Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Open thread 4/27


This is an open thread for news and discussion. We will post any updates if there’s breaking news.


  • 1. Fortguy  |  April 27, 2017 at 10:53 pm

    Let's revisit Mack Beggs, who won the Texas girls Class 6A high school wrestling championship despite being, well, a transgender boy. Beggs was forced to compete in the girls category under the rules of the University Interscholastic League which governs public school athletic competition in the state. UIL rules, however, allow Beggs to take doctor-prescribed hormone treatments necessary for his transition.

    Beggs won the championship in his junior year as a student at Trinity High School in Euless, one of the northeast Tarrant County "Mid-Cities" between Fort Worth and Dallas. Trinity is part of the Hurst-Euless-Bedford Independent School District. Beggs has always maintained that he would have preferred to wrestle in the boys competition.

    A state district judge in Travis County (where Austin is located) has dismissed a lawsuit from Jim Baudhuin, a lawyer from Coppell (another Mid-City in Dallas County), seeking to force the UIL to bar Beggs from competing next year when Beggs will be a senior claiming that Beggs' steroid treatments violate UIL rules, give him an unfair advantage, and pose a risk of injury to other girl wrestlers. Mind you, Baudhuin wasn't suing to allow Beggs to compete as a boy, because that's not what haters do. He wanted to force the UIL to disallow Beggs to compete altogether.

    Working in Begg's and the UIL's favor in the dismissal of the lawsuit is a pending bill in the Lege, SB 2095, seeking to change the UIL rule regarding steroids. Surprisingly, this bill is moving glacially slow in Potty Patrick's Senate with time on the session running out. If that bill fails (fingers crossed), then the UIL has a legislative council meeting of its own in June. That will be the ultimate arbiter to decide whether Beggs gets to compete at all or, and I doubt this, that he will be allowed to compete with the boys.

    Michael Florek, The Dallas Morning News: Judge dismisses lawsuit against UIL that sought to ban transgender wrestler from competing

  • 2. VIRick  |  April 27, 2017 at 10:59 pm

    Miss Trans Italy Marries in Italian Civil Ceremony

    Italy has reportedly held its first-ever marriage involving a trans woman who has had her true gender recognized without reassignment surgery. Today, 27 April 2017, Alessia Cinquegrana, Miss Trans Italy of 2014, married her partner of 11 years, Michael Picone, in a civil marriage ceremony at the town hall in their home of Aversa, in the south of the country near Naples. The town’s Mayor, Enrico de Cristofaro, attended the ceremony.

    Ileana Capurro, president of the Transgender Association Naples, said that the event “represented an important moment in the history of the transgender community.” She added that the alteration in legislation which allowed Cinquegrana the opportunity to be married had been a long time coming.….

  • 3. VIRick  |  April 27, 2017 at 11:02 pm

    Salvadoran Trans Activist Nominated for International Human Rights Award

    A transgender activist in El Salvador has been nominated for an international human rights award; namely, Karla Avelar, who in 2008, co-founded Comunicado y Capacitando a Mujeres Trans, a group known by the Spanish acronym COMCAVIS that advocates on behalf of trans, intersex, and LGB Salvadorans.

    Five detained members of FreeThe5KH, a Cambodian human rights group, and Mohamed Zaree of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies in Egypt, have also been nominated to receive the Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders.

    Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, the International Federation for Human Rights, the World Organization Against Torture, Front Line Defenders, the International Commission of Jurists, EWDE Germany, International Service for Human Rights, and Human Rights Information and Documentation Systems are the organizations that comprise the jury for the award. The ceremony at which it will be presented is scheduled to take place in Geneva on 10 October 2017.….

  • 4. VIRick  |  April 27, 2017 at 11:07 pm

    Up-Date on West Virginia Supreme Court Sexual Orientation Case

    On 25 April 2017, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, heard oral argument in "State of West Virginia v. Steward Butler." The case addressed the question as to whether the state's law creating a criminal offense for violation of a person's civil rights by threat of violence "because of sex" includes violence based on sexual orientation.

    The Cabell County Prosecutor, Lauren Plymale, actually argued the state's case before the Court in favor of the sexual orientation interpretation of the West Virginia hate crimes law, while the state itself, in the form of the state's Solicitor-General, Elbert Lin, argued that Steward Butler's beating-up of two gay men for kissing on a public street in Huntington was not a hate crime based on sex, in effect, defending Butler's actions.

    One can read a synopsis of the oral argument in the case, "State of West Virginia v. Steward Butler" here:….

  • 5. bayareajohn  |  April 28, 2017 at 10:45 am

    "Should" is always a totally subjective invective. (Or it should be.)

    The off-topic stuff here doesn't crowd out the "on" stuff, and it's generally as appropriate as discussing meat prices in the produce isle, you are in the same building with other shoppers. So… on the subject of reigning in the range of discussion, I'm personally not seeing a problem so far, but it's a fair observation that doesn't deserve nukes. Except from a wacko like our president. </irony off>

  • 6. JayJonson  |  April 28, 2017 at 11:07 am

    Yes, ArizonaLurker, 22 nations have marriage equality, in all of which Christians doggedly OPPOSED equal rights for gay people (and most still do). As Zack Ford stated on the previous thread, if Christian theocrats were not restrained by secular society, they would treat gay people the same way Islamic extremists treat gay people. You say that is wrong, but there is much evidence to suggest that it is true.

    (This, of course, does not mean that all Christians want to put homosexuals to death, any more than all Muslims want to put gay people to death. But you are grossly uninformed if you do not believe that extremist Christians would happily kill gay people if they could get away with it. After all, even many mainstream Christian denominations wrote amici briefs supporting sodomy laws that called for the imprisonment of gay people when that question was before SCOTUS. Admittedly, some Christian denominations have recently been supportive of gay rights and marriage equality, but the number of Christians actively attempting to advance equal rights remains fewer than those actively attempting to reverse equality.)

    No one on this site has ever defended Islamic terrorism or any other kind of terrorism. Not once. Never. What have you been smoking?

  • 7. JayJonson  |  April 28, 2017 at 11:13 am

    ArizonaLurker, like the troll Christian, will no doubt find this off-topic, but it is perfectly on topic for a forum on equal rights:

    Le Pen's fascist father has complained that the heartbreaking eulogy given by the partner of the policeman slain recently in Paris, as he was memorialized in a state funeral, "elevates" gay rights. These bastards have no human compassion. Any gay person who would vote for Le Pen's daughter has to suffer from a great deal of self-loathing. As John Oliver said of Ivanka Trump, the apple does not fall far from the orange.

    "Jean-Marie Le Pen, the National Front (FN) party founder from whom his daughter has sought to distance herself because of his controversial views, criticized a speech made at the ceremony by the dead policeman's partner earlier this week.

    'The long speech he made in some way institutionalized homosexual marriage, exalted it in a public way, and that shocked me,' Le Pen said in an interview on his web site."

  • 8. guitaristbl  |  April 28, 2017 at 11:35 am

    That will sound harsh but I am glad he came publicly and said that. Works as a reminder to people what FN is about – even if his daughter tries to change the wrap of the "present" the inside, the core supporters of this party who share JM Le Pen's ideas, remain the same.

  • 9. JayJonson  |  April 28, 2017 at 11:45 am

    Well, it certainly indicates how despicable these a–holes are.

    Even a man who has given his life in the fight against terrorism receives no respect from them if he is gay and is married to a man who expresses pride in himself and his husband.

  • 10. Randolph_Finder  |  April 29, 2017 at 9:33 pm

    Just keep talking Le Pen….

  • 11. guitaristbl  |  April 28, 2017 at 11:33 am

    "22 nations have marriage equality, ALL OF WHOM are Christian or at least have a Christian background"

    These nations have marriage equality DESPITE being christian not BECAUSE they are. Because 99 % of the cases LEFT WING PROGRESSIVE governments legislated so in the face of fierce opposition from RIGHT WING CONSVERVATIVES who again always claimed the christians values of the nation among other things to oppose the legislation.

    " I just can't wrap my mind around gay people defending Islam guys, I just simply cannot. "

    Nobody has defended anything. We are just not hypocrites. We criticize all regressive religions on equal grounds – and yes christianity is regressive. And before you tell me how christians do not kill or imprison gay people (in the rates they used to at least and with official blessings) I will remind you that it's been 14 years almost since Lawrence v. Texas and 13 CONSERVATIVE states are yet to repeal their laws criminalizing homosexuality – even when efforts to that direction are done e.g. in Louisiana.

    So to your next point :

    "And as someone who grew up around evangelicals but is not religious, when I hear people say "Christians in the USA would do the same thing", all I can say to that (as politely as I can) is that you are uninformed and wrong. "

    Yes they would – evangelicals in their vast majority are christian extremists who would love to see homosexuality criminalized. The pressure they put on their legislatures not to repeal sodomy bans is one of the indications towards that direction.

    " THOSE are the things we should be discussing, not how evil Trump is or whatever other political stuff not related to gay rights (immigration/abortion/global warming) people want to bring up. "

    First of all you do not get to define the debate agenda – this is a free forum and everyone can express his opinion on whatever matter. So Trump's administration and the regression on LGBT rights (trans children again being vulnerable, the still very possibly coming anti-LGBT executive order, Gorsuch on the supreme court) are unrelated according to you ?

    Let me spell it out to you :

    Yes Global Warming is relevant to the forum's subject. An administration that ignores the scientific reality in one matter will ignore it in every subject, including LGBT matters.

    Yes immigration is relevant. It concerns human rights of a villified minority – something LGBT people know quite a few about and shows this administration's attitude towards minorities.

    Yes abortion is relevant. It involves the right of women to make choices regarding their bodies freely – same as gay people wanted the right to marry the person of their choice freely, create a famiily freely etc

    Yes I donwvoted you personally even though I did not want to enhance your victimisation attitude I felt your comment expresses little understanding of how LGBT rights progress and how hey are hindered.

    Plus if not for anything else any defense of the Log Cabin Republican "please accept me bigots and I won't ask for any rights" group is enough to get on my nerves.

    Have a nice day.

  • 12. scream4ever  |  April 28, 2017 at 12:02 pm

    And if you want another indication as to what many Evangelicals want for us, look at their collaborations with foreign governments to pass laws that are thankfully unconstitutional in the United States.

  • 13. guitaristbl  |  April 28, 2017 at 3:37 pm

    I checked your comment history before I provided this answer to you – which you would not have gotten if I thought you were a troll believe me.

    Now :

    "Although as I am finding out, some opinions are far less welcome than other opinions."

    If by welcome you mean left unscrutinized then this is not happening here indeed. Freedom of speech (and this forum has it) includes the freedom to criticize and scrutinize said speech. Yours and mine fall under that category – and I have been scrutinized in the past e.g. for making pessimistic comments.

    "In all of the European countries which have gay marriage, it was legalized via a vote in the legislative body. If Christians were as vehemently opposed to marriage as you state, then none of those votes would have passed. "

    By MPs that believed in a SECULAR state. Not by conservatives who mixed religion and politics. Truth is any opposition to such laws has been due to religiosu reasons related to christianity. Other than that your remark shows a very superficial understanding of religion and politics. May I remind you that it was a gay muslim labour Lord that spearheaded the equal marriage legislation through the house of lords in the UK – Lord Ali ? These people are secularists meaning that they vote based on societal interests and not religious reasons – if they had put their religion first (in most cases christianity) they would have voted such legislation down. So I return to my initial point : These laws were enacted DESPITE these nations having supposedly christian majorities (countries such as Sweden have a majority atheist population effectively) not BECAUSE OF that. See the difference ?

    "But it is de facto happening on other websites, as every time an incident happens the peanut gallery immediately starts in with how Christians would do the same thing, and before you know it all discussion of the actual terrorist attack has been suppressed."

    Yes I do believe christians are perfectly capable of such things. Have you seen what orthodox christians are doing to LGBT people in Russia ? Have you seen what christians do to LGBT people in Uganda, Keny and southern Nigeria ? The religion itself is not any less primitive than Islam in any way – the basic principles are equally distatestful – what matters is not the religion itself but the educational level of a society practicing each religion.

  • 14. JayJonson  |  April 28, 2017 at 3:45 pm

    ArizonaLurker, the reason gay rights and marriage equality have won recognition in the West is not because we are Christian countries, but because we are increasingly secular countries. Anthony Kennedy may be (at least nominally) a Roman Catholic, but his understanding of the law comes from his rejection of "natural law" as promulgated by the Roman Catholic Church in favor of a jurisprudence that valorizes human dignity. David Cameron led the UK to support marriage equality because he rejected the Anglican position on marriage. (BTW, despite his courageous leadership, a majority of Conservative MPs rejected the same-sex marriage bill, which was passed by large majorities of Labour and Liberal MPs. Left to the Conservative Party, the marriage bill would have failed.)

    Marriage equality is a fact in the 22 countries you mention because Christian churches have increasingly diminished influence even on their own adherents.

    We do not know what would happen if Christians ran countries in the West. Perhaps the closest examples we have recently is Spain under Franco and Montreal under the Duplessis governments. Those were not places where freedom abounded and where gay people lived happily. Indeed, we know that in Spain many gay people were killed by Franco's apostles. You may be right that Christian governments would not throw gay people from rooftops, but we know that when Christians dominated governments in the West after World War II aversion therapy, widespread arrests, and systematic discrimination were rampant.

  • 15. JayJonson  |  April 28, 2017 at 4:49 pm

    I would add that secularism and particularly the separation of Church and State are what most distinguish Western democracies from Islamic theocracies. In the 18th Century, the Age of Reason transformed Europe and weakened the political power of the Churches. Such a revolution never happened in the most backward Islamic theocracies. As a result of religious domination of those countries, the theocracies fell into a long scientific dark ages, even in those Islamic areas that had previously been scientifically advanced. The Inquisition and the religious wars of Europe are not dissimilar from the backward positions taken by contemporary Islamic societies. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, conviction for sodomy often resulted in capital punishment even in advanced European countries with strong church influence; as church influence waned in the eighteenth century, humane treatment of sexual minorities became more common. This is not to excuse the Islamic extremists for their barbaric behavior, but it is to say that history shows that Christian societies in the past acted in similar ways.

  • 16. guitaristbl  |  April 28, 2017 at 4:00 pm

    "They WOULD NOT toss gay people off roofs, hang them or stone them like some other religions do. And if you bring up some nutcase church with 15 followers to try and counter that, I have to ask do "bug chasers" and PNP types represent you? They don't represent me, but they obviously exist."

    It is not nutcase churches that keep sodomy laws in the books in 15 states that's for sure.
    And to be honest I don't see how a torturous life full of discrimination, mental and many times physical violence, glorification of conversion therapy, fear of being fire or evicted and having no way to protect yourself ect are any better than being thrown of a roof. In some ways it is worse – a lifelong torture against an instant death. Many would take the second if given the choice.

    "You mean like flaming leftist David Cameron or Marxist justice Anthony Kennedy? "

    Cameron was the sole exception yes but still it was not his party that voted to pass the legislation – in reality the majority of Tories voted AGAINST equal marriage. It passed thanks to the votes of Labour and Liberal Democrats.
    As for Kennedy he has always been progressive on LGBT rights and is more of a centrist judge anyway.

  • 17. FredDorner  |  April 28, 2017 at 11:30 pm

    ***ArizonaLurker said: "They WOULD NOT toss gay people off roofs, hang them or stone them like some other religions do."
    I posted this in the other thread – this video is a good example of what Christians do when they aren't constrained by secular government, where Eastern Orthodox priests in the Republic of Georgia recently led a violent mob of 20,000 rabid Christians who were trying to stone to death 50 gay rights activists:

    And note that the Georgian government knows who the leaders and many of the perpetrators were but has done nothing to apprehend or charge them:

    So the fact is that the adherents of one of the largest branches of Christianity DO try to stone gays to death. It irks me that so many Christians are both irrationally Islamophobic and willfully ignorant of the history and current practices of their own cult. As an atheist & agnostic I don't see any significant difference between Christian extremists and Muslim extremists, but as the father of a gay kid my main concern is what happens in the US where bigoted Christians are the real threat to liberty and civil rights……just like they have been since the colonial era.

  • 18. VIRick  |  April 28, 2017 at 2:53 pm

    Tennessee: New Law Passed Meant to Undermine LGBT Rights

    Words in state law must be interpreted as having “natural and ordinary meaning” under a bill passed by the Tennessee Senate on Thursday, 27 April 2017. Critics call it an underhanded way of encouraging state judges to deny rights to same-sex couples and transgender people.

    LGBT groups lamented the 23-6 vote and immediately began prodding Republican Gov. Bill Haslam for a veto, but his spokeswoman, Jennifer Donnals, said he is “deferring to the will of the legislature.” The Tennessee House approved the same legislation last month.

    The legislation has been pushed by the Family Action Council of Tennessee, which advocates for one-man, one-woman marriage. The measure addresses questions raised in a same-sex child custody case in Knoxville, in which the Family Action Council tried to intervene on behalf of 53 state lawmakers, only to be rejected by the circuit court judge.

    The legislation passed despite concerns raised by Tennessee Attorney-General Herbert Slatery of potential conflicts with the US Supreme Court‘s same-sex marriage ruling, as well as with state law that requires gender-specific words to be interpreted as inclusive. Slatery’s opinion predicted that judges would side with the gender-inclusive interpretation, given the clashing requirements.

    He took the same position when he weighed in on the same-sex custody case, urging that judge to interpret “husband” and “wife” gender-neutrally, as “spouse.” The custody case hinged on the wording of the 1977 state law, which says that a person born through artificial insemination with the consent of both husband and wife will be their legitimate child. The attorney-general urged the judge to apply that law to same-sex marriages.

    The judge declined, relying on a literal interpretation of wording lawmakers approved nearly four decades before the Supreme Court’s landmark same-sex marriage ruling. He decided that only the biological mother, not her same-sex spouse, has legal rights to the child. The woman denied custody says that decision is unconstitutional. The judge has put his ruling on hold pending possible action by the state court of appeals.

  • 19. VIRick  |  April 28, 2017 at 4:34 pm

    Guatemala: Deputies Propose Law Against Homosexuals

    Per Omar Salinas Garcia‏:

    The Guatemala Congress is proposing legislation that prohibits marriage equality.

    El Congreso de Guatemala está proponiendo una legislación que prohiba el matrimonio igualitario.

    Diputados Proponen Ley Contra Homosexuales (y el Aborto)

    La homofobia llegó al Congreso de Guatemala este día, 27 de abril 2017, cuando algunos diputados dicen que no se deben permitir los matrimonio homosexuales, señalando que creen que la legislación sólo reconoce a hombres y mujeres.

    Propuesta: “se prohíbe programas de diversidad sexualidad, o enseñar cómo normales las conductas sexuales distintas a la heterosexualidad“. La propuesta de ley contra el aborto y el matrimonio gay es denominada “ley para la protección de la vida y la familia.” La iniciativa de ley es impulsada por 19 diputados que buscan evitar que se realicen matrimonios homosexuales en el país.

    Los diputados que firmaron la propuesta son: Anibal Rojas, Cristina Quinto, José Cutzal, Marco Lemus, Marco Velasquez, Juan José Porras, Juan Díaz Durán, Marcos Fernando Yax, Julio Lainfiesta, Aracely Chavarría, Christian Jacques Boussinot, Víctor Estrada, Víctor Cruz, Iliana Calles, Edgar Sandoval, Raúl Romero.

    La diputada Sandra Morán señaló que la iniciativa contra el aborto y matrimonio gay, limita el derecho a decidir de los guatemaltecos. "Es una ley que prohíbe nuestra propia existencia", dice diputada Sandra Morán al referirse a propuesta.

    Deputies Propose Law Against Homosexuals (and Abortion)

    Homophobia came to the Guatemala Congress this day, 27 April 2017, when some deputies stated that same-sex marriage should not be allowed, noting that they believe that their legislation will only recognize that between a man and a woman.

    The proposal: "prohibits programs of sexual diversity, or to teach as normal any sexual behaviors other than heterosexuality." The bill against abortion and gay marriage is called "the law for the protection of life and family." The bill is driven by 19 deputies who seek to prevent same-sex marriages in the country (of a total of 158 members in the National Assembly).

    The deputies who signed the proposal are: Anibal Rojas, Cristina Quinto, José Cutzal, Marco Lemus, Marco Velasquez, Juan José Porras, Juan Díaz Durán, Marcos Fernando Yax, Julio Lainfiesta, Aracely Chavarría, Christian Jacques Boussinot, Víctor Estrada, Víctor Cruz , Iliana Calles, Edgar Sandoval, Raúl Romero (but this is only 16 names).

    Deputy Sandra Morán said that the initiative against abortion and same-sex marriage limits the right to decide for Guatemalans. It's a law which denies our proper existence, said Sandra Morán, referring to the proposal.

  • 20. VIRick  |  April 28, 2017 at 5:04 pm

    Mexico: Supreme Court to Review Negative Yucatán Court Ruling

    El próximo 3 de mayo la SCJN revisará la actuación del Tribunal Constitucional de Yucatán, esto al ver negado el matrimonio igualitario.

    On 3 May 2017, the SCJN will review the actions of the Constitutional Court of Yucatán, this being their denial of marriage equality.

  • 21. allan120102  |  April 28, 2017 at 6:00 pm

    Rick from what I seeing only the first chamber will review this action, so even if they ruled in favor same sex marriage will still be ilegal in Yucatan. Couples will still need amparos to get married as it will only be a decision of the first chamber and not the whole court.

  • 22. VIRick  |  April 28, 2017 at 6:59 pm

    Allan, here's what Wikipedia has to say, as way of background to the upcoming review of the Yucatán case, which as you correctly state, is to be heard before the First Chamber on 3 May 2017:

    On 17 May 2014, a group of civil society organizations brought a legal action before the Constitutional Court of the State of Yucatán under the guise of "correcting a legislative omission." It was the first time a mechanism to correct an omission (read as "inaction") had been used in the nation as the basis of a suit. The organizations claimed, (at that time, that) 10 injunctions had been approved in the state without legislative action. The suit asked for Articles 49 and 94 of the Yucatán Family Code, which limits marriage to one man and one woman, to be "considered in the broadest sense and that the gender of its members be undefined."

    On 26 February 2015, the Constitutional Court of the State of Yucatán announced that it will decide on 2 March whether state prohibitions against same-sex marriage are in violation of the federal Constitution and international agreements. On 2 March 2015, the Constitutional Court of Yucatán dismissed the appeal for constitutional action to change the Civil Code. Supporters of amending the Code promised to appeal the decision. In June 2015, they filed a lawsuit against the state's Constitutional Court in federal court. The suit contends that the Constitutional Court erred in their decision as the Mexican Constitution states that discrimination against the LGBT community is banned.

    At the barest minimum, this ruling by the highest state court in Yucatán must be overturned as unconstitutional.

  • 23. allan120102  |  April 28, 2017 at 7:34 pm

    It will, I just am not sure if the effects will be as high reaching as I am expecting. Like legalizing ssm in the state or just declaring the article unconstitutional but couples would need amparos still to get married.
    Here is a good background of how we reach this point. Love the pic. It give you the whole numbers of amparos win etc.

  • 24. VIRick  |  April 28, 2017 at 8:10 pm

    Excellent find, as I love the summary:

    A la fecha, existen 40 parejas del mismo sexo que han podido casar en Yucatán al ganar juicios de amparo.

    To date, there exist 40 same-sex couples who have been able to marry in Yucatán by gaining amparo judgments.

    But there must have been more. Still, that number now places Yucatán as the state with the most amparos granted, ahead of both #2 Chihuahua and #3 Sonora. Only 5 were necessary per state, and 10 had already been granted in Yucatán at the time of the original filing of the lawsuit in mid-2014. According to Wikipedia, 16 more were granted in 2016, and another 15 so far in 2017. That accounts for 41, and we are missing numbers granted between mid-2014 through all of 2015.

  • 25. VIRick  |  April 28, 2017 at 10:22 pm

    Change. Org Petition to Supreme Court on Yucatán Ruling Re: Amparo en Revisión 5459/2016

    Per Luis Eduardo Knapp‏:

    Firma petición a Ministros de la SCJN para que voten por igualdad plena del matrimonio igualitario:

    Sign the petition to the Justices of Mexico's Supreme Court to rule in favor of the full equality of marriage equality:… …

    And Allan, to answer your concern, the First Chamber will:

    Ordenen a Tribunal Constitucional de Yucatán dictar nueva sentencia para garantizar igualdad plena y eliminar discriminación.

    Issue orders to the Constitutional Court of Yucatán to draft a new ruling to guarantee full equality and to eliminate discrimination.

    For Perchy:

    "Dictar" is the verb form of that noun, "dictamen," frequently found in the legalese of legislative documents and court rulings.

    How I wish Geraldina were still working for Justice Zaldívar, Chief Justice of the First Chamber, as she would be able to provide us with a live feed of the court discussion on this case.

  • 26. allan120102  |  April 28, 2017 at 11:20 pm

    Follow this and they will keep you update on this case. I am not sure which of the two I was looking when the SC struck down Jalisco´s ban. They tweet what every magistrate says.

  • 27. VIRick  |  April 28, 2017 at 7:38 pm

    California: Catholic Hospital Sued for Denying Hysterectomy to Trans Man

    “First, do no harm,” is the oath all doctors take, but a lawsuit filed by the ACLU on 25 April 2017 accuses a Sacramento CA area hospital of putting its Catholic doctrine first, ahead of its patient’s needs. Evan Michael Minton is a transgender man who got the worse news of his life seven months ago. The day before a scheduled hysterectomy at Dignity Health Mercy San Juan Medical Center, he was notified the surgery had been canceled.

    He sought the hysterectomy so that his body would at long last be in congruence with his mind, a surgery to affirm his authentic gender as he took the next step in his transition from female to male. But the abrupt cancellation by hospital administrators in Carmichael CA meant his doctor had to perform the procedure at another Sacramento-area hospital (the Methodist Hospital of Sacramento).

    Elizabeth Gill, senior staff attorney for the ACLU Northern California, told the "Sacramento Bee" that the hospital’s denial is a “clear-cut case of discrimination,” based on California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which outlawed discrimination against individuals based on their sex, race, religion, age, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation.

  • 28. theperchybird  |  April 29, 2017 at 1:21 am

    Add another to the list! 🙂 Guernsey's already preparing for weddings. Their law is finalized and will go into effect on May 2nd, but May 4th is when couples will be able to marry.

    I expect Falkland Islands and Faroes to follow as both only require Royal Assent.

    LGBT groups in Jersey are going to keep marriage rights a priority and try to ensure that everything is finished this year rather than in 2018. Their parliament passed the in-principle hump, but need to actually vote on a legally binding overhaul of their marriage legislation.

  • 29. SethInMaryland  |  April 29, 2017 at 9:38 am

    So Faroes is finally complete now in parliaments? Glad 🙂 One slowest process I have ever watched. This means the Danish kingdom as a whole lives under marriage equality

  • 30. Randolph_Finder  |  April 29, 2017 at 9:37 pm

    And it actually moved faster because no one objected. I shudder to think how long this would have taken if there had actually been someone opposed in the Danish legislature…

  • 31. Randolph_Finder  |  April 29, 2017 at 9:39 pm

    Only part of the Baliwick of Guernsey, In Guernsey itself, but not on Sark or Alderney….

  • 32. theperchybird  |  April 30, 2017 at 1:25 pm

    Alderney should wrap up next year. Sark is the big question since it's owned by a family and anything that needs to pass there has to go through them, let's hope they see the bright side of extending the right to the remaining parts of the bailiwick.

  • 33. SethInMaryland  |  April 30, 2017 at 3:33 pm

    Is the family a conservative/religious or liberal family?

  • 34. theperchybird  |  May 1, 2017 at 5:13 pm

    Correction: they own one island. Billionaire Barclay Brothers who own the Daily Telegraph, a conservative paper. Still have some influence on the Sark region:

  • 35. Randolph_Finder  |  May 4, 2017 at 8:59 am

    They own Brecqhou And have sued to try to get the island removed from Sark.
    And as far as I can tell, it would need to pass the Chief Pleas, not directly through the Seigneur.

    The Island only allowed Divorce in 2003. And given that the population of the Island is 500-600, I'm not anyone has actually tried to get married to someone of the same gender.

    On the other hand, Marriage Equality supporters may be able to use the European Court of Human Rights, that's how the Barclay brothers and the Seigneur's opponents got rid of the right of the Seigneur to be the only person on the island able to keep an unspayed dog.

  • 36. Sagesse  |  April 29, 2017 at 5:27 am

    This site was founded to track the Prop 8 trial. Who knew, but I am still subscribed to case activity, and yesterday received a notice that a motion has been made to release the video of the trial. This is the only write-up I could find.

    Release of videos sought in same-sex marriage case

  • 37. JayJonson  |  April 29, 2017 at 8:20 am

    Hope the motion succeeds!

  • 38. DevilWearsZrada  |  April 29, 2017 at 8:49 am

    I wonder if the voters in such a liberal state as California are going to finally repeal the struck down but still present in the books Proposition 8 on a referendum?

  • 39. FredDorner  |  April 29, 2017 at 12:31 pm

    Sometimes it's better to let sleeping dogs lie for a little while if only to avoid the sort of embarrassment which Alabama experienced through several unsuccessful attempts at repealing their ban on mixed-race marriage, which they were only able to accomplish 33 years after it was struck down by SCOTUS. It's also much easier to do it when it's a statute rather than an amendment.

    However it's undeniable that such deadwood in the law is harmful as we've recently seen with the erroneous enforcement of Louisiana's unconstitutional sodomy statute. The state legislature recently failed to repeal that.

  • 40. davepCA  |  April 29, 2017 at 3:17 pm

    Now THAT is a show I would love to binge watch. I hope the video does get released, including the video depositions. I'll get the popcorn ready. Can't wait to watch Blankenhorn and Tam make complete idiots of themselves and win the case for us. Ah, memories….

  • 41. GregInTN  |  May 3, 2017 at 8:35 pm

    I, too, am still subscribed to the Prop 8 case activity. Here's the schedule for the motion:

    ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING DATE as to [852] MOTION to Unseal Videotaped Trial Records. Responses due by 5/31/2017. Replies due by 6/7/2017. Motion Hearing set for 6/28/2017 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William H. Orrick.

  • 42. davepCA  |  May 3, 2017 at 11:16 pm

    Thanks, Greg! I have bookmarked the date. I would LOVE to go there next month are watch the hearing in person, as several of us did during the various Prop 8 procedings.

  • 43. GregInTN  |  May 4, 2017 at 3:43 pm

    I wonder if they are going to make a video record of the hearing on the motion to unseal the video of the trial.

  • 44. VIRick  |  April 29, 2017 at 12:42 pm

    "22 nations have marriage equality, ALL OF WHOM are Christian or at least have a Christian background"

    That's reasonably true enough, at least if we were to agree to the notion of a general "Christian" background, but that does not produce a cause/effect relationship. Marriage equality has been enacted DESPITE the "Christians," because in those same 22 nations, the secular, non-adhering, non-participating "Nones," with a very heavy emphasis on the word, SECULAR, predominate. In those same nations, the secular tradition is much stronger than that of any particular religious background, with the concept of "Separation of Church and State" being the key.

    "10 or so nations have the death penalty for homosexuality, ALL OF WHOM are Muslim."

    That's because those same 10 or so nations are still encumbered with a theocracy. Nationalist, SECULAR regimes in nations like Pakistan, Turkey, Lebanon, and Kurdish Iraq are far more tolerant and open than their theocratic counterparts in nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia. In addition, that's precisely what the fight is all about in both Egypt and Syria, where secular regimes are being challenged by theocratic hardliners, and what the fight was all about in Iran where a secular regime was toppled by theocratic hardliners.

    Note a peculiarity in the cultural tradition of South Asia, where transgender rights have outpaced same-sex homosexual rights. In the Hindu tradition of India, the hijra (transgender male-to-female) are viewed as a legitimate, legal third gender. This long-standing concept of the third gender has continued in now-majority Muslim near-by nations like Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Indonesia, despite the more-recent change in the majority religion.

    In addition, if one were to move past the Christian v. Muslim dichotomy, one would discover that SECULAR Jews, SECULAR Buddhists, and SECULAR Hindus, as well as SECULAR Muslims, would tend to agree with SECULAR Christians. Strip away the religion, of whatever ilk, and we tend to all have the same viewpoint. Still, of all the major religions in the world (if one must practice any religion at all), the practicing, contemplative Buddhists of East Asia (covering a region from Japan to Thailand and from Vietnam to Nepal) have the most open, progressive view of same-sex relationships, as they have no view whatsoever.

    I've spent most of my life living in various nations in Latin America. Although many people outside the region tend to view it rather monolithically, I see vast differences between hyper-secular Argentina and Uruguay, both early in legalizing same-sex marriage (despite a lot of idle noise in opposition from the Catholic church, noise which was firmly ignored in stridently secular societies), and nations like Perú or the Dominican Republic, where too large a proportion of their populations are still trapped in a colonial/church-adhering mentality and where the concept of the separation of church and state is not firmly enough entrenched. One also sees this dichotomy within Mexico, between a stridently secular national regime and its urban base, and the colonial/church-adhering provincials, often infected with assorted foreign fundamentalist sects.

  • 45. FredDorner  |  April 29, 2017 at 3:49 pm

    I'm pretty direct in my criticism of theocrats and the Christians who are unaware of the sharia laws of their own nutty cult which are being improperly enforced by secular governments, but I do find it interesting that most of the nations which have achieved marriage equality are predominantly Catholic……despite all the anti-LGBT efforts of that cult's leaders and their strong tendency towards theocracy. I think it has to do both with a reaction against that theocracy and foreign control by the RCC and also with certain societal reforms which came about during and shortly after the French Revolution and then more recently in the 1900s. In many of those Catholic countries marriage itself is strictly secular today and the RC church will only perform a "holy matrimony" ceremony for couples who already have a marriage certificate from the state. Of course part of that is also due to divorce and the fact that the RCC doesn't recognize it – thus forcing the need for marriage to be secular. But unlike the US those countries already did a better job separating secular marriage from a religious wedding so the step to marriage equality was easier than it was here.

  • 46. Randolph_Finder  |  April 29, 2017 at 9:32 pm

    I disagree on most. At best it is 50/50.
    Right now, I count the following predominant Catholic nations has having Marriage Equality: Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Mexico, Portugal, Spain, Uruguay.(11)
    and the following do not have a Catholic majority:
    Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Sweden, UK, USA (11)

    And counting Belgium and France as predominantly Catholic may or may not be technically true.

  • 47. FredDorner  |  April 29, 2017 at 9:40 pm

    Thanks, I forgot that Finland is now on board.

  • 48. Randolph_Finder  |  April 30, 2017 at 8:08 am

    Counting France and Belgium as Catholic, I think it is *entirely* possible that Predominantly Catholic countries will go back into the lead. Of the countries that I think are likely by the end of 2018, I think about half are predominantly Catholic and half aren't (Including Taiwan).

    Switzerland is an interesting case, the country has stayed about 40% Catholic over the last 50 years, but 50 years ago most of the remainder was Swiss Reformed, but now, it is about 40% Catholic, 30% Swiss Reformed and 25% unaffiliated. Does that count as Predominantly?

  • 49. VIRick  |  April 30, 2017 at 11:54 am

    Randolph, estimated figures for the Netherlands are quite similar to that of Switzerland, but with the percentages for the un-affiliated "Nones" being greater.

    In the Catholic-in-name-only, Euro-centric areas of Latin America (an inheritance from the Latin Mediterranean region), so-called opposition to marriage equality is very thin. I like to describe it as being a mile wide and an inch deep. One can see that reaction in Puerto Rico, where the main noise, which quickly faded into obscurity, came from the church hierarchy and an assorted collection of small, fundamentalist sects. Meanwhile, the government officials went about their jobs of complying with the change in the law (which technically for Puerto Rico came in the form of the governor's executive order, not the Supreme Court decision).

    In the Catholic-in-name-only countries of Western Europe and Latin America, the general population has progressively stopped listening to the Catholic Church hierarchy, given the church's continuing opposition to many other social issues, like contraception, abortion, and divorce, even male-only clergy, all of which has then been topped off with endless pedophilia scandals. So, along comes same-sex marriage to a general public which has already been turned off by the church hierarchy, given that the same general public is definitely in favor of contraception, abortion, and divorce. In other words, in a perverse twist, the general public has concluded that if the church hierarchy is against a certain issue, be it contraception, abortion, or divorce, and now, same-sex marriage, then there can't be anything wrong with it.

    Still, it's not the church affiliation which is driving acceptance to marriage equality, but rather, the increasing numbers who are un-affiliated with any church (or religious grouping) of any description.

  • 50. FredDorner  |  April 30, 2017 at 12:09 pm

    I thought the federal district court ruling in PR against marriage equality to be one of the more amusing ones, both because it was obviously wrong as a legal matter and because it recycled several of the same moronic arguments used against mixed-race marriage.

    In contrast the governor and other officials performed admirably.

  • 51. VIRick  |  April 30, 2017 at 12:21 pm

    That judge was an ancient fossil who gave me the distinct impression that he thought he was put there to administer out-dated Spanish colonial law, rather than the US Constitution, despite the fact that Spain itself, in the interval, was 10 years ahead of the USA on the subject of same-sex marriage.

    Spanish colonial law, just for the record, ceased to be relevant to Puerto Rico beginning from around the year 1917, and which ever since, has been progressively removed from the Puerto Rico code. Still, he attempted to imply, almost 100 years later, that the Equal Protection clause of the US Constitution still did not apply to Puerto Rico.

  • 52. Zack12  |  May 1, 2017 at 1:03 pm

    Next to Judge Jones of NV, that guy was the worst district court judge we had, as he made clear he couldn't put his biases aside, even after SCOTUS ruled.

  • 53. Randolph_Finder  |  May 1, 2017 at 5:16 am

    True, Which is why I always expected Latin America to get Marriage Equality from the ends toward the middle. Chile came later than I expected for various reasons and Colombia really early (I would expect that Colombia is the country of the 22 with ME that would be most likely to be reversed in a referendum.)

    As for Europe, what's left for Catholic predominated are Italy, Austria, the microstates and the ones behind the Iron Curtain. Slovenia will come pretty soon I think, but the first one entirely behind the Iron Curtain with be the Czech Republic(which isn't Catholic).

  • 54. VIRick  |  April 30, 2017 at 1:28 pm

    One might also want to check the percentages for New Zealand, which for anyone who has never been there, has a surprisingly large Catholic population, mostly driven by heavy Irish and Italian immigration. Most towns/cities of any size boast 3 churches. On North Island, they are Anglican, Catholic, and Methodist. On South Island, they are Anglican, Catholic, and Presbyterian.

    Still, regardless of the 3-way split, the un-affiliated "Nones" probably predominate, coupled with the fact that the large Maori/Polynesian element are quite accepting.

  • 55. Randolph_Finder  |  May 1, 2017 at 4:44 am

    New Zealand is 40% Nones. 13% Catholic, 12% Anglican, 9% Presby and 15% Other Xtian (so about 50% Christian combined). So group them with France and the Netherlands, I guess.

  • 56. VIRick  |  April 29, 2017 at 2:43 pm

    2nd Circuit Court of Appeals: En Banc Petition in "Christiansen" Filed

    Per Equality Case Files:

    On 28 April 2017, in the case, "Christiansen v. Omnicom Group," an employee's appeal of the order dismissing his claim of sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII, Christiansen has filed a petition for an En Banc rehearing with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Christiansen's Petition for En Banc Hearing asks the full 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear the case and to overturn the 2nd Circuit Court's earlier decisions that blocked the 3-judge panel from ruling that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination under Title VII.

    The Plaintiff-Appellant’s Petition for Hearing En Banc is here:

    We need to remember, too, that the 3-judge panel in the very recently-decided "Zarda" appeal made the observation that the "Christiansen" appeal, given its claim of gender stereotyping, has the better chance of prevailing.

  • 57. VIRick  |  April 29, 2017 at 3:46 pm

    Wyoming Men Wear Tutus Protesting Senator Enzi’s Victim-Blaming Comments

    Supporters of LGBTQ equality wore tutus (in addition to their requisite western gear) all across Wyoming on Friday, 28 April 2017, to protest Sen. Mike Enzi’s inanely stupid comment that men who wear tutus into bars are asking to be assaulted.

    “Honestly, this is what we do in Wyoming. Straight men all over the state are going to be joining their LGBTQ siblings and wearing tutus, buying their queer friends drinks, and having a great time,” Equality Wyoming’s Sara Burlingame wrote. “It is a great time to be in the Equality State where we talk out differences and show up for each other — with or without tutus.”

    In Casper WY, a place called Butch’s offered patrons free drinks if they wore a tutu, while outside in the snow, in Lander WY, an entire line-up of men in tutus completely encircled another bar.

    Besides providing background to the story of Sissy Goodwin, the pictures of the many Wyoming men in tutus accompanying this article are well worth the look, particularly the two tutu-wearing hotties embracing in the parking lot:

  • 58. VIRick  |  April 29, 2017 at 4:17 pm

    Comment of the Week

    Per Will Ferrell, impersonating G.W. Bush, at the "Not the White House Correspondents' Dinner:"

    "For a long time I was considered the worst president of all time. That has changed, and it only took 100 days."

  • 59. guitaristbl  |  April 30, 2017 at 4:52 pm

    Ileana Ros-Lehtinen to retire from congress :

    On one hand that's bad – losing one of the very rare species of pro-LGBT republicans and a very active one on that but on the other hand this should be an easy seat to pick up for democrats in 2018.

  • 60. allan120102  |  April 30, 2017 at 8:20 pm

    Mexico news
    Xalapa civil registry in Veracruz are in favor of legalizing ssm and asking the state congress to modify the code and let ssc get married.

    I found the demand that was file to the sc that is asking them to overturn the inaction of the state congress of Yucatan to legalize ssm.

  • 61. VIRick  |  April 30, 2017 at 10:03 pm

    Ah perfect, and thank you, as I was unable to track down the Yucatán case on the SCJN web-site.

  • 62. VIRick  |  April 30, 2017 at 8:31 pm

    Kentucky Judge Won’t Hear Adoption Cases Involving Gay Adults

    A Kentucky family court judge says he won’t hear any more adoption cases that involve gay adults. The "Louisville Courier-Journal" reports Judge Mitchell Nance issued the recusal order on Thursday, 27 April 2017, saying he believes that “under no circumstance” would “the best interest of the child be promoted by the adoption by a practicing homosexual.”

    Nance cited an ethical rule that says judges must disqualify themselves when they have a personal bias or prejudice. Nance’s order said lawyers representing gay people in adoptions in Barren and Metcalfe counties would have to request a special judge.

    He told the "Glasgow Daily Times" the next day that he issued the order to avoid a long delay if a case involving gay parents was filed in his court. Circuit Judge John T. Alexander told the Glasgow newspaper he would hear any adoption cases affected by Nance’s recusal.

    Barren and Metcalf counties, both rural, are in west-central KY, the next two counties east of Bowling Green KY. At least Judge Nance acknowledges that he's a biased bigot.

  • 63. VIRick  |  April 30, 2017 at 8:57 pm

    Roy Moore Continues Fight Against Marriage Equality in Senate Race

    Moore’s campaign theme puts a values-driven spin on the Trump populist slogan, “Make America Great Again,” and Moore’s campaign announcement spelled out what he believes isn’t good: divorce, abortion, and same-sex marriage. In what’s expected to be high-dollar slugfest of a GOP primary, with multiple candidates seeking to harness the president’s blunt-spoken outsider appeal, Moore is a far-right, polarizing crazy. In a recent interview, Moore actually said, “God puts people in positions in positions he wants. … More than thinking I can win, it’s up to God and God’s will. We will see what God would have me do.”

    Former Alabama Attorney-General Luther Strange currently holds the Senate seat. He was appointed by then-Gov. Robert Bentley, who resigned in April 2017 amid fallout from an alleged affair with a top staffer. Bentley had planned for a 2018 Senate election, which would have allowed Strange to hold the seat longer. But the state’s new governor, Kay Ivey, moved it up to 2017, setting off what’s expected to be a four-month demolition derby among Republican contenders ahead of the 15 August primary.

    Strange is running to retain the seat. Trump’s Alabama campaign chairman, Ed Henry, a Republican legislator who helped topple Bentley by starting an impeachment push, is also running. Randy Brinson, a Montgomery gastroenterologist who chairs the Christian Coalition of Alabama, will be another contender for evangelical votes. The field is expected to grow even larger before qualifying ends in May.

  • 64. ianbirmingham  |  May 1, 2017 at 2:33 am

    Massive wooden cross placed on Gay Street gets a LGBT rainbow makeover

  • 65. VIRick  |  May 1, 2017 at 11:18 am

    Supreme Court Delivers Fatal Blow to ‘Ex-Gay’ Conversion Therapy

    Per Equality Case Files:

    On 1 May 2017, in "Welch v. Brown," the US Supreme Court denied certiorari to the appeal against a California law banning therapists from trying to change a minor’s sexual orientation through conversion therapy, thus allowing the law to stand. The decision leaves intact the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding the state’s first-of-its-kind law, passed in 2012.

    The ban was challenged on “religious freedom” grounds, led by licensed therapist and minister Donald Welch. The law applies to all licensed doctors, psychologists, therapists, and social workers. Those who violate the law are subject to discipline by state licensing bodies.

    See the Orders List here:

  • 66. VIRick  |  May 1, 2017 at 11:31 am

    Former Trump Campaign Chair Charged with Felony Sex Trafficking of a Minor

    The Kentucky campaign chair for Trump‘s 2016 presidential campaign, a former judge turned school board member, has been indicted on felony sex trafficking charges involving a minor. Judge Tim Nolan of California KY was charged with felony human trafficking of a minor, felony inducing a minor to engage in sex, and a misdemeanor charge of supplying alcohol to a minor, reports "The River City News."

    The alleged abuse, which is described as subjecting someone under 18 to “commercial sexual activity,” is said to have occurred in August 2016, while he was serving as the Campbell County KY Trump campaign chair. In November 2016, Nolan was elected to the Campbell County Board of Education.

    The case is being handled by the Boone County District Court because the Campbell County Circuit Court Clerk, Taunya Nolan Jack, is Tim Nolan’s daughter.

  • 67. VIRick  |  May 1, 2017 at 12:44 pm

    Sweden: 9th Anniversary of Marriage Equality and Adoption

    Per Fundación Iguales:

    Hoy, 1 de mayo 2017, se cumplen nueve años desde que Suecia tiene matrimonio igualitario y la posibilidad de adoptar.

    Today, 1 May 2017, completes 9 years since Sweden obtained marriage equality and the possibility of adoption.

  • 68. VIRick  |  May 1, 2017 at 1:14 pm

    Supreme Court to Consider Whether Congress of Yucatán Discriminates Against Same-Sex Couples

    Analizará Suprema Corte si Congreso de Yucatán Discrimina a Homosexuales

    Yucatán, 1 de mayo 2017 – La Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (SCJN) analizará si el Congreso de Yucatán discrimina a las parejas homosexuales al no legislar respecto a la figura de matrimonio igualitario. Entonces, los legisladores estarían violando el principio constitucional de “no discriminación.”

    El ministro Jorge Mario Pardo Rebolledo formuló un proyecto para otorgar amparos a varias asociaciones civiles que luchan por el reconocimiento legal de los matrimonios entre personas del mismo sexo. Su objetivo es que el Tribunal Colegiado declare que el Congreso de Yucatán ha sido omiso al no llevar a cabo acciones para regular las uniones entre personas homosexuales.

    Actualmente tanto en la Constitución local como en el Código de la Familia, se establece que el matrimonio es la unión civil entre un hombre y una mujer, lo que deja fuera a las parejas de lesbianas o gays. Esto viola la Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos.

    El legislativo local no puede prohibir el matrimonio gay porque los criterios de la SCJN establecen que su prohibición es discriminatoria e inconstitucional”, indicó Orvelin Montiel, abogado de una de las asociaciones civiles que buscan ampararse. Si tienen éxito, la SCJN enviará una orden al Tribunal Colegiado en Materias Civil y Administrativa de Yucatán, para que a su vez emita los amparos necesarios y se obligue también al Congreso local a legislar la figura jurídica del matrimonio igualitario.

    Yucatán, 1 May 2017 – The Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN) will analyze whether the Congress of Yucatán discriminates against same-sex couples by not legislating with respect to marriage equality. Legislators would thus be violating the constitutional principle of "non-discrimination."

    Justice Jorge Mario Pardo Rebolledo formulated a project to grant amparos to several civil associations which have fought for the legal recognition of marriage between people of the same sex. Their objective is for the Collegiate Court to declare that the Congress of Yucatán has been remiss in not carrying out actions to regulate the unions between same-sex couples.

    At the moment, both in the state Constitution and in the Family Code, it is established that marriage is the civil union between a man and a woman, which leaves out lesbian or gay couples. This violates the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States.

    "The state legislature can not prohibit same-sex marriage because the SCJN's criteria establish that its prohibition is discriminatory and unconstitutional," said Orvelin Montiel, a lawyer for one of the civil associations that has sought the amparos. If successful, the SCJN will send an order to the Collegiate Court on Civil and Administrative Matters for Yucatán to issue the necessary amparos and also to oblige the Yucatán Congress to legislate for marriage equality.

    Note: El Tribunal Constitucional de Yucatán, the highest state court, is apparently also more precisely known as El Tribunal Colegiado en Materias Civil y Administrativa de Yucatán.

    This article is accompanied by a nice photo of Javier Carrillo y Ricardo Góngora, the first same-sex couple to be married (via amparo) in Yucatán.

  • 69. allan120102  |  May 1, 2017 at 1:19 pm

    Mexican supreme court to overturn the decision made by the state supreme court of Yucatan. I need to make it clear that on Wednesday when the court issue its decision marriages will not start immediately as first the state supreme court need to vacate its decision and later it will issue one were it will force the state congress to act. I also need to make it clear that congress may act whenever they want unless the courts put a time limit which I doubt seeing how bigot the state supreme court is. All this is explain here.
    I retract myself the Yucatan supreme court is not as bigot as I thought. the vote was 7-4. That means that they are at least 4 lgbt friendly judges in the state supreme court.

  • 70. JayJonson  |  May 1, 2017 at 5:06 pm

    Glad to see that SCOTUS has again refused to hear a challenge to the constitutionality of California's ban on sexual orientation conversion therapy for minors. I was afraid that Gorsuch might provide the 4th vote needed to grant cert on the issue. For now, he is laying low, perhaps in an effort to convince Justice Kennedy that he will not undo his great legacy on gay rights should he retire:

  • 71. Fortguy  |  May 1, 2017 at 11:26 pm

    Pennsylvania's big chunk of eye candy and openly gay State Rep. Brian Sims (D-Philadelphia) knows how to deal with Internet trolls. Hint to trolls: don't post your grandmother's telephone number on your Facebook feed if your grandmother is not a troll but instead a decent person. Hint 2 to trolls: listen to your grandmother.

    Brooke Seipel, The Hill: Lawmaker goes after internet troll by calling his grandmother

  • 72. davepCA  |  May 2, 2017 at 12:02 am

    Ok, a bit OT, but… Holy smokes what a hunk. Brian Sims is frikken gorgeous.
    And he sure does know how to handle the trolls. Awesome.

  • 73. VIRick  |  May 2, 2017 at 6:01 pm

    The gorgeousness of Brian Sims is quite definitely NOT off-topic!!

    I have a close friend who is totally awe-struck with the hunk, and who actually temporarily moved from DC to Philly in order to be right there, on-hand and available, to work on the Sims' campaign. His assessment would fully concur with your assessment.

    In fact, right now the major debate is this:
    1. Should he remain in the state legislature, where he has more influence, and continue to push for state-wide, across-the-board LGBT protections?
    2. Should he run for US Congress in a Philly district which he could also likely win?

    My suggestion: Stay with the state legislature until Pennsylvania has the state-wide LGBT protections in employment, housing, and accommodations, then run for a House seat.

  • 74. Elihu_Bystander  |  May 2, 2017 at 7:00 am

    Interesting tactic; however, I believe the best response to Internet trolls is no response at all.

    Engaging in cyber argument with them only inflames the subject which is what the trolls intent is in the first place.

  • 75. bayareajohn  |  May 2, 2017 at 12:58 pm

    Seems to me in this case, demonstrating that idiot posts have consequences is a very positive act that likely will give some trolls pause to consider. Well, some.

  • 76. JayJonson  |  May 2, 2017 at 11:44 am

    Lambda Legal has filed suit against the disgusting people doing business as Picayune Funeral Home in Picayune, Mississippi for their horrible treatment of an elderly gay man. They refused to cremate his husband's body when they learned he was married to a man. The cruelty and pettiness of such people know no bounds.

  • 77. bayareajohn  |  May 2, 2017 at 1:04 pm

    Senator Jeff Merkley was live. Congressman David Cicilline and I are introducing the Equality Act, historic legislation to ban discrimination against LGBTQ individuals. Every person deserves to live free from fear of discrimination, regardless of who they are or whom they love. Enacting the Equality Act will bring us another significant step forward in our nation’s long march towards inclusion and equality. I deeply appreciate being joined by so many today: Senator Chuck Schumer Senator Tammy Baldwin Cory Booker House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi Human Rights Campaign Center for American Progress National Center for Transgender Equality The National Center for Lesbian Rights ACLU Nationwide National LGBTQ Task Force National Women's Law Center Lambda Legal Family Equality Council on this historic day.

  • 78. bayareajohn  |  May 2, 2017 at 1:05 pm

    Text of the act (apologies if posted elsewhere, but I didn't see it here…)

  • 79. davepCA  |  May 2, 2017 at 2:18 pm

    And the post directly above this one, about the horrible actions perpetrated by the Picayune Funeral Home, is a textbook example of why this kind of legislature is needed.

  • 80. guitaristbl  |  May 2, 2017 at 3:23 pm

    It doesn't matter. FADA will be law on Thursday through executive order. I suppose every single state law protecting LGBT people from discrimination will be effectively null and void after that unless they challenge it vigorously in court.

  • 81. Fortguy  |  May 2, 2017 at 6:33 pm

    No, any such executive order, without supporting legislation upheld as constitutional, would only be binding on executive agencies, not the states, and certainly not the federal courts. Any non-discrimination laws enacted by states will remain in force within those states.

  • 82. scream4ever  |  May 4, 2017 at 9:28 am

    It appears the anti-lgbt language has been removed from the order.

  • 83. JayJonson  |  May 4, 2017 at 4:48 pm

    As much as I love the ACLU, they have made a potentially dangerous error by spending the day mocking Trump's EO, saying that it doesn't do anything and is just a photo-op that is not worth suing over. That may be true, but inasmuch as Trump is a hypersensitive insane man, that kind of mocking may inspire him to do what Brian Brown and other Christianists want him to do, issuing an EO that specifically targets us. Sometimes the smart thing to do is lie low.

  • 84. VIRick  |  May 4, 2017 at 7:08 pm

    Jay, I doubt it because in this instance, the Freedom From Religion Foundation has already filed suit in federal court against this latest EO, whether said EO be watered down or not. Their complaint: that the tax-exempt status of religious non-profits, gives that group preference over secular non-profits, like FFRF, when it comes to the whole political activity thing.

    See the following thread here at EoT for further particulars, as I have just finished posting all the court filing information there.

  • 85. JayJonson  |  May 5, 2017 at 5:18 am

    Well, I am glad that the Freedom from Religion Foundation is suing on those grounds. But the ACLU's mockery, especially saying that the EO does nothing, does not help that suit, and it taunts Trump, in effect daring him to issue a "real" EO that targets us. Trump is also getting pushback from the usual suspect hate groups like FRC, and NOM, for not having specifically targeted our "persecution" of Christians. If Limbaugh joins the chorus, Trump will act.

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