 repeal. The Senate may vote soon on adjournment. Since there’s only been a vote to adjourn from one part of the legislature, they could come back into session if the Senate fails to pass the adjournment resolution.

UPDATE 2: The Senate came back into session and introduced an amendment to extend the so-called “cooling off period” – the time between HB2’s repeal and when cities can pass nondiscrimination ordinances – essentially indefinitely, 30 days after the end of the 2017 long session of the legislature. The amendment passed. The full repeal bill has still not passed either chamber.

UPDATE 3 (7:05PM ET): Repeal of HB2 has just failed in the NC senate. The bill will be referred to a committee.

UPDATE 4: 7:15PM ET: The Senate voted against reconsidering repeal of HB2 and then voted to adjourn.

This week, it was reported that North Carolina’s Republican-led legislature would repeal the anti-LGBT law, HB2, which included, among other things, a section restricting the use of public bathrooms by people who are transgender. The repeal was expected due to a deal with the city of Charlotte: if Charlotte repealed their pro-transgender “bathroom ordinance” the legislature would repeal HB2. Yesterday morning, Charlotte held up its end of the deal.

Now, it looks like the legislature was being dishonest. A bill has been introduced to repeal HB2, but it contains a clause barring cities and municipalities from introducing antidiscrimination ordinances for six months. This effectively means HB2 isn’t repealed totally for at least half a year.

And now it’s being reported that the legislature may adjourn without passing any version of the repeal bill:

When we know more, we’ll report back.


  • 1. VIRick  |  December 21, 2016 at 4:01 pm

    Venezuela: Marriage Equality Advances One More Step in Supreme Court

    Per Venezuela Igualitaria:

    Avanza el Matrimonio Igualitario: Hoy día, 20 de diciembre 2016, el TSJ liberó cartel de emplazamiento por Demanda de Nulidad del Articulo 44 del Código Civil.

    Marriage Equality Advances: Today, 20 December 2016, the TSJ (Supreme Court) returned a notice of filing for a Request of Invalidity of Article 44 of the Civil Code.

    En 15 de diciembre fue liberado el cartel de emplazamiento referente a la Demanda de Nulidad por Inconstitucionalidad del Artículo 44 del Código Civil Venezolano interpuesta por AC Venezuela Igualitaria en fecha 29 de enero de 2015, luego de que la Asamblea Nacional cayera en Omisión Legislativa al no discutir el Proyecto de Ley de Matrimonio Civil Igualitario entregado el 31 de enero de 2014 por Iniciativa Popular. Dicho cartel fue retirado el día de hoy 20 de diciembre y llevaremos la publicación en los próximos días para que terceras partes interesadas en el caso comparezcan ante este máximo órgano de justicia a darse por citados.

    On 15 December 2016, the notice of placement was released regarding the Request of Invalidity for Unconstitutionality of Article 44 of the Venezuelan Civil Code, filed by AC Venezuela Igualitaria on 29 January 2015, after the National Assembly failed by Legislative Omission to not discuss the Civil Marriage Equality Bill as submitted on 31 January 2014 by Popular Initiative. This notice was returned today and will be published in the next few days so that third parties interested in the case can appear before this highest body of justice to give testimony.

    Note: In Venezuela, it is constitutionally mandated that issues submitted by Popular Initiative be discussed by the National Assembly within a specific time-frame. The legislative "window of opportunity" to do so has already elapsed, the same problem that occurred in neighboring Colombia, and resulted in the filing of the afore-mentioned lawsuit.

  • 2. ianbirmingham  |  December 21, 2016 at 5:20 pm

    North Carolina Fails To Repeal Anti-LGBTQ Bill

  • 3. guitaristbl  |  December 21, 2016 at 6:33 pm

    So any deal is off the table and Charlotte must immediately re-enact its ordinance and see those clowns in court.

  • 4. JayJonson  |  December 22, 2016 at 12:00 pm

    If I recall correctly, the Charlotte revocation was contingent on the legislature repealing the entire HB2 statute by Dec. 31, 2016. Since the legislature has failed to keep its end of the deal, the Charlotte statute returns to its current status. (I.e., it has been blocked by HB2, but HB2 is under constitutional challenge in court. If it is thrown out by a court, then the original Charlotte ordinance becomes the law again.

  • 5. guitaristbl  |  December 24, 2016 at 8:03 am

    That is not correct according to some reports I read as the Charlotte city council held an extra session (I think last wednesday) where they had to reverse this clause of re-enactment after Dec.31.

    But they can always meet again and perform the appropriate changes.

  • 6. scream4ever  |  December 24, 2016 at 8:56 am

    Which they rightfully should. The legislature sent a message, and they need to send one right back.

  • 7. VIRick  |  December 21, 2016 at 6:51 pm

    The multiple pre-existing court cases will automatically continue.

  • 8. VIRick  |  December 22, 2016 at 2:26 pm

    North Carolina: Reminder Up-Date on "Carcaño v. McCrory"

    Per Equality Case Files:

    This a quick reminder that although the North Carolina legislators failed to repeal HB2 yesterday, 21 December 2016, the Lambda Legal/ ACLU Nationwide challenge against it in federal court continues.

    Oral argument in "Carcaño v. McCrory" at the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, the lead case against HB2, has been tentatively calendared for the sitting of 21-24 March 2017.

    The Tentative Calendar Order, dated 16 December 2016, is here:

    EQCF's Case History in this appeal is linked here:

  • 9. VIRick  |  December 21, 2016 at 6:03 pm

    Court of El Salvador Prefers to Not Recognize Same-Sex Marriage

    Prefiere Corte de El Salvador No Reconocer el Matrimonio Gay

    El Salvador, 21 de diciembre 2016 – El día de ayer, la Sala de lo Constitucional de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de El Salvador, rechazó que el Artículo 11 del Código de la Familia discrimine a las parejas homosexuales, por lo tanto no es “inconstitucional," sentenciaron.

    El abogado Herberth Danilo Vega, interpuso una demanda en la que señaló que había inconsistencias entre el Código de la Familia y el Artículo 32 de la Constitución de la República. Actualmente el artículo 11 del Código de la Familia establece que el matrimonio es la unión legal de “un hombre y una mujer con el fin de establecer una plena y permanente comunidad de vida." Esto va en contra de la Constitución pues “priva a las personas homosexuales del derecho a formar una familia, contraviniendo el principio de igualdad," argumentó Danilo Vega.

    Sin embargo, los magistrados de la Sala de lo Constitucional declararon improcedente la demanda por considerar que “incurre en un error al no detallar la interpretación que otorga a las disposiciones constitucionales donde supuestamente se establece la obligación de regular las relaciones homosexuales."

    El Salvador, 21 December 2016 – Yesterday, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of El Salvador rejected that Article 11 of the Family Code discriminates against homosexual couples, therefore it is not "unconstitutional," they ruled.

    Attorney Herberth Danilo Vega filed a lawsuit stating that there were inconsistencies between the Family Code and Article 32 of the Constitution of the Republic. Article 11 of the Family Code prescribes that marriage is the legal union of "a man and a woman in order to establish a full and permanent community of life." This goes against the Constitution, depriving homosexual people of the right to form a family, in contravention of the principle of equality," argued Danilo Vega.

    However, the magistrates of the Constitutional Chamber declared the claim inadmissible by considering that "it incurs an error to not detail the interpretation it gives to the constitutional provisions by which it supposedly establishes the obligation to regulate homosexual relations."

    This direct summation quote from the Court makes no sense in English because it also makes no sense in Spanish. At best, the Constitutional Court of El Salvador is talking out its a$$, using circular argument and presenting bogus claims.

    The attorney, Danilo Vega, utilized precisely the same argument as has been successfully argued repeatedly in Mexico, one that is perfectly logical and clear to me (but apparently not to the Court).

    A second lawsuit already filed with the Constitutional Court of El Salvador remains pending.

  • 10. VIRick  |  December 21, 2016 at 10:01 pm

    I see that Allan had the same difficulty in translating the Court's summation quote, given that it makes no sense in either Spanish or English. As noted from the previous thread, here's his valiant attempt:

    The Chamber dismissed the application, claiming that it "errs in not detailing the interpretation it gives to constitutional provisions where allegedly establishes the obligation to regulate homosexual relations."

    Here's mine:

    However, the magistrates of the Constitutional Chamber declared the claim inadmissible by considering that "it incurs an error to not detail the interpretation it gives to the constitutional provisions by which it supposedly establishes the obligation to regulate homosexual relations."

    What does that even mean???

  • 11. allan120102  |  December 21, 2016 at 10:44 pm

    Rick , if may I translate in my own words. The court is saying that if they rule it would be unprecedent as the plaintiff in the case didnt especify how the article affects him in a way . In other words the courts explain that the plaintiff didnt have strong arguments on how article 11 is unconstitutional. Even the court in a tweet explains that this is not the end and that there is still another case of same sex marriage for them to accept or decline. I guess that if the next petion is stronger than this one then they would accept to hear the case. Rick this explain it much better and in words that all in the community might get as I know translation have not been good.
    The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (CSJ) rejected the lawsuit seeking to legally establish same-sex marriage, whether male or female.

    Herbert Danilo Vega Cruz asked the constitutionalists to declare illegal article 11 of the Family Code for the alleged violation of personalistic principles and legal security, sexual freedom and "marriage."

    The judges after a process of study concluded that "the claim raised by the actor should be declared inadmissible and, therefore, the lawsuit should be rejected."

    However, in the official Twitter account of the Chamber, it was clarified that there are still other demands of the same subject to analyze.
    The legal provision was challenged because it does not allow people who belong to the same gender to legalize their sexual relationships through marriage or to form a family.

    This indicates that the petitioner has attributed to all the constitutional provisions proposed as a control parameter a single meaning – that is, that all of them, but individually, impose a mandate to regulate homosexual relations and, in addition, to provide for the right Of homosexuals to form a family – which is precisely what would be incompatible with the precept questioned.

    In the opinion of the magistrates, the plaintiff did not present any true grounds of unconstitutionality and its non-existence makes it impossible to carry out a prosecution on the subject of control or its petition. "Given this omission, there is no reason to justify the initiation of the process (appeal) and its processing.

    In short, the complainant made a bad legal statement of his request, which was necessary for the constitutionalists to deliberate on the grounds that supported their nonconformity.
    here is the link of the page. You will see a link of the court explaining of the other ssm case .

  • 12. VIRick  |  December 22, 2016 at 2:12 pm

    Pennsylvania: Gay Couple as ‘Father/Son’ Can Revoke Adoption in Order to Marry

    Pittsburgh — A Pennsylvania court is giving the OK for a gay couple to dissolve their 2012 adoption so they can get married. The Pittsburgh "Post-Gazette" reported on Wednesday, 21 December 2016, that a Superior Court panel said state law permits an adult adoption to be dissolved when no one’s opposed.

    Ronald Bosee Jr. and Nino Esposito have been together since 1970. Bosee is 68 years old and Esposito is 78. Esposito says he adopted Bosee when same-sex marriage was illegal in Pennsylvania to lower their inheritance tax and out of a desire “be a family of our own.”

    Other gay couples used the maneuver to do the same before same-sex marriage became legal in Pennsylvania in 2014. The couple’s lawyers call the ruling a victory for same-sex couples across the state.

    Per Equality Case Files:

    As the "Post-Gazette" reported in October 2015, same-sex couples have used adult adoption to protect inheritance and other rights before the law recognized their right to marry. Once it did, the men found themselves in a Catch-22: Getting married required a court order dissolving their adoption, but in June 2015, Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Lawrence O'Toole said the state's adoption law limited his ability to do so, unless fraud were involved.

    Mr. Bosee and Mr. Esposito appealed; noting that other Pennsylvania judges had ruled differently, Judge O'Toole asked for guidance from a higher court. He got it Wednesday, 21 December 2016, when a three-judge Superior Court panel ruled that 'under the circumstances of this case, Pennsylvania law permits an unopposed annulment or revocation of an adult adoption.'

    The ruling is available here:</

  • 13. allan120102  |  December 23, 2016 at 8:50 am

    some deputies are already preparing reforms to change there civil code to permit civil unions. This will discussed in 2017, even though some want civil unions other wants cohabitation as it would have less tough time in congress.

  • 14. VIRick  |  December 23, 2016 at 9:11 am

    Guatemala: Reforms to the Civil Code Being Prepared for Legalizing Unions between Same-Sex Couples

    Guatemala: Preparan Reformas al Código Civil para Legalizar Unión de Personas del Mismo Sexo

    La diputada Sandra Morán aseguró que junto con distintos colectivos prepara la socialización y presentación de una reforma al Código Civil del país que legalizaría la unión civil de personas del mismo sexo. De acuerdo a la jefa del Bloque Convergencia, el país debería reconocer y garantizar los derechos de las familias constituidas por personas del mismo sexo debido a la falta de reconocimiento que estas tienen en situaciones de enfermedad, legalidad, y muerte.

    Morán aceptó que este tema controversial será fuertemente criticado por las personas conservadoras del país, que es un hecho que lamentó, pero indicó que “la sociedad no solo está conformada por esas personas sino que también hay personas que piensan distinto." La diputada urgió la modernización del Estado en temas de reconocimiento y apoyo a todos los ciudadanos y dijo que este podría ser un punto de partida para que Guatemala legitime los temas que garanticen los derechos de minorías.

    “Sabemos que las personas que deciden conformar familias de este tipo se enfrentan a un contexto adverso en donde pueden ser catalogadas como familias clandestinas que no son reconocidas muchas veces ni por sus familiares y se enfrentan a la violencia y la discriminación, por lo que queremos darles un soporte legal," explicó Morán.

    Unión de Hecho como Opción – El analista político independiente, Hans Quevedo, aseguró que la legisladora debería medir el aspecto legal de un cambio de esa naturaleza y que a su criterio, una opción viable debido al panorama difícil de la propuesta, es incluir a estas parejas dentro del apartado de la unión de hecho.

    Deputy Sandra Morán assured that together with certain groups they are preparing the socialization and presentation of a reform to the Civil Code of Guatemala that would legalize the civil unions of same-sex couples. According to the head of the Bloque Convergencia, Guatemala should recognize and guarantee the rights of families formed by people of the same sex due to the lack of recognition that they have in situations of illness, legality, and death.

    Morán agreed that this controversial issue will be strongly criticized by the conservative people of the country, which is a fact to be lamented, but indicated that "society is not only made up of these people, but also of people who think differently." The deputy urged the modernization of the State on issues of recognition and support to all citizens, and said that this could be a starting point for Guatemala to legitimize issues that guarantee the rights of minorities.

    "We know that people who decide to form families of this type face an adverse context where they can be classified as clandestine families that are often not recognized by their relatives, and face violence and discrimination, so we want to give them the legal support," explained Morán.

    "De Facto" Civil Union as Option – The independent political analyst, Hans Quevedo, said that the legislator should measure the legal aspect of a change of that nature and that in his view, a viable option due to the difficult scenario of the proposal, is to include these couples within the section of "De Facto" Civil Unions.

    For comparative purposes, Costa Rica currently allows for "De Facto" Civil Unions (Uniones de Hecho) for same-sex couples, basically co-habitation which is legally-recognized by the courts after an interval of three years (and in Ecuador, after an interval of two years).

  • 15. JayJonson  |  December 23, 2016 at 10:08 am

    Raleigh News & Observer: North Carolina Is No Longer a Democracy.

    " government in North Carolina has become arbitrary and detached from popular will. When, in response to losing the governorship, one party uses its legislative dominance to take away significant executive power, it is a direct attack upon the separation of powers that defines American democracy. When a wounded legislative leadership, and a lame-duck executive, force through draconian changes with no time for robust review and debate it leaves Carolina no better than the authoritarian regimes we look down upon."

    Read more here:

  • 16. VIRick  |  December 23, 2016 at 4:36 pm

    NBA, NCAA Confirm Boycotts of North Carolina Continue

    After North Carolina failed to repeal House Bill 2 (HB2), the law which allows for the discrimination of the LGBTQ community, the NBA and NCAA have reconfirmed their boycotts of the state.

    The Charlotte City Council rescinded its expanded non-discrimination ordinance, which had been nullified by HB2, on Monday, 19 December 2016, in order to make way for a repeal of HB2. The North Carolina General Assembly held a special session on Wednesday, 21 December 2016, to consider repeal, but failed to do so after a consensus could not be reached. Republican Senators filed a repeal bill that put in place a six month moratorium on new ordinances, upsetting Democrats who feared they would, as Sen. Berger suggested on the floor, look for a “long term solution,” to such ordinances passing in cities and municipalities.

  • 17. VIRick  |  December 23, 2016 at 11:49 am

    New York: Trans Man Wins Fight to Change Name without Providing ‘Medical Evidence’

    As of 21 December 2016, a transgender man in New York is now legally “Ben Stanford,” thanks to the efforts of a leading trans rights group, his attorney, and the sage judges of the court of appeals. When Stanford first applied for a name change, a judge denied his application for lack of “medical evidence” of his gender transition from female to male.

    Attorney Laurie Styka Bloom of the law firm Nixon Peabody provided pro bono representation for the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund. She took the case to the New York Court of Appeals and argued trans people should not be forced to provide more “evidence” than any other person seeking a name change, which in most cases is none at all. The judges agreed.

    Note: The New York Court of Appeals is the highest state-level court in the state of New York.

  • 18. VIRick  |  December 23, 2016 at 12:27 pm

    Finland: Denial of Access to Fertility Treatment Due to Sexual Orientation Ruled Discriminatory

    Per Geraldina González de la Vega:

    In a press release from the Non-Discrimination Ombudsman of Finland of 20 December 2016, access to fertility treatment has to be granted on an equal basis in public health care. Denying the service provision due to sexual orientation violates the Non-Discrimination Act.

    The Non-Discrimination Ombudsman of Finland, Kirsi Pimiä, was satisfied with the ruling of the National Non-Discrimination and Equality Tribunal. The Tribunal imposed a conditional fine of 30,000 Euro on each of the medical directors of university hospitals to enforce compliance with its injunction.

    The Act on Assisted Reproductive Treatment which took effect in 2007 confirmed the right of female couples and individual women to get treatment. In practice, however, no such treatment has so far been given in public health care (to date, it has only been available in private medical facilities).

    Note: The start-up date for the commencement of (gender-neutral) marriage equality in Finland is still set for 1 March 2017.

  • 19. allan120102  |  December 24, 2016 at 10:13 am

    Queretaro will net legalize ssm until the federal government does it, says the president of the senate of the fraction PAN.
    Meanwhile in Chiapas another 2 ss couples have married and at least 17 more are expected in 2017. I suppose that early next trimester the supreme court will invalidate the bans of Chiapas, Puebla and Aguascalientes. Meanwhile the couples will continue to need amparos.

  • 20. VIRick  |  December 24, 2016 at 7:52 pm

    Remember that amparo #1 for Chiapas was actually an "amparo colectivo." Hunting through my archives, I found this:

    On 3 March 2015, 51 same-sex couples from Chiapas won the right to marry, by having successfully obtained a collective injunction from Mexico's Supreme Court. At the same time, the Chiapas state Civil Code (19 articles of the Civil Code and 15 articles of the Code of Civil Procedure) was also deemed to be unconstitutional by Mexico's Supreme Court.

    An amparo, once granted, has no expiration date, and can be utilized whenever one chooses. I suspect that many of the 51 couples who were party to that first successful amparo proceedings in Chiapas are only now actually getting married, as there's a whole drawn-out scheduling procedure that must be planned for if one intends to put on a splashy wedding extravaganza.

    Also, do we know whether an "action of unconstitutionality" was filed against Veracruz state after they changed portions of their marriage code on 3 November 2016? The challenge should have been filed by the week of 11-16 December 2016. But, was it?

  • 21. VIRick  |  December 24, 2016 at 9:40 pm

    Oil Field Services Company Sued for Harassment of Gay Worker

    Fargo ND — The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is suing an oil field services company, alleging a gay worker was harassed at the company’s North Dakota location. The lawsuit filed in federal court on Thursday, 22 December 2016, claims Wyoming-based Rocky Mountain Casing Co. allowed the harassment of Michael Allyn, who worked as a driver at the company’s Williston facility from January 2011 to April 2015.

    The EEOC says this is the first lawsuit it has brought in North Dakota that deals with harassment over sexual orientation. Among other things, the complaint alleges that male co-workers used offensive and homophobic slurs, defaced company vehicles with sex-based remarks about Allyn and painted a truck that Allyn was known to use with pink polka dots, hearts, and rainbows.

    The suit says Allyn complained about the conduct to his co-workers and to his managers but no “prompt corrective action” was taken. An attempt to reach a settlement before the lawsuit was filed was unsuccessful, the EEOC says. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and asks that the company make steps to eliminate its “sexually hostile work environment” and discrimination.

  • 22. FredDorner  |  December 26, 2016 at 12:22 pm

    Sounds like they'll be using the sex-based discrimination claim with Price Waterhouse v Hopkins as the precedent. I hope they succeed because this is still a big hole in non-discrimination law especially in red states like ND which refuse to pass these very basic protections.
    There are similar claims in the courts in several other federal circuits right now.

  • 23. scream4ever  |  December 26, 2016 at 5:51 pm

    Such cases will likely appear before the Supreme Court either next year or 2018, and would be a breath of fresh air given the upcoming administration.

  • 24. VIRick  |  December 26, 2016 at 6:31 pm

    One such glaring case, of course, "Andres v. Pine Hill," already filed in New Jersey state court by a former gay maintenance worker at New Jersey’s Trump National Golf Club, alleges that he was the victim of extreme homophobic harassment and discrimination. Andres is suing on the grounds that he experienced sexual orientation harassment, a hostile work environment based on sexual orientation, discrimination based on sexual orientation, unlawful retaliation, and assault and battery.

    See article here for details, including the complete court filing at the bottom of the article:

    New Jersey already has an anti-discrimination law that includes protections for LGBTQ people.

  • 25. FredDorner  |  December 26, 2016 at 9:17 pm

    That NJ case will be settled through mediation or in state court, not in federal court. That will be true of all the blue states since they generally have adequate non-discrimination laws.

    And that's exactly how things should work – a person shouldn't have to make a federal case out of employment discrimination. The fact that the EEOC and the federal courts still play an important role on this just shows how truly backwards some states are.

  • 26. Fortguy  |  December 25, 2016 at 10:31 pm

    Merry belated Christmas to everyone on our last holiday season before Washington goes insane. In preparation for Christmasses to come over the next four years, here are holiday cards to send your family and loved ones on the other side of the political divide featuring uplifting sayings from conservative evangelist Ayn Rand.

    David Akadjian, Daily Kos: 21 Ayn Rand Christmas Cards

  • 27. VIRick  |  December 25, 2016 at 11:09 pm

    Indeed! Have a very selfish Christmas and New Year's everyone!

    Oh, and if it is still there, I intend to be visiting DC again for the Cherry Blossom Festival in early April. In the meantime, I am here in my tropical rain forest hideaway, far from that other impending chaos.

    Also, in keeping with the season, you do realize that the full-time lower-level and mid-level career civil servants of the federal government refer to the assorted cabinet appointees and agency heads as the "Christmas help." This up-coming go-round, the "Christmas help" appears to have been scraped from the very bottom of the barrel,– or worse.

  • 28. Fortguy  |  December 26, 2016 at 1:07 am

    Openly gay UK pop star George Michael is dead at age 53 (which is, by the way, my age). Just when you think 2016 sucks worse than any year since 2008, now this.

  • 29. VIRick  |  December 26, 2016 at 9:44 am

    One of my favorite former boyfriends would regularly perform a provocatively flawless, naked go-go routine to George Michael's "Flawless (Go to the City)" that never got old or tiring.

  • 30. SethInMaryland  |  December 26, 2016 at 8:08 am

    Taiwan just passed the committee vote. The final vote will likely be in May 2017 but Taiwan has taken it first step toward marriage equality

  • 31. VIRick  |  December 26, 2016 at 2:54 pm

    Taipei: Second Taiwan City to Issue Partnership Certificates to Same-Sex Couples

    Today, 26 December 2016, Taipei officially began to make life easier for same-sex couples, as it began to allow same-sex couples to apply for partnership certificates. The City Council is the second to allow such partnership certificates after Kaohsiung did the same.

    Couples can apply for family care leave and sign medical consent forms on each other’s behalf on the issuance of the certificate. The certificates build on a registered partnership scheme in the city which was announced in June 2015. In Taipei, by the end of November 2016, 272 couples had already duly applied for the registered partnership scheme (with the new certificates now being an added protective step).

    Taipei and Kaohsiung began to share information on the registered partnerships from 1 January 2016. This means couples registered in one city will not need to register in the other if they relocate. Kaohsiung began allowing same-sex registered partnerships in May 2015, and was the first in Taiwan. From October 2015, a third city, Taichung, has also enabled same-sex couples to register their partnerships.

    The new rules come as Taiwan’s Legislature proceeds on amendments which would allow same-sex couples to marry. Today, 26 December 2016, the amendments passed the first stage, a Parliamentary Committee, but must still be debated before they become law.

    One can read more detail (in Spanish) here:

    Taiwan: Comité Parlamentario Aprueba Ley para Legalizar Matrimonio Igualitario

    Taiwan: Parliamentary Committee Approves Bill to Legalize Marriage Equality

  • 32. 1grod  |  December 26, 2016 at 11:14 am

    News from Alabama: Eight judges file brief in support of the former Chief Justice
    Moore interviewed to replace Sessions:

  • 33. VIRick  |  December 26, 2016 at 12:31 pm

    Sessions may have been nominated for a cabinet position, but that nomination is far from being approved by the US Senate. In the meantime, until/if/when Sessions' nomination has been confirmed, Sessions (for better or for worse) continues to remain a sitting senator from Alabama. There is no vacancy.

    However, the mere act of interviewing Moore as a potential replacement (should a vacancy actually occur) indicates that his chances of regaining his position as Chief Justice of Alabama to be slim-to-none (despite the filing of an amicus brief in support by 8 Alabama judges). Still, Gov. Bentley would be well-advised to appoint himself to fill any potential Senate vacancy, as his own career as a political figure and elected official in Alabama is already washed up and ruined by his own senseless cavorting.

  • 34. 1grod  |  December 27, 2016 at 1:30 pm

    text of the 3 pg amicus curiae brief submitted by Alabama Judges T.Riley, L Carter, J. Bentley, Mark Hammittee, and retired Judges A. McKathan, J. Stokes, F. McGuire and R. Johnston in support of suspended Chief Justice Moore's appeal:

  • 35. VIRick  |  December 26, 2016 at 4:26 pm

    Perú: Bill Presented to Congress for Civil Unions between Same-Sex Couples

    Perú: Presentaron al Congreso un Proyecto de Unión Civil entre Personas del Mismo Sexo

    En 30 de noviembre 2016, los congresistas de Peruanos por el Kambio, Carlos Bruce y Alberto de Belaunde presentaron, con el respaldo de su bancada, un nuevo proyecto de ley para crear la unión civil no matrimonial entre personas del mismo sexo. El texto lleva también las firmas de los y las congresistas Gino Costa Santolalla, Mercedes Aráoz Fernández, Sergio Dávila Vizcarra, Vicente Zeballos Salinas, Ana Choquehuanca de Villanueva, Guido Lombardi Elías, Janet Sánchez Alva, y Juan Sheput Moore.

    El nuevo proyecto es una adaptación del anterior que fue archivado por las comisiones de Justicia y Constitución en la anterior legislatura y tampoco contempla “la adopción de niños."

    “La Unión Civil es una relación de convivencia que conforman de manera voluntaria y estable dos personas del mismo sexo para compartir una vida de pareja que genera derechos y obligaciones reconocidos en la presente ley," señala el texto.

    Carlos Bruce señaló argumentó que uno de los cambios realizados al proyecto es la no obligatoriedad de consignar en el Documento Nacional de Identidad (DNI) el estado civil, para así evitar la discriminación.

    Durante la campaña el presidente Pedro Pablo Kuczynski se mostró a favor de la Unión Civil, propuesta que fue incluida en el plan de gobierno que presentó. También cuenta con el apoyo de la Defensoría del Pueblo y el Ministerio Público.

    On 30 November 2016, the congressmen for Peruanos por el Kambio, Carlos Bruce and Alberto de Belaunde presented, with the support of their bench, a new bill to create non-marital civil union between persons of the same sex. The text also bears the signatures of Gino Costa Santolalla, Mercedes Aráoz Fernández, Sergio Dávila Vizcarra, Vicente Zeballos Salinas, Ana Choquehuanca de Villanueva, Guido Lombardi Elías, Janet Sánchez Alva, and Juan Sheput Moore.

    The new bill is an adaptation of the previous one that was filed by the Justice and Constitution commissions in the previous legislature and does not contemplate "the adoption of children."

    "Civil Union is a relationship of coexistence that is made voluntarily and stable between two persons of the same sex to share a life as a couple that generates rights and obligations recognized in this law," the text said.

    Carlos Bruce pointed out that one of the changes made to the bill is the non-compulsory nature of registering the civil status in the National Identity Document (DNI), in order to avoid discrimination.

    During the campaign, the president Pedro Pablo Kuczynski was in favor of Civil Unions, a proposal that was included in the plan of government as presented. It also has the support of the Ombudsman's Office and the Public Prosecutor's Office.

  • 36. weshlovrcm  |  December 27, 2016 at 2:27 am

    Wake up, people. We lost in November…everything. The anti-gay lobby got everything they ever wanted, and more, handed to them on a silver platter. All compliments of Russia's election rigging which will never be investigated now that the GOP controls all branches of Government. Since they know how to rig an election now, you can be sure the cheeto will be voted back in in 4 years, along with the con majorities in the House/Senate. In a few years, we will be back to the early 1960's. All the cons need is to turn two Supreme Court seats over to right wing ideologues and they have everything they ever wanted. One seat will go quickly after the cheeto is in office. The other only waits for the death/retirement of one liberal Justice and he/she can't hold out for 4 – 8 more years. Once the cons control the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade, Loving v. Virginia, Marriage equality, the Voting Rights Act, etc. will all be quickly overturned. Discrimination will become a protected "religious belief" via "religious protection" laws. Then Lawrence v. Texas will go and soon thereafter, homosexuality will be recriminalized. The sky is the limit after that. Russian style anti-gay "homosexual propaganda" laws will follow. Remain vigilant and have a Plan B so when they come to load you, Muslims, Latinos and Jews into the cattle cars, you are ready to leave before they can round you up. Keep an eye out for the cheeto's "Burning of the Reichstag" moment after which he can declare Martial Law. Think it can't happen? Look at what the cons are doing to democracy in North Carolina right now. Good luck to you.

  • 37. scream4ever  |  December 27, 2016 at 9:27 am

    And then the second American Civil War will begin. You can only roll back rights so far until people rise up and get violent.

  • 38. FredDorner  |  December 27, 2016 at 11:41 am

    There are three things which are true: that periods of progress are usually followed by brief reactionary periods, that the courts have never in their history reversed rights once they've been recognized, and that the public overwhelmingly supports LGBT rights. Note that McCrory lost because of his support for HB2, and that bigoted bakers and florists are going out of business not due to gays per se but due to the public's refusal to patronize bigots.

    So in the long run civil rights issues are losers for the racists, homophobes, misogynists and Islamophobes who comprise the GOP. But in the short run Der Fuhrer is bad news for all of of us no matter who we are or where we live.

  • 39. VIRick  |  December 27, 2016 at 1:21 pm

    First off, no one here who has been regularly posting/reading has been asleep.

    Secondly, these sorts of over-wrought, panicked responses, like yours, rushing to so-called "ultimate solutions" in reaction to recent negative events, are not helpful to anyone. At all.

    Might I offer you a positive "inaugural" alternative:

    Love Trumps Hate Rainbow Bash

    sponsored by the "Washington Blade" Foundation

    Thursday, 19 January 2017 from 9:00 PM until Friday, 20 January 2017 at 1:00 AM (EST) in the LeDroit Park area at:

    Town Danceboutique
    2009 8th Street NW (at U Street NW)
    Washington DC 20001

    One can request tickets to the bash here:

  • 40. salton22  |  December 27, 2016 at 3:56 pm

    Now that Pandora's Box has been opened, we have to remember that Hope is still inside.

  • 41. allan120102  |  December 27, 2016 at 3:59 pm

    This a good analysis of what to wait for 2017 in terms of lgbt rights globally either in favor or against. It also mention our successes and defeats this year.

  • 42. VIRick  |  December 27, 2016 at 7:01 pm

    In addition to all the other places cited, all of which is accurate, they should have also noted that marriage equality is slated to become reality in Finland on 1 March 2017.

    However, as a definite bonus to all that, I truly enjoyed the surprise side-bar ad for "Hung Homo Homestay," Sleep, Sex and Sightseeing in Beautiful Victoria (BC) with discreet manly entertainment, including a nasty pig playpen for guests' use,– plus phone number.

  • 43. scream4ever  |  December 27, 2016 at 9:13 pm

    They also forgot to mention that Nepal is poised to ratify same-sex marriage next year.

  • 44. allan120102  |  December 27, 2016 at 4:00 pm

    Conservatives are trying to recall a legislator in Taiwan for his support of lgbt rights including marriage equality. We are now seeing the conservatives in Taiwan taking action to stop marriage equality reaching the nation.

  • 45. scream4ever  |  December 27, 2016 at 5:26 pm

    So far it's just preliminary. I doubt this will affect the chances of the bill's passage.

  • 46. allan120102  |  December 27, 2016 at 4:11 pm

    Base on local lgbt groups the supreme court will decide the act of unconstitutionality against the state ban at the end of January or start of February. I am not sure if the supreme court will also decide the cases of Aguascalientes and Puebla at the same time or each in different days. Btw Rick I also investigate but didnt saw any case against Veracruz in the supreme court page, will continue to look if something in filed.

  • 47. VIRick  |  December 27, 2016 at 5:01 pm

    Thanks. And I have already searched all of the local Veracruz newspaper articles during the time interval in question and came up empty-handed.

    Actually, I'm more hopeful for a win in Baja California Sur, where we have some strong allies at the highest levels of the state judiciary, as well as the vocal backing of the state Bar Association. See immediately below:

  • 48. allan120102  |  December 27, 2016 at 5:31 pm

    Yeah, Most local authorities are scared of changing any marriage related laws because they are scared of actions of unconstitutionalities being filed against there civil codes, but for the states having child marriages it looks like au uphill battle. I am not sure how many states still have them. Guerrero for example this year was suppose to prohibit marriage with people less than 18 but they were scared of having there ban struck down. Others were more adventurous like Chiapas and that is why it will soon see its ban struck down.
    The only bad thing about this method is that it takes a lot of time from having a final decision, and it only binds the state sued not the remaining ones that have the same type of issue like US courts do.

  • 49. VIRick  |  December 27, 2016 at 6:14 pm

    It isn't just the need for the prohibition on child marriage that's causing them to trip over themselves in fear. There are also changes being done to the marriage code to allow for something called "express divorce." The "express divorce" provision instituted in Veracruz should have been sufficient to provoke an "action of unconstitutionality" being filed against the state. And it holds the same potential for causing an "action of unconstitutionality" being filed against BCS. Except in BCS, everyone in the judiciary and in the legal profession is on our side.

  • 50. VIRick  |  December 27, 2016 at 4:27 pm

    Mexico: Securing the Pending Issue of Marriage Equality in Baja California Sur in 2017

    Mexico: Seguirá Pendiente el Tema del Matrimonio Igualitario en Baja California Sur en 2017

    La Paz, Baja California Sur.- Las iniciativas de ley que permitirían la legalización del matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo en Baja California Sur, que fueron enviadas por el Tribunal Superior de Justicia del estado a la Cámara de Diputados, no tienen aún definición de parte del Legislativo, debido a que “posiblemente el tema se ha politizado," señaló el presidente del poder Judicial, Daniel Gallo Rodríguez.

    No obstante el magistrado confió en que en 2017 estas iniciativas habrán de ser analizadas y en su caso votadas por el Congreso del Estado, y recordó que se trata del Código de familia y el de Procedimientos familiares. Aclaró que el diputado Alfredo Zamora presentó en el Congreso una iniciativa para regular el divorcio, sin embargo ésta no aborda el tema de los matrimonios homoparentales.

    Además de la presión de números grupos sociales, la aprobación del Código de familia ha sido una demanda del Colegio de Abogados que dirige Ligia Muñoz, quien recientemente urgió al Congreso local a sacar esta iniciativa de la congeladora y a aprobarla, ya que se trata de “una necesidad apremiante."

    La Paz, Baja California Sur .- The law initiatives that would allow for the legalization of same-sex marriage in Baja California Sur, which were sent by the state's High Court of Justice to the Chamber of Deputies, do not yet have definition of part of the legislature, because "the issue has possibly become politicized," said Judicial President Daniel Gallo Rodríguez.

    Nevertheless, the magistrate hoped that in 2017 these initiatives will be analyzed and, as is the case, voted upon by the State Congress, and he recalled that it is about changes to the Family Code and Family Procedures. He clarified that Deputy Alfredo Zamora presented in Congress an initiative to regulate divorce, but this does not address the issue of same-sex marriage.

    In addition to the pressure of social groups, the approval of the changes to the Family Code has been a demand of the Bar Association led by Ligia Muñoz, who recently urged the local Congress to take this initiative out of the "freezer" and approve it, since it is "a pressing need."

    Note: If the divorce measure were to be approved, but not the same-sex marriage proposal, this would be sufficient grounds for filing an "action of unconstitutionality" directly with Mexico's Supreme Court against the state of BCS.

  • 51. VIRick  |  December 27, 2016 at 5:56 pm

    Latest Kansas Supreme Court Ruling Upholding Our Rights

    In a ruling just handed down by the Kansas Supreme Court in "Kansas v. Cleverly," we have this strong re-iteration that the courts are still the courts, defending our rights as enumerated in the US Constitution:

    "The individual rights assured to all citizens through the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution are not inconvenient technicalities." Kansas Supreme Court in "Kansas v. Cleverly," Reversed and Remanded.

    And yes, I've picked on Kansas on purpose, one of the reddest of the red states, already being governed by one of the worst asshats imaginable, complete with an attorney-general who is totally full of himself. Nevertheless, the ruling went against the state.

  • 52. TheVirginian722  |  December 28, 2016 at 1:55 am

    Yes, Kansas may be "one of the reddest of the red states," but its Supreme Court is light years away from Governor Brownback and his extremist followers. The seven Justices are placed on the Supreme Court by gubernatorial appointment, after which they are subject to retention votes every six years.

    The current seven Justices include four appointed by Democratic Governor (later HHS Secretary) Kathleen Sebelius, two appointed by moderate Republican Governor Bill Graves (who fought constantly with those who now form the Brownback faction), and only one appointed by Governor Brownback.

    Two of the Sebelius appointees were only narrowly retained in 2014 (Eric Rosen 52.7% "Yes", Lee Johnson 52.6% "Yes"). Two other Sebelius Justices did only slightly better in 2016 (Carol Beier 56.2% "Yes", Dan Biles 55.5% "Yes"). The two Graves appointees were also retained over strong opposition in 2016 (Chief Justice Lawton Nuss 55.3% "Yes", Marla Luckert 56.0% "Yes").

    The one Brownback appointee is Caleb Stegall, age 45, who served as Governor Brownback's Chief Counsel prior to his Supreme Court appointment. Justice Stegall is a ruling elder in the fundamentalist Evangelical Presbyterian Church, a breakaway sect founded in the 1980's. And, of course, Stegall and his wife homeschool their children. One can hardly imagine someone more likely to be high on the Pence/Cruz U. S. Supreme Court appointee list.

    Governor Sebelius was able to fill five of the seven Supreme Court seats during her six years as Governor (she resigned in the middle of her second term to accept Obama's appointment as HHS Secretary). Governor Brownback, who now has also served six years as Governor, has only been able to appoint a single Justice, Caleb Stegall. The only reason he was even able to do that was that President Obama elevated one of the Sebelius Justices, Nancy Moritz, to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

    One of Brownback's biggest disappointments has been the lack of Supreme Court vacancies he could fill to shape the Court as Sebelius did. Let's hope Justices Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer can similarly disappoint Pence and Cruz.

  • 53. VIRick  |  December 28, 2016 at 3:21 pm

    Thank you. That's very valuable input on a subject about which I was not fully aware.

    Can you (or anyone else) provide us with a similarly clear, detailed understanding as to why, in an even redder state, the Oklahoma Supreme Court is also similarly more progressive than the rest of that miserable, fracked-up state? There, of course, the governor is fairly clueless and the attorney-general is a relative non-entity.

  • 54. allan120102  |  December 28, 2016 at 3:49 pm

    The thing with the Oklahoman supreme court is that 8/9 members were appoint by democrats. Democratic governor Brad Henry apppoint 6 of them. Like Brownback in Kansas Fallin havent appoint any justice as far as I know. That is why the courts in Oklahoma in terms of supreme court are more progressive than most of the states representatives that full republicans. Thank God Kansas and Oklahoma two republican bastions democratic governors could pack there supreme courts before a republican took place. If not they could have been what Alabama supreme court is today pack with solid majority of bigots in there courts.I saw though that Mary fallin only apppointment was in the Oklahoma court of criminals appeals so not a problem for us.

  • 55. TheVirginian722  |  December 29, 2016 at 1:26 pm

    The Oklahoma Supreme Court has nine justices, one from each of nine judicial districts to assure representation for all parts of the state. Justices stand for statewide retention elections after their appointments and then every six years thereafter. No Oklahoma judge has ever failed to win a retention election.

    When a vacancy occurs, the Governor selects from a list of three nominees chosen by the state's Judicial Nominating Commission. The Commission has 15 members: six attorneys chosen by the state bar to represent each of the state's Congressional districts as configured in 1967, six non-attorneys chosen by the Governor from those same districts, and three additional at-large non-lawyer members. The at-large members consist of one appointed by the President Pro Tem of the Oklahoma Senate, one appointed by the Speaker of the Oklahoma House, and one more chosen by the other 14 members. This selection system was approved by Oklahoma voters in 1967 to make judicial selection as merit-based and free from partisan influence as possible. In fact, no Commission member can hold any elective or appointive office, including any office in a political party.

    The current nine justices include eight appointed by Democratic Governors and only one appointed by a Republican Governor. The current Governor, Republican Mary Fallin, has had even worse luck than Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, with not one vacancy occurring on the Court in her six years as Governor. The current Justices range in age from 63 to 79, so there are certain to be several vacancies in the foreseeable future. In fact, one is occurring immediately due to the retirement of Justice Steven Taylor, who declined to stand for retention in the November 2016 election. Three more Democratic-appointed Justices are scheduled to face retention elections in 2018: Yvonne Kauger, now 79; James Edmondson, now 71; and Noma Gurich, now 64.

    With virtually no prospect that Democrats will regain the Governorship any time soon, it would seem that Oklahoma Republicans will gain control of the Supreme Court within a few years. But many GOP legislators are eager to change the existing system, frustrated that the Judicial Nominating Commission evaluates candidates based on their qualifications instead of their ideology. They look with envy on the partisan elections of judges in Texas and Alabama, where Republican candidates (even Roy Moore) are virtually guaranteed victory over hapless Democratic opponents.

    In the 2017 legislative session, numerous reform proposals designed to make the appointment process subject to greater political influence will be debated. In previous sessions, the House and Senate were unable to reconcile their differences and reach a consensus.

    Many legislators recognize that Oklahomans have a positive view of their existing judicial appointment procedure and the judges it has produced. They fear the backlash if voters are asked to trash their merit-based selection process. They already miscalculated when Question 790 was placed on the November 2016 ballot to overturn the Court's decision requiring removal of the Ten Commandments Monument from the state capital grounds. Much to their surprise, voters rejected Question 790 with 57.1% of the vote evidencing their respect for the Supreme Court's decision. In fact, Justice James Winchester, who supported the Court's 7-2 decision received a larger retention vote than Justice Douglas Combs, who dissented.

  • 56. theperchybird  |  December 28, 2016 at 4:28 pm

    Tlaxcala just made a BIG mistake; lawsuits will fly.

    On top of the individual injunctions planned, now they may qualify for an act of unconstitutionality. Early in the morning in a rushed session, the updates on the Civil Code raised the age of marriage and inserted definitions that marriage and family is heterosexual and the usual 'let's just ignore SCJN precedent' language while ditching the same-sex marriage provision last minute. Now they suggest civil unions and haven't even said if they would be approved, they just said we'll have to wait and see if they are passed by Congress or not in the future.

  • 57. theperchybird  |  December 28, 2016 at 5:09 pm

    If this is the latest on marriage laws (February 2016) then it's 100% certain that the Supreme Court will do a repeat of Jalisco as the paragraph of Article 46 was changed, Alan/Rick compare the new Article 46's second sentence in the link above to this 46:

  • 58. allan120102  |  December 28, 2016 at 5:34 pm

    Tlaxcala for sure now counts for an act of unconstitutionality. I really hope lgbt groups sue the state before the time required to sue expired. Making this changes its like inviting the supreme court to invalidated there code. Sometimes I believe legislators do this so they are free from being blamed and instead blamed the court for changing the law. If someone from Mexico looks this blog please contact local lgbt groups from the state so they can start a lawsuit please. Btw thanks the Perchybird for this wonderful information. Havent had the time today in looking of what happen in Mexico today.

  • 59. theperchybird  |  December 28, 2016 at 5:49 pm

    I took a hiatus from blogging and posted my discoveries here and on twitter: @theperchybird , it's a long story but now I'll just copy and expand what I wrote here to actual articles on Perchy soon 🙂 There are still bright spots in the world and I love my parents' home country especially since my LGBT Center works with one in Mexicali (Baja C.) so I follow it closely. National same-sex marriage is already around the corner and Mexican conservatives know it, too, but many can't handle it and that's why there are marches and Congressional roadblocks – pero ni modo, ya llegara 🙂

  • 60. VIRick  |  December 28, 2016 at 7:14 pm

    Tlaxcala: Congress Raises Marriage Age, Refuses Marriage Equality

    De última hora y para borrar su título de improductivos, durante la madrugada de este miércoles, 28 de diciembre 2016, el pleno de diputados no aprobó una reforma al Código Civil que incluya la aprobación de la figura de matrimonios igualitarios, sino que recalcó el matrimonio y la familia es por hombre y mujer. Los legisladores locales, echaron abajo la propuesta de perredista Eréndira Jiménez Montiel, de crear la figura de matrimonios igualitarios que reconozca nupcias entre personas del mismo sexo.

    No obstante a ello, aumentaron la edad para personas que deseen contraer nupcias. A escala nacional era considerado como inconstitucional el que en Tlaxcala sea permitido de 16 años para convertirse en marido y mujer; por ello, esta madrugada se aprobó que sea hasta los 18 años, cumplida a mayoría de edad, cuando puedan casarse.

    “Artículo 46.- Podrán contraer matrimonio el hombre y la mujer que hayan cumplido dieciocho años de edad.…,” refiere la reforma aprobada.

    At the last minute and to erase its unproductive stance, during the morning of Wednesday, 28 December 2016, the plenary of deputies failed to approve a reform to the Civil Code that includes the approval of marriage equality, but instead emphasized again that marriage and family is between a man and woman. The local legislators, dismissed the proposal of Eréndira Jiménez Montiel, PRD, to create marriage equality that recognizes marriage between persons of the same sex.

    Notwithstanding this, the age for those wishing to marry was increased. At the national level, it had been considered unconstitutional that in Tlaxcala one could become husband and wife at age 16. Therefore, this dawn they increased the age limit to 18 years old, the age of majority, when one can marry.

    "Article 46.- Men and women who have reached the age of eighteen may enter into marriage…., " as stated in the approved reform.

    Note: This half-hearted maneuver is a precise match-up with what the state Congress in Chiapas did to cause the "Action of Unconstitutionality" to be filed against it with Mexico's Supreme Court.

    Additionally, it should be mentioned that all states in Mexico are under several mandates of jurisprudence from Mexico's Supreme Court. One states that they must raise the marriage age to 18. Another states they must approve of same-sex marriage. "Express Divorce" is an optional reform, but politically popular.

  • 61. theperchybird  |  December 28, 2016 at 7:50 pm

    Another article says they changed 46 on top of 39 and 42. 39 is the first mention of what marriage is and 42 expands it and includes heterosexual concubinage – I'm looking for the new language of 39/42 to compare it to the old text; if all 3 sections were indeed kept man-woman and only changed slightly then this was definitely a move by someone sympathetic to the cause as I don't see how a person against ssm could ignore the precedent on SEVERAL clauses.

  • 62. allan120102  |  December 28, 2016 at 8:06 pm

    One by one all states will get marriage equality. I am hoping for Chiapas to have marriage equality asap as it close to Guatemala. Couples in there for sure will cross the border and get married, at least one might demand recognition and they might challenge the ban there like it happen in Panama. its all a domino effect.

    Rick do local lgbt groups in Veracruz still have time to filed a challenge or its too late? The perchy do you know if Veracruz could be challenge or the modifications were not enough to be declare unconstitutional?

  • 63. VIRick  |  December 28, 2016 at 8:55 pm

    Yes, Chiapas directly abuts Guatemala and straddles the Carretera Interamericana, thus providing for immediate road access from Guatemala and all of Central America. Once Chiapas obtains marriage equality, the domino effect on recognition, as per the current case before the Supreme Court in Panama, would be instantly magnified for all of Central America.

    When I lived in a small town in southern Veracruz state, we were situated directly on the Gulf branch of the Carretera Interamericana, near the Tehuantepec cross-over to Chiapas. We lived on the upper floor above a ferretería (hardware store), with only a sidewalk separating the front door from the highway. I can distinctly recall seeing vehicles passing by bearing Guatemala (Belize, El Salvador, Nicaragua, etc.) license plates, as well as those from every state in Mexico, plus others from far to the north. Additionally, long-distance buses to/from everywhere stopped right outside.

  • 64. VIRick  |  December 28, 2016 at 7:59 pm

    Previously, Article 46 also stated:

    Los presidentes municipales podrán conceder la dispensa de edad únicamente por causas graves y justificadas, siempre y cuando ambos pretendientes hubiesen cumplido dieciséis años de edad.

    The municipal presidents may grant the dispensation of age only for serious and justified reasons, provided that both partners had reached sixteen years of age.

    In the new format, this sentence appears to have been removed.

    I do not see any mention that anything in Articles 39 or 42 had been changed. All three Articles seem to continue to state man/woman in terms of marriage and co-habitation. Just that one age reference to 16 years in Article 46 has disappeared.

    The deputy, Eréndira Jiménez Montiel, PRD, the sponsor of the same-sex marriage legislation in Tlaxcala, has been very pro-actively in favor of LGBT rights.

  • 65. theperchybird  |  December 28, 2016 at 9:12 pm

    I found a transcript of today's meeting:

    Start at page 26, the paragraph above point 6. They voted to keep only some paragraphs as is, someone wanted to add classes in order to get married.

    Page 75 shows what they chose. 42 concubinage and 46 marriage were changed.

  • 66. VIRick  |  December 28, 2016 at 8:32 pm

    Allan, here's what I've saved in my archives regarding the marriage code reforms from Veracruz state:

    Mexico: Veracruz Modifies Its State Marriage Code

    As of 4 November 2016, legislators in Veracruz state have modified the state's marriage code in terms of their now allowing express divorce, as well as their allowing unmarried (hetero) couples simply living together to have the same rights as married (hetero) couples. The only point under consideration to which they did not agree was to allow same-sex marriage, despite the court-ordered mandate to do so. This means that it will take another year or two for Veracruz to gain marriage equality by means of direct intervention on the part of Mexico's Supreme Court.

    Once these other legislatively-approved 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 on 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 publication date, the 30-day countdown will begin.

    The most startling change is the following, as this modification 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.)

    But then notice, in their allowing for express divorce (divorcio exprés), the legislators also specifically cite, as their rationale: “es algo establecido por la corte por jurisprudencia." (it is something established by the court by jurisprudence).

    And yet, they ignored the similar court mandate regarding marriage equality.

  • 67. VIRick  |  December 29, 2016 at 12:37 am

    Correction from what I stated higher up with regard to Tlaxcala, versus what I just re-posted here with regard to Veracruz where the matter is made quite clear:

    "Express Divorce" is not an optional reform. Instead, just like raising the minimum marriage age to 18, and approving same-sex marriage, "Express Divorce" is also a mandated jurisprudence from Mexico's Supreme Court. Thus, all three changes are required.

  • 68. ianbirmingham  |  December 28, 2016 at 6:00 pm

    Thailand Hosts 2nd Annual Transgender Middle School Student Beauty Pageant

  • 69. VIRick  |  December 28, 2016 at 6:15 pm

    Iowa: Former Drake University Coach Sues, Alleging Anti-Gay Discrimination

    A former assistant women’s basketball coach at Drake University in Des Moines has sued the school, alleging she was forced to resign because she’s a lesbian. In the suit, filed Friday, 23 December 2016, in federal court, Courtney Graham says that after she brought then-partner Kristal Flowers (now her wife) to a home game in November 2014, she became subjected to gossip and harassment by head coach Jennie Baranczyk, "The Des Moines Register" reports.

    The suit “claims that Baranczyk sent Graham home multiple times without explanation, excluded her from team meetings and scouting trips, and stripped her of job duties until the only remaining tasks she had were similar to those of an intern,” according to the Register.

    Baranczyk asked for Graham’s resignation on 14 May 2015, and when Graham resisted, pressured her until she finally resigned the following month, according to the suit. Graham says she has been unable to find a new position because Baranczyk has provided “negative information” to prospective employers.

    The suit, filed in US District Court in Des Moines, accuses Baranczyk and the university of violating the Iowa Civil Rights Act, which forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation. It further alleges negligence, retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and harassment.

  • 70. theperchybird  |  December 29, 2016 at 1:01 am

    Finland's a country that required several votes to have everything in their marriage laws up to scratch…took three votes to finish. The first two were on making marriage and adoption available and this latest one passed this month was to make sure all the benefits like pensions and healthcare were equal. The last part of the legislation passed 128-28 with several abstentions.

    Here's the wiki-graphic with the three vote tallies (scroll down to December 2016), this final piece only requires a signature. Same-sex couples will be able to marry in Finland on March 1 2017.

    We're not out of the woods yet, the citizens initiative law that allowed ssm to reach the plenary even with a negative committee vote also allowed conservatives to create a roll back proposal since they too collected enough names; in regards to signatures, the equal marriage petition still beat the repeal petition by a mile though 🙂 I REALLY hope Parliament trashes the repeal, would be sad to see all the progress suddenly vanish.

  • 71. theperchybird  |  December 29, 2016 at 1:34 am

    Apologies if it's a repeat, but Jalisco's trans community wants to meet with Congress members to have a Gender Identity law approved. Like with other LGBT issues in Mexico, it's all very piecemeal and rights vary by state, the capital and only a few other regions allow legal gender change:

  • 72. VIRick  |  December 29, 2016 at 3:09 pm

    New York: Nation's First Known Intersex Birth Certificate Issued in NYC

    Per Equality Case Files:

    On Tuesday, 27 December 2016, 55-year-old Sara Kelly Keenan received something in the mail she's been waiting for her entire life: an accurate birth certificate. Keenan was born intersex, with male genes, female genitalia and mixed internal reproductive organs. Now, Keenan, who uses female pronouns, is making history. Hers is believed to be the first birth certificate ever issued in the United States that reads "intersex" in the gender field, instead of "male" or "female."

    Lambda Legal attorney Paul Castillo commended the New York City agency "for issuing an accurate birth certificate." "In the United States, birth certificates often provide access to a wide range of public services and critical identity documents, such as state IDs and passports," Castillo said. "Having birth certificates with gender designations other than male or female provides an enormous sense of validation for a number of non-binary and intersex people."

    Like many people born intersex, Keenan was unaware of her anatomical reality for most of her adult life, because her parents and doctors agreed to keep it secret. When she was born in New York City a half-century ago, she was classified as a boy for three weeks—then suddenly issued a female birth certificate. Back then, intersex people were called "hermaphrodites," and doctors typically recommended surgery to make them conform to one of two genders. Keenan started a lifetime of hormone replacement therapy at age 16, vaguely informed that she was "a girl that can't make hormones." Her father confessed to her in 2012 that doctors had suggested a penis be constructed to match her genitalia to her male chromosomes, but he had declined. She has since undergone endocrinological testing to confirm her intersex status.

    "Not all intersex people will choose to identify legally as intersex," Keenan told NBC Out, "and not all parents will choose to have their intersex child identified as intersex on birth documents. But for those who do, the option must exist."

    In September 2016, Keenan made headlines when a judge allowed her to become the first California resident to change her gender to "non-binary." When the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) issued her new birth certificate, she entered truly unique territory: Keenan now has two legal genders, both issued this year. Each is accurate, in terms of intersex people falling between or outside of the gender binary.

  • 73. VIRick  |  December 29, 2016 at 3:17 pm

    This same extended article provides further information regarding quite a few other Intersex cases. For example:

    Ohio: Birth Certificate Revised to Read "Hermaphrodite"

    In Ohio in 2012, an intersex person successfully petitioned to have their birth certificate revised to read "hermaphrodite," according to Keenan's attorney, Toby Adams. That case, kept quiet for privacy reasons, ironically owed its victory to the same law that makes it impossible for transgender Ohio natives to change their birth certificates: a 1987 ruling that states "a birth certificate is an historical record of the facts as they existed at the time of birth." The person who was issued the revised certificate was able to provide medical documentation showing they were born "a true hermaphrodite" according to medical terminology.

  • 74. VIRick  |  December 29, 2016 at 5:57 pm

    Japan: City of Sapporo to Approve Same Sex Unions in 2017

    Japón: Ciudad de Sapporo Aprobará las Uniones del Mismo Sexo en 2017

    La ciudad de Sapporo se regala el matrimonio igualitario e impulsa al colectivo LGTB japonés. La quinta ciudad más poblada de Japón impulsa el matrimonio igualitario en Japón, como la ciudad aprobará las uniones del mismo sexo en 2017. La ciudad situada en la isla de Hokkaido ha anunciado que a comienzos del 2017 aprobará este tipo de uniones y se convierte en la metrópoli más importante del país en dar este paso vital.

    The city of Sapporo gives a gift of marriage equality, moving the Japanese LGBT collective forward. Japan's fifth most populous city promotes equal marriage in Japan, as the city will approve same-sex unions in 2017. The city on the island of Hokkaido has announced that in early 2017 it will approve this type of union, becoming the country's most important metropolis to take this vital step.

    In Japan, to summarize, to date, same-sex unions are recognized in the following locations:

    Shibuya ward (Tokyo)
    Setagaya ward (Tokyo)
    Iga (Mie Prefecture)
    Takarazuka (Hyogo Prefecture)
    Naha (Okinawa)
    Sapporo (Hokkaido)

  • 75. allan120102  |  December 30, 2016 at 12:00 pm

    Tlaxcala have legalized a cohabitation bill that includes same sex couples, the thing is that the supreme court have declared this things unconstitutional and struck a similar law of Colima in 2014 or 2015. Tlaxcala says that the bill is not unconstitutional because it includes heterosexual and same sex couples and treats them equally…..pfft I have heard the same argument again and again and it will not save Tlaxcala from seeing its ban to be nullify .

  • 76. theperchybird  |  December 30, 2016 at 1:10 pm

    That will just add lawsuits, Tlaxcala's ban is going down either from 5 amparos, a single action of unconstitutionality or this; whichever comes first 🙂

  • 77. allan120102  |  December 30, 2016 at 1:17 pm

    The thing is amparos are not enough there are states that have surpass the 5amparos and continue to ban ssm. Amparos only help the plaintiffs and no one more.To nullify a ban they are two methods if we are talking by judicial means.One is that the supreme court issue 5 rresoultions against the state code. NL have 3 I believe meanwhile Sinaloa have 4 or 5 that means ssm will likely be legal in Sinaloa in early 2017. The other way is an action of unconstitutionality like what happen in Jalisco.

  • 78. theperchybird  |  December 30, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    Spanish wikipedia has the states with at least 5 colored in gold:

    Is there anything off/missing?

  • 79. allan120102  |  December 30, 2016 at 1:57 pm

    The map is much better than the other times I have seen it. My only problem is why Puebla and Queretaro are gold menawhile Guerrero is blue. As the three of them have some of there municipalities issuing marriage licenses but not all of them. Imo Guerrero should be of other color and not blue until all of its municipalities are issuing , like Queretarto and Puebla.

    Anyways. The Perchy I believe that at least 5 states of Mexico will get marriage equality pretty soon. Chiapas, Sinaloa, Puebla and Aguascalientes are bound to have marriage equality by the supreme court in the first trimester of 2017. Others like NL might soon get marriage equality if two or more resoultions are issue against there code.

    I believe more states will get actions of unconstitutionalities as they are at least 12 that need to modify there laws to prohibit marriage before the age of 18. Those are Baja California, Chihuahua, Durango, Guerrero, Hidalgo, Morelos, Nuevo León, Sinaloa ,Tlaxcala, Sonora, Tabasco and Guanajuato. Of those 12 only Morelos and Chihuhua have marriage equality or full fledge marriage for ss couples. That means that we have the opportunity to win 10 more states by actions of unconstitutionality so Mexican lgbt groups need to buck up and be ready when states modify there laws, Like what happen with Tlaxcala two days ago. This is an opportunity we can not let up as this 10 plus the other 9 that already have marriage would give us a total of 19 states plus the federal district.

  • 80. theperchybird  |  December 30, 2016 at 2:56 pm

    Yeah, I heard some don't have a single Family Code and only several laws all over the place and others are dragging their feet on creating a new Code because they heard what happened with ssm being thrown on the states by the Court.

    The two states I want to see get ssm most are Aguascalientes, my dad's homestate and I'm sure someone in my family is one of us, the statistics alone would guarantee it,and BC because it's next to me and because it's such a PAN state and what Mexicali's City Hall did to that first married couple was inexcusable. I also know some BC activists personally so I'd be thrilled for them.

  • 81. VIRick  |  December 30, 2016 at 3:51 pm

    Perhaps the difference is this:

    In Guerrero, the order authorizing marriage equality came from the top down, whereas, in both Querétaro and Puebla, the change came from the bottom up.

    In Guerrero, the governor of the state issued a statewide executive order allowing for same-sex marriage to be performed anywhere in the state. In addition, the head of the state Civil Registries in Guerrero has been duly recognizing and recording any/all same-sex marriages performed anywhere in the state. (Never mind that certain municipalities in Guerrero have refused to comply. Some may eventually change their policy, as they certainly have the approval from higher up to do just that).

    In both Querétaro and Puebla, the civil registrar in one city in each (Ciudad Querétaro and San Pedro Cholula) have taken it upon themselves (with the respective mayor's approval) to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples without requiring an amparo (in compliance with Mexico's Supreme Court ruling, but not specifically in compliance with out-dated state law, although the one person in Querétaro who attempted to challenge the change there on those grounds was summarily fired from their job).

    Note to Perchy: To the best of my knowledge, the map in question is up-to-date and accurate. I am in perfect accord with it.

  • 82. Fortguy  |  December 31, 2016 at 9:21 pm

    As a note to all, I have cleansed the source code of all of the meaningless and extraneous proprietary code that SVG editing software such as Inkscape and Corel Draw tend to pollute such files for no justifiable reason. I have also rewritten the relationships to the map's internal elements with the code's style declaration.

    Changing the color of a state is now so simple that it can be done as fast as a middle school kid posting a regrettable selfie on social media. The style element is contained in the first 20 or so lines of the source file, with many of the lines preceding it being directions I have specifically provided on how to properly edit it. Beyond that, the rest of the very long file and all of its geographies can be ignored.

    If the legal status of a Mexican state changes and requires the state to be colored differently, just download the file, open it in Notepad or Wordpad, cut and paste the state from the old to the new category, save and upload. That's it, you're done in the same amount of time as to post a comment to this forum with a hyperlink.

    See how easy that is? The hard part is justifying your changes to other editors. Be armed with reports in reputable news media and be proactive by updating those changes of status on the appropriate Wikipedia article.

    Mexico SSM map

    From your browser's menu, click to save the map file to your computer's desktop. When the file icon appears on your desktop, right-click and choose "Open With Notepad" (or Wordpad) from the menu. The text editor of your choice will show the source code that includes the directions near the top.

  • 83. theperchybird  |  December 30, 2016 at 1:36 pm

    Rex Wockner told me the 5 amparos only count if they are affirmed by an appeal, having all lower judges bound to approve them was good but also complicated matters as activists have to get crafty about how to get that appeal going if a judge just says Yes 99% of the time.

  • 84. VIRick  |  December 30, 2016 at 4:14 pm

    Yes, always listen to what Rex Wockner has to say. So far, he has always been correct. I have learned a lot from him, and no doubt, will continue to learn much more.

  • 85. theperchybird  |  December 30, 2016 at 4:51 pm

    He said for Tlaxcala to get that action of unconstitutionality, it needs to be filed by a government agency like CNDH as was the case with Jalisco and the later ones filed. Someone contact them, please.

  • 86. VIRick  |  December 30, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    Yes, either the CNDH (National Human Rights Commission) or the CEDH (State Human Rights Commission).

    The CEDH for Tlaxcala played an active role in assisting the first same-sex couple to obtain an amparo to marry in Tlaxcala, and has subsequently provided the same assistance for other couples seeking to marry there.

    Comisión Estatal De Derechos Humanos
    Address: Arquitectos 27, Loma Bonita, Tlacomulco, 90090 Tlaxcala de Xicohténcatl, Tlax., Mexico
    Phone: 52 246 462 1630

  • 87. theperchybird  |  December 30, 2016 at 5:13 pm

    Good, can't wait to hear if they'll get involved.

    There was one CEDH that wasn't answering activists regarding anything, just ignoring them, can't remember which state.

  • 88. allan120102  |  December 30, 2016 at 5:20 pm

    We need to contact them asap. I imagine them being activist they already know how to act but just to be sure one of us should contanct them. I really want to be done with Mexico asap in getting marriage equality nationwide.

  • 89. VIRick  |  December 30, 2016 at 5:53 pm

    Here's what I just found on the CNDH website of cases they've filed as "Actions of Unconstitutionality:"

    2016 32:
    Demanda de acción de inconstitucionalidad 32/2016, presentada ante la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, el 6 de mayo del 2016, artículo 145 en la porción normativa “el hombre y la mujer” del Código Civil para el Estado de Chiapas.
    (En trámite, Pendiente de resolver)

    2016 29:
    Demanda de acción de inconstitucionalidad 29/2016, presentada ante la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, el 27 de abril del 2016, artículo 300 en la porción normativa que establece “el hombre y la mujer” del Código Civil para el Estado Libre y Soberano de Puebla.
    (En trámite, Pendiente de resolver)

    2015 28:
    Demanda de acción de inconstitucionalidad 28/2015, presentada ante la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, el 4 de mayo del 2015, en contra del artículo 260, en la porción normativa que establece “el hombre y la mujer” del Código Civil del Estado de Jalisco.
    (Resuelta en fecha 26/01/2016)

    I do not find the case filed against Aguascalientes, case # 2016 22 (which means a different party than the CNDH filed it), nor any filing against Veracruz on the subject of marriage. Aguascalientes raised the marriage age to 18, while simultaneously failing to approve same-sex marriage, the grounds for the filing.

    But there appear to be two unresolved cases against Michoacán, 2015 114 and 2015 107, against their laws on "Sociedades de Convivencia y Concubinato." If I recall, these were both brought by the Michoacán CEDH. Also a case against Jalisco, 2013 36, against its "Ley de Libre Convivencia." All three will likely be ruled unconstitutional for being "less than marriage."

    Also, the Supreme Court is up to about case number 2015 76. There were 139 cases filed in 2015. In grand total, from all years,124 cases remain pending.

    Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos
    Address: Periferico Sur 3469, La Magdalena Contreras, San Jerónimo Lídice, 10200 Ciudad de México, CDMX, Mexico
    Phone: 52 800 715 2000
    Hours: Open today · Open 24 hours

  • 90. theperchybird  |  December 30, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    The partnership bill and marriage bill were written by an ally of a smaller party who hoped both would pass at one point.

    Now I'm convinced the state has some sympathetic members in other parties who don't want to get their hands dirty and let the Court take over. Surely no one could be that stubborn…I think.

  • 91. VIRick  |  December 30, 2016 at 8:44 pm

    Tlaxcala: Lawmakers Create "Law of Societies of Co-Existence"

    Tlaxcala: Crean Legisladores la Ley de Sociedades de Convivencia Solidaria

    Por mayoría de sufragios, 18-4-8-3, y con el voto en contra de algunos diputados del Partido Acción Nacional (PAN), durante la sesión extraordinaria de ayer, 29 de diciembre 2016, los integrantes de la LXI legislatura local de Tlaxcala aprobaron la creación de la Ley de Sociedades de Convivencia Solidaria que tiene como objetivo proteger las relaciones entre personas de un mismo o diferente sexo, sin que haya matrimonio de por medio.

    Con dicha ley presentada en 2014 por la coordinadora de la fracción parlamentaria del Partido de la Revolución Democrática (PRD), Eréndira Jiménez Montiel, Tlaxcala posee una figura que dará certeza jurídica en sus actos y obligaciones a personas del mismo sexo que decidieron vivir juntas, en sociedad, y que garantiza diversos derechos como la seguridad social y la herencia como derecho habiente.

    Además, la legislación incluye el registro de la sociedad de convivencia en el Registro Civil y no en el Registro Público de la Propiedad, como se pretendía al principio.

    By majority vote, 18-4-8-3, and with some deputies of the National Action Party (PAN) voting against, during the extraordinary session yesterday, 29 December 2016, the members of the LXI Tlaxcala legislature approved the creation of the Law of Societies of Co-Existence that aims to protect relations between people of the same or different sex, but without making it marriage.

    With this law, introduced in 2014 by the coordinator of the parliamentary faction of the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), Eréndira Jiménez Montiel, Tlaxcala has a statute that will give legal certainty to the acts and obligations of people of the same sex who decide to live together, in society, and which guarantees various rights, such as social security and inheritance, as inherent rights.

    In addition, the legislation includes registration of the cohabitating couple in the Civil Registry and not in the Public Registry of Property, as was intended at the beginning.

    The vote was:
    18 in favor
    4 against
    8 abstentions
    3 walked out (absent)

    Note: If challenged, it is unlikely that this less-than-equal half-measure will meet with the approval of Mexico's Supreme Court. Still, there's now adequate grounds for filing an "Action of Unconstitutionality" against Tlaxcala directly with the Court.

  • 92. theperchybird  |  December 30, 2016 at 3:04 pm

    I have the YES tally for the Tlaxcala bill, 17 in favor and 2 PAN walked out in protest as the voting happened. It's 33 members in Congress, doesn't say how many voted against, just that 2 left, the others may have abstained or some absent. I'm looking for the full details.

  • 93. theperchybird  |  December 30, 2016 at 5:52 pm

    Found the tally on Erendira's facebook:

    17 YES: 7 votos del PRI, 1 voto del PAN, 4 votos del PRD, 2 votos del PVEM, 1 voto del PS, 1 voto del PT, 1 voto de MORENA.

    This page says 4 NO and incorrectly 18 YES (must be a typo…or did she not count herself?):

    A lot of abstentions then.

  • 94. VIRick  |  December 30, 2016 at 9:57 pm

    North Carolina: Dem Gov-Elect Wins Temporary Reprieve From GOP Law Stripping Some Of His Powers

    A North Carolina judge is temporarily blocking a new Republican-backed law that strips the incoming Democratic governor of his control over election boards just before he takes office. Wake County Superior Court Judge Don Stephens ruled Friday, 30 December 2016, that the risk to free and fair elections justified stopping the law from taking effect this weekend until it could be reviewed more closely. Stephens plans to review the law on Thursday, 5 January 2017.

    Governor-Elect Roy Cooper sued on Friday to block the law, passed two weeks ago. It ends the control governors exert over statewide and county election boards. The lawsuit says the Republican-led General Assembly’s action is unconstitutional because it violates separation of powers by giving legislators too much control over how election laws are administered. Cooper takes office on Sunday, 1 January 2017.

  • 95. scream4ever  |  December 30, 2016 at 10:42 pm

    Let's hope this is a sign of good things to come.

  • 96. allan120102  |  December 31, 2016 at 12:41 pm

    Amazing news coming from Aguascalientes. PAN is expected to join forces with other parties in the states of Aguascalientes to legalize ssm in the state. Lgbt groups says that individual deputies are signing in favor of this modification to there civil code. Saying that PAN was a great help in legalizing ssm in Colima so there is precedent for them to help do it in Aguascalientes. I am not sure if they are doing it because there ban is soon to be struck down by the supreme court but looks that marriage equality will arrive sooner than later.

  • 97. VIRick  |  December 31, 2016 at 2:30 pm

    The president of the Movimiento Disidente in Aguascalientes, of course, is correct in that there is no obstacle to legislative members of either PAN or PES voting in favor of marriage equality (other than their own obtuse intransigence), given that members of PAN voted in favor of it in Colima. (And yesterday, so did one PAN deputy in Tlaxcala).

    However, what was left unspoken was the remaining portion of the comparison: At the time, following an adverse ruling, Colima was under direct court orders from Mexico's Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriage. Also left unspoken, was the looming reality that Aguascalientes is "next in line" to receive an adverse ruling, and will soon be handed direct court orders from Mexico's Supreme Court to do the same thing,– or more likely, that the Court will step in and do it for them, as was done with Jalisco.

  • 98. theperchybird  |  January 1, 2017 at 1:08 am

    If it's true then finally someone gets it instead of letting the Supremes give them the ultimate smackdown 🙂

    It'll also continue the streak of being a state with at least one neighbor already allowing weddings; Tlaxcala will be the only island regarding any law, unions or marriage. Tlax won't be alone once Puebla is struck down though 🙂

  • 99. theperchybird  |  January 1, 2017 at 1:19 am

    By the way, I hope this means Marriage-marriage and not what the media calls civil unions incorrectly. Every time I found news on Aguas, it was always some politician stating that unions are the way to go – let's see if we get full equality or skim milk again.

  • 100. VIRick  |  December 31, 2016 at 1:27 pm

    Indiana: Pence Surrogate Reamed a New One in Court over Birth Certificates

    On 30 December 2016, in the federal suit, "Henderson v. Adams," the challenge to Indiana law as to the presumptive parentage on birth certificates, following the entry of a permanent injunction and final judgment in favor of plaintiffs, the state defendant, Dr. Jerome Adams, in his official capacity as Indiana State Health Commissioner, asked the court to clarify aspects of the injunction and to remove any declaration or injunction that the children are “born in wedlock,” as defined in Indiana Code §§ 31-9-2-15 and 31-9-2-16.

    Specifically, he claimed the plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the "wedlock" codes, and further asked the Court for clarification as to whether:
    1. statutes at issue in the case were facially invalid, or invalid only as applied to wives of birth mothers;
    2. the Court intends for its judgment and injunction to apply to wives of all birth mothers or only to wives of birth mothers who conceived through artificial insemination by anonymous donor; and
    3. the presumption of parenthood for wives of birth mothers is rebuttable under any circumstances.

    Judge Pratt’s response:
    * Request as to Indiana Code concerning the “wedlock” statutes DENIED; but grants the requests for clarification:

    1. Statutes are unconstitutional "as applied to female, same-sex married couples who have children during their marriage.”

    2. "The Court’s permanent injunction provides relief to 'female, same-sex spouses of birth mothers' and 'children born to a birth mother who is married to a same-sex spouse.' The Order means what it says and says what it means. It applies to female, same-sex spouses of birth mothers and children born to a birth mother who is married to a same-sex spouse. It does not apply additional limitations as the State Defendant questions."

    3. "The State Defendant notes that '[t]he Court appears to intend to give wives of birth mothers comparable rights to husbands of birth mothers.' The State Defendant’s observation is correct. The Court’s Orders did not modify or limit the rebuttable nature of the presumption of parenthood. Thus, the same methods for rebutting the presumption of parenthood of the husband of a birth mother are available for rebutting the presumption of parenthood of the wife of a birth mother."

    Here are the filings on the motion:
    * Defendant’s Motion:
    — Memo in support of motion <a href="http://:” target=”_blank”>:
    • Plaintiffs’ Response <a href="http://:” target=”_blank”>:
    — Supplemental Authority in support of response <a href="http://:” target=”_blank”>:
    • Defendant’s Reply in support of Motion <a href="http://:” target=”_blank”>:

    The new Order for Entry on Defendant’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment is here:

    So, with this decision, we end the year in a flourish with a new favorite quote from Judge Pratt: "The Order means what it says and says what it means."

  • 101. scream4ever  |  December 31, 2016 at 2:12 pm

    Refer this one to the Arkansas Supreme Court.

  • 102. VIRick  |  December 31, 2016 at 5:24 pm

    No, the Arkansas Supreme Court has definitely ruled that rather than "presume" that the spouse of a married woman giving birth be the second parent to the child (as is the procedure everywhere else), they'd prefer to "presume" that the woman's brother, cousin, uncle, preacher, neighbor, local handyman, travelling salesman,– and/or an intrepid Duggar,– be the parent, rather than it be the woman's spouse.

  • 103. VIRick  |  December 31, 2016 at 3:57 pm

    Here's the original ruling in "Henderson v. Adams," which certainly seems quite straight-forward and clear:

    On 30 June 2016, in "Henderson v. Adams", the federal challenge to the Indiana law as to presumptive parentage on birth certificates, the Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction have been entered. Indiana must recognize both mothers on a child's birth certificate when the child is born to a married same-sex couple.

    "Consistent with the Final Judgment entered this day, Dr. Jerome M. Adams in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health and officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys of the State of Indiana, including political subdivisions of Indiana, and those acting in concert with them are:
    • ENJOINED from enforcing Indiana Code §§ 31-9-2-15, 31-9-2-16, and 31-14-7-1 in a manner that prevents the presumption of parenthood to be granted to female, same-sex spouses of birth mothers as to any child born during their marriage;
    • ENJOINED to recognize children born to a birth mother who is married to a same-sex spouse as a child born in wedlock;
    • ENJOINED to recognize each of the Plaintiff Children in this matter as a child born in wedlock; and
    • ENJOINED to recognize each of the Plaintiff Spouses in this matter as a parent to their respective Plaintiff Child and to identify both Plaintiff Spouses as parents on their respective Plaintiff Child’s birth certificate."

  • 104. VIRick  |  December 31, 2016 at 8:00 pm

    Federal Judge Halts Obamacare Transgender, Abortion-Related Protections Nationwide

    In the case, "Franciscan Alliance v. Burwell," the same federal judge who stopped enforcement of the Obama administration’s transgender guidance for schools stopped enforcement of a similar healthcare rule one day before it was due to go into effect. The lawsuit, brought by Texas, seven other states, and some religiously-affiliated nonprofit medical groups, challenges a regulation implementing the sex nondiscrimination requirement found in the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

    The Health and Human Services (HHS) regulation “forbids discriminating on the basis of ‘gender identity’ and ‘termination of pregnancy’” under Obamacare, as US District Court Judge Reed O’Connor wrote in his opinion halting enforcement of those provisions in the rule. Explaining the lawsuit, O’Connor wrote, “Plaintiffs claim the Rule’s interpretation of sex discrimination pressures doctors to deliver healthcare in a manner that violates their religious freedom and thwarts their independent medical judgment and will require burdensome changes to their health insurance plans on 1 January 2017.” The states and nonprofits in the healthcare lawsuit allege that the regulation violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which sets the rules for federal government rule-making, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

    O’Connor found that the plaintiffs had standing to bring the lawsuit because they “have presented concrete evidence to support their fears that they will be subject to enforcement under the Rule.” Because Title IX is referenced as providing the interpretation of the ACA’s sex discrimination ban, O’Connor found, accordingly, that “HHS’s expanded definition of sex discrimination exceeds the [Title IX] grounds” provided for in the ACA, making that provision contrary to law and a violation of the APA.

    O’Connor similarly found that the rule’s failure to include the religious exemptions found in Title IX similarly “renders it contrary to law.” The judge also found a “substantial likelihood” that the states and nonprofits would succeed in their RFRA claim.

    O’Connor found that because “numerous” other options were available to the government for “expand[ing] access to transition and abortion procedures,” the rule is not the “least restrictive means” of advancing that interest — as required by RFRA. Notably, O’Connor also questioned strongly whether the government even showed that the rule “advances a compelling interest,” as required by RFRA, but assumed that it did so because he had found the rule had not met the “least restrictive means” prong of RFRA either.

    One can find the entire ruling posted at the bottom of the article:

    See also for additional detail:

    And here:

  • 105. VIRick  |  December 31, 2016 at 9:20 pm

    Colombia: History of Same-Sex Marriage Rights from a Personal Point of View

    To finish off the year on a positive note, there is an absolutely splendid essay written in the Colombian news publication, "El Espectador," of 31 December 2016, by Mauricio Albarracín, entitled:

    Yo Estuve Cuando, por Fin, se Reconoció el Matrimonio Igualitario

    I Was There, at Last, When Same-Sex Marriage Was Recognized

    It traces the entire movement for same-sex marriage in Colombia through the courts, including the several rulings at various intermediate stages, from the very beginning right through to the present moment, with special emphasis on the recent, well-deserved demise of "El Procurador," Alejandro Ordóñez. One can read the entire article (in Spanish) here:

  • 106. theperchybird  |  January 1, 2017 at 1:16 am

    Ordonez and Judge Pretelt were the biggest obstacles Colombia had to overcome in Court. Ordonez is out and the suspended Pretelt has a Supreme Court hearing beginning on January 31st for accepting a bribe from a defendant (large company). Hasta nunca.

    Now if only Viviane Morales retired…

  • 107. VIRick  |  January 1, 2017 at 4:07 pm

    Trump's Worst Nightmare: Coming Soon to Every Street Corner!

    Shawarma – Burritos – Tacos – Falafel – and Chinese Wok

    The actual restaurant pictured is located in Mississauga, Ontario (in the same strip mall with the Mr. India Market), but I'm certain we can work out some fast franchise deals to quickly install them everywhere in the USA.

  • 108. VIRick  |  January 1, 2017 at 5:52 pm

    North Carolina: Roy Cooper Sworn In As McCrory Blames Media/HB2 For Loss

    North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper took his oath of office minutes after midnight Sunday morning, 1 January 2017, getting an early start on his duties amid bitter partisan politics in the state, but saying he believed there is a way forward.

    Joined by a small group of family, friends and colleagues, the Democrat was sworn in inside the old House chamber of the 1840 Capitol building nearly a week before his public inauguration.

  • 109. ianbirmingham  |  January 2, 2017 at 11:48 am

    Obama Can & Should Do A Recess Appointment Of Merrick Garland To SCOTUS In The 5 Minutes Between Senate Sessions

  • 110. tx64jm  |  January 3, 2017 at 5:10 am

    I actually hope he tries it. Recess appointments are only good until the end of the session. So all the Senate has to do is adjourn sine die and he's out of office:

    "All that the Senate would need to do is end its next session by adjourning sine die and Garland’s term would end. This is because, under the Constitution’s Recess Appointments Clause, such appointments terminate at the end of the next Senate session. Adjourning sine die would require the cooperation of the House and a president’s signature, but that would be no obstacle come Jan. 20. In other words, Congress could terminate any recess appointment made by Obama in less than three weeks."

    Finally, you might want to note that If Garland was recess appointed by Obama, then there is also a vacancy on the DC Court of Appeals. So, Trump gets two for one. He gets to pack the DC Circuit and also SCOTUS.

  • 111. guitaristbl  |  January 3, 2017 at 7:24 am

    The bigoted troll has a point for once. Garland will be much more useful blocking all of the GOP's unconstitutional nonsense on the DC circuit. This is where FADA will end up first when passed, signed and challenged in court.

  • 112. allan120102  |  January 2, 2017 at 2:12 pm

    Guenersay have received royal assent and same sex marriage could be legal by the summer.

  • 113. VPS Vietnam  |  April 27, 2017 at 2:13 am

    he Tribunal imposed a conditional fine of 30,000 Euro

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