Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Open SCOTUS thread BREAKING: MSNBC reporting Judge Brett Kavanaugh will be nominated


Tonight, President Trump will announce his pick to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. All of the potential nominees have anti-LGBT records and all are generally more conservative than Justice Kennedy was, especially on social issues.

This is an open thread.

UPDATE: A few minutes before the official announcement, MSNBC and others report that DC Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh will be nominated to the Supreme Court.

UPDATE 2: Kavanaugh has been officially nominated and Lambda Legal has some information about his record.


  • 1. josejoram  |  July 9, 2018 at 2:09 pm

    In any case we lose. But I hope a very tough oposition by Democrats in the Congress.

  • 2. Elihu_Bystander  |  July 9, 2018 at 2:48 pm

    Is anyone willing to risk indicating which of the conservative possible nominees would be the least worst?

    I'm going to go out on a limb and say my assessment after reading the above linked article would be Thomas Hardiman.

  • 3. scream4ever  |  July 9, 2018 at 3:41 pm

    Yah that's my thought too.

  • 4. VIRick  |  July 9, 2018 at 3:16 pm

    Perú: Minister of Culture in Favor of Same-Sex Marriage

    Per LGBT Marriage News:

    Perú: Ministra de Cultura a Favor del Matrimonio Homosexual

    Patricia Balbuena señaló estar de acuerdo con el matrimonio entre parejas del mismo sexo.

    Previamente, el presidente del Poder Judicial, Duberlí Rodríguez, sostuvo que "el Perú es parte del sistema interamericano, y el organismo que tutela y protege esos derechos se llama Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH), y si la corte ha tomado una decisión, yo creo que todas las partes están llamadas a respetarla."

    Patricia Balbuena said she agrees with marriage between same-sex couples.

    Previously, the president of the Judiciary, Duberlí Rodríguez (Chief Justice of the Supreme Court), maintained that "Perú is part of the Inter-American system, and the body that guards and protects those rights is called the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (CIDH), and if the court has made a decision, I think all parties are called upon to respect it."

  • 5. psicotraducciones  |  July 9, 2018 at 8:12 pm

    Do you know the possible implications marriage equality wise if Peru Constitutional Court rules in favour of the Ugarteche case?

  • 6. VIRick  |  July 9, 2018 at 8:32 pm

    Oscar Ugarteche, a Peruvian citizen, legally married his spouse, Fidel Aroche, a Mexican citizen, in Mexico City, in 2010, and then sought to have his marriage recognized in Perú. After RENIEC refused, he then sued them for recognition of said marriage.

    Technically, this is a recognition case to force recognition of a previously-existing legal marriage performed in another jurisdiction, identical to the first marriage case filed in Panamá and at least one of the pending cases in Costa Rica.

    However, given the sentiment already expressed by Duberlí Rodríguez regarding obligations of member states to rulings of the CIDH, one is hopeful for a broader ruling.

    You can read everything I have saved in my archives pertinent to Perú and marriage equality, all gathered together in one location. Especially of note is the discourse on why the appeals court blundered into a major procedural flaw when reversing the positive ruling of the lower court. That discourse, posted on 29 March 2018, is here:

  • 7. psicotraducciones  |  July 9, 2018 at 9:09 pm

    When the Constitutional Court rules in favour, this should also affect the recognition of other same sex marriages performed abroad, not just this one in particular, do you agree?

  • 8. VIRick  |  July 9, 2018 at 9:48 pm

    Yes, I agree. Plus, it should also positively affect the recognition of the same-sex civil unions already performed in Ecuador (soon to be up-graded to marriage), as well as the AUCs already performed in Chile. At least half of the AUCs recorded so far in Arica have been between Peruvians, not Chileans.

  • 9. allan120102  |  July 9, 2018 at 11:05 pm

    Yes it was mention in almost every article I read that a ruling in favor will cover every same sex couple that have already marry in getting there marriage recognize by the Peruvian government. hopefully once this issue is settle a same sex couple file a lawsuit to get marry in the country.

  • 10. psicotraducciones  |  July 10, 2018 at 1:16 am

    So the ruling would leave Peru in a situation similar to Israel, where same sex marriages performed abroad would be recognized but cant be performed on the jurisdiction. Hopefully the next step is nationwide marriage equality

  • 11. VIRick  |  July 10, 2018 at 1:28 pm

    Superficially, yes. However, rather than compare it to Israel (which adheres to religious law within Israel), the legal situation in Perú would be more akin to that of the 19 states in Mexico where same-sex marriages are not (yet) performed, but where they must be recognized for all purposes (whether performed abroad or within the 13 jurisdictions of Mexico where allowed).

    Plus, as soon as the current same-sex civil unions in Ecuador are "upgraded" to marriage, expect a new influx of Peruvian couples to cross the border to register their unions as marriages in Ecuador, marriages which Perú will then be required to recognize as legally-valid. Ecuador has no minimum residency requirement, nor any visa requirement for entry.

  • 12. psicotraducciones  |  July 10, 2018 at 2:10 pm

    Do you think that marriage equality will be legalised soon in Ecuador through the courts? What are the prospects of Chile parliament legalising it? If these two countries legalise it the pressure in Peru would be huge, as all of its neighbours except Bolivia would have same sex marriage.

  • 13. VIRick  |  July 10, 2018 at 3:33 pm

    Ever since the recent positive family court rulings in Cuenca, ordering the Cuenca Civil Registry to register two same-sex couples' marriages, LGBT advocates resident in Ecuador have been quite buoyed up about the prospects that same-sex civil unions will soon be "upgraded" to marriage.

    They have already pushed the limits on same-sex civil unions to the point where said unions presently carry the same rights and obligations as marriage, and thus, are marriage in all but name. In light of the recent CIDH ruling, the court in Ecuador has noted that this double-standard notion is discriminatory. It would be difficult to simultaneously argue against both the CIDH ruling and the instant judgments.

    As for Chile, I am past the point of being disappointed with their legislative inaction. A year ago, I (incorrectly) assumed that Chile would be next in legalizing same-sex marriage. Now, instead, the focus is on Ecuador (and Costa Rica, and Panama, and Perú, even Venezuela and /or Cuba).

    As for Bolivia, never under-estimate the intractable, Indigenous transgender women of Bolivia who are following an unbroken tradition dating directly back to the Incas, and who have already successfully pushed (by incessantly hounding and disrupting their president) to obtain some of the most advanced, comprehensive transgender rights anywhere in the world, all guaranteed by law. This same element continues to push, this time for marriage.

  • 14. scream4ever  |  July 10, 2018 at 3:44 pm

    I don't expect Chile will be much longer, given the rulings now occuring. I'm more disappointed in Northern Ireland, and hope that either Thereasa May will force the issue to the floor of Parliament ASAP or it passes the (delayed) second reading scheduled for October.

  • 15. psicotraducciones  |  July 13, 2018 at 12:08 am

    I cant wait anymore to hear about how Peru Constitutional Court will rule here, today a bunch of homophobes protested in front of its building

  • 16. VIRick  |  July 9, 2018 at 3:22 pm

    Jersey: First Same-Sex Marriage Has Occurred

    Per LGBT Marriage News:

    The first same-sex marriage on Jersey took place at midday today, 9 July 2018:

    “We are delighted that this important piece of new legislation is now in place, and that same-sex couples can celebrate their commitment to each other, and enjoy the ceremony of marriage in Jersey. I had the pleasure of officiating at the first ceremony and it was very special. We look forward to welcoming other same-sex couples to be married in Jersey as the year goes on, and offer our warm congratulations to our first couple who have made history in Jersey today.” – Jersey’s Superintendent Registrar, Claire Follain

  • 17. VIRick  |  July 9, 2018 at 3:44 pm

    Jimmy Carter: "Jesus Would Approve of Gay Marriage"

    “In all of [Jesus’] teachings about multiple things -– he never said that gay people should be condemned. I personally think it is very fine for gay people to be married in civil ceremonies,” Carter told the Huffington Post, in an interview.

    “I think Jesus would encourage any love affair if it was honest and sincere and was not damaging to anyone else and I don’t see that gay marriage damages anyone else,” Carter, a born-again Christian, told HuffPost Live.

  • 18. VIRick  |  July 9, 2018 at 5:08 pm

    France: Conseil D'Etat Rules that Lesbian Couples Have Right to IVF

    In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) has been available in France since the 1980s, as part of the standard (free) healthcare provision. However, at present, it is exclusively available to hetero couples who can prove they are married, or have cohabited with joint finances, for two or more years.

    Single women, women who do not share finances with their partner, and same-sex couples are presently unable to qualify for IVF, an issue that has grown extremely contentious during the debate to reform it. Almost exactly a year ago, an ethics committee ruled that female same-sex couples and single women should be able to access IVF, which led to LGBT+ supportive President Emmanuel Macron backing legislative change.

    Today’s decision of 9 July 2018 represents the removal of the last barrier to the pending legislation, as France’s highest court, the Conseil d’Etat, has ruled that there is no constitutional or legal reason for single women or women in same-sex partnerships to be denied the IVF assistance needed to conceive.

  • 19. ianbirmingham  |  July 9, 2018 at 6:24 pm

    Kavanaugh, age 53, gets the SCOTUS nomination…

    FiveThirtyEight used Judicial Common Space scores, which are based not off of a judge's behavior, but rather the ideology scores of either home state senators or the appointing president, to find that Kavanaugh would likely be more conservative than Justices Alito and Gorsuch, but less conservative than Justice Thomas, if placed on the Supreme Court. The Washington Post's statistical projections predicted that all of Trump's announced candidates were "largely statistically indistinguishable" and estimating that Kavanaugh would place ideologically between Justices Gorsuch and Alito.

  • 20. guitaristbl  |  July 9, 2018 at 11:39 pm

    This is scarier than I thought.

  • 21. VIRick  |  July 9, 2018 at 11:48 pm

    Brett Kavanaugh to Be Nominated to Supreme Court

    Kavanaugh sits on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit with Chief Judge Merrick Garland, who Republicans blocked from having a hearing when former president Barack Obama nominated him for the late justice Antonin Scalia’s seat in early 2016.

    If confirmed, Kavanaugh would replace his former boss, Kennedy, on the court; he served as a law clerk for Kennedy from 1993 to 1994. A native Washingtonian, the 53-year-old has spent most of his career inside the beltway. He doesn’t have a reputation as a right-wing ideologue, but he is conservative, and has emerged as the leading conservative voice on a court where he routinely finds himself in the minority on big cases about the power of federal agencies, a subject that dominates the DC Circuit’s docket.

  • 22. JayJonson  |  July 10, 2018 at 5:45 am

    There are reports today that Kavanaugh has been the choice all along, that the "bachelor-like" reality show about finalists and the suspense that that has engendered was all fake theatrics. Allegedly, Kennedy reached a deal with Trump that he would resign only if Kavanaugh was chosen to succeed him. If this is so, then Kennedy at least thinks that Kavanaugh will preserve his legacy. I hope that that includes his pro-gay rights legacy rather than just his more dubious decisions such as Citizens United.

    A more disturbing reason that Trump may have chosen Kavanaugh is that he wrote a 2009, IIRC, law review article arguing that presidents should not be subject to criminal investigations and indictments or even civil suits while in office. Although Kavanaugh was a member of Ken Starr's team that investigated Clinton and called for his impeachment, he apparently wrote the law review article to distance himself from Starr and the impeachment of a president (perhaps figuring that that might cause even a Republican president to fear appointing him to SCOTUS).

  • 23. ianbirmingham  |  July 10, 2018 at 11:07 pm

    Trump, according to confidants and aides close to the White House, has become increasingly convinced that “the judges,” as he puts it, or his administration’s remaking of the federal judiciary in its conservative image, is central to his legacy as president.

    Can we tar & feather all the "LGBTs For Trump" now???

  • 24. VIRick  |  July 9, 2018 at 9:18 pm

    Mexico: Morena's Win and Marriage Equality

    Per Daniel Berezovsky:

    Estos son los 12 estados donde Morena tendrá mayoría y podría aprobar el matrimonio igualitario:

    These are the 12 states where Morena will have a majority and could approve marriage equality:

    ?? Durango
    ?? Edomex
    ?? Guerrero
    ?? Hidalgo
    ?? Oaxaca
    ?? San Luis Potosí
    ?? Sinaloa (plus in last stages of "5 Resolutions")
    ?? Sonora
    ?? Tabasco
    ?? Tlaxcala
    ?? Veracruz
    ?? Zacatecas

    Assuming Morena acts positively in all or most of the states listed above, after that, only 7 additional states remain, 3 of which are doomed to eventually adhere regardless of legislative inaction, while a fourth has partially legalized it:

    Tamaulipas (in last stages of "5 Resolutions")
    Nuevo León (pending "Action of Unconstitutionality" already filed)
    Aguascalientes (pending "Action of Unconstitutionality" already filed)
    Baja California Sur
    Querétaro (legalized at municipal level in majority of state)

  • 25. VIRick  |  July 9, 2018 at 10:16 pm

    Colombia: Issuance of Decree Establishing National LGBT Public Policy

    Per Alejandro Michells:

    Gracias Presidente Juan Manuel Santos y Ministro Guillermo Rivera por la expedición, el 9 de julio 2018, del Decreto 762 de 2018 que crea la Política Pública LGBT Nacional. Con liderazgo y determinación trabajaremos por su implementación.

    Thank you, President Juan Manuel Santos and Minister Guillermo Rivera for the issuance, on 9 July 2018, of Decree 762 of 2018, creating the National LGBT Public Policy. With leadership and determination we will work for its implementation.

    Only last week, on 30 June 2018, Ecuador also issued its own National LGBT Public Policy.

  • 26. guitaristbl  |  July 9, 2018 at 11:45 pm

    Given what Lambda Legal writes this is one of the worst case scenario. A FRC promoted candidate with whatever that implies for LGBT people and it does not stop there – with views on presidential power very convenient for a president under investigation. That may be the saving point here if there is one..

  • 27. josejoram  |  July 10, 2018 at 12:09 am

    Do you agree with the opinion shawn in this article?

  • 28. guitaristbl  |  July 10, 2018 at 12:21 am

    "Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, told President Trump this past week that Judges Raymond M. Kethledge and Thomas M. Hardiman presented the fewest obvious obstacles to being confirmed to replace Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on the Supreme Court, according to Republican officials briefed on the conversation.

    While careful not to directly make the case for any would-be justice, Mr. McConnell made clear in multiple phone calls with Mr. Trump and the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, that the lengthy paper trail of another top contender, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, would pose difficulties for his confirmation.

    Mr. McConnell is concerned about the volume of the documents that Judge Kavanaugh has created in his 12 years on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, as well as in his roles as White House staff secretary under President George W. Bush and assistant to Kenneth W. Starr, the independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton."

    I guess guy most likely to shield me from results of federal investigation against me wins despite what McConnell said. I hope for this one time he is right.

  • 29. JayJonson  |  July 10, 2018 at 6:03 am

    See my comment above and this Politico article about Kennedy wanted Kavanuagh so as to preserve his legacy.

  • 30. VIRick  |  July 10, 2018 at 8:13 pm

    Stormy Daniels Live at the Cloakroom!

    This is not exactly the congressional cloakroom (although both venues, with one being named after the other, are within easy walking distance, in opposite directions, from the condo where I stay whenever visiting DC). Instead, she's now the featured performer at the newly-reopened strip joint of the same name located at 5th and K, NW, in downtown DC (across the street from the sidewalk café, Poets and Busboys). That conveniently places her north of Capitol Hill and east of the White House, about equidistant from both.

    I still feel that she and her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, are going to bring down the scourge that is presently defiling the White House. Here's a current headline which captures some of that same sentiment:

    "Stormy Daniels Strips Near the White House as Trump Reveals Brett Kavanaugh as Pick for Supreme Court"

    WASHINGTON — As Trump exercised his power by nominating Brett Kavanaugh Monday night, 9 July 2018, at the White House, adult film star Stormy Daniels exercised hers about a mile away, wearing nothing but black heels.

    “She is the one person who could take down Donald Trump,” said Diana Lautenberger, 34, who said she works for a non-profit group.

    “We’re here to support her,” said Jim Simpson, 66, chuckling. “She needs money.”

    Dollar bills, some real and some fake, rained down on Daniels as she danced around the stage of the Cloakroom, a strip club whose grand (re)-opening she headlined Monday night. And yes, at roughly the same time Trump was doing his reveal, Daniels was taking it all off — the pink dress, the gloves, the bracelets and the feathered boa — to songs like “Big Spender” and “Material Girl.”

  • 31. ianbirmingham  |  July 10, 2018 at 10:53 pm

    India: Constitutional Court skeptical of "unnatural sex" law's validity

    A person’s choice of a partner is a fundamental right, and it can include same-sex partner, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said on Tuesday.

    The observation came on the first day of hearing by a Constitution Bench of petitions challenging the constitutionality of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, a colonial era provision that criminalises private consensual sex between adults.

  • 32. SethInMaryland  |  July 10, 2018 at 11:59 pm

    Wow , that language D.Y. Chandrachud … marriage rights for shadowing

  • 33. ianbirmingham  |  July 10, 2018 at 11:10 pm

    Trump SCOTUS Finalist Wanted to Ask Bill Clinton Specific Questions About Things He Ejaculated On

    Kavanaugh urged Starr to confront Clinton on the dirtiest details of the affair, even drafting a list of sample questions, which would have forced Clinton to answer specifics about when and where he had ejaculated.

    Among the questions the book says Kavanaugh had prepared were:

    “If Monica Lewinsky says that you ejaculated into her mouth on two occasions in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?”

    “If Monica Lewinsky says that on several occasions you had her give [you] oral sex, made her stop, and then ejaculated into the sink in the bathroom of the Oval Office, would she be lying?”

    “If Monica Lewinsky says that you masturbated into a trashcan in your secretary’s office would she [be] lying?”

  • 34. Fortguy  |  July 11, 2018 at 1:24 am

    The hypocrisy demonstrated here, sadly, is indistinguishable from that shown any other day of the week during this administration. Ken Starr's dragging Lewinsky's name through the mud on a worldwide scale was only a precursor to his presidency at Baylor University during the horrific culture of sexual assault that governed the Baptist school's athletic department. When numerous women reported being raped by football or basketball players, Baylor's patent response was, "Yeah, but were you drinking at the party in violation of the university honor code?" Thankfully, Starr and his minions in the athletic department have all been fired in disgrace while Baylor football and men's basketball have been restored to their historic status as the athletic doormats of the Big 12. It's no surprise Kavanaugh was only egging Starr to go even further in the Clinton case than Starr was already more than willing to go.

    Meanwhile, the Orange Sphincter who appointed Kavanaugh in the first place, has been criticizing #MeToo at his rallies with the Deplorables. Considering Harvey Weinstein has become the poster-child of the movement, it's no surprise that Trump doesn't think there's anything wrong with a man making women watch him inseminate potted plants.

    Nope, nothing weird about that at all. No siree.

  • 35. Fortguy  |  July 11, 2018 at 1:46 am

    A statement I made in my previous post requires some clarity. Not everyone in the Baylor scandal has been disgraced. While Starr has done nothing meaningful since leaving Baylor, and former football coach Art Briles is so radioactive that he can't even find a neighborhood bowling team to coach, former AD Ian McCaw has landed on his feet. He's now the AD at Liberty University, the Lynchburg, VA school founded by Jerry Falwell. Liberty is a Baptist school much more conservative than Baylor with a much less understanding of the term "irony".

  • 36. guitaristbl  |  July 11, 2018 at 12:28 am

    Collins spoke in favour of Kavanaugh. The issue has ended, he is confirmed. Its the last year of anti-discrimination laws in the US unfortunately..Good while it lasted I guess.

  • 37. JayJonson  |  July 11, 2018 at 6:51 am

    Interesting article by Ari Ezra Waldman on how SCOTUS, with a fifth conservative vote, will proceed to undermine rights. They will not overturn Roe or Obergefell directly, he says, but will chip away at them to such an extent that they will be severely compromised by onerous regulations (in the case of Roe) and religious liberty exceptions (in the case of Obergefell).

  • 38. guitaristbl  |  July 11, 2018 at 8:39 am

    This will be probably the best strategy for the right in order not to outright enrage people. Rendering laws dead corpses that barely stand but cannot be applied on any occasion. It can as well extend to chipping away on marriage rights themselves (making it harder for example to have a ceremony or someone to provide the license in a Kim Davis-inspired way).

    It will be a process that will take some years but once finished it will have embedded effective theocracy in american jurisprudence in a tangled labyrinth of subtle rulings that will be very difficult to be undone.

    Millenials will live in a US they will not recognize compared to the freedom they enjoy today. I dont even know when regression will be reversed. It could be well over 50 years. I doubt I will be alive when things change. What a sad turn of events for US amongst so much progress on a global scale…As I said before the only way out is expansion of the bench. There is literally NO other way out of this decade long nightmare.

  • 39. JayJonson  |  July 11, 2018 at 9:33 am

    I don't share your doom and gloom. We are facing great challenges, especially considering the number of judges appointed by Trump. But it is ridiculous to say that the only way out of this decade-long nightmare is to pack the bench. The way out is to elect Democrats, not only to Congress and the presidency, but also at the state level.

  • 40. allan120102  |  July 11, 2018 at 12:59 pm

    I do agree that courts will be more hostile to lgbt causes but nothing compare to the ones of abortion and affrimative action. Remember that public opinion is very important. If Obergefell is overturn which I really doubt many states will legalize ssm. Still I do agree that many states will continue to ban ssm for a long time Like Alabama, Mississippi and others. Republican states like Wyoming and Texas would continue to ban it because the legislatures are solid republicans and would not legalize it. the only other options would be by ballot measures.

  • 41. JayJonson  |  July 11, 2018 at 7:05 am

    In some more post-Masterpiece good news, the Hawaii Supreme Court denied review of the Hawaii Appeals Court ruling that rejected Aloha Bed & Breakfast's appeal of a district court ruling that they had violated the state's anti-discrimination law when they refused to rent a room to a lesbian couple.

    "A Long Beach lesbian couple won another legal victory Monday when the Hawai`i Supreme Court refused to review an appeals court ruling against a bed and breakfast owner who violated the state’s anti-discrimination law.

    Phyllis Young, proprietor of The Aloha Bed & Breakfast in Honolulu’s Hawaii Kai area, refused to let the couple have a room on the basis of their sexual orientation. Young had said same-sex relationships “defile our land” and claimed a religious justification for discriminating against the lesbian couple.

    In February, the Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court ruling.

    “In letting the existing decision stand, Hawai‘i today joined a long line of states across the country that understand how pernicious and damaging a religious license to discriminate would be,” Lambda Legal Senior Attorney Peter Renn said in a statement.

    “That is the just and proper understanding of the U.S. Constitution,” Renn said. “Religious freedom is protected, but it cannot to be used as a justification for discrimination. If you operate a business, you are open to all.”

  • 42. VIRick  |  July 11, 2018 at 3:06 pm

    Hawai'i Supreme Court Upholds State's Anti-Discrimination Law

    Per Equality Case Files and Lambda Legal:

    On 10 July 2018, in "Cervelli v. Aloha Bed and Breakfast," the Hawai'i Supreme Court rejected the request for a writ of certiorari from the Bed and Breakfast.

    Order Rejecting Application for Writ of Certiorari is here:

  • 43. VIRick  |  July 11, 2018 at 2:44 pm

    Ohio Transgender Name-Change Case Has Been Appealed

    A judge in Ohio refused to approve a transgender teen’s name change, and now the parents are appealing, saying that the judge overstepped his authority. Leigh and Kylen Whitaker took their son Elliott to court last month to make his name change official. “We thought it was just a formality, basically,” Elliott’s mother Leigh said.

    Judge Joseph Kirby of Warren County ultimately denied the name change, writing, “Children change significantly and rapidly.” He attributed Elliott’s gender identity to the “fevered identity exploration” of adolescence. Kirby told Elliott to “Age. Develop. Mature.” and that he should ask again to change his name when he turns 18. Kirby’s ruling used Elliott’s deadname and repeatedly misgendered him.

    “I’m also upset that a judge who spent less than 20 minutes with our child in an intimidating setting knows better than both parents, the child, a licensed therapist, and a doctor specializing in transgender issues,” Elliott’s father Kylen said. His parents said that the name change is needed now so that Elliott can get a driver’s license and apply for colleges as “Elliott.”

    The parents filed an appeal on 9 July 2018. “There are federal constitutional issues here,” their attorney Josh Langdon said. “Importantly, the parents right to decide the upbringing of their child, there’s also the child’s right to express himself. There are First Amendment issues.”

    Hopefully, once this case has been resolved at the appeals level, Ohio will finally have caught up with 47 other states, plus Puerto Rico, Argentina, Uruguay, Brasil, Bolivia, Perú, Ecuador, Colombia, Panamá, Costa Rica, and 3 jurisdictions in Mexico.

  • 44. FredDorner  |  July 11, 2018 at 7:58 pm

    I hope the judge gets reprimanded.

  • 45. allan120102  |  July 11, 2018 at 11:08 pm

    This is the type of republican governor I wouldn't mind having . He is not a crazy hard right republican.

  • 46. VIRick  |  July 11, 2018 at 11:28 pm

    Honduras: Challenge of Unconstitutionality Against Article 112 Before Supreme Court

    Allan, I have a question for you. I have encountered an article (in Spanish) in El, dated 9 July 2018, that will not let me do my usual copy-and-paste because of protected content (contenido protegido). I am frustrated with it because I do not want to engage in the tiring task of hand-copying it word-for-word.

    This is the first article I have found pertaining directly to the challenge of unconstitutionality filed by the lesbian group, Cattrachas, against Article 112 of the Honduras Constitution, the article banning marriage equality. They have based much of their argument, in direct contradiction to said Article 112, on the recent CIDH ruling favorable to marriage equality. The Justices of Honduras' Supreme Court have now accepted the case.

    Because some of the dates are not well-expressed, where are we with this matter?

    For those who can read Spanish, the article is here:

  • 47. allan120102  |  July 12, 2018 at 12:24 am

    Hello Rick, I have spoken with some members of the lgbt organizations of Artemisa, Cattrachas and Kukulcan and we have all expect like the article you found a negative from our constitutional court. Honduras court was made really conservative with 8 members from the conservative party and 7 from the liberal party but 4 of those are liberal in name but still more liberal than the Guatemalan court. As we are expecting a negativity from our court(We are all going to be surprise if they strike the ban) as this is a constitutional ban) .

    But as the article you found if the leaders of Honduras and if the court reach a negative veredict this will give us the glorious opportunity of taking Honduras to the international court were we are pretty sure they are going to strike our ban. This time it will not be an advisory opinion but a full fledge ruling making it impossible to Honduras to not abide, What we are not sure is if the ruling will start immediately or if the court would give Honduras time to implement it.

    The article also mention that the evangelicals have find the actions to control Honduras politics, making it almost impossible to find the after pill after it was made illegal a year or two ago, abortion is now completely ban and the church is trying to make the government make bible study legal in every school in Honduras private as public.

    But continuing with your question I really dont expect a favorable ruling from Guatemala, Honduras, or Paraguay but that negative rulings would provide a vital ruling from the court and not just an advisory like almost every politician in Honduras is saying as they said that they are not force to change it as it was not against our ban they said that it only affects CR etc. The leader of the evangelical church is also trying to influence politicians and the people that we should leave the court as is trying to implement gender ideology and confusion etc.

    I actually participate in an activity that red Cattrachas organize in the National University of Honduras. They gave information and books pertaining lgbt stuff and sexuality as well they were given which articles we can use if we are attack so we can protect ourselves in court .I will change my pro pic in showing the beautiful rainbow wings that they drew so people could take pics on it.

  • 48. arturo547  |  July 12, 2018 at 12:02 pm

    Hello, Rick. I'd like to say something extremely important. Honduras' situation is particularly worrying because it is the only country (as far as I am concerced) in the Americas where same sex marriage and adoption are expressly prohibited by the constitution. That's kind of heartbreaking. However, this doesn't mean that legal challenges can't be filed in order to obtain the right to marriage.

    Let me explain this to you. In 2015 the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Honduras did something that no other court has done so far: it issued an unanimous ruling stating the "inapplicability" of an article of the constitution! (You can read the ruling here:

    This ruling may seem crazy because constitutional courts are only expected to strike down civil laws, but not portions of their own constitutions. However, in the ruling, the Honduras court said that the specific constitutional articles contradicted the constitution itself and INTERNATIONAL TREATIES. Do you see what I'm getting at?

    The Honduras LGBT community can cite this case as a precedent in order to obtain the right to marriage equality. If a previous ruling "unapplied" a constitutional article for violating the constitution itself and international treaties, that means that the court can do the same this time.

    What do you think?

  • 49. VIRick  |  July 12, 2018 at 3:09 pm

    I see exactly where you are going, and I completely agree with you. Honduras' Constitution contains at least one article (Article 112) (and likely Article 116, as well)which in and of itself, is unconstitutional, as it contradicts and violates other provisions within the same constitution, let alone also violates international treaties to which Honduras is a signatory. Plus, as you mentioned, in 2015, the same court issued a unanimous ruling stating the "inapplicability" of a (different) article of the constitution, a point which can definitely be used as precedent, and a point not cited in the El Pulso article. I certainly hope the plaintiffs use that angle in their argument.

    For the matter at hand, the most pertinent treaty is that of the CIDH, the Inter-American Court. When requested by member states, the CIDH will issue advisory opinions (Opiniones Consultivas), and OC-24 issued per Costa Rica's request, which concerns both marriage equality and gender identity, is one such.

    However, these "advisory opinions" are more than merely advisory, despite the terminology, as each member state has freely signed the treaty binding their nation to adhere to said rulings. In this instance, OC-24 is instantly binding on the nation requesting it, and on all others, "in due course." Still, both the Vice-President of Panamá and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Perú have publicly stated that OC-24 is binding (vinculante) upon their nations, as well. Actually, it is binding on 20 nations in all, including Honduras (21 if we dismiss Venezuela's inappropriate, one-sided presidential proclamation of withdrawal).

    So, from what I understand, Cattrachas appears to be saying that if they receive a favorable ruling from Constitutional Chamber on the matter of their declaring Article 112 unconstitutional, then fine and wonderful. And if they do not, then they will file a specific suit with the CIDH, just like the transgender women of Bolivia are doing, and just like Karen Atala Riffo of Chile did some years ago. In all instances, a specific ruling from a specific lawsuit, once issued, is then instantly binding on both parties to the suit.

    Also, I found this note in my archives, dated 16 May 2018:

    Honduras: LGBT activists are filing suit at the Supreme Court to have the IACHR (CIDH) marriage equality ruling applied in the county. The activists are seeking amicus curiae briefs by 16 June from international organizations, academic institutions, etc.

    Contact [email protected]

  • 50. allan120102  |  July 12, 2018 at 6:36 pm

    From what I Know all articles in our constitution can be declare unconstitutional or change or modify by the legislative power and judicial power, being the only exceptions the ones we call articulos petreos. I will put a link so you can see which are the ones that cant be change neither by the judicial power nor congress.
    So Article 112 refer to marriage and 116 to same sex adoption can be declare unconstitutional by our court without further ado. Because they are not petreos articles. The Article that Arthur mention was a petreo Article about reelection which was illegal in Honduras until that decision, so if Articles petreos can be change that means that any article in our constitution can be change, So that is why many people were fighting reelection because they said that it was illegal which of course it was but no the point in here.

    The only other way to modify an article in The constitution is by getting a super majority of deputies being that number 86 and I am pretty sure we don't have that number of legislators in our favor being the majority hostile to our causes so the only way to get marriage equality in Honduras for at least now is by courts and there are no excuses that the court can't do it because if they did it with a petreo article they can do it with the one banning ssm that is not a petreo.

  • 51. VIRick  |  July 12, 2018 at 8:26 pm

    Thank you, Allan. I just learned a new phrase in constitutional law, "Artículos Petreos," foundation articles which (in theory) can not be changed, and upon which everything else is based.

    The "unheard of" part in Arturo's explanation is that the Honduras court actually went there, passing beyond these bounds and unanimously declaring an "artículo petreo" as being "inapplicable." Still, as you explain, both Article 112, the ban on same-sex marriage, and Article 116, the ban on same-sex adoption, can and should be declared unconstitutional with no further ado, as neither qualifies as an "artículo petreo."

  • 52. Elihu_Bystander  |  July 12, 2018 at 6:18 am

    Hi Rick, I have a work around about your inability to copy and past some HTML pages. You must have Adobe Acrobat Pro [XII is the current version]. (Adobe Reader will not work.) Open the document that you want to copy in Google Chrome, MS Edge, or IE. Create a PDF document of the file of interest. Now you have a PDF without the copy and paste restriction. From there one can copy and paste into any program that you desire.

    I used the link you provided to open the page, converted the page to PDF, and I was now able copy from the PDF format and paste into MS Word.

    I hope this has been helpful to you, Elihu

  • 53. guitaristbl  |  July 12, 2018 at 10:32 am

    I just felt the need today to go back and read comments in the june 2015 thread when Obergefell was issued. Needed to be reminded of some of those happy times really.

  • 54. scream4ever  |  July 12, 2018 at 12:36 pm

    There will be many more in the coming years 🙂

  • 55. allan120102  |  July 12, 2018 at 11:58 am

    Pan to ban same sex marriage in Veracruz. It will be one there last actions before the legislative power is change after the new elections.

  • 56. Fortguy  |  July 12, 2018 at 1:49 pm

    Morena's coalition will outnumber PAN's 21-9 in the new state legislature, so that won't last.

  • 57. arturo547  |  July 12, 2018 at 2:32 pm

    Great news for Mexico. The proposed ban failed!


  • 58. VIRick  |  July 12, 2018 at 7:08 pm

    Failure: Homophobic Initiative in Veracruz against Marriage Equality Defeated

    Fracasa Iniciativa de Homófobos en Veracruz contra Matrimonio Igualitario

    El proyecto terminó siendo desechado con 32 votos a favor, 10 en contra, y 2 abstenciones, durante la sesión ordinaria de la Legislatura, toda vez que la coalición homofóbica requería 33 votos, o sea dos terceras partes de los integrantes del Congreso veracruzano, compuesto por 50 curules.

    Se trataba de la aprobación en segunda vuelta de una iniciativa por parte del PAN a la que el diputado, José Luis Enríquez Ambell propuso modificaciones al dictamen para adicionar diversas disposiciones de la Constitución del Estado en materia de participación ciudadana, fortalecimiento de la división de poderes, familia, matrimonio y educación.

    The bill ended up being rejected with 32 votes in favor, 10 against, and 2 abstentions, during the ordinary session of the Legislature, since the homophobic coalition required 33 votes, that is, it needed approval from two-thirds of the members of the 50-seat Veracruz Congress.

    It occurred during the approval in the second round of an initiative by PAN to which the deputy, José Luis Enríquez Ambell, had proposed amendments to the draft so as to add various provisions to the State Constitution on citizen participation, strengthening the division of powers , family, marriage, and education.

  • 59. davepCA  |  July 13, 2018 at 9:57 am

    Yikes, that was close. But a win is a win!

  • 60. VIRick  |  July 12, 2018 at 4:49 pm

    Mexico: Anti-LGBT Political Party, PES, to Lose Official Status

    Per LGBT Marriage News:

    The Partido Encuentro Social (PES), the fundamentalist, christianist, hyper-conservative, anti-LGBT, anti-abortion junior partner in Morena's coalition (an insanely unnecessary maneuver on AMLO's part), will be losing its official status after failing to obtain 3% of the national vote in the recent elections. So will Nueva Alianza (PANAL), which did even more poorly.

    The Mexican electoral authorities are preparing a team to manage and eventually liquidate the assets of the Social Encounter Party (PES) and the New Alliance Party (PANAL), which ran in coalition with President-elect López Obrador's National Renewal Movement (Morena), as they did not pass the three percent threshold (in any category, presidential, federal Senate, or federal House) in the recent 1 July general elections.

  • 61. VIRick  |  July 12, 2018 at 5:01 pm

    India: Government Will Defer to Supreme Court on Legalizing Gay Sex

    Per LGBT Marriage News:

    India’s government has declined to take a position on the decriminalization of gay sex, leaving a decision about whether to strike down a colonial-era law entirely up to the country’s top court. Additional Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, acting on behalf of India’s national government, said the issue of legalizing gay sex rests with the "wisdom of the court."

    The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday, 10 July 2018, began hearing a case that could strike down a 158-year-old law that criminalizes gay sex in the world’s second-most populous country. Mehta, however, urged the court not to expand the scope of the case. He said the government will take a stand if the top court decides to give a ruling on issues such as same-sex marriage, adoption, or inheritance rights.

  • 62. VIRick  |  July 12, 2018 at 5:11 pm

    Portugal: Law on Self-Determination of Gender Identity for Trans Persons Passes

    Per LGBT Marriage News, the Perchy Bird, and ILGA:

    This afternoon, 12 July 2018, the Portuguese Parliament has adopted a law establishing the right to self-determination of transgender persons, aged 18 and older, in the legal recognition of their gender identity.

    Unlike the original law voted in Parliament in April this year, and subsequently vetoed by the Portuguese president, self-determination is no longer the guiding principle for trans people between the ages of 16-18. The law now foresees a similar system as in Belgium, namely that this age group needs to obtain a document certifying that they are able to provide consent from a doctor or a psychologist (of their choice).

    Still, in addition, with the law just passed, Portugal is also only the second country worldwide to take an important step towards outlawing medically unnecessary treatments on intersex kids.

    I hope Ohio takes note, as should Kansas and Tennessee.

  • 63. VIRick  |  July 12, 2018 at 5:30 pm

    Michigan: Federal Challenge to State-Funded Agencies Using Religion in Adoption/Foster Placement

    Per Equality Case Files:

    Today, 12 July 2018, oral arguments were presented in "Dumont v. Lyon," a federal case in the Eastern District of Michigan challenging Michigan's practice of allowing state-funded agencies to use religion to turn away foster/adoptive parents based on their sexual orientation.

    Judge Borman set time limits on arguments on both the Defendants' and Intervenor's Motions to Dismiss: 30 minutes per side for each of the two motions (two hours total).

    Note: "Lyon" represents the state, while the Intervenor in this case is St. Vincent Catholic Charities, the party using state funding while exercising its "religion" to turn away same-sex couples as prospective foster/adoptive parents. In this case, the state of Michigan was directly sued for acquiescing to the discriminatory practice of the state-funded agency, St. Vincent Catholic Charities.

    The case history is here:

  • 64. ianbirmingham  |  July 12, 2018 at 9:42 pm

    ‘I’m going to do my own thing’: Dems split on message in SCOTUS fightSenate Democrats are offering a multitude of arguments against Kavanaugh — and some fear they will fail to break through to voters.

  • 65. VIRick  |  July 12, 2018 at 11:17 pm

    Chihuahua: Lesbian Couple Register Daughter's Birth in Coahuila

    Per Lol Kin Castañeda Ba‏:

    Chihuahua: Pareja de Mujeres Registra Nacimiento de Hija en Coahuila

    La sonrisa de Niraly Nataly Valdez Hernández refleja su felicidad mientras es sostenida en brazos por su madre Jaquelín Hernández Cruz; al otro lado, su madre Reyes Valdez Mares muestra orgullosa el acta de nacimiento de su primogénita. Ambas mujeres se han comprometido a luchar por los derechos y el primero de ellos es el darle una identidad, narraron.

    La pareja, que en febrero contrajo matrimonio igualitario en esta ciudad (Ciudad Juárez), ayer se vio obligada a viajar a Torreón, Coahuila, para registrar a la niña, ya que funcionarios del Registro Civil en Chihuahua le negaron a la menor el derecho a la identidad (en la forma de una acta de nacimiento), denunciaron.

    Aunque buscaron asesoría legal y trataron por diversos medios de obtener el registro de la niña en Juárez, cansadas de tanto trámite, optaron por realizarlo en otro lugar para no pasar un día más sin que su hija fuera reconocida legalmente (con ambas mujeres como padres).

    The smile of Niraly Nataly Valdez Hernández reflects her happiness while she is held in her arms by her mother, Jaquelín Hernández Cruz; On the other side, her mother, Reyes Valdez Mares, proudly shows the birth certificate of her first-born. Both women have committed themselves to fight for their rights and the first of those was to give their daughter an identity, they narrated.

    The couple, who married in February in an equal marriage in this city (Ciudad Juárez), yesterday were forced to travel to Torreón, Coahuila, to register the girl, since officials of the Civil Registry in Chihuahua denied the minor the right to an identity (in the form of a birth certificate), they reported.

    Although they sought legal advice and tried by various means to obtain the registration of the girl in Juárez, tired of so much paperwork, they chose to do it in another state so as not to spend another day without their daughter being legally recognized (with both women as her parents).

    So, an "impossible" problem with "no solution" in Chihuahua, despite the fact that the parents are residents there, were married there, and the child was born there, proved to be no problem at all for officials in the neighboring state of Coahuila.

    As we used to say in Sonora as a universal curse: "Ay, Chihuahua!"

  • 66. VIRick  |  July 13, 2018 at 5:57 pm

    Scottish Leader to Preside at Pride Parade Rather than Meet Trump

    Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, the head of Scotland’s government, will not meet with Trump during his visit to the country. Instead, she’ll be marching in Glasgow’s Pride Parade as Grand Marshall. She will be the first serving prime minister or first minister in the UK to ever march in a pride parade (and scores many bonus points for doing so while officially snubbing Trump in the process).

    Trump, meanwhile, having already fled the gaggle of protesting drag queens and the giant "Baby Trump" blimp balloon in London, is expected to head straight to his golf club so he can play a few holes, and try to destroy the world one tweet at a time.

  • 67. ianbirmingham  |  July 14, 2018 at 11:36 am

    Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, gave a revealing speech last fall in which he lauded former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist for having dissented in Roe vs. Wade and for rejecting the notion of “a wall of separation between church and state.” He also praised the late chief justice’s unsuccessful effort to throw out the so-called “exclusionary rule,” which forbids police from using illegally obtained evidence. …

    In the speech, Kavanaugh said Rehnquist “was my first judicial hero,” noting that he started law school at Yale in 1987, a year after President Reagan had elevated Rehnquist to be chief justice. Rehnquist had been the court’s lone true conservative for many years, and Kavanaugh said he felt much the same at Yale. “His opinions made a lot of sense to me. In class after class, I stood with Rehnquist. That often meant in the Yale Law School environment of the time that I stood alone. Some things don’t change,” he said at a Constitution Day address delivered at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington in September 2017.

    He cited five areas—“criminal procedure, religion, federalism, unenumerated rights and administrative law” — where Rehnquist stood fast against the liberals and moved the law to the right. …

    The Bill of Rights did not include an explicit right to abortion, and Rehnquist believed a new, “unenumerated” right should gain constitutional status only if it was “rooted into the traditions and conscience of our people. Given the prevalence of abortion regulations both historically and at the time, Rehnquist said he could not reach such a conclusion about abortion,” he said.

  • 68. ianbirmingham  |  July 14, 2018 at 11:37 am

    (Continued from prior comment)

    Later, as chief justice, Rehnquist tried, but failed by one vote, to overrule the abortion decision in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. Kavanaugh did not mention it, but Justice Anthony M. Kennedy cast a decisive vote to preserve the right to abortion in that case.

    “It is fair to say that Justice Rehnquist was not successful in convincing a majority of justices in the context of abortion, either in Roe itself or in later cases such as Casey,” Kavanaugh said. “But he was successful in stemming the general tide of free-wheeling judicial creation of unenumerated rights that were not rooted in the nation’s history and tradition.” As an example, he cited the 1997 decision in Washington vs. Glucksberg, which rejected a right to assisted suicide for those who are terminally ill. …

    Turning to religion, Kavanaugh said Rehnquist had maintained that the “wall of separation between church and state” was a misleading metaphor “based on bad history.” Thomas Jefferson as president used this phrase in a letter in 1802 to describe the 1st Amendment’s twin clauses — one banning an “establishment of religion” and other protecting the “free exercise” of religion. The Supreme Court adopted the metaphor in a 1947 opinion. … “Rehnquist was central in changing the jurisprudence and convincing the court that the wall metaphor was wrong as a matter of law and history,” Kavanaugh said.

    …As Kavanaugh said, Rehnquist was most interested in criminal cases. He “fervently believed the Supreme Court had taken a wrong turn in the 1960s and 1970s… in a number of sweeping rulings of the Warren Court” that expanded rights for criminal defendants, Kavanaugh said. He cited as examples the 1961 decision in Mapp vs. Ohio, which called for excluding evidence that arose from an illegal search, and the 1966 decision in Miranda vs. Arizona, which said police must warn suspects of their right to remain silent and to consult with a lawyer. …

  • 69. ianbirmingham  |  July 14, 2018 at 12:12 pm

    By appointing Kavanaugh, Trump is trading Kennedy for Rehnquist:

    Rehnquist also voted consistently in support of the death penalty and in opposition to gay rights, rulings which surprised few. In fact, the New York Times reports that in 1976, the Harvard Law Review published a "preliminary" appraisal of Rehnquist which identified three themes: " … conflicts between the individual and the government should be resolved against the individual; conflicts between state and federal authority should be resolved in favor of the states; and questions of the exercise of federal jurisdiction should be resolved against such exercise. The 1976 article was often cited in later years because it proved to be such a reliable roadmap to the Rehnquist judicial philosophy."

    Chief Justice William Rehnquist … voted in the majority in [Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, the 1986 decision that rejected a constitutional privacy challenge to Georgia’s sodomy law] and has always voted against gay rights claims, most notably in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 120 S.Ct. 2446 (2000), where he wrote the Court’s opinion holding that the Boy Scouts have a constitutional right to exclude gay people from membership. Way back in 1977, in a case involving a claim for university recognition by a gay student group, Rehnquist, dissenting from the court’s refusal to review a pro-gay lower court decision, likened homosexuality to measles and said the state had a right to quarantine such contagious conduct by suppressing meetings of homosexuals on state college campuses. Ratchford v. Gay Lib, 434 U.S. 1080 (1977).

    <a href="” target=”_blank”>

  • 70. VIRick  |  July 14, 2018 at 4:49 pm

    Argentina: 8th Anniversary of Marriage Equality

    Per Diversidad Santa Fe:‏

    Desde la Subsecretaria de Políticas de Diversidad Sexual (de Santa Fe), celebramos los 8 años de matrimonio igualitario.

    From the (Santa Fe) Undersecretary of Sexual Diversity Policy, we celebrate 8 years of marriage equality.

    Per José María Costa:

    Mañana, el 15 de julio 2028, se cumple 8 años de la sanción de la ley de matrimonio igualitario en la Argentina. En este tiempo, fueron más de 18 mil las parejas del mismo sexo que accedieron a un derecho que tenían vedado (previamente).

    Tomorrow, 15 July 2018, marks the 8th anniversary of the enactment of the marriage equality law in Argentina. Up to this time, there have been more than 18,000 same-sex couples who have agreed to a right that was (previously) forbidden.

    Actually, these 18,000 plus couples are from all over Latin America, not just from Argentina, partly because Argentina was the first to enact such a nationwide law, but also because Argentine marriage law itself is not restrictive. There are no minimum residency nor any specific citizenship requirements to being married in Argentina. Thus, couples have come from as far north as Venezuela and Cuba in order to be married there, while hundreds of others have come across from Chile, Bolivia, Perú, and Paraguay.

  • 71. VIRick  |  July 15, 2018 at 12:17 pm

    Pennsylvania: Judge Rules Against Discriminatory Practice of Catholic Social Services

    Per Equality Case Files:

    On 13 July 2018, in "Fulton v. City of Philadelphia," the federal case in which Catholic Social Services and individuals are suing the city over its decision to suspend its contract with CSS because said agency refuses to place children with same-sex couples, Judge Tucker has denied the Plaintiffs' motion for both a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.

    • Order is here:
    • Opinion is here:

    ACLU's statement on the decision is here:

    The Plaintiffs have already given notice that they are appealing the decision. Their Notice of Appeal, dated on the same date as the decision, 13 July 2018, is here:
    At the same time, they are further asking for an injunction while they appeal. The Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal, dated 14 July 2018, is here:

  • 72. VIRick  |  July 15, 2018 at 12:35 pm

    Jersey: First Couple to Convert Civil Partnership to Marriage

    Per LGBT Marriage News:

    Gary and Alan Burgess held their wedding ceremony in March 2018, but they could not be officially "married," as the same-sex marriage law had not yet come into effect. However, as of 14 July 2018, it is now official, as they signed the papers converting their civil partnership to marriage.

  • 73. VIRick  |  July 15, 2018 at 12:50 pm

    Inter-American Court (CIDH) Reiterates that Member States Must Implement Marriage Equality, Trans Rights Advisory Opinions

    Per LGBT Marriage News:

    CIDH Reitera Deber de los Estados de Acatar lo que Diga en sus Opiniones Consultivas

    La Corte Interamericana de los Derechos Humanos (CIDH) reiteró que los Estados firmantes de la Convención Americana deben acatar lo que disponga, no solo en sus sentencias, sino también en las opiniones consultivas. El máximo tribunal de la región en materia de derechos humanos hizo ese señalamiento al promulgar, este jueves, 12 de juio 2018, una opinión consultiva solicitada por Ecuador respecto al asilo.

    “Es necesario que los diversos órganos del Estado realicen el correspondiente control de convencionalidad, también sobre la base de lo que señale en ejercicio de su competencia no contenciosa o consultiva, la que innegablemente comparte con su competencia contenciosa, el propósito del sistema interamericano de derechos humanos, cual es, la protección de los derechos fundamentales de los seres humanos,“ dice el texto.

    La Corte recordó que según el derecho internacional, un Estado que haya firmado la Convención Americana queda obligado a cumplir y respetar lo que allí se establece. Esa obligación incluye no solo al poder Ejecutivo, sino también al Legislativo y el Judicial. “La violación por parte de alguno de dichos órganos genera responsabilidad internacional para aquél (Estado).”

    IACHR Reiterates Duty of the States to Accept What They Say in their Advisory Opinions

    The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) reiterated that the signatory States of the American Convention must abide by its provisions, not only in their sentences, but also in their advisory opinions. The highest court in the region in the field of human rights made that signal by promulgating, this Thursday, 12 July 2018, an advisory opinion requested by Ecuador regarding asylum.

    "It is necessary that the various organs of the State carry out the corresponding control of conventionality, also on the basis of what it indicates in the exercise of its non-contentious or advisory jurisdiction, which it undeniably shares with its contentious jurisdiction, the purpose of the inter-American system of human rights, which is, the protection of the fundamental rights of human beings," the text says.

    The Court recalled that under international law, a State that has signed the American Convention is obliged to comply with and respect what is established therein. This obligation includes not only the Executive, but also the Legislative and the Judicial. "The violation by one of these bodies generates international responsibility for that (State)."

    Translation of translation:

    Non-contentious or advisory jurisdiction (resulting in advisory opinions) occurs whenever a member state requests an opinion from the CIDH (like what Costa Rica did regarding marriage equality/transgender rights, or what Ecuador just did regarding asylum rights).

    Contentious jurisdiction (resulting in sentences) occurs whenever an individual party sues a member state over a specific violation (like what Karen Atala Riffo did with Chile or what the transgender women of Bolivia are in the process of doing with Bolivia, both over marriage rights).

    In both instances, whether non-contentious or contentious, since all 20 nations have signed the CIDH accord agreeing to abide by its decisions, they must comply. Period. The CIDH is not backing down.

  • 74. psicotraducciones  |  July 16, 2018 at 1:43 am

    So the CIDH is reminding states they have to abide by its rulings? Will this translate into concrete actions which are long overdue such as Ecuador?

  • 75. VIRick  |  July 15, 2018 at 2:19 pm

    Cuba's New Draft Constitution

    Per LGBT Marriage News:

    As of 15 July 2018, Cuba's new constitution is expected to be approved by a vote of the national assembly next week, one which will officially recognise private property for the first time in decades, among many far-reaching changes, state media say. Property sales were banned after Fidel Castro came to power in 1959, but permitted after a law change in 2011. The communist-run state's new constitution will reaffirm that central planning and state enterprise are key to the economy.

    After being approved by a vote of the national assembly, the draft constitution would then be put to a popular referendum for final approval later this year. If passed, it will replace the existing constitution which was approved by the Communist Party in 1976.

    But under the proposed reforms, the party will remain as Cuba's dominant political force, the Granma newspaper reports. Presidents, however, will be limited to serving two consecutive five-year terms and political power will be divided between the president and a prime minister. It will ban discrimination based on gender, ethnic origin, or disability. LGBT groups are hopeful it will also legalize same-sex marriage. The national assembly proposed a number of constitutional reforms last month, including presidential term limits and the legalization of same-sex marriage.

  • 76. allan120102  |  July 15, 2018 at 2:50 pm

    Omg I hope the vote occurs next week as expected and the amendment of ssm is pass by national assembly. I am pretty sure if its put along the the rest of the amendments to a vote it will pass easily in the ballot box but if the amendments are put separately to get approve that would be much trickier as public opinion is slightly more in favor than against of ssm.

  • 77. allan120102  |  July 15, 2018 at 2:53 pm

    Activists to file a lawsuit aganst Yucatan for inaction to approve ssm. I am pretty sure a similar action was file a while ago and throw out by the supreme court in 2017 but we will see how it goes. They are also planning to talk with the new members of congress especially with the newly elect members of Morena to see how it goes.

  • 78. VIRick  |  July 15, 2018 at 5:55 pm

    Further Comment on CIDH Advisory Opinion to Ecuador Regarding Asylum Rights

    Although at first glance the CIDH's latest advisory opinion might appear to be somewhat off-topic, it definitely is not, as it contains an important universal "clarification" concerning all of its rulings, whether termed "advisory opinion" or "sentence," a clarification, however, which was written in such obscure Spanish that it required me to do a translation of the translation. However, that clarification is very much on-topic. Here's why:

    Even here in this thread, higher up, we see that advocates in Honduras, half-expecting a negative ruling from their highest court, are assuming that such a negative ruling would be required before they can file a case against Honduras under the "contentious jurisdiction" heading. And that part is true.

    However, in effect, the CIDH is pre-emptively over-riding any such eventuality by stating that the Honduras court (or any other court from any of the 20 nations which signed the accord) can no longer issue a negative ruling against marriage equality because the previously-issued CIDH advisory opinion is binding upon the Honduras court (and all courts in all the other 19 nations). "This obligation includes not only the Executive, but also the Legislative and the Judicial." The matter is settled.

    Now, as an aside. Ecuador already has a fairly liberal, progressive asylum law on the books, and over the last number of years, for instance, has accepted hundreds of Cuban asylum seekers. However, an assortment of other Latin nations do not have the same progressive legal viewpoint on asylum. Ecuador and the CIDH have now just caused those less progressive nations to be forced to re-examine, up-date, and up-grade their asylum laws, including making specific provision for LGBT asylum seekers.

    One can also read this "advisory opinion" ruling issued at Ecuador's request as a direct slap against the USA and its on-going immigration/asylum nightmare being perpetrated along the Mexico-USA border. That aspect was never mentioned in the ruling itself, but the timing is such that one can definitely read that message into it. I am relatively certain that that was also part of Ecuador's intent, and assume that it will be taken as such within the more progressive quarters of Latin America itself.

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