Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Trump announces he’s kicking transgender people out of the military

Transgender Rights

White House. Source:
White House. Source:

Buzzfeed reports:

President Trump tweeted on Wednesday that transgender people cannot “serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military,” repeating a claim from conservative Republicans that transgender service members disrupt the ranks and add medical costs that undermine troop readiness.

The abrupt announcement seemed to stun military leaders, even though Trump said in a series of tweets that he consulted with “my generals and military experts.”

He says he consulted with military leaders and he will not accept or allow people who are transgender to serve in the military.

Transgender people have served with bravery for ages, and had even been allowed to identify themselves as transgender for over a year while they were serving.

The new policy was not known until now. The expectations had been that open service would be fully implemented in six months.


  • 1. FredDorner  |  July 26, 2017 at 10:11 am

    A truly shameful action by Der Fuhrer. I can't imagine that the courts will support this.

  • 2. scream4ever  |  July 26, 2017 at 10:44 am

    Especially since the presumed result would be kicking out active members of the military.

  • 3. guitaristbl  |  July 26, 2017 at 10:46 am

    I know the president has vast discretion in terms of military matters but I wonder if the thousands of members kicked out can take legal action against this extremist administration.

    Btw this reeks Pence's agenda.

  • 4. davepCA  |  July 26, 2017 at 12:03 pm

    So Trumps excuses for this stunt are about "medical costs", but he is banning ALL trans people from serving in the military – even if they have already transitioned…. even if they have no plans to transition any time before they retire from serving…. it basically says that ALL of them should now be kicked out, regardless of any of that, and regardless of their service record and regardless of how valuable their work and their skills are to the military….

    Sheesh, this is just as reckless and reactionary as his first Muslim ban, with all of the chaos and confusion it caused at airports all over the country. I mean, regardless of the fact that it's unnecessary and unjust to trans service personnel, does this moron EVER give ANY consideration to the disruptive and counterproductive consequences of this kind of sudden "ban" being imposed? What an idiot.

  • 5. scream4ever  |  July 26, 2017 at 2:32 pm

    Clearly not, as he doesn't mind inconveniencing anyone from the general public when he and his family travel.

  • 6. ianbirmingham  |  July 26, 2017 at 1:05 pm

    Senator John McCain Power-Slams Trump's Ban On Transgender Troops

    Following Trump's announcement, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., criticized it as "yet another example of why major policy announcements should not be made via Twitter."

    "The statement was unclear," McCain said. " The Department of Defense has already decided to allow currently-serving transgender individuals to stay in the military, and many are serving honorably today. Any American who meets current medical and readiness standards should be allowed to continue serving. There is no reason to force service members who are able to fight, train, and deploy to leave the military—regardless of their gender identity."

    McCain added that he believes no "new policy decision is appropriate" until the Pentagon completes a study on the effects of the Obama policy on medical costs and relevant officials have the opportunity to review it.

  • 7. davepCA  |  July 26, 2017 at 2:33 pm

    "Unclear"? No, Senator McCain, it was very clear, it was just irrational and idiotic.

    Trump's tweets said, and I quote:

    "The United States government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military".

    Which has generated yet another unprofessional ham-fisted bumbling shit show from the Idiot in Chief, once again creating a lot of chaotic confusion with ill-conceived and irresponsible adolescent 'tweeting' instead of behaving like a President of the United States.

  • 8. ianbirmingham  |  July 26, 2017 at 1:11 pm

    Inside Trump’s snap decision to ban transgender troops

    House lawmakers took the matter to the Trump administration. And when Defense Secretary James Mattis refused to immediately upend the [transgender] policy, they went straight to the White House. Trump — never one for political correctness — was all too happy to oblige.

    “[P]lease be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military,” Trump tweeted Wednesday morning. "Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.”

    The president’s directive, of course, took the House issue a step beyond paying for gender reassignment surgery and other medical treatment. House Republicans were never debating expelling all transgender troops from the military.

    "This is like someone told the White House to light a candle on the table and the WH set the whole table on fire,” said one senior House Republican aide. The source said that while GOP leaders asked the White House for help, they weren't expecting — and got no heads up on — Trump's far-reaching directive. …

    “It’s not so much the transgender surgery issue as much as we continue to let the defense bill be the mule for all of these social experiments that the left wants to try to foist on government,” Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), a conservative supporter of the Hartzler proposal, said last week.

    He added: “It seems to me, and all due respect to everyone, that if someone wants to come to the military, potentially risk their life to save the country, that they should probably decide whether they’re a man or woman before they do that.”

  • 9. ianbirmingham  |  July 26, 2017 at 1:17 pm

    ACLU Prepares Lawsuit Against Trump Transgender Ban

    Joshua Block, senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s LGBT & HIV Project, had the following reaction:

    “This is an outrageous and desperate action. The thousands of transgender service members serving on the front lines for this country deserve better than a commander-in-chief who rejects their basic humanity.

    “Let us be clear. This has been studied extensively, and the consensus is clear: There are no cost or military readiness drawbacks associated with allowing trans people to fight for their country. The president is trying to score cheap political points on the backs of military personnel who have put their lives on the line for their country.

    “There is no basis for turning trans people away from our military and the ACLU is examining all of our options on how to fight this. For any trans service member affected by today’s announcement: Please get in touch with us, because we want to hear from you.”

    <a href="” target=”_blank”>

  • 10. VIRick  |  July 26, 2017 at 2:22 pm

    Philippines: Powerful Politician Pledges to Introduce Same-Sex Unions

    A prominent Filipino politician who is a close ally of President Rodrigo Duterte has proposed introducing same-sex unions. On Monday, 24 July 2017, Pantaleón Álvarez, the Speaker of the country’s House of Representatives, made the announcement at the opening of Congress. The pledge represents yet another at least partial u-turn from an administration which has already once retracted a promise to introduce same-sex marriage.

    At a forum in January 2016, during the run-up to the presidential election, Duterte said he would push for legislation to allow same-sex marriage. After he was elected, however, he completely reversed his stance, saying in March 2017 that “there is the civil code, which states you can only marry a woman for me, and for a woman to marry a man. That’s the law in the Philippines.”

    Earlier this year, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) said it would allow LGBT soldiers to sign up. However, there was a catch. The AFP promised LGBT recruits would not be discriminated against, “as long as they behave with dignity.”

    So,– does the "T" here actually indicate that trans individuals can now serve in the Philippines military? If so, then perhaps the orange ass-hat-in-charge in the USA ought to take note.

  • 11. ebohlman  |  July 26, 2017 at 6:18 pm

    The timing couldn't have been "better", as it comes on the 69th anniversary of Truman's order to desegregate the military.

  • 12. ianbirmingham  |  July 26, 2017 at 7:49 pm

    Haha, you said 69… we all know how to celebrate the 69th! 😉

  • 13. scream4ever  |  July 26, 2017 at 7:54 pm

    I never knew what that meant growing up and was always out of the loop when my peers joked about it!

  • 14. VIRick  |  July 26, 2017 at 8:15 pm

    On the other hand, I knew what it meant. I just could not perform very well at it. Some have said I am too intently greedy, and thus, am not very adept at sharing (or multi-tasking, or whatever). Still, it may just be an acquired skill, and that I simply need more practice.

  • 15. bythesea66  |  July 29, 2017 at 12:45 am

    Practice does make perfect.

  • 16. VIRick  |  July 26, 2017 at 7:48 pm

    DOJ under Sessions Shows off Its Full-Blown Anti-LGBT Self

    Today, 26 July 2017, in "Zarda v. Altitude Express," the US Justice Department argued in a major federal lawsuit that a 1964 civil rights law does not protect gay workers from discrimination, thereby diverging from a separate, autonomous federal agency that had supported the gay plaintiff’s case. The administration’s filing is unusual in part because the Justice Department is not a party in the case, and the department doesn’t typically weigh in on private employment lawsuits.

    But in an amicus brief filed today at the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, while the case is under en banc review, lawyers under A-G Sessions contended that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans sex discrimination, does not cover sexual orientation. "The sole question here is whether, as a matter of law, Title VII reaches sexual orientation discrimination," says the Justice Department's brief. "It does not, as has been settled for decades. Any efforts to amend Title VII’s scope should be directed to Congress rather than the courts."

    The Justice Department also contends that Title VII only applies if men and women are treated unequally. "The essential element of sex discrimination under Title VII is that employees of one sex must be treated worse than similarly situated employees of the other sex, and sexual orientation discrimination simply does not have that effect," the brief says.

    Among the "Zarda" boosters is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a largely autonomous federal agency that handles civil rights disputes in the workplace, which supported "Zarda" last month in its own court filing. For several years, the EEOC has declared in federal court that Title VII bans anti-gay discrimination, saying it is based on sex stereotyping, and therefore, discrimination on the basis of sex.

    But the Justice Department argues in its latest brief, "the EEOC is not speaking for the United States, and its position about the scope of Title VII is entitled to no deference beyond its power to persuade." Under Sessions, the Justice Department has pushed back against the EEOC's view. "The theories advanced by the EEOC and the Seventh Circuit lack merit," the brief said. "These theories are inconsistent with Congress’s clear ratification of the overwhelming judicial consensus that Title VII does not prohibit sexual orientation discrimination."

    One can read the amicus brief in its entirety, embedded at the bottom of this news article:

  • 17. ianbirmingham  |  July 26, 2017 at 7:59 pm

    Trump calls reporter "very rude" for asking about transgender ban

    Signaling the plan without an actual plan in place made it a ripe topic for reporters peppering Huckabee Sanders with questions in the briefing room.

    Halfway through, she tried to shut those down.

    'Guys, I really don't have anything else to add on that topic,' the newly-minted press secretary said. 'As I do, I'll keep you posted.'

    'But if those are the only questions we have, I'm going to call it a day,' she warned.

    It didn't work, as she was pelted with several more.

  • 18. ianbirmingham  |  July 26, 2017 at 8:36 pm

    Democrats, LGBT Groups Power-Slam Transgender Ban

    Sarah Kate Ellis of GLAAD said: “President Trump today issued a direct attack on transgender Americans, and his administration will stop at nothing to implement its anti-LGBTQ ideology within our government – even if it means denying some of our bravest Americans the right to serve and protect our nation.

    “Today further exposed President Trump’s overall goal to erase LGBTQ Americans from this nation. Trump has never been a friend to LGBTQ Americans, and this action couldn’t make that any more clear.”

    The Democrats said: “Right this moment, around the world, brave transgender service members are protecting the American people – including Donald Trump and Mike Pence.

    “While the White House claims to be celebrating ‘American Heroes’ week, the president and vice president are shoving real American patriots back in the closet and putting our nation’s security at risk.

    “Donald Trump said he would protect LGBTQ people, but today’s decision to ban transgender Americans from serving in the military proves his promise was another bald-faced lie.

    “Democrats stand with the transgender community and we will fight this administration’s bigotry tooth-and-nail. Those who defend our right to live freely should be able to serve freely.

    “This cowardly statement by Donald Trump shames our nation and its history of advancing diversity in our military – from the integration of African-Americans into the military by President Truman to President Obama’s ending of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell – and it is an insult to the millions of Americans who have courageously served our nation.”

    The Human Rights Campaign attacked the White House for a “deeply troubling and patently unpatriotic assault on military families”.

    The group added: “[Trump and Pence should] be working to ensure all service members and their families are getting the support and resources they need and deserve, regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation.”

    Chad Griffin added: “Today Donald Trump has proven himself as unpatriotic as he is unfit to serve as Commander in Chief. He has put a target on the backs of the more than 15,000 transgender troops proudly serving in our military.

    “This heinous and disgusting action endangers the lives of American service members, undermines military readiness and makes our country less safe.

    “It is also the latest effort by Trump and Mike Pence to undo our progress and drag LGBTQ people back into the closet by using our lives as political pawns.”

    The President famously dodged the draft four times during the Vietnam war, and has never served in the military. …

    It is not the first time Trump has gone out of his way to reverse a decision on LGBT rights made by Obama.

    The GOP leader has already scrapped protections for transgender school kids, ceased government opposition to state-level anti-LGBT laws, and sought to slash HIV aid funding.

    The decisions sour Trump’s previous claims during his election campaign to be a “friend” of LGBT people.

    In a speech directly after the Orlando massacre he had claimed: “Ask yourself, who is really the friend of women and the L-G-B-T community, Donald Trump with his actions, or Hillary Clinton with her words.”

    He also won endless praise from gay Republicans for waving a Pride flag on stage, while making no pledges on LGBT rights.

  • 19. ianbirmingham  |  July 26, 2017 at 8:40 pm

    The LGBTQ+ community has a common enemy. His name is Donald Trump, and his administration is here to annihilate all of us. Lesbian, gay, bi, queer, and every member of our community needs to pick up a sign, go to the streets, and show him that we are one community, unified in the fight. Every day that he spends in the office of the president is a day that our freedoms are gravely threatened. Don’t make the same mistake I made for all those years. Unless we band together and fight him now, Trump’s hostility towards our transgender brothers and sisters will bleed into all of our lives.

  • 20. ianbirmingham  |  July 26, 2017 at 8:43 pm

    'We're here, we're queer, we hate the fucking president': Furious protests erupt in New York and Washington DC after Trump bans transgender people from the military

  • 21. ianbirmingham  |  July 27, 2017 at 2:28 am

    Trump's Transgender Ban Is A Legal Land Mine

  • 22. JayJonson  |  July 27, 2017 at 6:39 am

    Our experience fighting Don't Ask, Don't Tell will be extremely valuable in blocking the absurd transgender ban announced via twitter. DADT was difficult to dismantle because it was a legally enacted piece of legislation. But however painful the process of dismantling it, a huge amount of research was done as to the specious "readiness and unit cohesion" arguments. Although the Log Cabin Republicans suit that resulted in a district court's ruling that DADT was unconstitutional was (unjustly) robbed of precedential value by a Ninth Circuit panel, it had a major influence. Indeed, Secretary of Defense Gates finally endorsed repeal on the grounds that if the military did not do it themselves, it would be done by the courts. The so-called "Witt" rule stands, which means that to remove someone from the service the military will have to prove on an individual basis that the person in question threatens readiness and morale. In addition, the whole of concept of singling out a particular group for discrimination violates the equal protection clause. Moreover, while there may be a question as to whether the 1964 Civil Rights Bill covers sexual orientation, there is no question that it covers gender. Our despicable Liar-in-Chief has set himself up for yet another humiliating loss in the courts.

  • 23. Elihu_Bystander  |  July 27, 2017 at 8:22 am

    Did anyone note the extra barb thrown into the DOJ amicus brief in Zarda?

    “By contrast, Title VII does not proscribe employment practices that take account of the sex of employees but do not impose differential burdens on similarly situated members of each sex. For example, employers necessarily consider the sex of their employees when maintaining and enforcing sex-specific bathrooms…”

    Was that directed at Zarda or the potty bills? Here is a direct link to the amicus brief.

  • 24. scream4ever  |  July 27, 2017 at 8:34 am

    It was directed at gender identity, which is funny since the case only addresses sexual orientation.

  • 25. Elihu_Bystander  |  July 27, 2017 at 8:56 am

    Also from the DOJ amicus brief

    “As the courts have long held, discrimination based on sexual orientation does not fall within Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination because it does not involve “disparate treatment of men and women.” […] Rather than causing similarly situated “members of one sex [to be] exposed to disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment [or employment actions] to which members of the other sex are not exposed,” […] it causes differential treatment of gay and straight employees for men and women alike. [Citations and cross references omitted.]”

    The argument in that last sentence has never prevailed in the long haul.

  • 26. VIRick  |  July 27, 2017 at 1:08 pm

    It also does not take into account the point about "gender stereotyping," that is, as to what one is "expected" to be like if one is supposed to be "typically" male or female. Employers with very narrow viewpoints can sometimes have rigidly fixed, preconceived ideas as to how both men and women present themselves in mannerisms, dress, and behavior. Anyone who does not quite meet this narrow standard can thus run afoul of the employer's "gender stereotyping."

  • 27. VIRick  |  July 27, 2017 at 1:31 pm

    Joint Chiefs Chairman: There Are No Changes Yet on Trans Military Service Policy

    It should come as no surprise that the fly-by-the-seat-of-his-pants president didn’t give anyone enough time to come up with a policy, leaving officials scrambling, including those in the Pentagon who were reportedly taken off guard by the announcement. Top military brass were reportedly blindsided after Trump’s first tweet about the change to policy, thinking he was announcing an attack on North Korea.

    “There will be no modifications to the current policy until the President’s direction has been received by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary has issued implementation guidance,” chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General Joseph Dunford, said in a written message on Thursday, 27 July 2017, to service chiefs, Reuters reports.

    “In the meantime, we will continue to treat all of our personnel with respect. As importantly, given the current fight and the challenges we face, we will all remain focused on accomplishing our assigned missions,” he added.

    I like that phrasing: " In the meantime, we will continue to treat ALL of our personnel with respect."

    It might also be worth noting that a tweet is not an Executive Order, nor a definitive policy statement. It is also fairly obvious that the ass-hat-in chief has no idea what the term "policy" even means, let alone the proper procedure for implementing one.

  • 28. VIRick  |  July 27, 2017 at 1:38 pm

    Trump Sold Out Transgender Troops to Win Funding for a Few Miles of His Border Wall

    Trump’s rash decision to disallow transgender people from serving in the military is the result of funding for his Mexican border wall being threatened. A Politico report suggests House Republicans planned to pass a spending bill that included the cash necessary to build 74 miles of his proposed and much-ballyhooed wall, but an internal disagreement over trans troops put the future of that bill on shaky ground.

    According to insiders, members of the House GOP were afraid they wouldn’t get enough votes because, as Politico reports, “defense hawks wanted a ban on Pentagon-funded sex reassignment operations — something GOP leaders wouldn’t give them.” So they turned to Trump, who instantly fired out a tweet announcing the ban (but a ban that went much farther than what was even being sought); a last ditch effort to save the House proposal, which was packed with campaign promises and teetering towards defeat.

  • 29. FredDorner  |  July 27, 2017 at 3:51 pm

    And to save a mere $8.4 million by firing all the transgender troops, Trump will spend at least $329 million to replace them (assuming 6330 soldiers at $52K average training costs).

    That $8.4 million in additional healthcare costs per year service wide amounts to less than 4 of Trump's weekend trips to Floriduh.

  • 30. scream4ever  |  July 27, 2017 at 4:52 pm

    And those are the conservative estimates regarding troop numbers.

  • 31. VIRick  |  July 27, 2017 at 1:46 pm

    Connecticut: Governor Just Signed Order Defying Trump’s Anti-Trans Military Order

    On 26 July 2017, shortly after Trump's rash tweet, Connecticut Governor Daniel Malloy signed an executive order reinforcing the state’s non-discrimination policies in regard to the Connecticut Military Department, NBC News reports.

    According to Malloy’s office, he ordered “the Connecticut National Guard, the Connecticut Air National Guard and the other armed forces of the state to take no action that discriminates against service members in enlistment, promotion, or any other aspect of their service, on the basis of their gender identity or expression, unless superseded by federal law, regulation, or formal directive from the US Department of Defense.”

    “President Trump’s announcement that he plans to ban transgender individuals from serving in our military is ignorant and profoundly troubling. The reality is that a person’s gender identity or expression has nothing to do with their willingness or ability to defend our nation,” Malloy said in a statement. “Any able person who wishes to serve in the military should have that right – regardless of race, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression. In recent years, our military has made great strides to be more inclusive. The President’s announcement sends a frightening signal to the public that our government condones discrimination and raises serious questions about what other advancements towards inclusion in the military may also be in jeopardy.”

  • 32. VIRick  |  July 27, 2017 at 2:07 pm

    El Salvador: New LGBTI Federation Formed

    San Salvador, El Salvador — Different LGBTI rights organizations have joined forces to spur the Salvadoran government to respect and promote LGBT and intersex rights. They are also demanding that political parties make security and the right of transgender people to self-identify a priority. A total of 16 organizations have come together to form Asociación Federada LGBTI, thus uniting the entire population for the first time behind a common goal.

    This article is fully bi-lingual, with the Spanish text below that of the one in English, at:

  • 33. allan120102  |  July 27, 2017 at 3:32 pm

    In Nicaragua something similar is happening.

  • 34. VIRick  |  July 27, 2017 at 5:24 pm

    Uruguay: Still Having "Firsts" with Same-Sex Marriages, 4 Years On

    Per Horacio Oyhenard‏:

    Hoy día, 27 de julio 2017, Susana y María Laura se convirtieron en el primer matrimonio entre mujeres en la cuidad de Trinidad, Departamento de Flores, Uruguay.

    Today, 27 July 2017, Susana and María Laura became the first same-sex female couple to marry in the city of Trinidad, Flores Department, Uruguay.

    Flores Department comprises a rather rural area in interior south-central Uruguay, well away from the several major urban centers in that country.

  • 35. VIRick  |  July 27, 2017 at 7:08 pm

    Austin TX: Mayor Welcomes Trans Troops Kicked Out of Military to Serve in Police Force

    A mayor in Texas has welcomed any transgender troops kicked out of the military following Trump’s ban, saying they can serve there. Mayor Steve Adler of Austin TX said in a number of tweets that they would be welcome to join the police force of that city to protect its citizens.

    He wrote: “If you’re qualified to keep our country safe, you’re qualified to keep Austin safe. Transgender Americans are welcome on our police force. Austin is the safest big city in Texas, partly because we know our differences make us a stronger community.” Adding: “If you get kicked out of the military service because you’re transgender, please apply to join our police force.”

    Earlier today, the Veterans Affairs Secretary, Davis Shulkin, said he “was not aware” that Trump was about to announce a ban on trans people in the military (nor was anyone else in authority at the Pentagon).

  • 36. scream4ever  |  July 27, 2017 at 8:02 pm

    This is awesome, but I'm not convinced that the purge will actually happen.

  • 37. VIRick  |  July 27, 2017 at 8:45 pm

    The deal in the House spending bill authorizing $1.6 billion as a "down-payment" on the boondoggle of a wall will get the ass-hat-in-charge about 74 miles worth of new "wall," which in reality will actually consist of 32 miles of new fencing and 28 miles of new levee wall in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, as well as 14 miles of secondary fencing in San Diego.

    For that, he sold out the trans troops. Otherwise, he wasn't getting anything whatsoever for his wall. So, $8.4 million for trans health care was deemed "too expensive," but $1.6 billion for a few miles of "wall" isn't. Even still, there is no actual "wall," as 46 miles of this so-called "wall" will be fencing, while the remaining 28 miles will be a specialized levee designed in such a way so as to continue to accommodate the seasonal extremes in water flow of the Rio Grande (which, by international treaty, must be maintained, just as it currently exists, as any one-sided diversion or alteration could be deemed to be a hostile act, even to the point of being declared an act of war).

    The historic irony, of course, is that the USA fought Mexico in the Mexican-American War, and ended up with Texas and their insistence that the international border be the mid-stream of the meandering Rio Grande, a border which is impossible to protect or defend, complete with hordes of people living directly along it on both sides, as its water is the life-blood for the entire valley.

    Oh,– and Mexico's cost in all of this? Zero dollars, just as Mexico's ex-President Vicente Fox has stressed all along. And there won't be any import tax on goods crossing the border into the USA either, as major importers/retailers are viewing that imposition as a tax increase, something anathema to die-hard Republicans.

  • 38. ianbirmingham  |  July 27, 2017 at 7:20 pm

    The Lonely Crusade Of China's Human Rights Lawyers

  • 39. VIRick  |  July 28, 2017 at 1:50 am

    Senate Republicans Just Failed To Pass Their Last-Ditch Health Care Bill

    Senate Republicans failed to pass their final Obamacare repeal plan just after 1 AM Friday morning, 28 July 2017, with Arizona Sen. John McCain casting a surprise, deciding vote to kill the effort. McCain was joined by Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska in voting against the bill.

    In a statement issued after the vote, McCain said the so-called 'skinny repeal' "offered no replacement to actually reform our health care system and deliver affordable, quality health care to our citizens."

    The vote is a huge blow to repeal plans in Congress. The Senate has no other plan to repeal Obamacare. Leadership held a prior 15-minute vote open for more than an hour trying to get the votes they needed. But ultimately, they failed. After that, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said they'd be moving on. Asked about next steps, North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr said flatly: "There is no next step."

  • 40. ianbirmingham  |  July 28, 2017 at 3:53 am

    I'll say it again: Senator John McCain is a great man who has given his life to his country and done a lot of good. There's plenty to disagree with him about, but he was always a politician with a good heart who knew how to compromise and make rational choices. His daughter, Meghan McCain, is a fierce advocate for LGBT issues within the Republican party. I truly hope John and his family will find peace and happiness as they love one another while coping with this very aggressive form of cancer.

    Now it's on to "Yuuuge Tax Cuts For The Rich, Mere Chump Change For The Poor"…

  • 41. JayJonson  |  July 28, 2017 at 5:45 am

    I'll say it again. McCain occasionally does good things (as he did last night), but he is not a great man. He is a vain and inconsistent poseur, a martinet easy to anger, as he showed when his filibuster against DADT was finally broken and he threw a tantrum on the floor of the Senate. The only time he is really a maverick is when he is pursuing vengeance for some personal slight, as he did against W. and now Trump. Yes, his daughter is an advocate for LGBT issues, but he is not. He was a member of the infamous Keating 5; he has never seen a war he did not support or want America to engage in; he foisted Sarah Palin on America, etc. These are not just issues on which one disagrees; they are measures of his character. The fact that he spoke as an adult when he returned to the Senate from his cancer diagnosis is admirable. His decision to provide the final vote killing the "skinny repeal" is also admirable, though one wonders whether it was "staged" in order to give cover to people like Heller and Flake and Cassidy et al. who would have had to face angry Republican voters in primaries if they did the right thing. Although I suspect that he was motivated primarily by his desire to avenge himself on Trump, I am nevertheless grateful to him. And of course I wish him and his family well as they cope with his health crisis.

  • 42. VIRick  |  July 28, 2017 at 11:05 am

    "…. one wonders whether it was "staged" in order to give cover to people like Heller and Flake and Cassidy, et al, ….."

    Precisely. McCain will never have to worry about anyone ever attempting to "primary" him from the right. So, from now until, and for as long as he can, I have the distinct impression that he will be the adult in the room. For various reasons, it has been apparent that the Republicans have effectively "lost" both Collins and Murkowski. McCain thus provided the one extra vote needed to "kill" the "skinny repeal."

    In addition, though, McCain's vote provided the "cover" for all the other Republican Senators who can now tell their RWNJ primary voters that they voted in favor of the repeal. Lindseybelle, for all his protestations prior to the vote, in the bitter end, still cowered down and voted for the repeal,– as did Moore Capito of WV, Portman of OH, etc., ad nauseam.

    I will add one other comment here. If you will recall that late afternoon incident when I single-handedly caught McCain sneaking out the back entrance of his Senate Office Building, while all the angry protesters were storming the front entrance in their wheelchairs, I sensed at that time that he was very ill-at-ease with himself. He stared at me for the longest time,– and I sternly stared back, in a direct one-on-one encounter. Neither of us said a word to each other, not even acknowledging each other's presence. Still, it was obvious that he was in deep distress (although the distress could have come from any number of factors), now greatly complicated by the fact that someone caught him right outside the doorway in the act of sneaking away. I could have been a reporter (as I've seen reporters hang out there by the Delaware Avenue entrance on many occasions), and in a sense, I am, although my real goal (by staring him down) was to communicate my deep unhappiness (just like the noisy wheelchair crowd out front) with the entire repeal effort.

    And by the way, McCain is good at glaring down people. From the video recording of last night's vote, I see that right after he cast his vote, he firmly stood directly in front of McConnell and stared him down. McConnell, in turn, with eyes downcast, and with that glum upside-down mouth expression, was all "turtled-in" on himself, ready to eat a heaping dish of humble-pie, while Rubio craned his neck and snapped his bubble gum, proving he can multi-task. And so did Cruz, who was caught (once again) fingering his nose while making some totally inane comment.

    The video from C-Span2 is here:

  • 43. allan120102  |  July 28, 2017 at 8:25 am

    Looks like Bermuda might loose marriakge equality soon if the house of representatives have their way.

  • 44. scream4ever  |  July 28, 2017 at 9:43 am

    The article made it sound like it would be a symbolic vote, as the ruling is binding.

  • 45. VIRick  |  July 28, 2017 at 5:41 pm

    19 Attorneys-General: Letter to Congress Opposing Trans Ban in Military

    On 28 July 2017, Attorneys-General for 18 states and the District of Columbia have sent the Senate and House Armed Services Committees a clear message: President Trump’s ban on transgender service members is discriminatory and, despite the President’s claims otherwise, is actually harmful to military readiness.

    “Transgender service members fill a number of critical military roles. Retaining these talented service members strengthens — not weakens — our military readiness,” the joint letter, spearheaded by Hawaii AG, Douglas Chin, reads.

    “The members of our Armed Forces put their lives on the line to protect freedom for all Americans. Thousands of transgender Americans serve in uniform today. This policy tells them, ‘you are not welcome here.’ The decision to oust honorable, well-trained, and patriotic service members based on nothing more than their gender identity is undiluted discrimination and therefore indefensible. We urge that this newly-announced policy be immediately reversed.”

    The letter was signed by the attorneys-general from Hawaii, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington State, and DC.

  • 46. VIRick  |  July 28, 2017 at 8:59 pm

    Oaxaca: Some Legislative Movement for Marriage Equality

    Espera Morena que en el 2º Periodo Ordinario de Sesiones, se apruebe el matrimonio igualitario en Oaxaca. En 27 de julio 2017, la diputada de Morena, Hilda Pérez Luis, indicó que en el primer período de sesiones presentó una iniciativa para legalizar el matrimonio igualitario.

    Morena hopes that in the 2nd Ordinary Period of Sessions, marriage equality will be approved in Oaxaca. On 27 July 2017, the deputy for Morena, Hilda Pérez Luis, indicated that at the upcoming session she will present an initiative to legalize marriage equality.

    In addition, according to Horacio Antonio Mendoza, a PRD deputy in Oaxaca, the PRD is in favor of marriage equality, as this theme is also on its agenda.

    The current Oaxaca Congress is comprised of 8 Morena members, 8 of the PRD, 16 for PRI, 4 for PAN, 3 for PT, 1 for Verde, and 1 for PES, for a total of 41.

    See also:

  • 47. VIRick  |  July 31, 2017 at 2:22 pm

    More Marriage Equality News from Oaxaca

    Hoy, 31 de julio 2017, la diputada local oaxaqueña por el PRI, Laura Vigñón Carreño, puso de manifiesto que avalaría la iniciativa del matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo, siempre y cuando no incluya la permisividad de adopción por parte de las parejas del mismo sexo.

    Today, 31 July 2017, a Oaxaca state deputy for PRI, Laura Vigñón Carreño, stated that she would support the initiative for same-sex marriage, as long as it does not include the permission for adoption by same-sex couples.

    Al mismo tiempo, la diputada oaxaqueña, por el PAN, Eufrosina Cruz Mendoza, aseguró que avalara cualquier iniciativa que contribuya en la garantía de los derechos humanos, siempre y cuando está no sea únicamente de carácter electorero.

    At the same time, a Oaxaca state deputy for PAN, Eufrosina Cruz Mendoza, assured that she endorsed any initiative that contributes to the guarantee of human rights, as long as it is not just of an electoral character.

  • 48. VIRick  |  July 28, 2017 at 9:34 pm

    Germany: Marriage Equality Starting Date Confirmed as 1 October 2017

    Las parejas homosexuales de Alemania podrán casarse y adoptar niños a partir del 1 de octubre 2017. A partir del 29 de julio 2017, el Ministerio de Interior informa de que quienes deseen casarse ya pueden solicitar una fecha, igual que las parejas de hecho que quieran cambiar su estado civil a "casados."

    German same-sex couples will be able to marry and adopt children as of 1 October 2017. As of 29 July 2017, the Ministry of the Interior reports that those who wish to marry can now request a date, equally to couples in civil unions who wish to change their civil status to "married."

    According to the cited article (from Spain), the Official State Bulletin containing the new German marriage equality legislation was published on Friday, 28 July 2017. Thus, today, 29 July 2017, the German Ministry of the Interior, with the above announcement, promulgated it. German law stipulates that new legislation comes into effect on the first day of the third month from its date of promulgation.

  • 49. Fortguy  |  July 28, 2017 at 11:12 pm

    As far as the prospects of bathroom bills during the current special session of the Texas Legislature, here's a very interesting article with insightful comments from Rep. Byron Cook (R-Corsicana) who chairs the House State Affairs Committee.

    Andrea Zelinski, Houston Chronicle: Difficult road ahead for bathroom bill in House

    The biggest takeaway is when Cook says, "Requiring those people to go to the women's restroom when they look like men, that can be dangerous. Requiring men who are trans women and wear dresses and makeup and look just like women, requiring them to go to the men's room creates a dangerous situation."

    Let me give a summary of where we stand. The Senate has passed SB 3 which is a severe bill prohibiting local governments including school districts from allowing transgender people from using appropriate bathrooms or establishing nondiscrimination ordinances or policies to restrict such discrimination among private businesses providing public accommodation. The bill also prohibits public school athletes from participating on gender-appropriate teams. The bill exempts locally owned public facilities leased by private third parties such as sports venues or convention centers. Cynically, the bill exempts state government buildings including public colleges and universities. The House received the bill from the Senate on the 27th and has neither given the bill a first reading or committee assignment yet.

    SB 91, which was nearly identical to SB 3 when introduced, remains in the Senate State Affairs Committee as backup just in case Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick can figure out some parliamentary trickery near the end of the session should the House remain obstinate on potty patrolling.

    The two House bills, both filed by Rep. Ron Simmons (R-Carrollton), are both stuck in Cook's committee for now with no hearing or testimony scheduled. HB 46 would eliminate all local nondiscrimination ordinances or policies while HB 50 is essentially the same except restricted to only public school districts.

    The good news is that the must-pass legislation, the sunset bills keeping five state agencies alive for the next biennium, have passed their respective chambers. If the Senate should try to add bathrooms or anything else to these in conference committee, the House could just pass the Senate bills and send them to Gov. Greg Abbott. This issue, unlike most of the governor's agenda, is non-controversial. There are very few agenda items that are reasonable, but none worth passing with toxic amendments.

    Also, once the must-pass legislation has been sent to the governor, the House can adjourn itself to a close whenever it wishes to Patrick's consternation.

  • 50. ianbirmingham  |  July 29, 2017 at 8:41 am

    Slowly but surely, India’s queer community is winning the battle for sexual equality

  • 51. VIRick  |  July 29, 2017 at 1:35 pm

    Republican Senators Opposing Trump Trans Ban in Military

    Republicans aren’t known for being staunch supporters of LGBT rights, but Trump‘s unilateral decision to ban transgender people from the military has many GOP politicians publicly disagreeing with it. Here’s a quick list of Republican Senators who’ve expressed their outrage with it, and instead, have shown support for trans service members:

    Senator John McCain (D-AZ). “The statement was unclear. The Department of Defense has already decided to allow currently-serving transgender individuals to stay in the military, and many are serving honorably today. Any American who meets current medical and readiness standards should be allowed to continue serving. There is no reason to force service members who are able to fight, train and deploy to leave the military — regardless of their gender identity. We should all be guided by the principle that any American who wants to serve our country and is able to meet the standards should have the opportunity to do so — and should be treated as the patriots they are.”

    Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA). “Americans who are qualified and can meet the standards to serve in the military should be afforded that opportunity.”

    Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT). 1) “I don’t think we should be discriminating against anyone. Transgender people are people, and deserve the best we can do for them. I look forward to getting much more information and clarity for our military leaders about the policy the President tweeted today.” 2) “They don’t choose to be transgender, they’re born that way. Why should we hold that against them? They’re human beings and many of them are extremely talented human beings. We should be open to everybody”

    Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC). “I would have significant objections to any proposal that calls for a specific group of American patriots currently serving in uniform to be removed from the military.”

    Senator Dan Sullivan (R-AK). “I’m all about training standards. High, high standards for whoever joins the military. But my initial reaction is, if you can meet those standards, we shouldn’t care who you are. So, meet the standards, and you should be able to join the military.”

    Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL). “We are a nation at war. I am confident that Secretary Mattis and DoD leadership can and will evaluate current personnel policy that will enable us to recruit, train, and equip an all-volunteer force. Any American who wants to serve our country and is able to meet those standards should have the opportunity to do so.”

    Senator Susan Collins (R-ME). “Our armed forces should welcome the service of any qualified individual who is willing and capable of serving our country.”

    Senator Patrick Toomey (R-PA). “Department of Defense personnel decisions should be based entirely on maximizing the Armed Forces’ ability to protect and defend the American people,” Toomey spokesman Steve Kelly said, adding that the senator “has supported measures to protect individuals from discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.”

    Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). “I was one who said that those who are openly gay should not be denied the opportunity to serve our country and I feel the same way about transgender.”

    Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI). “I think any law-abiding American who wants to serve the nation should be able to.”

    Senator Rob Portman (R-OH). “We should not turn anyone away who is willing and able to serve our country, period,” he said. “The president’s wrong.”
    (continued below)

  • 52. scream4ever  |  July 29, 2017 at 3:40 pm

    Unfortunately Susan Collins was the only one who could put her opposition down on paper:

  • 53. VIRick  |  July 30, 2017 at 10:57 am

    Scream, still, I was impressed by the enlightened understanding of Senator Hatch, as well as by the grown-up, reality-based approach of Senator Shelby. Even the hog-castrator from Iowa had something positive to add.

    Senator Shelby's remark, in particular, about maintaining an all-volunteer force, indicates that he has had some practical experience in this arena. Basically put, in order to sustain the manpower needs, while still retaining the concept of an all-volunteer military, one fairly well has to accept absolutely anyone who is qualified. Once one starts chipping away, denying this group or that group, the number of volunteers stepping forward to fill the ranks will decline precipitously. If one has taken a good look at the rank-and-file in today's military, one will quickly realize that it is mainly comprised of a wide assortment of "minorities" of various stripes and hues.

  • 54. scream4ever  |  July 30, 2017 at 10:43 pm

    Oh don't get me wrong I am too. I'm also hopeful that if this came down to legislation (i.e. putting the trans healthcare funds back into the budget so as not to kick said soldiers out) many of them would step up and vote in favor.

  • 55. VIRick  |  July 29, 2017 at 1:37 pm

    And here's a partial list of Republican Members of the House who have expressed similar opinions:

    Congressman Charlie Dent (R-PA). “Americans who are willing and able should be allowed to serve the US, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”

    Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL). “No American, no matter their sexual orientation or gender identity, should be prohibited from the honor and privilege of serving our nation.”

    Congressman Frank Lobiondo (R-NJ). “Removing thousands of men and women from admirably and honorably serving is counterintuitive to strengthening our military. I have serious concerns about what this new directive means for current active duty and reserve transgender members of our Armed Forces and National Guard. I expect Defense Secretary Mattis to provide clarity on this issue and determine what is in the best interest of military readiness to protect our nation.”

    Congressman Ken Buck (R-CO). “America needs a military comprised of patriots willing to sacrifice for this country. Any American who is physically and emotionally qualified should be allowed to serve.”

    Congressman Scott Taylor (R-VA). “ There are heroic military members willing to put their lives on the line and give the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf, regardless of their gender identity. I support the ability for those who meet all military requirements, medical and otherwise, to have the opportunity to serve our great country.”

  • 56. Fortguy  |  July 31, 2017 at 7:29 pm

    Of Texas' congressional delegation, Sen. John Cornyn and seven Republicans of the state's 36-member House delegation support Trump's transgender military ban including Rep. Louie Gohmert who also opposes gay space colonists. My congressman, Rep. Will Hurd, is the only Republican opposed to the trans ban as are all 11 Democrats. The rest of the state's Republicans have not taken a position including, surprisingly, Sen. Carnival Cruz.

    Abby Livingston, Alex Samuels and Chris Essig, The Texas Tribune: Where do Texans in Congress stand on Trump's ban on transgender troops?

  • 57. VIRick  |  July 29, 2017 at 7:38 pm

    Trump Supporters Furious That They Still Have Health Care

    Per "The New Yorker:"

    The Borowitz Report — With a fury that could spell political trouble for Republicans in the midterm elections, Trump voters across the country on Friday expressed their outrage and anger that they still have health coverage.

    “I went to bed Thursday night and slept like a baby, assuming that when I woke up I would have zero health insurance,” Carol Foyler, a Trump voter, said. “Instead, this nightmare.”

    Harland Dorrinson, who voted for Trump “because he promised that he would take my health care away from me on Day 1,” said that he was “very upset” that he will still receive that benefit. “I woke up this morning, and my family and I could still see a doctor,” he said. “This is a betrayal.”

    Many Trump supporters said that congressional Republicans “gave up too soon” in their efforts to deprive ordinary Americans like them of their health care. “They should not take August off,” Calvin Benoit, a Trump supporter, said. “They should stay in Washington and keep working until I totally lose my coverage.”

    For Trump voters like Benoit, the abject disappointment of continuing to have health care raises fears about which other campaign promises might soon be broken. “Now I don’t know what to believe,” he said. “Are we still going to get to pay billions of dollars in taxes for that wall?”

  • 58. ianbirmingham  |  July 30, 2017 at 1:18 am

    45 Senators Pen Letter Urging Defense Secretary Not to Implement Trans Ban

  • 59. VIRick  |  July 30, 2017 at 12:00 pm

    Ireland: Prime Minister Defends Trans People Serving in Ireland’s Military

    On 28 July 2017, Leo Varadkar, Ireland's Prime Minister, said that a transgender ban was “not something I agree with." He added, “It is not something I would ever consider introducing to Ireland."

    The Defense Forces in Ireland said in a statement that it is “committed to the principle of equal opportunity in all its employment policies. The Defense Forces welcome applications from all members of Irish society, irrespective of sexual orientation or gender."

    It is not known how many transgender people currently serve in the Irish Defense Forces.

  • 60. weshlovrcm  |  July 30, 2017 at 5:33 pm

    This isn't the slightest bit of a surprise. Gay people will be banned next. And the REAL FUN will start once Dishonest Donald gets another Supreme Court seat!

  • 61. JayJonson  |  July 31, 2017 at 6:21 am

    Some movement in Australia toward marriage equality.

    Prime Minister Turnbull has moved from a strict insistence that Coalition policy is to hold a plebiscite on the Marriage Act change before any legislation could be considered by Parliament.

    An increasing number of Liberal MPs are calling for the matter to be settled in Parliament — possibly through a private member’s bill which could be introduced mid-August — and the Prime Minister indicated that it would be authoritarian to block them.

    “In our party, backbenchers have always had the right to cross the floor,” Turnbull told reporters in Perth.

    “In the Labor Party you get expelled for doing that, but it has always been a fundamental principle in the Liberal Party and indeed the National Party.

    “It’s a very different political culture to the very authoritarian and centrally controlled culture of the Labor Party.”

    Marriage equality campaigners argue the Government tried to get the national ballot through Parliament and failed, so the next step is to consider legislation.

  • 62. scream4ever  |  July 31, 2017 at 12:29 pm

    Wow Turnball is finally coming to his senses.

  • 63. VIRick  |  July 31, 2017 at 1:18 pm

    Former Navy Surgeon Offers to Perform Free Surgeries for Trans Military Personnel

    A former Navy surgeon, once nominated as flight surgeon of the year, spoke out against Trump‘s hastily announced ban on transgender service members on CNN over the weekend, and offered to help some troops caught in limbo as the policy is fleshed out. Dr. Christine McGinn, who is also transgender, will perform free gender confirmation surgery for any military member who has already scheduled the procedure with her office.

    “If the commander-in-chief won’t take care of our veterans, our veterans will. I will do surgery for free on the number of people that I have already lined up for surgery,” she told Michael Smerconish on Saturday, 29 July 2017. “It’s obvious discrimination,” she said. “I think any fifth-grader could see that.”

    Conservatives and the religious right continue to claim the cost of providing surgeries to transgender people would be excessively burdensome to the government, but a quick glance at the military budget quickly showed how ridiculous that notion is. The military spends 5 times more to just provide treatment for erectile dysfunction to military members than it would pay for all surgeries for transgender people.

    “I think it’s being twisted and spun to make it seem like it would be more than it is,” McGinn said. “I think the cost of getting rid of very well specialized, trained military service people is exponentially larger than just taking care of them.”

    As for the claim that surgery would require soldiers to be off-duty for long lengths of time, McGinn was also quick to point out the ridiculousness of that suggestion as well. “Most of my patients are back to work in six weeks, sometimes two weeks,” she said. “I think that this is getting inflated to make it a little more political.”

    OK, so apparently, there's a certain word being blocked, spelled V-i-a-g-r-a. Twice now, on two different dates, attempted posts of two separate news articles containing that word have been rejected.

  • 64. bayareajohn  |  July 31, 2017 at 3:07 pm

    "If you experience a blockage lasting 4 hours or more, consult your moderator…" </snark>

  • 65. VIRick  |  July 31, 2017 at 3:28 pm

    Indeed, I will! In the meantime, that's the most amusingly clever retort I've encountered here at EoT in a very long time.

  • 66. VIRick  |  July 31, 2017 at 3:04 pm

    ‏Chiapas: First Same-Sex Marriage Following Supreme Court Ruling

    Celebran Primera Boda Igualitaria en Chiapas Después de la Resolución de la Corte Suprema

    Per Jesús Fernando ‏y "El Universal:"

    La primera boda igualitaria (aun con un amparo, como ha ocurrido con los otros 25 matrimonios igualitarios que se han realizado en Chiapas en los últimos dos años) se celebró en Chiapas, el 29 de julio 2017, a 17 días de que la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (SCJN), valido la relación de parejas del mismo sexo y esta vez fueron dos jóvenes, uno de ellos, hijo de una pastora y un pastor de una iglesia evangélica de esta localidad de San Cristóbal de las Casas. Los jóvenes que contrajeron matrimonio ante la oficial del Registro Civil Número 1, son: Carlos Díaz y Jorge Iván García González.

    La oficial del Registro Civil número 1, Guadalupe del Carmen Ramírez Hernández, confirmó que esta es la primera boda igualitaria después de la resolución de la SCJN.

    The first same-sex marriage (but still with an amparo, like the 25 previous same-sex marriages which occurred in Chiapas during the last 2 years) was held in Chiapas, on 29 July 2017, just 17 days after the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN) legalized relationships between same-sex couples, and this time, it was two young men, one of them, the son of two pastors of an evangelical church in this city of San Cristóbal de las Casas. They were married at the Civil Registry Office No. 1, and are: Carlos Díaz and Jorge Iván García González.

    The official at Civil Registry No. 1, Guadalupe del Carmen Ramírez Hernández, confirmed that this is the first same-sex marriage after the Supreme Court ruling.

    Afterward, they held some sort of church ceremony (the first I have ever noted in conjunction with a same-sex marriage in Mexico) at the same evangelical church at which the parents of the one are pastors. This latter point was perhaps the most startling, beyond the massive glitziness of the entire affair, complete with 12 bridesmaids, but appropriate enough, given that the two originally met each other at that same church.

    Ooohh, I just realized that the nasty comments on the side-bar to this article are like "Yikes!" They are especially trashing the supposed "evangelical" nature of the un-named evangelical church in question, even challenging the very fact that one of its pastors could possibly be female, but I will let them rip each other apart with their bible-beating fundie crap, including some horsepiss from "I Mormoni" (The Mormons) in Italian on a Spanish-language web-site.

  • 67. VIRick  |  July 31, 2017 at 4:41 pm

    More Argentine LGBT History

    Per Barrilete Cósmico:

    Un día como hoy, en 31 de julio 2012, Argentina celebraron co-paternidad igualitaria. Por primera vez, se inscribe un niño, hijo de dos padres varones, pareja se casó en el 2011 tras la aprobación de la Ley de Matrimonio Igualitario.

    Five years ago today, on 31 July 2012, Argentina celebrated co-parenting equality. For the first time, a child was registered, son of two male parents, the pair having married in 2011 after the approval of the Law of Marriage Equality.

  • 68. Fortguy  |  July 31, 2017 at 8:27 pm

    No news is good news out of the Texas special legislative session at the end of its second week where the progress of bathroom legislation has not budged. The House's two bills are still stuck in committee with no hearing scheduled, while SB 3, already passed from the Senate to the House four days ago, can't even get a first reading or committee assignment. In the meantime, here's a small roundup of relevant news and commentary.

    Andrea Zelinski, Houston Chronicle: Difficult road ahead for bathroom bill in House
    Alex Samuels, The Texas Tribune: Texans with disabilities say bathroom bill could further complicate their lives
    Alexa Ura, The Texas Tribune: Bathroom bill debate highlights barriers to updating birth certificate in Texas
    David Moore, The Dallas Morning News: New political ad pulls Cowboys, NFL draft into middle of bathroom bill debate in Texas

  • 69. allan120102  |  July 31, 2017 at 9:01 pm

    Dominican republic
    A possible electoral justice have given his opinions about which articles will give ssm to this Caribbean Island. As central American nations share the same ultimate court. Hopefully someone challenges the ban in the DR like they did in Panama, El Salvador and Costa rica.

  • 70. allan120102  |  July 31, 2017 at 9:12 pm

    PAN and PANAL are in favor of legalizing ssm in Sinaloa.

  • 71. Fortguy  |  July 31, 2017 at 11:16 pm

    Just a reminder that all talk about Ivanka and Jared being pro-LGBT advocates who push the Orange Sphincter to adopt more moderate policy positions on our behalf is only so much #FakeNews:

    Christina Cauterucci, Slate: Ivanka Did Not Stop Her Father’s Transphobic Policy, But Look, She is Beautiful

  • 72. allan120102  |  August 1, 2017 at 8:26 am

    Puebla's ban to be struck today by the supreme court will be the 11th state in Mexico to achieve full marrriage equality.

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