Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Trans military ban news round-up

Community/Meta Transgender Rights

The Pentagon. Attribution: Wikipedia
The Pentagon. Attribution: Wikipedia
– On Friday, President Trump ordered the military to ban transgender people from serving. He had tweeted his intention to impose the ban, but the policy memo wasn’t released until the end of last week.

– Lambda Legal and Outserve-SLDN have filed a lawsuit challenging the trans military ban.

– The ACLU also filed a lawsuit challenging the ban.


  • 1. allan120102  |  August 28, 2017 at 11:22 am

    Bermuda might ban same sex marriage on September as it looks like there is a majority against it in parliament. Civil unions will be used as a replacement.

  • 2. Elihu_Bystander  |  August 28, 2017 at 12:58 pm

    New suits against Trump over transgender service members.

    This one is by lambda legal

    Karnoski v. Trump

    (SEATTLE, August 28, 2017) – Lambda Legal and OutServe-SLDN today filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Trump administration’s ban on military service by transgender individuals. The lawsuit—brought in response to President Trump’s formal issuance of directions to military authorities late Friday—was filed on behalf of two individuals who seek to join the military; one current service member who seeks appointment as an officer; the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation’s largest LGBT advocacy organization; and Gender Justice League, a gender and sexuality civil and human rights organization, headquartered in Seattle.

    The Lambda Legal attorneys working on the case are: Peter Renn, Jon W. Davidson, Camilla B. Taylor, Tara Borelli, Natalie Nardecchia, Sasha Buchert, Kara Ingelhart, and Carl Charles. They are joined by co-counsel Peter Perkowski of OutServe-SLDN. Also on the legal team are pro-bono co-counsel at Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Newman Du Wors LLP.

    The lawsuit is Karnoski v. Trump. Read a copy of the complaint here:

  • 3. Elihu_Bystander  |  August 28, 2017 at 12:59 pm

    Stone v Trump – Complaint

    This is the ACLU of Maryland’s suit.

    Here is the link to the 39-page complaint.

  • 4. VIRick  |  August 28, 2017 at 5:35 pm

    Mexico Offers Recovery Aid to Texas in Harvey Aftermath

    Per Karla Zabludovsky:

    Mexico's response to Twitler-in-Chief includes an offer of aid for Harvey recovery. Early on Sunday morning, 27 August 2017, Trump again tweeted, seemingly unprompted, that Mexico would pay for his insane border wall, even as Tropical Storm Harvey continued to deluge Texas in an unprecedented weather disaster.
    Later the same day, Mexico's Foreign Ministry offered "all the help that can be provided" in response to the devastation that Tropical Storm Harvey is still unleashing on Texas. "The government of Mexico takes this opportunity to express its full solidarity with the people and government of the United States for the damages caused by Hurricane Harvey in Texas and confirms that we have offered the US government all the help and cooperation that can be provided by the different Mexican governmental agencies to deal with the impacts of this natural disaster, as good neighbors should always do in times of difficulty," the statement reads.

    But in terms of the insane wall, and without even mentioning Twitler-in-Chief in any form, the same foreign ministry statement said, "As the government of Mexico has always maintained, our country will not pay, under any circumstances, for a wall or physical barrier built on US territory along the Mexican border. This determination is not part of a Mexican negotiating strategy, but a principle of national sovereignty and dignity."

    Trump's asinine, narrow-minded, vengeful Sunday morning tweet also stands in stark contrast to an image from the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 wherein which members of the Mexican Armed Forces were deployed to Louisiana following that storm. As CBS News reported at that time, "Large Mexican flags were taped to many of the 35 olive-green Mexican Army trucks and tractor trailers as they rumbled northward toward the border. The convoy includes two mobile kitchens that can feed 7,000 people a day, three flatbed trucks carrying mobile water-treatment plants and 15 trailers of bottled water, blankets, and applesauce. The 195 Mexicans taking part include military engineers, doctors and nurses."

    Furthermore, by building a wall on dry land on the US side of the Rio Grande, this move itself would seemingly indicate that the USA was voluntarily forfeiting its 50% share of the water rights to the Rio Grande, thus giving it all up to Mexico. Oddly enough, though, this apparent self-punishing forfeiture by the USA is a violation of the pre-existing international treaty. And placing the wall on the actual border, midstream in the Rio Grande, would impede the water flow, another violation.

  • 5. VIRick  |  August 28, 2017 at 8:43 pm

    Chile: President Bachelet Signs Marriage Equality Bill

    This morning at La Moneda in Santiago, the State of the Republic of Chile held the formal public presentation of the Marriage Equality Bill. However, before the entire ceremony was over, and much to a number of people's surprise, including myself, President Bachelet formally and quite publicly placed her signature upon the legislation. That does not yet make the Marriage Equality bill a law, but it does show that, as written and presented, she has given her strongest possible endorsement to this bill. It is now up to the Chilean legislature to act upon it, knowing full well that the Chilean President has obviously agreed to it by having already signed it.

    It would be an understatement to even begin to think that that sequence of events is the normal procedure in Chile. However, the President of Chile today, 28 August 2017, publicly placed her signature upon the draft marriage equality legislation document for the State of the Republic of Chile, a document already signed by MOVILH, and subject to the terms of the international settlement agreement previously worked out between these two parties before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

    And certain knowledgeable people knew beforehand what to anticipate:

    Per Fundación Iguales (at 6 AM on 28 August 2017):

    Hoy es el día. M Bachelet firmará esta mañana de proyecto de matrimonio igualitario. No te pierdas ningún detalle de este día histórico!

    Today is the day. M Bachelet will sign this morning an equal marriage bill. Do not miss any detail of this historic day!

    Per Lily Pérez SM, la senadora de Valparaíso‏ (also at 6 AM on 28 August 2017):

    Estaremos presentes en firma del proyecto de ley del matrimonio igualitario. La libertad de amar y hacer una vida con quien amas.

    We will be present at signing the marriage equality bill. The freedom to love and make a life with whom you love.

    Per Frente de Diversidad Sexual (at 7 AM on 28 August 2017)‏:

    Hoy, se firma el proyecto de ley del matrimonio igualitario. Quedamos atentos al texto y como regulará adopción y filiación.

    Today, the draft law on equal marriage is signed. We remain attentive to the text and how it will regulate adoption and filiation.

    Per Chile MFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs at 8 AM on 28 August 2017):

    NOW: Foreign Minister Heraldo Muñoz‏ accompanies President M Bachelet in the signing ceremony of the Marriage Equality Bill. The Marriage Equality Bill is a commitment of President M Bachelet and an international obligation with CIDH.

    Per ILGA:

    Chile's President Michelle Bachelet has signed the Marriage Equality Bill, which will now be introduced in Congress.

  • 6. scream4ever  |  August 28, 2017 at 10:13 pm

    This makes it very promising indeed!

  • 7. VIRick  |  August 28, 2017 at 10:52 pm

    I know. This is totally turned around from the normal procedure followed in Chile.

    Typically, just as in the USA, a senator or deputy introduces a bill into one of the two legislative chambers. After much discussion, if the body finally votes to approve it, the bill is then sent on to the other chamber for similar discussion and voting. If the bill successfully passes both, it is then sent to the Constitutional Court to determine its constitutionality. If that body deems the bill constitutional, it is then, and only then, dispatched to the president for their signature. If the president chooses to sign it, it finally becomes law. This was precisely the procedure followed by two recent bills of interest, the "Acuerdo de Union Civil" (Civil Union Accord for Same-Sex Couples) and the "Aborto por 3 Causales" (Abortion for 3 Reasons).

    But in this instance, with the marriage equality bill, the president today presented the bill, already approved by the CIDH and MOVILH, and then, at the same ceremony, turned around, accompanied by the Foreign Minister, and signed the bill in the name of the State of the Republic of Chile, after which it was then dispatched to the legislature. She could not have been more forceful, by signing it in advance, in the manner in which she did. I also find it intriguing that certain people appear to have understood, in advance, precisely what was going to occur. For example, the pro marriage equality senator from Valparaíso‏, Lily Pérez, knew exactly, and said so, several hours prior to the event. So did Fundación Iguales, Luis Larraín's marriage equality rights group. I also recognized Karen Atala, the lead plaintiff in the suit before the CIDH, in one of the photos taken at the ceremony, so we know she was present there today, as well.

  • 8. scream4ever  |  August 29, 2017 at 1:31 pm

    I'm now reading some news sources which are saying that the bill is unlikely to be approved before President Bachelet leaves office in March. Could that also be a reason for her signing the bill beforehand?

  • 9. VIRick  |  August 29, 2017 at 4:34 pm

    In some aspects, we are in uncharted waters in Chile in regard to the marriage equality bill, a matter which is compounded by a lot of misunderstanding, mis-reporting, and speculation, in combination with the fact that Bachelet is nearing the end of her term as president. However, she did not exactly "jump the gun" by signing the bill at this time. Instead, by doing so, she has a vice-grip stranglehold on the haters' balls, giving them zero amount of wriggle room.

    The President of Chile, like many presidents, has two distinct roles to play:
    l. As Chief Executive, they sign (or veto) bills into law.

    2. As Head of State, they sign international treaties and legal accords, binding the State to adhere to said treaty or accord.

    Yesterday, in her capacity as Head of State, M. Bachelet signed the legal accord binding all parties to its terms, that is, the settlement agreement reached between CIDH, MOVILH, and the State of the Republic of Chile. As I read the matter, that was the reason the Foreign Minister accompanied her at yesterday's signing.

    The CIDH is an international legal body (court/commission) of the OAS. Many Latin American nations, like Chile and Costa Rica, have agreed to adhere to the decisions rendered by the CIDH. Despite the fact that the OAS headquarters is located on E Street in Washington DC, between the White House and the US State Dept., the USA has not agreed to submit itself to the binding decisions of the CIDH. Partly as a result, the CIDH of the OAS is now located in Costa Rica. (And because of the CIDH presence there, Costa Rica, in due course, will also have marriage equality)

    So, in some respects, with yesterday's signing, the matter is done. Chile will have marriage equality. The State of the Republic of Chile has formally bound itself to provide it. But that still leaves a huge question unanswered: When? It's no longer a matter of "If," but rather, of "How Soon?" Only two parties hold the answer: The Chilean Legislature, which now MUST approve the measure, precisely as submitted to them by the president; and Karen Atala/MOVILH, who could, if the legislature takes too long in approving the bill, as submitted, then return to the CIDH with an additional complaint against the State of Chile. But how long is too long? Who knows. Karen Atala is the only person who can answer that question, and right now, she's not talking.

    I am now following Lily Pérez, the senator from Valparaíso‏, as she seems to be quite knowledgeable on the legislative details of the matter, and as a pro marriage equality senator from the opposition, will be playing a key role in the next phase.

  • 10. VIRick  |  August 29, 2017 at 12:10 am

    How to Pronounce "Spouse" in Proper Spanish

    People in Chile are already busy offering "instructions" on how to pronounce the correct gender-neutral replacement word in Spanish for "husband and wife."

    Per Daniel Durán-Sandoval‏:

    A propósito de la larga discusión sobre matrimonio igualitario que se viene, la palabra es ¡CÓNYUGE y se pronuncia "cón-yu-JE!"

    Regarding the long discussion on egalitarian marriage to come, the word is SPOUSE and pronounced "cón-yu-JE"!

    Per Pao Ghiglino Freund‏:

    A propósito del matrimonio igualitario: Cada vez que dicen "cónyuGUE" muere un cachorro de nutria. ¡Es CÓNYUGE y se pronuncia "cón-yu-JE!"

    On the subject of egalitarian marriage: Every time they say "cónyuGUE" an otter puppy dies. It is SPOUSE and pronounced "cón-yu-JE."

  • 11. Fortguy  |  August 29, 2017 at 1:19 am

    And yet that's exactly how a first year, first semester Spanish class student in English-speaking countries with no previous knowledge of the language would be taught to pronounce it. (With, of course, the understanding that "Js" in Spanish are pronounced similarly to "Hs" in English had already been established.)

  • 12. Randolph_Finder  |  August 30, 2017 at 1:28 pm

    Is that word a true or false cognate to the English word "Conjugal" as in "My husband came to the prison for a conjugal visit"?

  • 13. VIRick  |  August 30, 2017 at 2:16 pm

    I am fairly certain that the Spanish noun, "cónyuge," and the English adjective, "conjugal," derive from the same Latin origins. "Cónyuge" would carry the same implied sexual rights, as in "conjugal," but it also carries a broader concept of rights, inherent in the English word, "spousal."

    Spanish, like French and Portuguese, is a language in which almost all nouns are gendered, either as masculine nouns or feminine nouns. But not "cónyuge." (And likewise, in French, neither is "conjoint.") It is gender-neutral. And that is why the new insistance upon using it, particularly because it is not a word that a lot of people use in every-day speech. The lesson really is: Use it.

    The side-point is this: Chile, partly because of its geographical isolation, even within the country itself, in combination with the large immigrant influx of non-Spanish speakers, developed a peculiar way of mis-pronouncing many Spanish words. "Cónyuge" is one of them.

    The false cognate to which you are alluding are the two words which almost everybody uses in every-day speech, "esposo" and "esposa." They do NOT mean "spouse," even though they look like they ought to. Instead, they mean, respectively, "husband" and "wife." Even Chile's legal code is riddled with the gendered "esposo y esposa," all of which must be changed to the gender-neutral "cónyuge."

    These changes have already been made in both Uruguay and Argentina, while Bolivia, rather amazingly, is in process. Now, so is Chile. Anyone with any legal training in any of the Spanish-speaking countries of Latin America which have codified laws (which means ALL of them) is keenly aware of the necessity of going through the legal code with a fine-tooth comb to make all these changes. Actually, for Chile, Karen Atala has already done this. Her changes, word for word, are part of the accord Bachelet signed as Head of State on 28 August 2017, and then, as President of the Republic, submitted to the Legislature for their approval.

    However, rather than re-inventing the wheel multiple times, as a quick alternative, all they need to do is copy Uruguay's civil code, word for word. Uruguay keeps telling the others to do precisely that, too. Of course, out of "national pride," we all know they won't do that, and that each, in turn, will continue to re-invent the wheel.

  • 14. Elihu_Bystander  |  August 29, 2017 at 5:59 am

    Opposition to Canada’s New Transgender Law

    “OTTAWA – The Catholic Women’s League (CWL) is raising concerns about the impact Canada’s new transgender law will have on freedom of religion and speech.

    “Bill C-16, which came into law June 19, added ‘gender identity and gender expression’ to the Canadian Human Rights Act and to the Criminal Code’s hate speech provisions.

    “CWL National President Margaret Ann Jacobs wrote in an Aug. 16 [2017] letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau…, ‘Members of The Catholic Women’s League of Canada are concerned that the passage of Bill C-16 will not allow Canadian citizens, a proportionately large segment of which are Catholic, to live out their faith and peaceably disagree with the current gender theory without fear of reprisal,’”

  • 15. scream4ever  |  August 29, 2017 at 5:46 pm

    Mattis gives Trump the middle finger on transgender military ban:

  • 16. VIRick  |  August 29, 2017 at 6:08 pm

    Originally, I was going to delete this widely-quoted "news" article from "USA Today" on the grounds that it is a total misrepresentation of the actual factual evidence. The "USA Today" article indicates defiance on the part of Mattis. Wrong. The actual DOD statement released today, 29 August 2017, (see 2 posts below) indicates compliance.

    However, instead of deleting anything, after having read the harshly-corrective statement, immediately below, from Shannon Minter at NCLR, and then having found the actual news release issued today, 29 August 2017, by the DOD itself, and which I have thus quoted in its entirety, further below, I decided to leave this "USA Today" article here, so that it remains "on the record" and available for comparative purposes.

    Mattis Freezes Transgender Policy; Allows Troops to Continue Serving, Pending Study

    Washington — Late Tuesday, 29 August 2017, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis announced that transgender troops will be allowed to continue serving in the military pending the results of a study by experts. The announcement follows an order from President Trump — first announced in a tweet — declaring that transgender service members can no longer serve in the military, effectively reversing an Obama administration policy. The order also affects the Department of Homeland Security, which houses the Coast Guard.

    "Once the panel reports its recommendations and following my consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, I will provide my advice to the president concerning implementation of his policy direction," Mattis said in the statement. "In the interim, current policy with respect to currently serving members will remain in place."

    Mattis' move buys time for the Pentagon to determine how and if it will allow thousands of transgender troops to continue to serve, whether they will receive medical treatment, or how they will be discharged. As Defense Secretary, Mattis has emphasized that he has little tolerance for policies that detract from military readiness or the Pentagon's effectiveness on the battlefield. At the last moment in June, he delayed the Pentagon's plan to accept new transgender troops. His reasoning: He demanded more study to determine the effect of recruiting them on the Pentagon's ability to fight and win wars.

  • 17. VIRick  |  August 29, 2017 at 9:58 pm

    The following statement is from Shannon Minter, NCLR Legal Director. Though his statement references the "USA Today" story, cited immediately above, the following commentary provides important context for all the reporting on the statement Mattis issued today:

    Per Equality Case Files:

    The "USA Today" story is grossly misleading. Secretary Mattis did not make a decision to "buy time" or to "freeze" the current policy. The President's 25 August 2017 Memorandum expressly provides that the new ban does not go into effect until 23 March 2018 and expressly states that no one can be discharged for being transgender in the meantime. There is nothing new at all here, and suggesting otherwise is terribly misleading.

    This inaccurate reporting is playing into a patently bogus strategy to make it appear that there is going to be some new "study" that will legitimate what is already a forgone conclusion: the discriminatory banning of military service by transgender people, based on a characteristic that has no bearing on their fitness to serve. The 25 August Memorandum is perfectly clear: Trump has ordered the military to ban transgender people from serving. That ban will go into effect in about 7 months, 23 March 2018. That appalling decision is not (and cannot possibly be, given its timing) based on any hastily assembled, post hoc "study" that is being cooked up now in a transparent effort to provide a retroactive fig leaf for Trump's bigotry. This order is an act of pure animus toward transgender people. The military spent two years carefully reviewing all of the relevant evidence on this issue and concluded that there is no reason to exclude transgender people from military service. The cost of inclusion is literally negligible, and there is no evidence that permitting open service will have any negative impact on military readiness. The notion that there is any good faith "study" being conducted is a blatant pretext for unmitigated, vicious, baseless discrimination.

    More than ever, we need reporters to fact-check these stories and not simply repeat false information that is being used to set up an attempted cover for one of the most shocking acts of official discrimination the transgender community has ever experienced.

    There is no new "freeze." This is just what the 25 August [Memorandum] ordered — along with a permanent ban on enlistment, effective now, and a new ban on open service, effective on 23 March 2018.

    And from the ACLU's Chase Strangio on twitter, we have this comment: "Surgeries are still being cancelled and reenlistments denied."

  • 18. VIRick  |  August 29, 2017 at 9:59 pm

    The Actual DOD Statement Released on 29 August 2017

    Note: It carries an entirely different tone, one that indicates compliance:

    The Department of Defense has received the Presidential Memorandum, dated August 25, 2017, entitled “Military Service by Transgender Individuals.” The department will carry out the president’s policy direction, in consultation with the Department of Homeland Security. As directed, we will develop a study and implementation plan, which will contain the steps that will promote military readiness, lethality, and unit cohesion, with due regard for budgetary constraints and consistent with applicable law. The soon-arriving senior civilian leadership of DOD will play an important role in this effort. The implementation plan will address accessions of transgender individuals and transgender individuals currently serving in the United States military.

    Our focus must always be on what is best for the military’s combat effectiveness leading to victory on the battlefield. To that end, I will establish a panel of experts serving within the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security to provide advice and recommendations on the implementation of the president’s direction. Panel members will bring mature experience, most notably in combat and deployed operations, and seasoned judgment to this task. The panel will assemble and thoroughly analyze all pertinent data, quantifiable and non-quantifiable. Further information on the panel will be forthcoming.

    Once the panel reports its recommendations and following my consultation with the secretary of Homeland Security, I will provide my advice to the president concerning implementation of his policy direction. In the interim, current policy with respect to currently serving members will remain in place. I expect to issue interim guidance to the force concerning the president’s direction, including any necessary interim adjustments to procedures, to ensure the continued combat readiness of the force until our final policy on this subject is issued.

  • 19. scream4ever  |  August 29, 2017 at 11:27 pm

    There are still many ways to weasel out of it, as Trump issued "guidance", at least that's the impression I get from the last paragraph.

  • 20. JayJonson  |  August 30, 2017 at 6:33 am

    What will stop the ban is not the "defiance" of Mattis but the lawsuits of Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the NCLR, and the SPLC.

  • 21. scream4ever  |  August 30, 2017 at 9:37 am

    And likely also allow trans men and women to enlist and receive treatments.

  • 22. VIRick  |  August 30, 2017 at 4:26 pm

    Jay, Yes, precisely.

  • 23. VIRick  |  August 29, 2017 at 9:46 pm

    EEOC Again Rules in Favor of Transgender Woman in Employment Discrimination Case

    Per Equality Case Files:

    New York, NY – Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund has secured a victory before the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of a transgender woman who endured employment discrimination at a Sam’s Club store in Kannapolis NC. Sam’s Club is a membership-only retail warehouse chain and a subsidiary of Walmart. The EEOC found evidence that Charlene Bost faced discrimination and a retaliatory hostile work environment in her position as a cashier supervisor from 2013 through her firing in 2015. This discrimination violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

    The TLDEF press release on the case is here:

  • 24. scream4ever  |  August 29, 2017 at 9:52 pm

    Let's hope the Supreme Court settles this issue this upcoming term.

  • 25. VIRick  |  August 30, 2017 at 3:20 pm

    West Virginia: Same-Sex Marriage Harassment Suit Settled

    Per Equality Case Files:

    Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Fairness West Virginia, and the law firm Mayer Brown LLP announced today, 30 August 2017, the settlement of a federal lawsuit, "Brookover v. Gilmer County," filed on behalf of a West Virginia same-sex couple who were harassed by a Gilmer County clerk who cited religious objections to marriage equality. When high-school sweethearts Amanda Abramovich and Samantha Brookover asked for a marriage license on 3 February 2016, they were subjected to a rant by Gilmer County Deputy Clerk Debbie Allen, who called the women an “abomination” to God and said their marriage shouldn’t be legal.

    On 17 April 2017, Americans United, Fairness West Virginia, and Mayer Brown filed a lawsuit on behalf of the couple in District Court for Northern West Virginia. The lawsuit, "Brookover v. Gilmer County," named Allen, County Clerk Jean Butcher and Gilmer County as defendants. The complaint alleged that the county and the named officials violated the US Constitution by treating same-sex couples differently from others in the name of religion.

    As part of the settlement, Gilmer County agreed to apologize to Abramovich and Brookover and issue a public statement regarding the wrongdoing by the County Clerk’s office. They also promised to take steps to ensure that county officials and employees do not discriminate against anyone in the future, regardless of religious beliefs about sexual orientation or gender identity. Finally, the county agreed to pay (an undisclosed amount in monetary) damages in recognition of the harms Abramovich and Brookover suffered.

    Today, 30 August 2017, the judge entered an order granting the parties' request for a voluntary dismissal, closing the lawsuit.

  • 26. davepCA  |  August 30, 2017 at 5:42 pm


  • 27. VIRick  |  August 30, 2017 at 8:00 pm

    Chile: IACHR Vows to Follow-Thru on the Marriage Equality Bill Until It Becomes Law

    Chile: CIDH Hará Seguimiento al Proyecto de Matrimonio Igualitario Hasta Que Sea Ley

    Per Rex Wockner:

    "El compromiso es con el Estado, no con el Gobierno," aclaró a Cooperativa el relator para Chile del organismo, Luis Ernesto Vargas. Indicó que esto se debe dar "al margen de quién esté al frente del Ejecutivo."

    "The commitment is with the State, not with the Government," the agency's Chilean rapporteur Luis Ernesto Vargas told Cooperativa. He indicated that this will be so "regardless of who is in charge of the Executive."

    So, it's not up to Karen Atala and MOVILH to file another complaint with the CIDH in the event the Chilean Legislature "takes too long to enact the marriage equality legislation." Instead, the CIDH itself is already assuming the role of watch-dog, insisting that its decision, already agreed to by all parties, be adhered to. The Chilean Legislature has no discretion to decide anything other than to pass the bill as submitted, and the next President of Chile, whoever that might be, has no say in the matter.

    As noted earlier, President M. Bachelet has an iron-clad death-grip on the haters' balls, and as this realization begins to sink in, many LGBT Chileans are already anointing her as a gay icon.

  • 28. VIRick  |  August 30, 2017 at 9:06 pm

    Sonora: Marriage Equality Initiative Introduced

    Per Juan José Lam Angulo (PRD Deputy in the Sonora Congress):

    El día de ayer, 29 de agosto 2017, presentamos la (primera) iniciativa en el Congreso de Sonora sobre matrimonio igualitario, el PRD luchando por la igualdad y respeto.

    Yesterday, 29 August 2017, we presented the (first) marriage equality initiative to the Sonora Congress, the PRD fighting for Equality and respect.

  • 29. VIRick  |  August 30, 2017 at 9:37 pm

    Yucatán Congress Shelves Discussion of Marriage Equality for This Term

    Per LGBT Marriage News:

    En Yucatán el matrimonio igualitario no ha sido prioridad. Las próximas sesiones que comenzarán en el mes de septiembre.

    In Yucatán , marriage equality has not been a priority (within the congress). The next session will begin in September.

  • 30. guitaristbl  |  August 31, 2017 at 8:52 am

    Israeli Supreme Court rules against same sex marriage being a right :

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