Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Equality news round-up: Appeals courts set several arguments in LGBT cases

LGBT Legal Cases Transgender Rights

– Arguments in Barber v. Bryant and Campaign for Southern Equality v. Bryant (consolidated cases) are tentatively set for the week of April 3. The cases involve Mississippi’s HB 1523, which allows opt-outs for county clerks, allowing them to avoid issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples; the law also protects the belief that “sex” is “biological sex” only. The Fifth Circuit is hearing an appeal of a preliminary injunction blocking the act.

– Two separate appeals are set for argument in the Fourth Circuit: one, CarcaƱo v. McCrory, is an attempt to broaden the scope of the district court’s preliminary injunction against HB2; the other, Ansley v. Warren, appeals the dismissal of a case challenging North Carolina’s law allowing magistrates to recuse from issuing marriage licenses if they don’t want to issue them to same-sex couples. Both are set for the May 9 – May 11 argument session.

– On Wednesday, March 29, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the appeal in Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified School District, in which the district court ruled for a transgender student who sought to use the correct restrooms.

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings


  • 1. VIRick  |  February 15, 2017 at 1:04 pm

    US Supreme Court Asked to Reverse Discriminatory Arkansas Birth Certificate Ruling

    More than a year after the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage nationwide, a team of LGBT legal advocates is calling on justices to reaffirm that decision. In a 38-page petition, in "Smith v. Pavan," filed today, 15 February 2017, legal advocates seek to overturn an Arkansas Supreme Court ruling against placing the names of both lesbian parents on a child’s birth certificate.

    In December 2016, the Arkansas Supreme Court upheld a state law requiring the Arkansas Department of Health to label a birth certificate with the “paternity of the person” when that person is born. That means for lesbian parents, the state will place the name of the birth mother, but not the spouse, on the birth certificates of their children.

    The petition argues the Arkansas decision undermines the US Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in "Obergefell v. Hodges," which ruled states must grant married same-sex couples the same benefits under the law as they would opposite-sex couples. And as the petition further points out, the Obergefell decision explicitly identifies “birth and death certificates” as one of the “aspects of marital status” states must administer in equal manner to both same-sex and different-sex married couples.

    The petition presents a singular question before the Supreme Court: Whether a state violates the 14th Amendment by denying married same-sex couples the same right afforded to married opposite-sex couples under state law to have the name of the birth mother’s spouse entered as the second parent on their child’s birth certificate.

    The trio of legal groups who filed the petition for certiorari are the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Arkansas attorney Cheryl Maples, who represented the lesbian couples in the case before the Arkansas Supreme Court, and the DC-based law firm Ropes & Gray.….

  • 2. Elihu_Bystander  |  February 15, 2017 at 4:00 pm

    Here is the link to the writ of certiorari

  • 3. Elihu_Bystander  |  February 15, 2017 at 4:14 pm

    An additional question (IMNAL): Is this the type of case where SCOTUS can answer per curium?

  • 4. scream4ever  |  February 15, 2017 at 4:18 pm

    That's what's likely to happen. They already did that in the Alabama adoption case.

  • 5. guitaristbl  |  February 16, 2017 at 6:37 pm

    This is a likely per curiam reversal based on Obergefell v. Hodges.Could be an one-liner as well .Cannot get more embarassing for a court.

  • 6. VIRick  |  February 15, 2017 at 1:05 pm

    Netherlands: Authorities to Prosecute Men for Distributing Anti-LGBT Cult Pamphlet

    A pamphlet distributed in Amsterdam last year has led to the prosecution of one man from Rotterdam and two from The Hague. The pamphlet starts by saying, in Dutch, that Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all reject homosexuality. It presents “facts” about homosexuality and the words of a Romanian couple who are angry their children were adopted by a gay couple in the United Kingdom.

    According to Pink News, the flyer included “false statistics, including one that says 29 percent of children are abused by homosexual parents,” and statements “that LGBT people are more likely to suffer from mental health problems and that their suicide rates are higher.”

    The police have received over 75 complaints about the flyer. The men will be prosecuted for group insult, inciting discrimination, and distributing discriminatory statements. Police said they were identified by surveillance video.….

  • 7. VIRick  |  February 15, 2017 at 1:20 pm

    Housing Discrimination Appeal Filed with 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

    Per Equality Case Files:

    On 15 February 2017, in "Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Community," a female resident appealed her suit against a senior living facility for violations of the Fair Housing Act and the Illinois Human Rights Act by failing to protect her from harassment, discrimination, and violence to which she has been subjected by the other residents, in particular, actions due to their distaste for her being lesbian.

    Lambda Legal just filed the Notice of Appeal to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals of Judge Der-Yeghiayansion's decision on 18 January 2017, granting the defendants' motion to dismiss.

    The January 2017 decision to dismiss is here:

    Lambda Legal's release, from when the case was first filed in July 2016, is here:

    Today's appeal is here:

  • 8. scream4ever  |  February 16, 2017 at 11:16 am

    I'm eager for the en banc ruling to come down from the 7th. A positive ruling from the Supreme Court would be monumental.

  • 9. VIRick  |  February 15, 2017 at 3:41 pm

    Uruguay Celebrates a Prominent Same-Sex Marriage

    Per Martin Adaro:

    Matrimonio igualitario está en la tapa de la revista, "Gente Uruguay," después de que se casó la hija del ministro de economía con una psicóloga.

    Marriage equality is on the cover of the magazine, "Gente Uruguay," after the daughter of the minister of economy was married to a (female) psychologist.

  • 10. ianbirmingham  |  February 15, 2017 at 4:24 pm

    France: Prez Race Leader Marine Le Pen: No More Same-Sex Marriage; I'll Ban It!

  • 11. scream4ever  |  February 15, 2017 at 5:36 pm

    She should talk to Stephen Harper and see how that worked out in Canada.

  • 12. 1grod  |  February 15, 2017 at 8:20 pm

    Scream: Same sex marriage came to all of Canada in July 2005. During the 2006 Canadian federal election, Conservative Leader Harper promised a free vote on re-opening the legal status of Canada . In December 2006, having lost the motion on his preferred outcome [175 -123], Prime Minister Harper said that his new government had kept that election promise, He said 'the vote was decisive and obviously we'll accept the democratic result of the people's representatives," Harper further said "I don't see reopening this question in the future."

  • 13. scream4ever  |  February 15, 2017 at 8:43 pm

    Exactly my point.

  • 14. Christian0811  |  February 17, 2017 at 3:00 pm

    Honestly, I don't believe she actually cares about it. She's never mentioned it before and let's face it, her party is conservative on social issues, so even if she doesn't care I think she's obliged to give lip service to that effect.

    Even if it passed parliament, however unlikely, I doubt the socialist CC would allow it to be promulgated. Hell, she herself might refer it to the Council in that scenario just to wash their hands of responsibility for it. She should know that it'd be grossly unpopular and it'd cost her a lot of political power with social centrists who she needs to win the presidency and maintain support in parliament.

    Obviously, I don't like her even saying it but I dislike the EU even more than this.

  • 15. VIRick  |  February 15, 2017 at 4:27 pm

    ADF, Anti-LGBT Legal Organization, Designated a Hate Group

    On 15 February 2017, the Southern Poverty Law Center announced it has designated the ADF, an anti-LGBT legal organization, as a hate group. The SPLC, which is based in Montgomery AL, describes the Alliance Defending Freedom as “a legal advocacy and training group that specializes in supporting the re-criminalization of homosexuality abroad, ending same-sex marriage, and generally making life as difficult as possible for LGBT communities in the USA and internationally.” The Southern Poverty Law Center also released a series of anti-LGBT statements that current and former Alliance Defending Freedom staffers and their supporters have made (but which will not be re-quoted here).

    The Alliance Defending Freedom has filed dozens of religious freedom lawsuits in the USA and challenged efforts to protect transgender students in public schools. Just in northern Virginia alone, the organization represented Prince William County VA Circuit Clerk Michèle McQuigg, who was a defendant in the "Bostic" case that challenged Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban. In September 2016, J. Caleb Dalton of the Alliance Defending Freedom testified against a proposal that would add sexual orientation and gender identity to the Prince William County School Board’s nondiscrimination policy.

  • 16. scream4ever  |  February 15, 2017 at 5:41 pm

    NOM and Concerned Women for America are practically the only two nationwide anti-LGBT groups which aren't yet on the list.

  • 17. VIRick  |  February 15, 2017 at 5:05 pm

    Marriage Equality Bill Presented in the Peruvian Congress

    Se Presentó Proyecto de Ley de Matrimonio Igualitario en el Congreso Peruano

    Hoy, 14 de febrero 2017, se presentó en el Congreso peruano un proyecto de ley para legalizar el matrimonio de parejas del mismo sexo o matrimonio igualitario. El proyecto, que cuenta con apoyo multipartidario y el aporte de muchas organizaciones LGBT, lo presentarán las congresistas Glave y Huilca.

    La iniciativa legislativa propone la modificación del artículo 234 del Código Civil, que actualmente establece el concepto de matrimonio como "la unión voluntariamente concertada por un varón y una mujer legalmente aptos para ella," retirando los términos "varón" y "mujer," para definir el matrimonio como: "la unión voluntariamente concertada por dos personas legalmente aptas para ello." Asimismo, propone que "ambos cónyuges tienen en el hogar derechos, deberes, y responsabilidades iguales."

    Por otro lado, el proyecto de ley también establece el reconocimiento de los matrimonios igualitarios celebrados en el extranjero, por lo que tendrían la misma eficacia en nuestro país, amparados en el derecho internacional, y no podría negársele el reconocimiento legal "en ningún caso."

    Today, 14 February 2017, a bill was presented to the Peruvian Congress to legalize same-sex marriage or equal marriage. The project, which has multiparty support and the input of many LGBT organizations, will be presented by Congress members Glave and Huilca.

    The legislative initiative proposes the amendment of Article 234 of the Civil Code, which presently establishes the concept of marriage as "the voluntarily agreed union by a male and a female legally able to do so," removing the terms "male" and "female," to define marriage as: "the union voluntarily agreed upon by two persons legally able to do so." It also proposes that "both spouses have equal rights, duties, and responsibilities in the home."

    At the same time, the bill also establishes the recognition of egalitarian marriages celebrated abroad, so they would have the same effectiveness in our country, as covered by international law, and could not be denied legal recognition "under any circumstance."

    The bill has the signatures of Marisa Glave (FA), Indira Huilca (FA), Tania Pariona (FA), Alberto Quintanilla (FA), Manuel Dammert (FA), Horacio Zeballos (FA), Marco Arana (FA), Edgar Ochoa (FA), Guido Lombardi (PPK), Alberto de Belaunde (PPK) y Carlos Bruce (PPK).

  • 18. ianbirmingham  |  February 15, 2017 at 8:11 pm

    Thailand: Conditions Improving, progress being made

  • 19. ianbirmingham  |  February 15, 2017 at 9:18 pm

    Church Of England Synod Narrowly Rejects Bigot Committee's Anti-Gay Report

  • 20. Fortguy  |  February 15, 2017 at 11:21 pm

    This crisis within the Church of England has been averted for now by maintaining the status quo. As time goes on, this will be unsustainable. The C of E is the official, established church within English law, though not in the rest of the UK, and enjoys a loophole within the UK's marriage equality law allowing it to decline to perform same-sex unions. The C of E, the Church of Scotland which is Presbyterian instead of Anglican, and other Anglican bodies in the UK and Ireland will have to decide whether they side with older, conservative, and more vocal parishioners with the risk of looking anachronistic and out-of-touch or the more liberal societies that are their immediate neighbors and ministries.

    The C of E, as the mother church of the Anglican Communion, will eventually be forced to choose a side. It will either join their more progressive brethren among U.S. Episcopalians and Anglican Canadians who will likely be joined sooner rather than later by the Australian, New Zealand, and other British Isles churches, or they can side with the homophobic Third World churches while rejecting the opinions of their own citizenry. If the C of E decides eventually to recognize LGBT sacraments, it would tear the communion apart. What would remain, however, would be a progressive communion better to offer grace through the messages of love and compassion in the Gospels while letting the rest leave to carry on judgement repeatedly rejected by the Gospels.

    Update: The Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) does allow gay clergy including those who are legally married and allows "civil blessings" of gay unions. Meanwhile the Scottish Episcopal Church (Anglican) does perform same-sex weddings. It has no position rejecting gay clergy, but has no outspoken ordained gays of which I'm aware at this point.

    Update 2: Among the other Anglican national churches in the British Isles, both the Church of Ireland (which includes Northern Ireland) and the Church in Wales allow gay clergy. Neither, however, yet performs the sacrament of marriage for gay couples. Both do perform "blessing" or "thanksgiving" ceremonies for gay unions.

    Elsewhere, a good rundown of the positions of Anglican churches worldwide can be found on Wikipedia: Homosexuality and the Anglican Communion

  • 21. Elihu_Bystander  |  February 16, 2017 at 8:36 am

    The Episcopal Dioceses of San Joaquin
    San Joaquin Valley CA

    This dioceses of the Episcopal Church (USA) has been torn apart over its ministry to the LGBT community.

    A dissident bishop, John David Schofield, announced that the Diocese of San Joaquin in California had left the national church and had realigned with the Anglican Church in the Southern Cone, located in South America.

    The remnants of the original diocese Inhibited Schofield and removed him as bishop, and appointed an interim bishop to preside over the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin.

    Now there is a legal dispute in the California courts over who actually owns the church properties.

    In the meantime, the Episcopal Church of Visalia CA in exile gathers for worship on Sundays in the Jewish Temple—how is that for back to the future?

  • 22. 1grod  |  February 17, 2017 at 9:49 am

    Elihu – similar to what happened in British Columbia in 2010 with an alignment with Southern Cone on similar issues, including property.

  • 23. ianbirmingham  |  February 15, 2017 at 9:39 pm

    Malaysian Gov't Endorses Gay Conversion "Therapy"

  • 24. VIRick  |  February 16, 2017 at 2:44 pm

    Washington State Supreme Court Rules Against "Christian Martyr"

    Olympia WA — On Thursday, 16 February 2017, in a unanimous decision in "Washington State/Ingersoll v. Arlene's Flowers," all nine justices of the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that a florist who refused to provide services for a same-sex wedding broke the state’s antidiscrimination law, even though she claimed doing so would violate her religious beliefs. Barronelle Stutzman, a florist in Richland WA had been fined by a lower court for denying service to a gay couple in 2013. Stutzman said she was exercising her First Amendment rights.

    But the court held that her floral arrangements do not constitute protected free speech, and that providing flowers to a same-sex wedding would not serve as an endorsement of same-sex marriage. “As Stutzman herself acknowledged at deposition, providing flowers for a wedding between Muslims would not necessarily constitute an endorsement of Islam, nor would providing flowers for an atheist couple endorse atheism,” the opinion said.

    The court also rejected several other arguments put forth by Stutzman, including the assertion that since other florists were willing to serve the couple, no harm occurred. “As every other court to address the question has concluded, public accommodations laws do not simply guarantee access to goods or services. Instead, they serve a broader societal purpose: eradicating barriers to the equal treatment of all citizens in the commercial marketplace,” the court wrote. “Were we to carve out a patchwork of exceptions for ostensibly justified discrimination, that purpose would be fatally undermined.”

    Stutzman’s lawyers from the certified anti-LGBT hate group, ADF, immediately said they would ask the US Supreme Court to overturn the decision.

    *Reminder to self* After one's many lovely Valentine's Day flowers have all withered and died, remember to send them to:

    Arlene's Flowers
    117 Lee Blvd.
    Richland Washington 99352
    And add this note: Love is Not Dead, Hate is!

  • 25. guitaristbl  |  February 16, 2017 at 6:39 pm

    Given how SCOTUS treated similar petitions from the New Mexico photographer case for example I expect them to refuse to hear it.

  • 26. VIRick  |  February 16, 2017 at 2:58 pm

    Montana: Inclusive Non-Discrimination Bill Introduced

    Helena MT — On Wednesday, 15 February 2017, advocates launched a new bid to extend non-discrimination protections for gays, lesbians, and transgender people across Montana, undeterred by a long string of prior legislative defeats. Proponents this time argue that extending protections would be good for Montana’s business climate.

    The bill’s sponsor, Democratic Rep. Kelly McCarthy of Billings, argued before Montana’s House Judiciary Committee that passing the law would signal to businesses that Montana is open for business to corporations who value diversity and inclusion. The panel spent more than two hours on the proposal and heard impassioned testimony from both sides.

    The proposed law would add gays, lesbians, transgender people, and others who don’t classify as heterosexual to the class of people protected under the state’s anti-discrimination laws. The state’s Human Rights Bureau is charged with enforcing laws that bar discrimination in employment, housing and public services because of race, sex, disability, age, or national origin. Montana’s proposal would add “gender identity or expression” and “sexual orientation” to existing law.

  • 27. VIRick  |  February 16, 2017 at 4:13 pm

    Florida: Inclusive Non-Discrimination Bill Introduced

    Florida remains one of the most populous states in the nation where discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity remains legal. But that could change this year, as a bill has now been introduced in the state legislature that would prohibit such discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. “To me, this is as important as any piece of legislation I will file this year,” says state Rep. Rene Plasencia, a Titusville Republican. He believes the chances of getting the bill passed and put in front of Gov. Rick Scott are as strong as ever.

    In 2016, similar legislation for the first time got a vote in the Florida legislature, though only in the House, where it died on a tie vote in committee. The state Senate never took up a bill last year. LGBT activists in Florida, though, seem optimistic about the legislation winning support this year. “Momentum continues to grow,” says Nadine Smith, executive director of Equality Florida. “We’ve seen the business community start to consolidate behind the measure, not only because it’s the right thing to do but because of bottom-line competitiveness.”

    Plasencia sponsored the legislation along with state Rep. Ben Diamond, a Democrat from St. Petersburg. Since being filed, the bill has drawn 12 other lawmakers as co-sponsors, including three Republicans; Republicans control the Florida House 79-41 and the Senate 25-15. Plasencia says the real trick, though, will be making sure chairmen are willing to take up the legislation once it gets assigned to committees.

    Similar legislation has been filed in the Florida Senate by state Sen. Jeff Clemens, a Lake Worth Democrat, but that legislation has not picked up any co-sponsors. Clemens has also sponsored a bill that would outlaw conversion therapy.

    Hannah Willard, public policy director for Equality Florida, says 56 percent of Floridians already live in jurisdictions where local discrimination bans are in place. Florida has more local anti-discrimination ordinances than any other state, and every ordinance covers LGBT individuals. And while pro-business lawmakers and Chamber of Commerce groups previously have bought into arguments that anti-discrimination regulations could potentially hurt businesses or discourage companies from locating in Florida, the outcry last year over North Carolina’s notorious HB2 may indicate the tide has turned.

  • 28. VIRick  |  February 16, 2017 at 4:27 pm

    Illinois: Federal Challenge to Conversion Therapy Ban Dismissed

    Per Equality Case Files:

    On 15 February 2017, the federal case, "Pastors Protecting Youth v. Madigan," one in which Illinois pastors were seeking exemptions to the Illinois law banning conversion therapy for minors, has been summarily dismissed.

    Opinion and Order, granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss:
    "In the end, the entirety of Plaintiffs' case rests on a mistaken interpretation of the law, and the Court therefore finds that their fears of prosecution are too remote to support standing."

    The Opinion and Order is here:

  • 29. Rick55845  |  February 17, 2017 at 6:25 am

    Based on my understanding of the court's Opinion and Order, it means that private religious counselors who are not licensed mental health care providers and who are not offering counseling services in trade or commerce may continue to damage GLBT youth by subjecting them to conversion therapy.

    I wouldn't call that a win for GLBT youth in the State of Illinois, exactly, but with the case dismissed, at least there is no risk of ending up with some sort of broad religious exemption ruling that could be applied in other contexts.

  • 30. VIRick  |  February 17, 2017 at 10:05 am

    However, I also like how the Court slapped down the "pastors protecting youth" for "lack of standing" on this matter, in their vain attempt to broaden the scope of the very narrow exemption. Ever since the Prop 8 case, retrograde outside third-party plaintiffs have been routinely denied standing in their attempts to interfere in LGBT issues. I saw that angle as a positive reaffirmation in this case.

    So, unlicensed, non-commercial, private "religious" quacks can still attempt to perform their discredited quackery in Illinois, but licensed, commercial mental health care providers and counsellors, engaged in the professional business of mental health care and counselling, can not.

    The dismissal of this case also means that the "religious" quacks can not extort money for their "services" from their clients, else they be deemed as engaging in trade or commerce, the main point which the "pastors protecting youth" were attempting to wrangle out of the Court.

  • 31. VIRick  |  February 16, 2017 at 4:47 pm

    South Carolina: Married Lesbian Couple Wins Spousal Presumed Parenthood Suit

    Per Lambda Legal and Equality Case Files:

    On 15 February 2017, in "Carson v. Dept. of Health and Environmental Control," a US District Court in South Carolina ruled that the state violates the Constitution by denying accurate birth certificates for children of married same-sex couples. The ruling is a victory for Lambda Legal and South Carolina Equality clients Casy and Jacqueline Carson, a married lesbian couple, and their twins, who were issued birth certificates listing only Jacquie, and treating Casy like a legal stranger to her own children.

    As stated in the ruling: “The Court declares Defendant’s failure to treat same-sex spouses in the same manner it treats opposite-sex spouses in the issuance of birth certificates violates Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. More specifically, this Court refuses to countenance Defendant’s refusal to name both Plaintiffs on their twins’ birth certificates. Defendant’s present practice is violative of Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marriage and other protected liberties.”

    South Carolina’s Department of Health and Environmental Control (“DHEC”) previously insisted that it would only issue birth certificates listing both same-sex spouses as parents if those couples obtained an adoption or a court order, something not required of married different-sex spouses. While couples should still undertake second parent adoptions if they can, their children deserve accurate birth certificates from the start.

    In May 2016, Lambda Legal and South Carolina Equality, with the help of pro bono co-counsel, filed a motion for summary judgment, noting that the DHEC policies that refuse to provide new birth certificates to children born to same-sex spouses are arbitrary, harmful, and violate the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Lambda Legal has successfully represented and secured access to accurate two-parent birth certificates in Iowa in "Gartner v. Newton," in North Carolina in "Weiss v. Brajer," and in Wisconsin in "Torres v. Rhoades."

    In January 2017, in "Chin v. Armstrong," the state of Florida conceded on this exact same point regarding the presumed spousal parenthood of married same-sex couples for listing on their children's birth certificates. However, both Indiana and Arkansas are still fighting against it.

  • 32. davepCA  |  February 16, 2017 at 5:43 pm

    Washington, Montana, Florida, Illinois, South Carolina…. wow, Rick, that's a LOT of good news for one day!

  • 33. guitaristbl  |  February 16, 2017 at 6:44 pm

    Well most of it legislation with dubious chances of success but its something at least.

  • 34. VIRick  |  February 16, 2017 at 7:03 pm

    Guitar, actually, 3 of the 5 items, in Washington, Illinois, and South Carolina, are solid pro-LGBT court wins.

    The two legislative proposals are both quite comprehensive, and the pro-business argument, in both instances, "We're better than North Carolina, as our state does not discriminate," could galvanize quite a bit of additional support.

    Specifically, Montana pro-actively set about encouraging businesses to re-locate to Montana, rather than invest any more effort and money in North Carolina, right after HB2 was passed and signed into law. And in Florida, the bill there was introduced by a Republican who appears to be fairly enthused about its positive benefits for business in his state.

    And there's yet another positive item of note: The New Mexico state legislature is in the process of passing legislation to ban conversion therapy for minors within that state.

  • 35. guitaristbl  |  February 17, 2017 at 6:26 am

    Judicial progress is still going on for sure and that is encouraging but even in that field republican onstructionism during the previous years allows trump to fill up more judicial seats than most of his predecessors and that will reshape the judiciary om every level.

    Till that happens judicial progress is very welcome.

  • 36. scream4ever  |  February 17, 2017 at 9:05 am

    I hope to God that the title VII cases reach the Supreme Court ASAP. The one from the 7th Circuit will likely be heard next spring at the latest.

  • 37. VIRick  |  February 16, 2017 at 7:54 pm

    Finland: Marriage Equality Opponents Force Last-Minute Parliamentary Vote

    Finland’s Parliament will vote for a final time on same-sex marriage just days before it is set to become law. In November 2014, the Finnish Parliament passed a citizens’ initiative on gender-neutral marriage by a tight vote of 105-92, after a number of previous defeats. The country’s President Sauli Niinistö then signed the marriage legislation into law a few months later, paving the way for marriages to begin on 1 March 2017.

    But the law, which came about as a result of a public Citizen’s Initiative petition signed by over 167,000 voters, is now under threat from a rival initiative signed by opponents of same-sex marriage which has passed the 50,000 signatures required for a parliamentary debate. On Friday, 17 February 2017, the country’s parliament is expected to vote on the opposing measure, seen as a last-ditch attempt to derail efforts to legalize same-sex marriage.

    Despite the efforts, it is not expected that the measure will pass, and equality advocates still expect that marriage equality will become law on 1 March.

  • 38. guitaristbl  |  February 17, 2017 at 6:22 am

    This is simply political grandstanding from the far right Finnish People's party which has its polling numbers fall to single digits since it joined the coalitiom government in Finland. They, same as LePen are just digging their political graves deeper with their anti-LGBT grandstandings.

  • 39. VIRick  |  February 17, 2017 at 11:48 am

    Finnish Lawmakers Reject Petition Attempting to Revoke Same-Sex Marriage

    Helsinki — On Friday, 17 February 2017, Finnish lawmakers rejected a petition from more than 100,000 people demanding the repeal of the law allowing same-sex marriage which takes effect on 1 March. By the 120-48 vote, with two abstentions, and 29 absentees, Finland’s Parliament rejected a public petition demanding that marriage remains “a genuinely egalitarian union between man and woman” and calling for “repealing the gender-neutral marriage law.”

    In Finland, any petition with at least 50,000 signatures is automatically considered by Parliament. Those backing the petition were the populist, right-wing Finns Party, a member of the country’s three-party, center-right Cabinet, and the opposition Christian Democrats.

    The petition was discussed in Parliament’s legal affairs committee on Tuesday, 14 February 2017, and a rejection was recommended because “consistency, stability, and predictability must be pursued when Parliament passes legislation, particularly when the legislation comes to important legal institutions as marriage.” Following that recommendation, the Eduskunta assembly then rejected the petition.

  • 40. VIRick  |  February 16, 2017 at 8:11 pm

    Trump Drops 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Travel Ban Appeal

    On Thursday, 16 February 2017, Trump’s administration said in court documents in "State of Washington v. Trump" that it does not want a larger appellate panel to review a ruling keeping its travel ban on hold, and will instead replace the ban. “In so doing, the president will clear the way for immediately protecting the country rather than pursuing further, potentially time-consuming litigation,” the administration said in the filing.

    A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last week refused to block a lower-court decision that suspended the ban. The judges rejected the Trump administration’s claim of presidential authority and questioned its motives. The administration attacked the decision in Thursday’s court filing, saying the three-judge panel misunderstood the scope of the order.

    The decision came in a lawsuit brought by the states of Washington and Minnesota, which said the ban unconstitutionally blocked entry on the basis of religion and harmed their residents, universities, and sales tax revenue. Eighteen other states, including California and New York, supported the challenge. The appeals court had asked the Trump administration and the states of Washington and Minnesota to file arguments by 16 February 2017 on whether more judges (en banc) should hear the case.

  • 41. VIRick  |  February 17, 2017 at 11:55 am

    Conversion Therapy Ban Advances in New Mexico

    Santa Fe NM — Proposed legislation is advancing in New Mexico to ban the use of conversion therapy on minors, a discredited method that seeks to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. On Thursday, 16 February 2017, the state Senate voted to approve the Democrat-sponsored bill from Sen. Jacob Candelaria and Rep. Andres Romero, both of Albuquerque.

    The prohibition would apply to licensed physicians, nurses, psychologists, and other health practitioners who might seek to use conversion therapy on minors under 18. It changes provisions of a consumer protection law and outlines disciplinary measures that can be taken by state licensing boards. Candelaria says the ban does not apply to ministers or clergy.

    The bill now moves to the House of Representatives.

  • 42. Christian0811  |  February 17, 2017 at 2:51 pm

    I feel very passionately about this subject and having lived in NM for 2 years I'm very pleased to see them addressing this issue!

  • 43. VIRick  |  February 17, 2017 at 3:01 pm

    Sen. Jacob Candelaria: An Unsung, Gay LGBT Activist

    A gay activist and politician just convinced the New Mexico state Senate to outlaw gay conversion therapy. The Senate voted to ban the process by the huge margin of 32-6.

    LGBT rights campaigner and senator, Jacob Candelaria, who represents Albuquerque, convinced politicians to pass the measure in a landmark vote. It now faces a second vote in the House of Representatives. The House is controlled by Democrats, and so it looks likely the bill will be passed, making gay conversion therapy a crime in the state.

    He said ahead of the vote: “When you’re a young Hispanic Catholic kid growing up in Albuquerque and folks use some horrible words to describe you, both to your face and behind your back … that hurts.

  • 44. Christian0811  |  February 21, 2017 at 7:41 am

    What's this bill called? I'd like to see when it gets to the floor of the HoR

  • 45. VIRick  |  February 17, 2017 at 12:06 pm

    Missouri: Police Officer Who Refused to ‘Tone Down’ his ‘Gayness’ Sues

    A St. Louis police officer who says he was passed over for promotions and told to “tone down” his “gayness” is now suing for discrimination.

    Sergeant Keith Wildhaber has been with the St. Louis County police since 1994. Over the last three years, he tried to become a lieutenant, getting ranked third out of 26 on the promotions test in 2014, third on the test in 2015, and received “exceeds standards” and “superior” in all rated categories in written performance reviews. Instead of being promoted, Wildhaber says he watched almost all of his peers be promoted instead.

    The state of Missouri and St. Louis County do not ban discrimination against LGBT people. Wildhaber’s lawsuit alleges that the police department discriminated against him because his “behavior, mannerisms, and/or appearance do not fit the stereotypical norms of what a ‘male’ should be,” a legal argument being used with some success to sue under sex discrimination bans.

    Wildhaber filed claims of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Missouri Commission on Human Rights in 2016. Soon after, he was assigned to work nights on the other side of the county, a change that Wildhaber claims is retaliation. The suit is seeking damages, lost wages, and an immediate promotion.

  • 46. VIRick  |  February 17, 2017 at 12:18 pm

    Texas: ICE Agents Detain Undocumented Transgender Woman Fleeing Domestic Violence

    Federal immigration agents arrested an undocumented transgender woman last week as she sought a protective order against an allegedly abusive partner, the "El Paso Times" reports. Irvin Gonzalez, also known as Ervin Gonzalez, was at the El Paso County Courthouse when six Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrived on the building’s 10th floor, El Paso County Attorney Jo Anne Bernal told the "Times".

    Bernal, whose office represents domestic violence victims seeking protective orders, said she believes the tip came from the alleged abuser, the only other person who knew the time and place of the hearing. Because immigrants are already reluctant to engage with the court system, Bernal is concerned this incident could have a chilling effect on immigrants reporting crimes and accessing life-saving victim services.

    Activists across the county have expressed concern about an increased presence of ICE agents in county courthouses, but Bernal told the "Washington Post" it’s “unprecedented” for immigration agents to arrest someone seeking protection from domestic violence, something she hadn’t witnessed in her 23 years at the courthouse.

    There’s a reason for that. The Violence Against Women Act contains protections for immigrants fleeing domestic violence.

    “The actions taken by ICE officials to detain a transgender immigrant while she was at the courthouse getting a restraining order against her abuser, based on a ‘tip’ to ICE possibly from her abuser, are not only outrageous, they violate the law,” said Terra Russell Slavin, Esq., Deputy Director of Policy & Community Building at the Los Angeles LGBT Center, in a release. “The Violence Against Women Act contains specific prohibitions on these type of immigration enforcement actions.”

    This is a rather extended article, as it continues on about the rampant violence against transgender women, and the high rates of violence and murder committed against them:

  • 47. VIRick  |  February 17, 2017 at 3:22 pm

    El Registro Civil de la CDMX Rectifica Error y Registra a Hijo de Dos Mujeres Gay

    The Civil Registry of CDMX (Mexico City) Rectifies Error and Registers the Son of Two Women

    Milenio will not allow me to do my usual copy-and-paste, so basically put, the Civil Registry of Mexico City has corrected itself, and has now re-issued the child's birth certificate to show both women to be its parents.

  • 48. ianbirmingham  |  February 19, 2017 at 8:32 am

    Larry Wilmore vs. Breitbart's Yiannopoulos' anti-transgender rant

  • 49. VIRick  |  February 19, 2017 at 2:48 pm

    Current Nevada Legislative Proposals

    Carson City NV — A now-defunct line remains in the Nevada Constitution that the state will only recognize “marriage between a male and female person.” Assembly Joint Resolution 2 would delete that provision and insert a brief statement that Nevada will recognize all marriages equally, regardless of gender. It will be heard on Tuesday, 21 February 2017.

    In addition, a Democratic bill would train social workers in helping LGBTQ adolescents and require them to regard transgender minors as their identifying — not biological — gender. Assembly Bill 99 would primarily affect how state employees treat children in the foster care system.

    Assemblyman Nelson Araujo, D-Las Vegas, said being able to better understand minors who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or questioning their sexuality, could increase their success at state facilities and the likelihood they’ll get placed in a welcoming home.

    “We have an obligation to ensure that they are protected, that they feel safe,” Araujo said. “To ensure that that every child lives a very comfortable and healthy and open life while they are under the jurisdiction of us” in government.

    At a hearing on his bill on 13 February 2017, Araujo said he plans to remove a provision that currently would apply the same policy to juvenile detention and treatment centers. He also said he won’t seek to expand the policies to public schools.

  • 50. Christian0811  |  February 20, 2017 at 11:15 am

    It's lame bc this same proposal to repeal the 2002 marriage amendment passed overwhelmingly in 2014 and yet they neglected to pass it again in 2015 so that t could be ratified during the election.

  • 51. VIRick  |  February 19, 2017 at 4:02 pm

    Arkansas: ‘Bathroom Bill’ Could Upend Legislative Session

    Little Rock AR — Two years ago, a "religious objections" bill blasted by critics as anti-LGBTQ upended the final days of a legislative session that Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson had hoped would focus on tax cuts and health care reform. And now, a new plan by GOP lawmakers to push for a “bathroom bill” targeting transgender people means the Arkansas Legislature is about to dive into a reprise of that battle.

    A one-sentence bill filed in early February offered little specifics, other than saying its purpose was to address “gender identity and bathroom privileges.” A lawmaker co-sponsoring the measure said, once finalized, it’ll require people to use public restrooms consistent with the gender on their birth certificates. If they were born a male, that’s where they’ve got to use the bathroom,” Republican Sen. Gary Stubblefield said.

    The plan has spurred warnings from Hutchinson, as well as tourism and business groups, that such a measure isn’t needed and could subject the state to the widespread backlash and the same type of boycotts North Carolina faced over its bathroom law. That measure prompted the NBA to move its All-Star Game out of Charlotte and the NCAA to pull seven championship events out of the state, while major companies abandoned or halted plans to expand in North Carolina. A similar measure considered in Texas is raising similar concerns of economic fallout, with the NFL warning the state could be passed over for future Super Bowl sites if it becomes law.

    “We don’t need that in Arkansas, and if there’s a North Carolina-type bill, then I want the Legislature not to pass it,” Hutchinson told reporters last week. The Little Rock Convention and Visitors Bureau warned the measure could threaten millions of dollars central Arkansas has seen in the recent past through meetings, tourism, and sporting events. “Should this bill pass and become law, central Arkansas’s economic landscape will severely suffer; the adverse effects on convention and sports-related business will be substantial,” said Gretchen Hall, the bureau’s president and CEO.

  • 52. guitaristbl  |  February 19, 2017 at 4:36 pm

    Hutchinson has proven to be a fairly reasonable governor despite his hardcore profile pre-election. Good for him. He posesses political survival instincts McCrory and Abbott do not.

  • 53. ianbirmingham  |  February 20, 2017 at 10:44 am

    Breitbart's Yiannopoulos: "In the gay world, some of the most enriching and incredibly life-affirming and shaping relationships, very often between younger boys and older men, can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys."

  • 54. Christian0811  |  February 20, 2017 at 11:13 am

    Let's not be stupid, Milo himself was a victim of child sexual abuse and has helped bring down some horrid pedos in his day, most notably the feminist and self proclaimed child molester Sarah/Nicholas Nyberg.

    He himself admits his choice of words were poor but that anyone with two brain cells to rub together should be able to conclude despite that he is obviously not a supporter of pesos.

    I can't believe how much I've actually had to defend conservatives lately.

  • 55. davepCA  |  February 20, 2017 at 1:34 pm

    This guy is nothing more than a circus side show, making as many intentionally inflammatory and 'controversial' claims as he can dream up in order to generate fame / notoriety. For him , this tactic is the basis of his entire "career". It's what gets him booked on talk shows and speaking engagements. He's another Ann Coulter, with even less substance and even more wild baseless rhetoric.

  • 56. Christian0811  |  February 21, 2017 at 7:32 am

    Except he's not a side show, it seems Liberals these days would rather label any view point besides their own as "nazi", "fascist", "racist", or otherwise "bigoted" (and rarely is it bc said person has said anything to that effect in the proper context). Yeah he's inflammatory, but perhaps he wouldn't be if liberals weren't so damn easy to get riled up like petulant children… now that I think of it liberals are just behaving mostly the same way the Tea Party has been since 2010! Except more violent, as we've seen lately.

    He addresses people who share his concerns and daily he is becoming more and more a flash point for American politics.

    I'm 100% more concerned with the fact that there was a riot instigated by the far left at Berkeley that went largely unpunished or even merely criticized by most liberals than I am concerned with these very false, and outright evil claims that he's a predator when his speech and behavior show the exact opposite. It's insane. I'm also far more concerned over issues that Milo actually addresses, which liberals won't dare touch except for holding the party line. Like false rape accusations on college campuses, free speech suppression, and generally taking the SJWs to task for all their insane assorted nonsense.

    I suppose I'm still a classical liberal, advocating marriage equality and believing in strong labor protections as well as universal healthcare, but obviously I've long since abandoned the mainstream being able to still admire someone I don't always agree with.

  • 57. davepCA  |  February 21, 2017 at 10:13 am

    I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this guy – to me, a gay person who spews horrible anti-gay rhetoric about how gays "should go back in the closet" and how it's a "life style choice", and causes "pain and unhappiness" doesn't deserve any attention at all, expect perhaps my raised middle finger as I dismiss his rantings as tired old bullshit. To me, the fact that he's 'out' doesn't make him any better than a closeted gay public figure who would say those same things. In fact it may make him worse. And then there are the things he says about OTHER groups and individuals, which have been just as bad.

  • 58. Christian0811  |  February 21, 2017 at 1:12 pm

    I don't recall him stating that it's a "life style choice" or him saying it causes "pain and unhappiness" but I do recall his "go back into into the closet" statement among other opinions that I don't agree with although I may understand why he thinks as much.

    I know that he's abandoned the "celibacy only" Roman Catholic ideology since his debut in 2010, but his personal issues aren't unique to him and I grant him some grace on that because I had made it a personal sort of ministry to those kinds of indoctrinated and self-hating individuals in the past.

    From what I've seen recently he's averse to having a family and prefers to party, which is also hardly unique among gay males although he's made friends with other married gay social conservatives and between them they agree to disagree.

    I don't recall the Aldelaide Kramer incident but I do know that Trans activists tend to be particularly obnoxious (Ie Tumblr' ever famous "die cis scum"), I'll have to give you the benefit of the doubt and look it up.

    Like it or not, free speech includes hate speech (although I don't recall reading or hearing him say anything that would objectively qualify as much) but it doesn't justify violence or making false accusations of him being a child predator. It's called being a decent human being and obeying the law.

    You can tell him to fuck off, you can picket his events, and you can stay in a ideological circle jerk, but you can't spread slander or riot. That is unacceptable in a civilized society.

  • 59. davepCA  |  February 21, 2017 at 2:10 pm

    I do agree with you that spreading slander and rioting are not acceptable. But two wrongs don't make his wrongs 'right'. I encourage you to look up some of the other vile anti-gay remarks he has made and judge for yourself if you think those actions are acceptable.

  • 60. JayJonson  |  February 21, 2017 at 2:10 pm

    LEt me get this straight. HE has free speech to say all these outrageous things about other people, but when HE is criticized, it is slander? Sounds like you have been taking lessons from the anti-gay marriage Christers, who say they are persecuted because gay people say unpleasant things about them. Free speech works both ways.

  • 61. Christian0811  |  February 21, 2017 at 5:59 pm

    Saying "you're mad because you're fat" and "you're a pedo because of what you said [out of context]" are two different sets of outrageous comments. Slander is not, and never has been, free speech.

    The only reason Anita Bryant and her ilk (to give you a bit of a nuanced example) stayed away from charges of slander by implying homosexuals are pedos is that she never specifically charged any one person as advocating such.

  • 62. JayJonson  |  February 22, 2017 at 4:57 am

    You do not understand slander and libel law. If I say that Yiannapoulos or Trump et al. are disgusting predators, that is not slander. Not only is there evidence supporting such accusations, but they are public figures who are engaged in polemical discourse.

    As for Yiannopoulos, he has targeted a number of specific individuals for ridicule and shaming.

    You seem to want to give him some special protection from retaliation. Free speech does not work that way. You cannot say outrageous things about people or even groups of people and then not expect others to exercise their free speech to say unpleasant things about you.

  • 63. guitaristbl  |  February 21, 2017 at 11:47 am

    Hey classical liberal what about his blatant transphobia and his harassment of Adelaide Kramer, the trans student in Wisconsin, who had to leave her university after he publicly harassed her and branded her a predator to the point she felt unsafe to her own school environment ?

    Does she or any other trans person should be sacrificed to the altar of this mentally ill man's right to "free speech" ?

    I will criticize the events at Berkley to protect simlarly situated students from his verbal assaults when you and the right wing criticize his treatment of trans people, his homophobic self loathing views as he is an advocate of gay people not having marriage rights, going back to the closet and marrying people of the opposite sex and he wishes he was born straight. But what I am saying ? All these are the reasons conservatives love this self loathing mentally disturbed individual.

    He can fuck off forever as far as I am concerned. He is a nobody.

  • 64. ianbirmingham  |  February 21, 2017 at 8:42 pm

    Truth is stranger than fiction: CPAC delivers Adelaide Kramer's revenge!!

  • 65. VIRick  |  February 21, 2017 at 1:16 pm

    Dave and Guitar, well said in both instances.

    In addition, and for example, the only "good" thing he's ever stated about black people, while clutching his multiple strings of pearls (literally), is how he just LOVES big black dick, as if that were their only contribution to humanity.

    Milo is actually a sick caricature of what he seems to think "gay" people are supposed to be like. There's actually a lot of question as to whether or not he is really gay, or just pretending to be so, in a most blatantly obvious put-on. As far as I am concerned, "pics" or it didn't happen.

    I mean, boasting about loving big black dick is what all gay men are supposed to like, right? And all the while, running them back into the closet, and doing away with marriage equality,– and persecuting all the rest of the "others."

  • 66. Christian0811  |  February 21, 2017 at 6:04 pm

    I don't understand the relevance of that statement, but if you're trying to jump on the "he's also a racist" bandwagon then I'm gonna have to stop you right there. He's also made it very clear that neither white supremacy or white nationalism is acceptable just as much as black supremacy is unacceptable in a democratic society.

    I follow the dude pretty closely and I don't recall him ever demanding the repeal of marriage rights or persecuting anyone, again this sounds like sophistry.

  • 67. VIRick  |  February 21, 2017 at 7:00 pm

    "he's also a racist"

    Indeed, he boastfully crows about how he just LOVES to take big black dick, which, from what I can judge, is about the only "use" he has for black people,– to "serve" as his living dildos.

    You KNOW that perfectly fits into the oft-repeated racial/gay stereotype that all gay white boys are "bottoms" and want nothing more than to be able to ride and be dominated by masculine, heavy-duty big black dick. Milo is a demeaning caricature of that, which is why I feel he's a loud-mouthed, phony put-on.

    He's persecuting the trans community, and has no use for "others" of deeper skin hue. I know because I can sense it, simply because of who I am, being one of those other "others." Look, ethnically, he's Greek. But he dyes his hair blonde, and tries to appear Scandinavian, in other words, tries to look as white as someone from northern Europe, which in his eyes makes him more "acceptable." So, he's a phony on this level, as well.

    In any case, Milo needs to encounter Yusaf Mack:


  • 68. Christian0811  |  February 21, 2017 at 6:09 pm

    Look, I don't agree with many things Milo says. But (and I know I'm probably not going to change anyone's mind here) there's a huge leap between disagreement and harboring such hatred for the man that we leap at the first opportunity accuse him of supporting the worst imaginable crime.

  • 69. guitaristbl  |  April 26, 2017 at 1:07 pm

    And here you are again, jumping in the defense of far right mentally ill troll Yiannopoulos as I predicted – I actually remember this exchange but didnt realize it was you again.

    Is there ANY far right extremist you have left without defending ? Those trump defense comments will soon pop up soon I guess !

  • 70. guitaristbl  |  February 20, 2017 at 3:02 pm

    Can we finally stop paying attention as a society overall to this attention seeking obviously mentally ill poor excuse of a human being ?

    The moment we stop carrying is the moment this thing dies politically and socially and that's what it is most afraid of.

  • 71. ianbirmingham  |  February 20, 2017 at 2:58 pm

    Yiannopoulos lost his keynote speaking slot at the Conservative Political Action Conference after tapes surfaced of the right wing provocateur and senior Breitbart editor advocating for sexual relationships between “younger boys and older men.”…

    CPAC organizers had a conference call at 1 p.m. on Monday to discuss the controversy and how to address it, according to a GOP source familiar with the matter. The decision to disinvite Yiannopoulos was unanimous and did not even need to be deliberated…

    Yiannopoulos was to discuss free speech on college campuses at the [CPAC] event. …a planned Yiannopoulos event at the University of California, Berkeley was recently cancelled [due to protests against his appearance there]…

    “An epidemic of speech suppression has taken over college campuses,” Schlapp told the Hollywood Reporter of Yiannopoulos’ scheduled [CPAC] appearance after it was initially reported. “Milo has exposed their liberal thuggery and we think free speech includes hearing Milo’s important perspective.”

    Speech suppression is bad, BAD!! …Unless CPAC is suppressing his speech!!

  • 72. bayareajohn  |  February 20, 2017 at 4:40 pm

    Saddest here is that the archetype CPAC member will take this mostly as evidence that there is no such thing as an even marginally good gay after all.

  • 73. guitaristbl  |  February 20, 2017 at 5:10 pm

    If Yiannopoulos was the idea of a CPAC member of a "good gay" then I prefer them to go back hating all the LGBT community – as they do anyway.

  • 74. bayareajohn  |  February 20, 2017 at 5:42 pm

    "Good Gay" = willing to say we've done enough, stop short of trans support, aknowlege that gay is intrinsically troubled, coupled with mental issues, deviant, unholy… Probably "Useful Gay" would be more accurate. See "Good Black" and Sheriff David Clarke to help understand.

  • 75. JayJonson  |  February 21, 2017 at 6:52 am

    The Chair of CPAC appeared on Joe Scarborough's show this morning and explained that they disinvited Yiannapoulos because he was a sexual predator, but said that CPAC has always been open to all conservatives, even those in favor of same-sex marriage. He, of course, was lying. The sad Log Cabin Republicans kept being denied invitations for years. I wonder if the chair was aware of the irony of disinviting Yiannapoulos because he is a sexual predator at the same time he was touting the fact that Donald Trump is appearing at CPAC this year. Trump has bragged about his sexual predatory behavior many times, including on the Billy Bush clip that surfaced during the campaign. Of course, conservatives lie so much they can't even tell the difference between fact and alternate fact.

  • 76. Christian0811  |  February 21, 2017 at 7:20 am

    CPAC is grasping at straws and this claim that Milo is a sexual predator borders on slander if it is not outright so.

  • 77. scream4ever  |  February 21, 2017 at 6:54 am

    States which legalized same-sex marriage prior to the Supreme Court ruling experienced a decline in youth suicides:

    It's as if when you treat people like human beings, they feel hope and a sense of purpose.

  • 78. VIRick  |  February 21, 2017 at 10:06 pm

    Courtesy of LGBT Puerto Rico, here are the findings of that same study, as translated into Spanish, for wider dissemination throughout Latin America:

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