Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Brett Kavanaugh confirmed to Supreme Court


The U.S. Supreme Court. Attribution: Jeff Kubina
The U.S. Supreme Court. Attribution: Jeff Kubina
Minutes ago, Judge Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court by a 50-48 vote. Kavanaugh is replacing Justice Anthony Kennedy, who retired earlier this year. The confirmation was somewhat in doubt after several credible allegations of sexual assault surfaced, but a bare majority voted in his favor. Recent polls suggest he’s a historically unpopular nominee, and FiveThirtyEight suggests that hasn’t changed much in recent weeks.

Kavanaugh is expected to be a vote against LGBT rights, among other things. At his confirmation hearing, he suggested using a test for deciding fundamental rights that is very narrow: only those rights “deeply rooted” in the country’s history and tradition can be protected, and those rights that are sought should be defined narrowly. Justice Kennedy used a different test in his opinions in Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges.

The Court has already heard oral arguments in six cases this term, and it’s back in session on Tuesday.

UPDATE: The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) has a statement on the confirmation vote.


  • 1. guitaristbl  |  October 6, 2018 at 4:13 pm

    It is what it is. The GOP wins and the next couple of generations will grow with a radical extremist supreme court majority pushing their agenda. Unless democrats win big and commit to major judicial reforms e.g. term limits for scotus judges, it wont matter which party is in power.

  • 2. Mechatron12  |  October 6, 2018 at 5:47 pm

    DARE we have hope in Romania??? The anti-gay referendum requires 30% turnout to be valid. The referendum is taking place today and tomorrow (it was actually extended to two days by the bigots to try and juice turnout). Through today turnout is ONLY 5.72%. I don't want to get too excited, because likely all the Romanians are going to be told in church tomorrow to go vote, but maybe there is a chance we could "win" this one…

    Of course, sure as I get my hopes up, I remember Slovenia when there was a flood of votes at the last minute. Deep down I expect the same thing to happen here.

  • 3. allan120102  |  October 6, 2018 at 6:54 pm

    I am expecting the same unless there is a winter storm or a flood in the region everyone is going to vote tomorrow. Like in Latin America church its on Sunday and I am pretty sure the church will make there people go to vote after mass.

  • 4. VIRick  |  October 6, 2018 at 7:16 pm

    Romania Votes on Same-Sex Marriage with Government in Crisis

    Romanians have begun two days of voting on whether to constitutionally define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. The debate has deepened divisions in a country already embroiled in political turmoil. In a referendum on 6-7 October 2018, Romanians will be able to vote on whether the constitution should redefine marriage as the union between a "man and a woman." Currently, it uses the gender-neutral term "spouses."

    LGBT activist Vlad Viski, director of the organization MozaiQ in Bucharest, has criticized the oft-repeated talking point ahead of the vote that claims gay people want to "take away" other people's children. MozaiQ has called for a boycott of the referendum under the motto "Love is not the subject of a vote: stay home on 6 and 7 October." If at least 30 percent of eligible voters do not participate, the referendum will be declared invalid.

    Thus, according to this report from Deutsche Welle, they will need at lest a 70% voter turn-out in order for the referendum to be deemed valid. If they only received a 5.72% turnout today, Saturday, will they really do that much better tomorrow?

  • 5. Mechatron12  |  October 6, 2018 at 7:18 pm

    Everything I've read indicates they need 30% turnout, not 70%. If they needed 70% I don't think there would have been a valid election in Romania since Ceausescu lol.

    And btw if the referendum miraculously fails, it will be because of anger at the government – NOT because the people of Romania suddenly love gays.

    And Allen is probably right. Sunday morning all the priests will scream at the faithful to go vote and that will doom us.

  • 6. VIRick  |  October 6, 2018 at 7:36 pm

    I am just quoting from what I have read. Usually, Deutsche Welle is fairly reliable. However, here is what your source (accurately) details:

    Polls opened today at 7 am for Romanians to vote in the referendum aiming to redefine the family in the Constitution. The vote will be held over two days, until Sunday evening.

    At 9:00 PM on 6 October, BEC announced the last results of the day. The presence at the referendum on the first day was 5.726 percent. The number of voters was 1,046,583.

    According to AEP, the number of Romanians who have the right to vote in this referendum is 18,278,496. The turnout required for it to pass is thus 5,483,549 (or 30%, assuming, of course, that the majority of that 30% does indeed vote in favor of the measure).

    So, for the moment, they are short by 4,436,966 voters in oder to obtain the required 30% participation rate. Still, the opposition is boycotting the referendum, hoping against hope to sufficiently suppress the over-all turn-out rate to render the referendum invalid.

    Thus, the last sentence in that Deutsche Welle report should have read: "If less than 30 percent of eligible voters participate, the referendum will be declared invalid."

  • 7. Mechatron12  |  October 6, 2018 at 7:49 pm

    Yeah. Strange for DW to mess up a fact like that. And the good guys are pinning ALL hopes on thwarting turnout. The yes vote is likely to be north of 95%.

  • 8. VIRick  |  October 6, 2018 at 8:06 pm

    Precisely, which means that of those who have been gulled into participating in the referendum, the percentage voting in favor of the restrictive measure will be insanely high, like you said, north of 95%. Our best hope is for lots of people to simply stay home.

    Your report also indicates that Romanian citizens were voting abroad, at least in certain select countries (and no doubt, at Romanian consulates/embassies): Until 16.00 hours, 21,491 Romanians had voted. According to BEC data, 4,932 people came to the polling place(s) in Italy; 3,657 in Spain; 3,037 in the United Kingdom; 2,408 in Germany; 1,309 in France; (and 6,148 elsewhere).

  • 9. scream4ever  |  October 6, 2018 at 8:10 pm

    Slovenia is different though as the specific percentage has to be from a Yes vote, as opposed to the total percentage of eligible voters whom vote.

  • 10. Mechatron12  |  October 6, 2018 at 8:23 pm

    That sounds right, but I do remember having some hope that rapidly disintegrated as late votes came in. In Slovenia a majority of the (VERY) early vote was actually pro-marriage equality. It was the flood of after church votes that killed us. Obviously in Romania we have no chance of winning the vote outright, just the highly unlikely hope that turnout tanks today as well.

  • 11. ianbirmingham  |  October 6, 2018 at 10:32 pm

    Republican voters now just as enthusiastic about midterms as Democrats

    Trump ruffled the three undecided Republican senators with his mocking of Ford at a rally in Mississippi on Tuesday, … The night after Trump jabbed Ford's memory of her assault, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich visited the White House. Alongside Trump and his top aides, Gingrich pored over internal polling data that showed the Kavanaugh confirmation process had energized Republican voters so much so that they now felt as enthusiastic about the midterm election as Democrats. “Republicans are much more likely to win than two weeks ago,” Gingrich said in an interview. “The president feels it because he sees it out at his rallies."

  • 12. ianbirmingham  |  October 6, 2018 at 10:33 pm

    McConnell: Conservative revamp of the courts isn't done yet

    Mitch McConnell isn’t done with his “project” to revamp the nation’s courts. Hours before the Senate was set to approve Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, the Senate majority leader said in an interview Saturday that he plans confirmations of more lifetime justices before the November election. …

    Kavanaugh's ascension to the high court marks the 69th judicial confirmation of Donald Trump’s presidency under McConnell stewardship of the Senate. There are more than 30 lifetime District and Circuit court nominees ready for floor action in the Senate that McConnell could try to confirm before the election…

    “If you don’t want to kneecap the Trump administration halfway through, you need to hold the Senate,” McConnell said. The fight has “energized our base like nothing else we’ve been able to come up with … If you look at where the competitive Senate races are, many of them are in states where this makes a huge difference.” …

    Regardless of the electoral consequences, the payoff of Kavanaugh’s confirmation for conservatives will be enormous. After taking the majority in 2015, McConnell blocked many of President Barack Obama’s judicial nominees, including Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court — before confirming Neil Gorsuch in 2017 and now Kavanaugh. …

    “This project … is the most important thing that the Senate and an administration of like mind — which we ended up having — could do for the country,” McConnell said. “Putting strict constructionists, relatively young, on the courts for lifetime appointments is the best way to have a long-term positive impact on America. And today is a seminal moment in that effort.”

  • 13. ianbirmingham  |  October 6, 2018 at 10:33 pm

    Republicans controlled 14 of the past 18 Supreme Court nominations

    With the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court will have a more rock-solid conservative majority than at any time in living memory. Since the end of the Warren Court half-a-century ago, and despite the fact that Democratic candidates for president have won the popular vote in seven of the last 13 presidential elections, Republican presidents have made 14 of the 18 appointments to the Supreme Court.

    …the five "conservative" justices now on the court, like Antonin Scalia before them, are hard-line "conservatives" who are not in any way advocates of judicial restraint. To the contrary, they will eagerly invalidate all sorts of laws that violate their own ideological values, including laws regulating guns, affirmative action, the Voting Rights Act, campaign finance regulations and so on.

    On the other hand, following their political and ideological values, they will exercise "judicial restraint" when it comes to upholding laws that they like, for example laws that restrict the voting rights of minorities, that gerrymander political districts, that restrict the reproductive rights of women, that limit the rights of criminal defendants, that restrict the rights of gays and lesbians and so on. …

    It is possible that Chief Justice John Roberts will exercise a moderating influence. Perhaps he will encourage narrow decisions when he is in the majority and perhaps he will persuade his conservative colleagues not to take on certain cases — at least for a while. I think he is likely to do that, at least for a while. But within a few years, if not sooner, the reality of the Mitch McConnell Supreme Court will, sadly, come into view. The result, across a broad range of issues, will be a devastation of many of the fundamental constitutional principles on which our nation was founded.

  • 14. ianbirmingham  |  October 7, 2018 at 6:41 am

    Electoral College gives Republicans control of US Supreme Court

    Of the 5 [current] justices picked by Republicans, including Kavanaugh, 4 were nominated by presidents who first took office after losing the popular vote. And the senators who will vote to confirm Kavanaugh represent vastly fewer Americans than those voting no.

    — Tweeted by Harvard University Professor of Constitutional Law Laurence H. Tribe

  • 15. Mechatron12  |  October 7, 2018 at 11:24 am

    The haters in Romania don't even get 20% turnout!! Referendum INVALID!!! Obviously, we've got a ways to go in Eastern Europe, but after the horror of yesterday, it's great to see that hate doesn't always win!!!

    Edit: Well,okay they actually got 20.41%. But my other point still stands. WE WON!!

  • 16. VIRick  |  October 7, 2018 at 1:05 pm

    Yes, indeed! According to this source from Romania, the voter turn-out rate was just 20.41% of eligible voters. At the bare minimum, a 30% turn-out was needed.

    Per LGBT Marriage News:

    Rezultate Referendum Familie 2018. Referendumul nu va fi validat. Prezența la vot a fost de 20,41%. Numărul total al persoanelor care s-au prezentat la vot este de 3.731.704, dintre care în mediul urban au votat 1.829.816, iar în mediul rural 1.901.888.

    Results of Family Referendum 2018. The referendum will not be validated. The voting rate was only 20.41%. The total number of people who voted is 3,731,704, of whom 1,829,816 voted in the urban area and 1,901,888 in the rural area. (They needed a total voter turn-out of at least 5,483,549 in order to make this referendum valid. Thus, this entire effort on the part of the haters failed miserably).

  • 17. guitaristbl  |  October 7, 2018 at 1:08 pm

    Finally some positive news 🙂

  • 18. Mechatron12  |  October 8, 2018 at 12:12 am

    As a follow up, I'm actually shocked to see that Yes got "only" 91% support. Looks like some of our guys didn't get the message about boycotting lol.

    That being said, this is still mostly about Romanians being angry at their corrupt government. If their Supreme Court would suddenly legalize marriage equality, I suspect that a new referendum would pass pretty quickly. Still, I will celebrate baby steps wherever and whenever we make them.

  • 19. allan120102  |  October 7, 2018 at 2:42 pm

    While we celebrate Rumania things in Brazil are not looking pretty it looks Bolsnero and its candidates are doing better than expected. Base on comments on twitter the left its to have a disastrous night. Hopefully things changes as more votes comes.

  • 20. allan120102  |  October 7, 2018 at 3:10 pm

    Breaking Jair Bolsonaro has obtain 49.02 % of the vote just shy of the 50% for not having a second round needed the closest candidate Haddad obtain 26.09%. it looks very likely Brasil will choose a trump like candidate. Sad day but that is how democracy works.

  • 21. guitaristbl  |  October 7, 2018 at 3:45 pm

    I think calmness is required. There is a lot to be done between now and the second round and the turnout can influence things as well. This battle is not lost yet in Brasil.

  • 22. Mechatron12  |  October 7, 2018 at 5:40 pm

    Just remember how hopeless Costa Rica looked before the second round of their voting. What's sad is that Brazil has really, unbelievably bad problems – I can see why people want a drastic change. It's just too bad that Bolsonaro is so vicious.

  • 23. guitaristbl  |  October 8, 2018 at 1:29 am

    It goes beyond homophobia. People are openly voting for a pro-dictatorship candidate. He is even more insane than Trump.

  • 24. VIRick  |  October 7, 2018 at 8:56 pm

    Brasil: Preliminary Election Results, First Round

    On Sunday, 7 October 2018, general elections were held in Brasil to elect the President, Vice President, and the National Congress. Elections for state Governors and Vice Governors, state Legislative Assemblies, and Federal District Legislative Chamber were held at the same time.

    In the first round for president, Jair Bolsonaro got 49 million votes, or 46% of the total, compared to Fernando Haddad of the Workers’ Party (PT), who had 31 million votes , or 29% of the total, the top two finishers out of 13 candidates. However, Bolsonaro’s total was shy of the majority he needed for an outright win, meaning a second round of voting will occur on 28 October, which will see Bolsonaro and Haddad face off to become president.

    Bolsonaro and his followers have declared that fraud and faulty electronic systems were a factor in today’s election, saying if there hadn’t been issues with the voting system, “we would already have decided the name of the future president,” (a point which is actually a phony issue). Bolsonaro’s PSL party president said the PSL had won 52 seats in the lower house (actually, a number that only represents 10% of 513 members, with house seats allocated by proportional representation), making it the second biggest party and giving it a “high capacity” to govern Brasil (but not in reality, as proportional representation will stymie them, a feature, like in Chile, designed to block the rise of another new dictatorship).

    Fernando Haddad is now the only man who can stop Bolsonaro from becoming president. Haddad hinted at some kind of second round alliance, saying he had already spoken to three of the other candidates – Marina Silva (REDE from Acre and a former presidential candidate), Ciro Gomes (PDT from Ceará, the third-placed vote-getter, and another former presidential candidate), and Guilherme Boulos (PSOL and professor at USP, social/political activist) — in what appears to be the start of the grandest coalition ever, with the support of Ciro Gomes and his party being essential.

    Guilherme Boulos and his running-mate, Sônia Bone Guajajara, from Maranhão, an environmental and indigenous activist from the Guajajara people, were a spectacular pairing, but now, it is time for all the other candidates to throw their earnest support behind Haddad, the former mayor of São Paulo, the most populous city in all of Brasil by far.

  • 25. VIRick  |  October 7, 2018 at 9:06 pm

    Brasil: First Round Election Results, Final Tally

    The full results of the first round of the presidential/vice-presidential election have now been released:

    1. Jair Bolsonaro, Social Liberal Party; Hamilton Mourão, Brazilian Labor Renewal Party, 49,184,240, 46.1%
    2. Fernando Haddad, Workers' Party; Manuela d'Ávila, Communist Party of Brazil, 31,058,828, 29.1%
    3. Ciro Gomes, Democratic Labor Party; Kátia Abreu, Democratic Labor Party, 13,311,642, 12.5%
    4. Geraldo Alckmin, Brazilian Social Democracy Party; Ana Amélia, Progressistas, 5,083,445, 4.8%
    5. João Amoêdo, New Party; Christian Lohbauer, New Party, 2,676,840, 2.5%
    6. Cabo Daciolo, Patriota; Suelene Balduino, Patriota, 1,343,944, 1.3%
    7. Henrique Meirelles, Brazilian Democratic Movement; Germano Rigotto, Brazilian Democratic Movement, 1,284,796, 1.2%
    8. Marina Silva, Sustainability Network; Eduardo Jorge, Green Party, 1,066,893, 1.0%
    9. Álvaro Dias, Podemos; Paulo Rabello de Castro, Social Christian Party, 858,693, 0.8%
    10. Guilherme Boulos, Socialism and Liberty Party; Sônia Guajajara, Socialism and Liberty Party, 615,924, 0.6%
    11. Vera Lúcia, United Socialist Workers' Party; Hertz Dias, United Socialist Workers' Party, 55,620, 0.1%
    12. José Maria Eymael, Christian Democracy; Hélvio Costa, Christian Democracy, 41,615, 0.1%
    13. João Vicente Goulart, Free Homeland Party; Léo Dias, Free Homeland Party, 30,081, 0.1%
    Invalid/blank votes, N/A
    Total 106,612,561, 100%

    There are something over 147,000,000 registered voters nationwide.

  • 26. VIRick  |  October 8, 2018 at 12:30 am

    Queer Mexican Wrestling: Lucha Va Voom, Second Round

    Did everyone have a chance to see (and react to) the outrageous post I made entitled, "Queer Mexican Wrestling: Lucha Va Voom?" I accidentally posted it on the previous thread late last night as a "special" for Fortguy, who almost immediately responded that he had attended an actual Lucha Libre event in Mexico.

    In any case, you all must experience my new "boyfriend," the flamboyantly triumphant, glitter-covered super-hero in thick make-up, who as an intro as he enters the arena, sashays to the blaring mariachi music while performing a strip-tease, the self-proclaimed Liberace of Lucha Libre, Cassandro El Exotico from Juárez. You will find a "taste" of his amazing performance on the second clip, as well as on the very first photo, here:

    Spanish has a word for it: irreal, which I am finding difficult to translate. It is neither "unreal" nor "surreal," but more like "beyond belief" or "beyond anything one could ever imagine." As a former show-stopping, gay "dancer and prancer" in Mexico, in all my wildest imaginings, I never expected to ever see flamboyant gayness enter Lucha Libre, let alone become a featured super-hero attraction and a headlining "good-guy" event. Irreal.

  • 27. Elihu_Bystander  |  October 8, 2018 at 1:54 pm

    Liberty Counsel–Romanian Connection

    I'm sure someone posted this in 2016; however, just for a reminder:

    "Ms. Davis was jailed for six days because her conscience prohibited her from authorizing a marriage that is contrary to natural marriage between a man and a woman. Mr. [Harry] Mihet is a native of Romania. He grew up under Romania's oppressive communist regime and witnessed its violent demise in the Christmas Revolution of 1989, which started in his hometown of Timisoara. During their nine-day visit last year, Davis and Mihet held conferences in Romania's largest cities, including Bucharest, Cluj, Sibiu, Timisoara and Iasi. They met with two archbishops of the Orthodox Church and other leaders of Romania's largest denomination. Davis and Mihet’s message was simple: same-sex “marriage” and freedom of conscience are mutually exclusive, because those who promote the former have zero tolerance for the latter."

  • 28. VIRick  |  October 8, 2018 at 7:15 pm

    I sincerely hope that Liberty Counsel spent an absolutely insane sum of money in their ridiculously futile effort to influence the outcome of the Romanian referendum, as I am quite certain that the Romanian economy, in general, was quite eager and very able to quickly absorb the windfall of that unexpected infusion of wads and wads of hard-currency cash.

  • 29. VIRick  |  October 8, 2018 at 6:49 pm

    Costa Rica: Two Months Since Positive Marriage Equality Decision Announced

    Per Janekeith Durán:

    61 días después de dictado el fallo, la Sala Constitucional no ha publicado la sentencia íntegra en el Boletín Judicial. No habrá matrimonio igualitario antes del 8 de abril del 2020.

    61 days after the decision was rendered, the Constitutional Court has not published the entire judgment in the Judicial Bulletin. There will be no equal marriage before 8 April 2020.

    As expressed at the public announcement of the decision, the terms were such that the count-down to marriage equality was to begin from the date the judgment was officially published in the Judicial Bulletin, and that marriage equality would then come into force 18 months thereafter. We are still waiting for its publication in order to begin said count-down.

  • 30. arturo547  |  October 9, 2018 at 5:30 pm

    This is very strange. Is it that normal for a court to take so long to publish a ruling?

  • 31. VIRick  |  October 9, 2018 at 7:18 pm

    I do not know the answer, as I do not have enough familiarity with decisions issued by the Constitutional Court of Costa Rica, other than to say that I, too, find this drawn-out process to be strange. Based on experience with Mexico, I expected the decision to be published fairly quickly, that is, within several weeks of the initial announcement. In Mexico, decisions are regularly published within 7-10 work days.

  • 32. VIRick  |  October 9, 2018 at 1:57 pm

    Canada: Petition for National Ban on "Conversion Therapy" for LGBT Youth

    Per LGBT Marriage News:

    Thousands of Canadians are pressing the federal government to ban the seriously harmful practice of "conversion therapy," one which tries to persuade people to go straight. An online petition will be presented in the House of Commons urging the Liberals to outlaw the act of coercing or counselling minors to change their sexual orientation or gender identity, and to prohibit anyone from taking minors outside the country for that purpose.

  • 33. VIRick  |  October 9, 2018 at 2:22 pm

    Taiwan: Referendum on Same-Sex Marriage Law

    Per LGBT Marriage News:

    Taiwan will hold a public vote on whether its civil law should recognize same-sex marriage, two election officials told Reuters on Tuesday, 9 October 2018, reviving a debate over a separate law for civil unions between gay couples. In Asia's first such ruling, the constitutional court declared in May 2017 that same-sex couples had the right to legally marry, and set a two-year deadline for legalization. But in August 2018, an activist group proposed a vote on the issue to the Central Election Commission, saying a separate law would defend "family values."

    After a month-long review, the commission has decided upon 24 November as the date for the referendum, coinciding with mayoral and magisterial elections on the self-ruled island, two commission officials told Reuters. The referendum will cover whether the scope of marriage should be limited to a bond between a man and a woman, and whether a special law is needed to protect same-sex couples' right to a "permanent union."

    Activists who have long campaigned for same-sex marriage called this referendum "discriminatory" since it will go against the 2017 cout ruling that current Taiwanese law violates the right to freedom of marriage and equality. In September, these activists then petitioned the commission for a public vote on whether Taiwan's civil law should protect same-sex couples' right to marriage. The commission was expected to respond to this petition later this month.

  • 34. arturo547  |  October 9, 2018 at 5:30 pm

    Aren't the Taiwanese mostly in favour of same-sex marriage?

  • 35. Mechatron12  |  October 9, 2018 at 5:41 pm

    The polls that I have seen have been all over the place, but the recent ones haven't been good. The problem is that the bigots start playing into those traditional Asian family responsibility stereotypes.

  • 36. VIRick  |  October 9, 2018 at 2:32 pm

    Chile: Deputies Demand Government Release Plan to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage

    I am unable to do my usual copy-and-paste, but here is the article:

  • 37. Fortguy  |  October 9, 2018 at 5:14 pm

    Does this help?

    Los diputados Marcelo Díaz (PS) y Matías Walker (DC) solicitaron a la Comisión de Constitución, Legislación y Justicia de la Cámara que cite al ministro de Justicia, Hernán Larraín, y a la subsecretaria de Derechos Humanos, Lorena Recabarren, para que expliquen cómo el Ejecutivo impulsará el matrimonio igualitario y otras medidas del Acuerdo de Solución Amistosa (ASA) firmado por el Estado de Chile ante la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH).

    La petición ocurrió a días que la CIDH citara al Gobierno, luego de que el Movimiento de Integración y Liberación Homosexual (Movilh) denunciara distintos incumplimientos del ASA, entre esos la falta del impulso del matrimonio igualitario.

    Díaz explicó en la comisión que Larraín y Recabarren deben ser citados para dar cuenta sobre el ASA, el cual “establece varias cosas, como el proyecto de ley de identidad de género y avanzar en el matrimonio igualitario y en campañas de prevención y no discriminación. Hay un catálogo de cosas que están comprometidas por el Estado de Chile. La situación es preocupante, pues habría ciertos incumplimientos al respecto”.

    En tanto, Walker señaló que “hemos reiterado que aquí hay un compromiso del Estado de Chile. Independientemente de las distintas posturas que cada parlamentario pueda tener, lo que no puede hacer el Congreso Nacional es dejar de discutir el tema”.

    Añadió que “hay una necesidad de que el Gobierno del Presidente de Sebastián Piñera explicite la forma como va a cumplir con este compromiso de Estado. Hemos conversado además con la nueva presidenta de la Comisión de Familia de la Cámara de Diputados, Natalia Castillo, y con la diputada Pamela Jiles para que independientemente del trámite en el Senado, la Cámara de Diputados pueda discutir los distintos proyectos que hemos presentado sobre matrimonio igualitario”.

    El Movilh “valoró las medidas tomadas por Díaz y Walker, en tanto comprenden que el impulso del matrimonio igualitario, involucra al Estado como conjunto, y ninguna institución puede boicotear , entorpecer o no cumplir este compromiso, menos el Gobierno o el Congreso Nacional. Esperamos que la presencia de Larraín y Recabarren en la comisión, sirva para aclarar todas las dudas que el Congreso Nacional y la ciudadanía pueden tener en torno al Estado de avance del ASA”.

  • 38. Fortguy  |  October 9, 2018 at 5:17 pm

    From Google Translate (plus some tinkering):

    The deputies Marcelo Díaz (PS) and Matías Walker (DC) asked the Commission of Constitution, Legislation, and Justice of the Chamber [of Deputies] to summon the Minister of Justice Hernán Larraín and the Under Secretary of Human Rights Lorena Recabarren to explain how the administration will promote marriage equality and other measures of the Friendly Settlement Agreement (ASA) signed by the state of Chile before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (CIDH).

    The petition occurred days after the IACHR cited the government after the Movement for Homosexual Integration and Liberation (Movilh) denounced various breaches of the ASA including the lack of effort toward equal marriage.

    Díaz explained in the commission hearing that Larraín and Recabarren should be summoned to give an account of the ASA which "establishes several things, such as the gender identity bill and advance in equal marriage and in campaigns against discrimination and supporting its prevention. There is a catalog of things to which the state of Chile has a commitment. The situation is worrying, because there would be certain breaches in this regard. "

    Meanwhile, Walker said that "we have reiterated that here is a commitment from the state of Chile. Regardless of the different positions that each parliamentarian may have, what the National Congress cannot do is stop discussing the issue. "

    He added that "there is a need for the government of President Sebastián Piñera to explain how he will comply with this state commitment. We also talked with the new president of the Family Commission of the Chamber of Deputies, Natalia Castillo, and with the deputy Pamela Jiles so that regardless of the procedure in the Senate, the Chamber of Deputies can discuss the different projects we have presented on marriage equality".

    Movilh "valued the actions taken by Díaz and Walker insofar as they understand that the effort toward equal marriage involves the state as a whole, and no institution can boycott, hinder, or fail to fulfill this commitment much less the government or the National Congress. We hope that the presence of Larraín and Recabarren on the commission will serve to clarify all the doubts that the National Congress and the citizenship can have about the state of advancement of the ASA ".

  • 39. VIRick  |  October 9, 2018 at 8:11 pm

    Yes, thank you, that helps quite a bit. And the "tinkering" with Google Translate is not only useful, but is almost always required. So "tinker" away, as I have deliberately not responded directly to the English translation, so you are thus free to make further adjustments.

  • 40. Fortguy  |  October 9, 2018 at 8:47 pm

    I did a little more tinkering, but I was a little thrown by the very last sentence containing the phrase "Estado de avance del ASA". The phrase had the word Estado capitalized, while all other capitalized uses of the word refer to the political state of Chile rather than a synonym for "status" which is what I interpreted the writer's intention to be.

  • 41. VIRick  |  October 9, 2018 at 9:34 pm

    I think you have it correct. I can not explain why Estado was capitalized in the Spanish version, as it appears to me to be an error. That means you are getting good at translating if you can spot an actual error in the original text.

    In the meantime, after 6 years of litigation, we just scored a major win in Nuevo León (see below) and I have been busy translating and grappling with the legalese of "la Declaratoria General de Inconstitucionalidad," as this is a new method not previously employed by Mexico's Supreme Court in overturning a state's marriage equality ban.

  • 42. VIRick  |  October 9, 2018 at 4:16 pm

    Romania Aims to Legalize Same-Sex Civil Unions Following Failed Referendum

    Per Rex Wockner:

    As of 9 October 2018, Romania's ruling party aims to introduce legislation to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples, the state news agency quoted a cabinet minister as saying, after a referendum to curb such rights failed to draw enough voters to be valid. Sunday's referendum to change Romania's constitution to prevent same-sex couples from securing the right to marry was seen as a key popularity test for the ruling Social Democrats (PSD), whose attempts to weaken anti-corruption legislation have been condemned by the European Commission.

    But the referendum backfired as turnout was only 20.41 percent, below the minimum 30 percent required for validity. Analysts said voters had viewed the referendum as a ruse by the PSD, (which actually supports the change to civil unions), to divert attention from more pressing concerns. "This draft bill is finalized and…my fellow lawmakers will submit it in parliament next week," European Affairs Minister Victor Negrescu told the state news agency Agerpres.

    The religiously conservative European Union state currently bans both marriage and civil unions for same-sex couples and does not recognize those performed abroad. Earlier this year, Romania was forced by a European Court of Justice ruling to grant residency rights to gay spouses married in other EU states. Previous attempts to legalize civil unions did not make it out of parliament's legal commissions.

    Note: Openly is an initiative of the Thomson Reuters Foundation dedicated to impartial coverage of LGBT issues from around the world.

  • 43. Mechatron12  |  October 9, 2018 at 5:34 pm

    Hmmmmm….. I think civil unions might be a step too far right now. I really hope our side doesn't overplay its hand. I'd still be overjoyed to see it pass, however.

    As nearly every Romanian I've spoken to has said, the failure of the referendum was mostly anger over the government attempting to distract the people from its rampant corruption. Very few people there are in favor of any sort of substantial gay rights.

  • 44. VIRick  |  October 9, 2018 at 5:47 pm

    I have no idea if the sentiment reported in this article is accurate, but even if is merely half-true, here is my take on what the governing Social Democrats maneuvered:

    If the intrigue reported in this article is accurate, then the F-U given to the referendum by the low voter turn-out was an even bigger deal than originally surmised. In essence, it claims that the Social Democrats engineered the entire thing in order to get the right-wing fringe haters off their backs. They made that noisy hard-line 20% show themselves as being only 20% of the electorate, a group who can now go crawl under a rock, as the Social Democrats move forward with a very different agenda, one which is far more inclusive, including one which will allow for same-sex civil unions.

    Ah, the intrigues of the Balkans, as only a Balkan nation can do, as it also gives a big F-U to Russia, never a nation with much support in Romania, exacerbated, as it has been, over the entire Moldova thing.

  • 45. Mechatron12  |  October 9, 2018 at 6:42 pm

    That would be awesome if that's the case. I know many of the Social Democrat parties in Europe have been wondering why the heck their fellow party was acting like that in Romania.

  • 46. VIRick  |  October 9, 2018 at 7:57 pm

    Romania has always impressed me as being country which does not belong in the location where it finds itself on the map, a Latin nation separated from all the other western-oriented Latin nations, while being surrounded by more eastward-looking Slavs and Magyars.

    I can half-understand the Romanian language (about as well as I understand Italian), despite never having studied it (or Italian), just based on what I know from the other Latinate languages. By comparison, I am clueless when it comes to the Slavic ones, and am doubly-handicapped whenever it is written in the Cyrillic alphabet.

  • 47. VIRick  |  October 9, 2018 at 8:28 pm

    Mexico: Supreme Court Strikes Down Nuevo León Ban on Marriage Equality; Will Issue General Declaration of Unconstitutionality in 90 Days

    Per It Gets Better Mx and Frente Queretano por el DNDEL:

    Hoy día, el 9 de octubre 2018, con la mayoría de votos, la SCJN le ha dado al Congreso de Nuevo León un plazo de 90 días hábiles para reformar el Código Civil del Estado y hacer válido el matrimonio igualitario.

    Today, 9 October 2018, with the majority of votes, the Supreme Court has given the Congress of Nuevo León a period of 90 working days to reform the Civil Code of the State and make marriage equality valid.

    Per, Monterrey:

    En Desacato, Congreso de Nuevo León, Si No Aprueba en 90 días, Matrimonio Igualitario

    Monterrey – Luego de varios litigios para conseguir amparos para unir en matrimonio a parejas del mismo sexo en Nuevo León, la organización civil, defensora de Derechos Humanos, Género, Ética, y Salud Sexual (GESSAC), ha logrado que la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (SCJN), establezca, lo que se le conoce como jurisprudencia, por la inconstitucionalidad del Código Civil que impide el matrimonio igualitario.

    Fueron 17 amparos promovidos mediante el proyecto de litigios estratégicos conocido como Litiga, durante seis años, los que permitieron que la Corte estableciera un criterio definitivo.

    Si el Congreso de Nuevo León no lo hace en un plazo de 90 días, será la misma Suprema Corte quien lo haga mediante la Declaratoria General de Inconstitucionalidad. Esto permitirá a las parejas del mismo sexo, acceder al derecho del matrimonio, sin recurrir a amparos.

    Congress of Nuevo Leon in Contempt if Marriage Equality Not Approved in 90 Days

    Monterrey – After numerous litigations to obtain amparos to unite same-sex couples in marriage in Nuevo León, the civil organization, the defender of Human Rights, Gender, Ethics, and Sexual Health (GESSAC), has obtained a decision from the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN), in what is known as jurisprudence, for the unconstitutionality of the Civil Code that prevents equal marriage.

    For 6 years, there were 17 amparos promoted through the strategic litigation project known as Litiga which allowed the Court to establish the definitive criterion.

    If the Congress of Nuevo León does not do so within 90 days, it will be the Supreme Court itself who will do so through the General Declaration of Unconstitutionality. This will allow same-sex couples to access the right of marriage without resorting to amparos.

  • 48. VIRick  |  October 9, 2018 at 10:53 pm

    Nuevo León: General Declaration of Unconstitutionality

    Here is the text from GESSAC which explains the history of the Litiga project, including Alex Alí Méndez Díaz's hand in it, and brings us up to the instant ruling of the Supreme Court in favor of the General Declaration of Unconstitutionality against the civil code of the State of Nuevo León and which further cites the Congress of the State of Nuevo León for contempt.

    Note: This is a free-hand translation from a photo copy version of the original, lengthly 2-page fine-print Spanish text, as prepared by Mariaurora Mota Bravo, director of GESSAC, noting, in addition, that we are dealing with a very complicated and arcane method of declaring unconstitutionality, one which has not yet been successful in any of the other states:

    Between 2013 and 2018, there were 17 amparos which declared Article 147 of the Nuevo León State Civil Code to be unconstitutional, of which 2 were collective amparos, the first for 48 persons and the second for 118.

    Three cases made it to the Supreme Court. The first, for two women, was ruled upon in June 2015; the second, for the 48, in September 2016; and the third, for the 118, in March 2017. On 1 March 2018, the Supreme Court then asked the President of the Fourth Circuit Court if any of the Tribunales Colegiados within his circuit had obtained jurisprudence (meaning 5 separate positive rulings on the same matter, with the same outcome, and using the same identical language in all 5 of the cases). The answer was "Yes." (And this, in Mexico, is the essence of the Ruling of 5, including the answer, "Yes").

    And that positive reply, in turn, after careful review, then resulted in the Supreme Court decision of 8 October 2018. After 90 days, that decision will have immediate effect, once it has been published in the Federal judicial gazette and the official state gazette.

  • 49. VIRick  |  October 9, 2018 at 11:40 pm

    As explained by Rex Wockner in his Blogspot, the ruling by the Supreme Court against the State of Nuevo León is essentially this, the second method (and never mind that there is also a pending Action of Unconstitutionality, the first method, already filed against Nuevo León):

    "Some states' bans could be terminated by the Supreme Court via a different procedure. That could happen if officials in a given state repeatedly appeal amparo cases to a federal appeals court and lose five times in a row (they would always lose because of the 2015 ruling), which would create jurisprudence against that state's marriage ban. If the appellate court then forwarded the results to the SCJN, the SCJN could move against that state's legislature and make it repeal its ban. (For several states, some of the five necessary appellate rulings already happened during and after the litigation that led to the 2015 Supreme Court ruling.)"

  • 50. VIRick  |  October 9, 2018 at 8:53 pm

    Hidalgo: Marriage Equality Bill Introduced into State Legislature

    Per Legislatura de Hidalgo:

    9 de octubre 2018, Sesión Ordinaria. Ahora, Dip. Lisset Marcelino Tov, Morena, participa para reconocer iniciativa de Dip. Areli Rubí, PRD, sobre matrimonio igualitario, quien propone modificar Ley para la Familia del Estado de Hidalgo.

    October 9, 2018, Ordinary Session. Now, Dip. Lisset Marcelino Tov, Morena, participates to recognize the initiative of Dip. Areli Rubí, PRD, on equal marriage, who proposes to amend the Family Law of the State of Hidalgo.

  • 51. Randolph_Finder  |  October 10, 2018 at 9:56 am

    OK Standard question when things change in Mexico.

    Does… need to be updated?

  • 52. VIRick  |  October 10, 2018 at 10:58 am

    Yes, as this change is a done deal. However, there is a built-in time-delay within this General Declaration of Unconstitutionality which needs to be taken into account. The ruling was issued on 8 October 2018. Thus, 90 work days from that date takes us down through and including 13 February 2019, allowing for three holidays, Day of the Dead, Christmas, and New Year's Day.

    We then should allow for an additional 7-10 days for the General Declaration of Unconstitutionality to be published in the official gazettes, after which marriage equality will have immediate effect within the state of Nuevo León. By my reckoning, this would indicate a start-up date of 22-27 February 2019.

    No doubt, Wikipedia will demand all sorts of documentation before allowing any change. Of the three explanations I have provided, the third and rather lengthly, fine-print Spanish-language version prepared by Mariaurora Mota Bravo, director of GESSAC, is the most authoritative, as she has been fighting this battle for us for 6 long years, and is thus intimately familiar with every detail along the way. My summarized free-hand translation of her account does not delve into every detail. However, the second summarized account, provided by of Monterrey, is also accurate (and was probably obtained by their consulting with Mariaurora in Monterrey).

  • 53. Randolph_Finder  |  October 10, 2018 at 11:32 am

    OK, so NL will change in February, and I'm sure there will be announcements at the time, do any of the other colors need to change?

  • 54. VIRick  |  October 10, 2018 at 11:54 am

    No, not at this moment, unless they wish to add a new color to account for time-delayed rulings which are pending the inevitable, in which case, Nuevo León could be colored that new color (and for that matter, so could Costa Rica on the broader Latin America map).

  • 55. Randolph_Finder  |  October 10, 2018 at 12:25 pm

    The countries which are "will be soon" by a legal decision are Austria, Taiwan and Costa Rica with Taiwan possibly being stoppable. The description on the map of Europe has Austria the same color as Germany (which currently has ME), with the note below saying "May include recent laws or court decisions which have created legal recognition of same-sex relationships, but which have not entered into effect yet."

    Costa Rica is simply colored blue in the map of central America. So I guess that NL should be colored blue, possibly with the note. (which would change the North American map as well. )

  • 56. VIRick  |  October 10, 2018 at 12:45 pm

    That is certainly acceptable, Nuevo León colored blue, but with a note, "Not yet in effect," as that is exactly what it is.

  • 57. guitaristbl  |  October 10, 2018 at 10:57 am

    Well who would have thought ? The UK beats the US in gutting its ant-discrimination laws :

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