Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Masterpiece Cakeshop argument reactions thread


I’m still at the doctor but here is a thread for arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop.

The WSJ did a live blog of the arguments.

Some commentators have said on Twitter that it looks like a loss for the LGBT side:

We will have more soon including the transcript.

UPDATE: The transcript is here:


  • 1. allan120102  |  December 5, 2017 at 12:22 pm

    Amy Howe of Scotusblog have an excellent analysis on this case and it looks like conservatives might win this one after the second part of the Argument Kennedy seem to be sympathetic with the baker If they rule for the baker the first thing is if will be a broad ruling or a narrow one but even a narrow one might be a huge setback for the lgbt community. Conservatives appoinment of Gorsuch in the court looks to have provide its desire because if Garland had been appoint we would not be in this mess.

  • 2. LK2013  |  December 5, 2017 at 12:50 pm

    Ian Millhiser's piece in Think Progress, kind of looks bad for us. For some reason, Kennedy got a bug up his pants about a statement by Colorado anti-discrimination folks that religion has been used in the past to support discrimination (and slavery, and other bad stuff). He seemed to think this represented some global "hostility" toward religion, rather than to bs religious rationalizations for bigotry. Very. Disappointing. He hounded the Colorado person to "disavow" a statement that religion can be used to hurt people … really?! Of course it can! Maybe he's losing it.

  • 3. davepCA  |  December 5, 2017 at 1:03 pm

    I wouldn't be concerned about anything that was asked or said by SCOTUS during oral arguments. Remember, we've been through all of this before. You just cannot presume the motives behind such remarks, nor the position of the person making them. In many cases, these 'tough questions' are asked so that the Justices can include their argument FOR the answers in the ruling. In other cases, it's just a matter of being thorough and getting the arguments into the record. There are a whole lot of reasons a Justice may ask a question or even appear to go on the offensive that have nothing to do with how they will rule.

  • 4. JayJonson  |  December 5, 2017 at 1:34 pm

    Yes, I remember how Justice Kennedy scared us in Obergefell by talking about millenia of tradition. I do not think he will tarnish his great legacy of the jurisprudence of dignity by giving religious people a license to discriminate.

  • 5. allan120102  |  December 5, 2017 at 1:38 pm

    I would say though that by oral arguments we can predict how a justice might rule its not always a hit but its quite good, what worries me is that experts are almost sure that Kennedy had more symapathy for the baker than for Colorado. He might try though if its a decision for them to be the least restrictive possible. Even with Obergefell I was quite sure he would rule with us but now I dont see it, He was quite angry with Colorado and how it enforce its anti discrimination laws.

  • 6. davepCA  |  December 5, 2017 at 2:29 pm

    These are two different things. Just because a Justice doesn't like what the state said about the defendant 'using his religious beliefs to harm someone' doesn't mean the Justice would allow a business to violate public accommodation laws by denying goods and services to a particular group of citizens.

  • 7. A_Jayne  |  December 6, 2017 at 9:43 am

    Re: what the state said about 'using his religious beliefs to harm someone' –

    Depending on what Justice Kennedy's religious leanings (if any) are, it seems possible to me that he may be (as are many others) concerned about the general state of religion in the country – possibly noting that such tactics, while designed to tailor the argument in favor of right-wing stances, may cause increased harm to how so many view religion overall. Especially if leaders of religions not inclined to use "belief" as a cudgel in society recognize how that approach turns people away from churches, they may be organizing around the idea that failing to address it will also affect their congregation's growth patterns, or lack of same.

    I can almost see something written into a decision that, despite an inclination to recoil from such a statement, understanding how many end up viewing religion in general negatively because they see some truth in it might be seen as a warning bell for the future. (If not included in the decision, even asking the question at the hearing could set off alarms for sensible religious leaders…)

  • 8. Elihu_Bystander  |  December 6, 2017 at 10:17 am

    Justice Kennedy is Roman Catholic with a high regard for Catholic social and economic justice teachings.

  • 9. A_Jayne  |  December 6, 2017 at 1:22 pm

    Thank you for clarifying. I don't think that fact undermines what I think was his intended point – that the state was correct in its assessment and that many others would see it as a negative against religions in this country, not against us.

  • 10. davepCA  |  December 6, 2017 at 10:38 am

    Yes, Jayne. And another way to parse that comment from the state (remarking how it is 'disgusting to use religious beliefs to harm others') would be that using ANYTHING to harm others is wrong. And using religious beliefs to do so adds a layer of hypocrisy to that harmful action, which makes it worse. The comment isn't a jab at religious beliefs, it's a jab at hypocrites who misuse religious beliefs.

  • 11. A_Jayne  |  December 6, 2017 at 1:19 pm

    So doesn't his original comment (question) bode well for us then? Because it seems so to me – any negativity surrounding his comment appears (to me) to be the fact that a state agency had to point it out to these idiots.

  • 12. guitaristbl  |  December 5, 2017 at 2:01 pm

    Are we really going to bury our heads in the sand and pretend everything is great and nothing happened ? Really ? Seasoned SCOTUS reporters make it clear that this is almost certainly a ruling against the couple – the stone will be cast, the point will be to see how far it hits. If there are at least 1 judge from the 5 conservatives willing to find some middle ground there may be something to salvage here. Although I believe once you chip the first piece of an anti-discrimination law, there is literally nothing left.

  • 13. davepCA  |  December 5, 2017 at 2:30 pm

    While there's a chance you are correct, none of us know what the ruling will be yet.

  • 14. ianbirmingham  |  December 5, 2017 at 1:42 pm

    The Christian Right Has A New Strategy On Gay Marriage
    The wedding cake case before the Supreme Court signals a shift in status for evangelicals.

  • 15. guitaristbl  |  December 5, 2017 at 1:59 pm

    I don't like to say I was right when it comes to such outcomes but it seems I was right when I said we won't win this case.

    The thing we wait now is to see how wide the ruling would be and how will it be worded. Can it really say it stops at wedding services or cakes ? On what constitutional standard ? I feel it's difficult to find a balance and it will go the whole way – striking down Colorado's anti discrimination law provision covering sexual orientation – and thus all such protections around the country. Given that I can see no legal pathway that leads to a middle ground other than the court putting out there a definition of "artistic expression" that they have to come up with so that it includes bakers, florists etc I don't see any other way for this to end. Kennedy seemed really mad about the supposed animus of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission against the baker.

    It is what it is…It's a pity the US will be the only western nation without anti-discrimination laws on the basis of sexual orientation but…that's what elections do – having consequences. One of those is Gorsuch.

    P.S. And it is such a pity given the performance of the baker's lawyer. What a dreadful time for her…She drowned in her own inconsistencies so much that not even Alito's lifesaver was enough. She could have argued all those categories Kagan slammed her with – make up artists (lol the artist label is even in the wording here), florists, chefs could discriminate and she would get at least more respect from the conservatives. And let's not even go to the federal government…Only race discrimination barred, everything else fair game and hang your "no gays" signs.

  • 16. davepCA  |  December 5, 2017 at 2:31 pm

    You're jumping the gun. We don't know what the ruling will be.

  • 17. guitaristbl  |  December 5, 2017 at 2:51 pm

    That is my prediction. And I am afraid my predictions before the hearing were correct as well when everyone was telling me it would be unimaginable that Kennedy would rule in favour of the baker.

  • 18. allan120102  |  December 5, 2017 at 1:59 pm

    Austria conservative leader Sebastian Kurz say he will accept the ruling made by the Austrian Constitutional court.

  • 19. guitaristbl  |  December 5, 2017 at 2:03 pm

    Has he asked his far right government partner if he will as well though ?

  • 20. ianbirmingham  |  December 5, 2017 at 2:49 pm

    Having just read the entire transcript, IMO the whole thing was just Justices being intentionally provocative in order to suss out the essence of each side's position, which is simply par for the course. I disagree with Amy Howe's piece in SCOTUSblog which predicts a loss for our side.

    One striking aspect of the transcript is the complete failure of all concerned to treat all these situations as the equivalent of what a translator does. If I hire a translator, I can say "This stinks" and the translator can render that as anything from "Fuck this and the horse it rode in on" to "This doth bring to mind the lilting fragrance of a rancher's gently rolling green meadow". But more importantly, the speech is never that of the translator; it's always the speech of the translator's client. Similarly, a patron might commission a sculptor to translate the concept of a perfect male human body and the sculptor might produce anything from a sumo wrestler to Michelangelo's David to Vladimir Putin. No matter how it's translated, it's still the client's speech. The client knows that hiring Olivia Newton-John as a translator will spin the translation in one direction while hiring Richard Pryor as a translator will spin the translation in another direction. No matter what the direction of translation, it's always the client's speech and never the translator's.

  • 21. Elihu_Bystander  |  December 6, 2017 at 10:31 am

    I've just completed reading the entire transcript as well. I am in full accord with your summary in paragraph one above. I thought the counsel for the US Solicitor General was weak. The sane for the Colorado Solicitor General. On the other hand the counsel for Craig & Mullins as well as for Philips had more creditable responses to the questions of the justices or at least they had easier questions.

    We just can't tell at this point how the opinion is going to go.

  • 22. VIRick  |  December 5, 2017 at 5:27 pm

    Virgin Islands Electrical Restoration Efforts, 3-Month Up-Date

    Per Water and Power Authority, 5 December 2017:
    Crews will focus this week on reconstruction and restoration in the following areas: On St. Thomas: Crown Bay near Tropical Shipping and Crowley, Skyline Drive, Mafolie, Mountain Top, St. Peter Mountain Road, Crown Mountain, Scott Free, Caret Bay West, Brass View, Hull Bay, Anna’s Retreat, and Frydenhoj.

    Of the 12 named locales, 6 are pertinent to our restoration of electrical power: 1 is on the way, 1 is close-by to the west, another is right up above, 1 is a short distance east, and 2 are immediately below, one particularly so. The work crews are definitely closing in, finally focusing a lot of attention high up in the mountains and on the Northside of the island. But they haven't yet gotten to Barrett's Hill, the Northside's answer to the screaming mess they've already encountered in Scott Free, coming up the south-side of the mountain.

    Territory-wide, after 3-months, we are now at 43% electric power restoration (of customers, not of residences, nor of people). For comparative purposes, this is the worst and slowest it has ever been.

    Then for temporary internet service, I have applied to participate in the phone company's lottery distribution of Wi-Fi hot-spots, a new service which will be employed until the wired service can be repaired some months from now.

  • 23. ianbirmingham  |  December 5, 2017 at 10:57 pm

    VIRick, I've got your Internet technology right here:

    Step 1: Find anyone within a line of sight who has good Internet connectivity

    Step 2: Make a deal with them to allow you to connect your small dish to their Ethernet and power & then mount it so that it points directly at your house

    Step 3: Install identical small dish at your house pointing directly at the other dish

    Step 4: Follow manufacturer's directions for optimizing speed of wireless link

    $300 gets you both small dishes (a complete wireless point-to-point link)

    Available now in Miami:

    To create wireless Internet links between islands, use $700 Gigabit dishes:

    Available now in Miami:

  • 24. MartinEurope  |  December 6, 2017 at 11:51 am

    Hi everyone!! First of all, I’d like to wish you a massive good luck in this case from the other side of the Atlantic!!
    On the bright side, we are now celebrating the news that Austria’s Constitutional Court has legalized gay marriage starting 2019 and that Czech Republic is apparently on the loop – we only need Northern Ireland and Italy to have the whole of Western Europe.
    I am also writing today to please ask for your thoughts/opinions/knowledge/info about a case arising from Romania that was heard by our European Court of Justice. Please the link below. My main question is: does anyone over here know how longs it take for the European Court to rule in an already-hear case? Many thanks!!!!

  • 25. scream4ever  |  December 6, 2017 at 1:07 pm

    No idea, but the Austrian ruling bodes well for the Romanian case, at least for recognition. I had no idea the Czech Republic was in the process of legalization. Northern Ireland will have it soon as per the agreement with formation of the new Parliament or with the lawsuit. Italy won't be for a while though, since they just legalized civil unions. I really hope Slovenia finally files an explicit lawsuit regarding the referendum on marriage, since they'd likely win. A positive ruling from the European Court of Justice would certainly help.

  • 26. SethInMaryland  |  December 6, 2017 at 1:26 pm

    I guess things in Czech Republic have started to get better. I would still thought were off a few more years but they do have partnerships so maybe …

  • 27. guitaristbl  |  December 6, 2017 at 1:28 pm

    Czech Republic is not in the process of legalization. I would say far from it with the incoming government and the rising influence of the far right.

  • 28. allan120102  |  December 6, 2017 at 1:37 pm

    The lawsuit in Northern ireland was already hold and it was against us, the judge say even though he was sympathic for the couples, it is the legislature and no the courts who will need to legalize ssm. He dismiss the case.

    For the Czech republic I find it difficult as with Austria the far right have taken control and I am not sure how the Czech supreme court might be, seeing as the court of Austria was first to issue a ruling in our favor after other courts in the region rule against us.

  • 29. scream4ever  |  December 6, 2017 at 4:33 pm

    The lawsuit in NI is being appealed.

  • 30. SethInMaryland  |  December 6, 2017 at 1:24 pm

    Sigh I kinda suspected he might go this route. I suspect it be narrow ruling like Hobby Lobby ,still that's a lot of damage

  • 31. allan120102  |  December 6, 2017 at 1:40 pm

    Agree I doubt Kennedy will issue a broad ruling against us and undermine all the anti lgbt discrimination against us, but I am almost sure he will rule for the baker as he does not tolerate animus and he feel the commisioners had animus to religion.
    The best case would be for the lawsuit to be sent back to the commisioner court and that other people hear it, because even a narrow ruling against us will be devasting in some places as Colorado have a lot of open mind people but in Alabama or Mississippi a lot of people would try to discriminate.

  • 32. Bruno71  |  December 6, 2017 at 2:47 pm

    I have a really hard time believing that the ruling would completely overturn Colorado's (and any other states/municipalities) anti-discrimination law. It was in Colorado that they passed Amendment 2 and subsequently Kennedy authored Romer vs. Evans to overturn that. While Kennedy might be upset at the tone of the Colorado commission, I can't see him doing more than carving out some sort of exception for certain types of public accommodations. And if he attempts that, it'll have to be worded in some very specific way so as to not endanger these laws nationwide.

  • 33. Elihu_Bystander  |  December 6, 2017 at 6:19 pm

    Allan, thank you for helping me understand the questions concerning the rouge commissioner. And especially the question about what if there were two. And, yes you are correct, because of Justice Kennedy's firm adherence to Catholic social justice issues.

    Yes, any animus whatsoever must be avoided. I have no idea how that may affect his position concerning the matter.

  • 34. allan120102  |  December 6, 2017 at 6:28 pm

    You are welcome and I try to said in my first paragraph that Kennedy will not undermine all the anti discrimination laws in place as he would not support open discrimination, but he will also not rule to affirm if he sees that the commisioners have a problem with religion and I kinda agree. Neither people who believe in religion nor people who is lgbt should be discriminate. I am a gay christian and sometimes I am discriminate for being gay and other times I am ask why being gay do I believe in God.

  • 35. Elihu_Bystander  |  December 7, 2017 at 6:56 pm

    "I am a gay christian and sometimes I am discriminate for being gay and other times I am ask why being gay do I believe in God."

    What you say is very true. I have the same experience. I have been able to minimize discrimination of me by the church simply by being there and not going away. On the other hand, I find myself having to defend why being gay I believe in God.

    I believe it comes down to we are all created in the image and likeness of God. And all deserve respect for the dignity that God gave us. God did not make any mistakes when he created us. Whether you believe in God or not, all deserve that dignity.

  • 36. allan120102  |  December 6, 2017 at 1:43 pm

    Baja California they are two routes to get married which are the following. One with amparos and the others with the human right comission of the state.
    TIJUANA.- Marriages between people of the same sex can be given in Baja California in two ways, the first is with protection obtained in the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, once they are denied the right in an office, but now It can also be done through a process before the State Human Rights Commission of Baja California.

    According to the director of the Civil Registry in the State, Javier Mayoral, there are a large number of requests, in Tijuana there are 14 pending cases, there are fewer cases in the other municipalities, and those who still do not get it are another larger amount.

    On October 19, Uniradio announced that there was a marriage after two men filed a complaint with the State Human Rights Commission, the process was delayed but it was achieved and this confirms the way to reach the union.

    "To get married, it is through the protection, they have the right to go to judicial instances as human rights," he said.

    He assured that they are making a concentrate of all the applications in Baja California, because it is a new phenomenon.

  • 37. allan120102  |  December 6, 2017 at 1:46 pm

    Guerrero Mexico
    Lgbt groups in the state are urging the state to legalize ssm, ss adoption and to let them participate in the upcoming elections.

  • 38. VIRick  |  December 6, 2017 at 2:50 pm

    Finland: 100 Years of Independence

    Exactly 100 years ago today, on 6 December 1917, the Grand Duchy of Finland proclaimed its independence from a Russia then torn apart during the midst of the Bolshevik Revolution. Two wars later, the independent Republic of Finland proudly continues to more ever-forward. Enjoy the pictures:

  • 39. VIRick  |  December 6, 2017 at 5:58 pm

    David Ermold for Rowan County KY Clerk (or Why Karma is Such a Bitch)

    Rowan County KY clerk Kim Davis is officially facing an election challenge from the gay man she discriminated against. Davis, the still-current clerk for Rowan County, Kentucky, decided to ignore the 2015 "Obergefell" ruling, and the subsequent demands from a string of federal courts, in order to block the marriages of same-sex couples in the county. But now, Davis, who has since become a cause célèbre among the anti-LGBT movement, may end up losing her job to one of the very men she blocked from marrying.

    David Ermold (D), who was filmed being denied a marriage license by Davis back in 2015, launched his campaign to become Rowan County clerk today, 6 December 2017, ahead of the election next year. Davis, who was initially elected as a Democrat, had announced she plans to seek re-election as a Republican.

    Ermold, who was eventually allowed to marry his partner by a deputy clerk in 2015, says Davis has proved herself unfit to hold the office, and will battle to stop her retaining the clerk’s position. Speaking to the AP, he said: “I think we need to deal with the circumstances and the consequences of what happened."

    The election, set to take place in 2018, will be the first time voters have a say in making Davis accountable for her actions in 2015. Davis processed Ermold’s paperwork for his candidacy at the clerk’s office today, the Lexington "Herald-Leader" reports. Ermold, 43, is an English professor at the University of Pikeville and director of Morehead Pride.

    See also:

    Note: The lead case against Davis was "Miller v. Davis," but there were two other marriage cases against her, "Ermold v. Davis" and "Yates v. Davis." David Ermold was the lead plaintiff in the second of the three cases.

    The latter-two "damages only" suits are still on-going. Per Judge Bunning's Order of 15 September 2017: “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." However, he concludes that Davis denied the plaintiffs their fundamental right to marry and had fair warning at the time she denied the marriage licenses that her conduct was unconstitutional, and therefore cannot dismiss the personal capacity claims.

    All parties have appealed to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. A cross-appeals briefing schedule has been set in both cases, with the first briefs due on 28 November 2017, and briefing due to be completed by mid-February 2018.

  • 40. Elihu_Bystander  |  December 6, 2017 at 6:31 pm

    I truly enjoy our informed conversations for what has just happened. Thank all of you who have made this blog possible.

    As I sit in this very conservative part of California. Almost every one accepts me for who I am and I respect who they are. Every one, including my Roman Catholic Church understands who I am and what gifts that I can provide for my church. Let us all keep this blog going.

  • 41. SethInMaryland  |  December 6, 2017 at 9:35 pm

    The Australia marriage vote is taking place

  • 42. VIRick  |  December 6, 2017 at 10:08 pm

    3 minutes ago, Rex Wockner posted a link to a live video feed of the final vote on the marriage equality legislation in the Australian Senate. Here's the link:

    At the moment, they're down to the point of whether or not to accept "whatever" as amendments to allow for "religious freedom" to skirt around marriage equality. The ALP (Labor) is against any/all amendments.

  • 43. SethInMaryland  |  December 6, 2017 at 10:21 pm

    Their battle is so similar to the US. So many years of lgbt advocates there have fought so hard. Water shed moment

  • 44. VIRick  |  December 6, 2017 at 10:36 pm

    The nut-job from Corangamite, Victoria, who introduced the two amendments, just got shot down in her attempt to have a separate vote on each. But she's still talking, pissing herself because Labor refused to allow a "free vote" on both amendments.

    The voice vote on the combined amendments was "No," but they're now doing an individual vote.

    Wait! Earlier, I said this is the vote in the Senate. No. This is the vote in the House.

  • 45. VIRick  |  December 6, 2017 at 10:48 pm

    The amendments were defeated 63-79. The gallery just went nuts.

  • 46. SethInMaryland  |  December 6, 2017 at 10:51 pm

    Yes they did. It was magical

  • 47. VIRick  |  December 6, 2017 at 11:04 pm

    The voice vote on whether or not to do the third reading was overwhelmingly in favor of reading it. However, two yutzes apparently yelled "No," so they are doing a second division vote. Finally, all members but the two have packed over onto one side of the House.

    And that's that. We won! Suddenly everyone is congratulating everyone, applauding, and singing the Australian National Anthem. It was exactly at 6 PM in Canberra on 7 December 2017.

  • 48. A_Jayne  |  December 6, 2017 at 11:09 pm

    Crying – again, as every time another country says "yes" – thank you for the report.

  • 49. VIRick  |  December 7, 2017 at 12:43 am

    I cried the whole time. Imagine me, watching/listening to the debate, while attempting to follow the House procedure, simultaneously translating and typing, desperately trying to keep up with the happenings, flipping back and forth between several screens so as not to miss the action, all while continuously wiping my eyes, blindly typing like a maniac, with no time to edit, as you can see from some of my word-choices, corralling everybody from the nut-job who kept pissing herself to the two yutzes.

    I also want to thank Seth for the big tip that the final vote was on, as well as Rex for posting that active link that took us right to it.

  • 50. allan120102  |  December 6, 2017 at 11:15 pm

    I am so happy that Australia has legalize ssm I guess they are the number 25th worldwide to do it, and if I correct the third country this year after Germany and Malta. Counting Taiwan and Austria we have now 27 countries with marriage equality. I am going to look later how much of the population now lives with marriage equality.

    I just hope one day I will have those happy feelings once my country do it. I really cant wait. I really got emotional but pretty happy seeing this and I am very happy and proud for the fight Australians have done.

  • 51. scream4ever  |  December 7, 2017 at 10:11 am

    Where do you live again Allan?

    Regarding the world population numbers, I believe it's over 1 billion.

  • 52. allan120102  |  December 7, 2017 at 11:20 am

    Honduras my friend a bastion of conservatism in latin america. The problem is that marriage in our constitution prohibits ssm compare to other nations that only have it in there civil code. I believe only a court decision or two thirds of the deputies or a supermajority might change it. Also I believe we pass the billion in 2015.

  • 53. davepCA  |  December 6, 2017 at 11:50 pm

    YES!!! Been waiting so long to read these words!

  • 54. VIRick  |  December 6, 2017 at 11:33 pm

    The Australia Marriage Equality Act, having duly passed both houses of Parliament, is now off to the Governor-General for their signature, after which the various jurisdictions will be able to begin marrying same-sex couples throughout all of Australia. Expect the signature to be applied quite quickly, and marriages to begin immediately thereafter.

    The applicable jurisdictions are:
    New South Wales
    South Australia
    Western Australia
    Australian Capital Territory
    Northern Territory
    Christmas Island
    Cocos Islands
    Norfolk Island

  • 55. VIRick  |  December 6, 2017 at 11:54 pm

    As Allan just pointed out, immediately above, for two days, it appeared that Austria would be country #25 with marriage equality. However, unless the Austrian legislature were to amend current law to speed up the process, the court ruling there, published on 5 December 2017, will not go into effect until 1 January 2019.

    Today, 7 December 2017, Australia just pushed Austria aside as #25, with this final House vote in favor of their Marriage Equality legislation, a bill which will now go into effect nationwide as soon as the Governor-General signs it into law, a matter which will occur within days.

    In the meantime, any number of other countries have ample opportunity to push Austria even farther down the list, as they have the rest of December and all of 2018 in which to do so.

  • 56. scream4ever  |  December 7, 2017 at 10:08 am

    Chile is poised to beat them, and possibly Taiwan if they pass their bill next year (otherwise if both nations do nothing, Austria will beat them).

  • 57. allan120102  |  December 7, 2017 at 11:21 am

    I am almost sure ssm will be legal in Chile next year or at the latest early 2019 if the left candidate wins. If Sebastian Piñera wins it will be more problematic to achieve marriage equality in that nation. I am not sure which other country aside of those can achieve marriage equality in the near future. Maybe Switzerland.

  • 58. scream4ever  |  December 7, 2017 at 12:20 pm

    Chile will have it by March at the latest. They have the votes in both chambers and are already moving forward with hearings in the Senate.

  • 59. scream4ever  |  December 6, 2017 at 11:06 pm

    Roberta Kaplan gave some great insight as to what she predicts will be the outcome of Masterpiece. She usually knows what she's talking about. I find myself agreeing with her:

  • 60. JayJonson  |  December 7, 2017 at 5:01 am

    Congratulations to Australia. It appears that January 6 will be the date on which same-sex couples may begin marrying. (Apparently, there is a waiting period after December 9 when couples will be able to file an intent to marry.

  • 61. VIRick  |  December 7, 2017 at 8:52 pm

    Australia: Same-Sex Marriages to Begin from 9 January 2018

    As just witnessed up above, the Australian House, and thus the Parliament, approved the Australian Marriage Equality legislation on the evening of 7 December 2017. Almost immediately thereafter, early on 8 December 2017, Australian Governor-General Peter Cosgrove gave his “Royal Assent” to the law, paving the way for it to take effect. As a result, same-sex couples can start applying to get married on Saturday, 9 December 2017.

    Australian law says couples must wait 30 days before marrying, once they have applied to do so. The first same-sex marriages in the country will thus be able to take place on 9 January 2018.

  • 62. JayJonson  |  December 8, 2017 at 5:40 am

    I remember that several states that have waiting periods waived them in exceptional circumstances, such as when one member of a couple was facing a terminal illness. I wonder if we may see some Australian marriages occur earlier than January 9 due to such circumstances?

    The marriages of Australians who have entered into same-sex marriages abroad now have had their marriages recognized as valid. (I.e., there is no waiting period for these marriages to be considered valid.)

  • 63. VIRick  |  December 8, 2017 at 9:31 am

    Jay, that's a good point. I can foresee several jurisdictions, particularly the ACT, and possibly South Australia, waiving the waiting period for everyone, while others might do it for couples over a certain age and/or who have medical issues.

  • 64. guitaristbl  |  December 7, 2017 at 6:31 am

    As a word freak I cannot but point out the irony of having Austria and Austr(al)ia effectively legalizing marriage equality (omitting exact enactment dates) within a day or two.

  • 65. Elihu_Bystander  |  December 7, 2017 at 7:21 am

    The Specious Legal Argument at the Center of the Cake Case

    By Shannon Minter and Christopher F. Stoll
    December 07 2017 5:23 AM EST

    Here is another point of review by the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

  • 66. VIRick  |  December 7, 2017 at 9:58 pm

    Here's one of those cute, heart-warming, yet frighteningly tear-jerking first-person stories, first published in Spain, as to how Marriage Equality "saved" one stressed-out Venezuelan family from the lovely colonial border city of San Cristóbal, caught between their own dire medical circumstances and the country's internal economic collapse, from utter and total ruination:

    Marriage Equality Allows Venezuelan to Make a Living in Colombia

    Matrimonio Igualitario Permite a Venezolano Hacer su Vida en Colombia

    Bogotá – Colombia le permitió a Rafael Álvarez cumplir el sueño de casarse con el amor de su vida y trabajar legalmente en el país para enviarles los medicamentos a sus padres enfermos. Gracias al matrimonio igualitario, que es legal en Colombia, Rafael Álvarez (derecha) pudo casarse con Jhosser Alcalde (izquierda), y permanecer en el país para ayudar a sus padres en Venezuela.

    Bogotá – Colombia allowed Rafael Álvarez to fulfill the dream of marrying the love of his life and to work legally in the country in order to send the required medications to his sick parents. Thanks to marriage equality, which is legal in Colombia, Rafael Álvarez (right) was able to marry Jhosser Alcalde (left), and stay in the country (Colombia) to help his parents in Venezuela.

    To prove just how lucky Rafael actually is, at the very end, the article mentions that the Colombian Ministry of Labor estimates that there are about 470,000 Venezuelans in Colombia, of whom only 3,076 have work visas, Rafael included. (Just for the record, there is no wall between Colombia and Venezuela, and no one is being deported, but working conditions can be difficult for foreigners without proper credentials).

    When I had need to be back and forth over the border between Colombia and Venezuela (crossing where Rafael crossed, and can thus truly state, "Been there, done that"), the economic and employment situation was the other way around. This article mentions that recent reality, and how the situation, in the last few years, has totally reversed.

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