Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Open thread and some news

Community/Meta Transgender Rights

– The Gloucester County School Board will appeal the recent ruling in favor of Gavin Grimm, a former student who was denied use of the correct restroom because he’s transgender; Grimm was also denied a correct school transcript listing his gender. As noted in the link, the school board will provide Grimm a correct transcript despite the appeal.

This is an open thread.


  • 1. Randolph_Finder  |  August 19, 2019 at 8:40 pm

    Just as a note, in terms of where the "action" is right now, between the various Mexican States and their votes and failure to vote and the effects in the remainder of Latin America of the CIDH/IACHR ruling, there was a point a few weeks ago when Google Chrome brought up the open thread, it \ askrf me if I wanted the page translated from Spanish to English. I said no, mostly because VIRick's translation are far superior to a machine translation 🙂

  • 2. VIRick  |  August 19, 2019 at 10:25 pm

    Randolph, thank you. However, I have found myself spending way too much time working on those translations, but like tonight, there's news from both Yucatán and El Salvador which seemed important enough to warrant such translation. There has been a flurry of marriage equality activity from Mexico, some good, some frustrating, while additional intervention from the Supreme Court seems way overdue. Here's a summary of where we currently stand with the last of the recalcitrant states:

    Sonora: Congress scheduled to vote on marriage equality in September.

    Baja California: New Congress, marriage equality/gender identity bills soon to be introduced, and likely to be favorably voted upon this fall.

    Oaxaca: Massive marriage equality/gender identity bill just passed in committee. Soon to be voted upon in full congress.

    Edomex: Vote on marriage equality legislation delayed until the fall. Lawsuits filed to obtain jurisprudence, then seeking "Action of Unconstitutionality" before Supreme Court.

    Veracruz: Marriage equality bill passed in committee, but now stuck in the "freezer" because president of congress is homophobic, refuses to schedule vote in full congress.

    Tabasco: Slow-walked same-sex marriage bill still in committee.

    Guerrero: Some pushing and shoving, but same-sex marriage bill still in committee.

    Tlaxcala: Some noise but same-sex marriage bill still in committee.

    Zacatecas: Congress rejected legislation, matter now in court, groups seeking "Action of Unconstitutionality" before Supreme Court.

    Yucatán: Congress twice rejected legislation, matter now in court to force a third vote.

    Sinaloa: Congress rejected legislation, state under Supreme Court orders to legalize same-sex marriage. Supreme Court needs to do it for them immediately.

    Tamaulipas: New congress, no action, state under Supreme Court orders to legalize same-sex marriage. Supreme Court needs to do it for them immediately.

    Querétaro: Little action, same-sex marriage bill still in committee. Lawsuit filed and won, now appealed, seeking "Action of Unconstitutionality" before Supreme Court.

    Guanajuato: No current action.

    Durango: No current action.

    Beyond translation, there's also the matter of understanding the extremely arcane system. And in my understanding of it, following the judicial reforms of 2011, there is nothing stopping any/all officials from complying with the Supreme Court jurisprudence of 2015, out-dated state law notwithstanding. Both Oaxaca and Baja California have issued statewide directives to comply. So has the governor of Chihuahua. The Congress of Chiapas has issued a "note," directing state civil registrars to comply with the Supreme Court ruling against that state. Even municipal officials in states like Querétaro, Guerrero, Puebla, and Zacatecas have chosen to ignore their own out-dated state law, and instead, follow the Supreme Court jurisprudence.

    Also, same-sex couples wishing to marry can always do so in a neighboring state, as said marriages must then be recognized as legally valid back home. Plus, couples can always file for an amparo, which must be granted (although, personally, at this stage, I would not bother).

    And then, there is the uncharted territory, which is where groups in Zacatecas and Edomex are heading (and Mapo in Querétaro), looking for an "Action of Unconstitutionality" before the Supreme Court. Still, I prefer that to Yucatán's plan of forcing a third vote.

    Despite the three recent rejections, and the seemingly endless obfuscation and delays in most of the rest, it is important to also remember that so far for the current year, we have won in five additional states: Nuevo León, Aguascalientes, Hidalgo, San Luis Potosí, and Baja California Sur.

  • 3. Elihu_Bystander  |  August 20, 2019 at 7:23 am

    "The Gloucester County School Board will appeal the recent ruling in favor of Gavin Grimm."

    Did anyone who reads this blog expect anything different?

    In R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, "Note that the DOJ is arguing for the Trump administration that Title VII doesn’t include gender identity discrimination."

    Again, no surprise here. Until we get rid of Trump and Trumpism, there will be no favorable outcome in the civil rites for queer folk.

  • 4. VIRick  |  August 20, 2019 at 1:08 pm

    El Salvador: Major Press Conference on Same-Sex Marriage Cases, 20 August 2019

    Per Iliana Cornejo, periodista:‏

    Fundación Igualitos, la Asociación Entre Amigos, y más de 20 organizaciones LGBTI exigen a Fiscalía General de la República de El Salvador y la Asamblea de El Salvador sentar postura favorable a la admisión de la Sala de lo Constitucional sobre la admisión de uniones civiles de personas del mismo sexo.

    Herman Duarte, de Fundación Igualitos, apela a que la Sala de lo Constitucional acate la opinión consultiva de la Corte IDH sobre matrimonio igualitario.

    Bessy Ríos señala que después que la Sala de lo Constitucional admitió la inconstitucionalidad de la "Ley del Nombre," no se ha avanzado en esa demanda. La Fiscalía General de la República de El Salvador sentó postura favorable, pero la Sala aún no resuelve.

    Fundación Igualitos, la Asociación Entre Amigos, and more than 20 LGBTI organizations require the Office of the Attorney-General of the Republic of El Salvador and the Assembly of El Salvador to take a favorable position toward the admission by the Constitutional Chamber concerning the acceptance of civil unions for same-sex couples.

    Herman Duarte, from Fundación Igualitos, appeals to the Constitutional Chamber to comply with the advisory opinion of the Inter-American Court (CIDH) on equal marriage.

    Bessy Ríos points out that after the Constitutional Chamber admitted to the unconstitutionality of the "Name Law," no progress has been made in that lawsuit. The Office of the Attorney-General of the Republic of El Salvador took a favorable position, but the Chamber still has not yet resolved it. (This is a reference to the gender identity case filed by Karla Avelar.)

    Note: Bessy Ríos is a Salvadoran jurist and human rights defender known for her use of social media to promote women’s rights, sexual diversity, and freedom of expression.

  • 5. ianbirmingham  |  August 20, 2019 at 1:13 pm

    'They're With Me All the Way': Trump Uses Log Cabin Endorsement as Shield When Asked About Destroying LGBT Rights

    Donald Trump is the most anti-LGBT President in modern American history.

  • 6. ianbirmingham  |  August 20, 2019 at 1:38 pm

    Former Log Cabin head quits group after Trump endorsement – Members are fleeing the organization after the group's board endorsed President Donald Trump for reelection.

    Robert Turner, the former head of DC’s Log Cabin Republicans chapter, has left the organization after the group gave an extremely controversial endorsement to President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign. Jordan Evans, the only openly transgender elected official within the Republican Party, has also left the group.

    Turner posted his reaction and subsequent decision in a social media post that has rocketed around DC insiders – gay and straight.

    “It saddens me greatly to say that today, I am ending my association with Log Cabin Republicans, an organization I’ve been heavily involved with for the last decade – including serving as president of the D.C. chapter for three years,” Turner wrote.

    “There exist many of us who wish to see acceptance take root in the Republican Party,” Evans wrote in an op-ed for The Advocate. “However, with the news of our recent endorsement of President Trump for reelection, it seems that the ‘premier Republican organization for LGBTQ+ conservatives’ couldn’t care less about which form of acceptance qualifies as passable allyship and would instead willfully embrace an administration notorious for hollow words, fairweather friends, and a seemingly endless number of cuts for us to endure.”

    “This endorsement ignores the reality of what it means to be queer in our current political climate. It speaks more to a mentality of partisan tribalism than a sincere commitment to fostering inclusion within the Republican Party. With this endorsement, we turn a blind eye to the plights and fears of our colleagues in the queer movement and embrace an administration that has consistently antagonized the LGBTQ+ community through an endless array of rollbacks and rule changes.”

    The Trump administration has been notoriously antagonistic to the LGBT community, lobbing over 120 separate attacks on LGBT rights, from giving healthcare workers the right to discriminate to banning transgender people from the military.

    While Log Cabin officially opposes the ban on trans military members, former Log Cabin national executive director Gregory Angelo has been lobbying Congress to kill the Equality Act. The proposed law would make discrimination against LGBT people illegal.

  • 7. ianbirmingham  |  August 20, 2019 at 2:46 pm

    What Will It Take for Democrats to Flip the Senate in 2020?

    It’s possible, but it’s also assuming Democrats can defend all 12 of their own seats that will be up in 2020, which is going to be difficult. The biggest test will come in deep-red Alabama, where Doug Jones won a seat in a 2017 special election … Roy Moore is running again, but he’ll have to win a primary… It’s going to be tough for Jones to hold the seat, regardless, and if he doesn’t Democrats will need to flip Arizona, Colorado, Maine, and at least two other states that don’t seem too inclined to go blue just yet. (This is also assuming Democrats will hold onto the other 11 seats they must defend, which is far from a given, especially in Michigan and New Hampshire.)

  • 8. ianbirmingham  |  August 20, 2019 at 5:14 pm

    After Trump Endorsement, Log Cabin Republicans Are Falling Apart

    A day after the LCR endorsement was published, Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) submitted a brief to the Supreme Court arguing that employers should be allowed to fire workers for being transgender, ahead of a trio of LGBTQ+ discrimination cases set to be heard by the court in October.

    Turner is not alone in leaving the organization. The Washington Post reports that board member Jennifer Horn has also resigned, saying that she couldn’t explain to her children why her organization had endorsed Trump for president.

  • 9. VIRick  |  August 21, 2019 at 7:49 pm

    Baja California: Gender Identity/Marriage Equality Bills Upcoming

    Per Diana Sánchez Barrios:

    Hoy el 21 de agosto 2019, estuve en Baja California (otra vez), trabajando para insistir en (los miembros) del Congreso estatal sobre la importancia en que exista una Ley de Identidad de Género para la población Trans, y para que el matrimonio igualitario sea una realidad.

    Today, 21 August 2019, I was (again) in Baja California, working to impress upon (the members) of the state Congress as to the importance of a Gender Identity Law to be in existence for the Trans population, as well as for marriage equality to be a reality.

    Diana is a full-time, non-stop, on-the-ground LGBT activist, and the chief architect of the current Baja California work-around plan issued as a statewide directive in November 2017 which presently allows same-sex couples to marry in the state (except for Mexicali, which refuses to abide by said directive). She also engineered the more-recent, current statewide plan by which transgender individuals are able to change the gender marker on Mexican birth certificates, as well as on other government-issued documents, like driver's licenses, issued by the state of Baja California (a plan which is now definitely being followed in both Tijuana and Ensenada). For both processes, out-dated state law has been ignored, and Supreme Court jurisprudence has been neatly substituted (points with which I am in total accord).

    Once done, she then moved on to Guerrero, following the 2018 elections, and has been working non-stop in that state to make both changes become a reality there, as well.

    Still, with a new Morena-dominated congress recently installed in Baja California, she has returned to that state to push the congress to actually pass comprehensive gender identity and marriage equality laws.

  • 10. VIRick  |  August 21, 2019 at 8:28 pm

    Greenland Was Not For Sale, Is Not For Sale, Is Still Not For Sale

    As a resident of another former Danish territory which was purchased by the USA, and to which he was denied entry (without his knowledge) following his paper-towel-throwing episode in Puerto Rico in the aftermath of the Hurricane Maria disaster, that is all I have to say on this subject. Otherwise, I am clueless as to how a bug got up his ass to ever make him believe that Greenland was supposed to be for sale.

  • 11. VIRick  |  August 21, 2019 at 8:57 pm

    Cayman Islands: Government Appeal of Marriage Equality Ruling, Hearing 28-30 August

    Per LGBT Marriage News:

    Government’s appeal against a Grand Court decision to legalize same-sex marriage in the Cayman Islands will be heard next week, as a three-day hearing is scheduled to start on Wednesday, 28 August 2019. In March, Chief Justice Anthony Smellie ruled that the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman was unconstitutional and violated multiple rights. He ordered that the Marriage Law be changed to reflect that same-sex couples are allowed equal access to marriage as heterosexual couples.

    His ruling followed a petition by Caymanian Chantelle Day and her partner Vickie Bodden Bush, who started court proceedings after being denied the right to marry. Implementation of the chief justice’s decision was delayed after government announced its intention to appeal, and successfully applied for a "stay" until the conclusion of the appeals hearing.

    Three Court of Appeal judges, including president Sir John Goldring, will hear arguments from both sides next week, and a decision is expected in October. If government is unsuccessful in its challenge, it still has the option to appeal to the UK Privy Council.

  • 12. VIRick  |  August 21, 2019 at 9:16 pm

    China: Parliament Rules Out Same-Sex Marriage

    Per LGBT Marriage News:

    Limiting marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman will remain China’s legal position, a parliament spokesman said on Wednesday, 21 August 2019, ruling out following neighboring Taiwan in allowing same-sex marriage, despite pressure from activists. Asked at a news briefing whether China would legalize same-sex marriage, Zang Tiewei, spokesman for parliament’s legal affairs commission, said Chinese law only allowed for marriage between one man and one woman.

    “This rule suits our country’s national condition and historical and cultural traditions,” he said. “As far as I know, the vast majority of countries in the world do not recognize the legalization of same-sex marriage.”

    Without success, individual Chinese legislators have occasionally in the past few years proposed measures during the annual meeting of the largely rubber-stamp parliament every March to legalize same-sex marriage. There are no laws against same-sex relations in China, and despite growing awareness of LGBT issues, the community has been the target of censors in recent months, fueling fears of a growing (governmental) intolerance.

    Activists have asked people in China to propose amendments to a draft civil code en masse, though they have admitted they see little chance of success. The parts of the code relating to marriage are expected to pass into law next year. The code makes changes on issues such as sexual harassment, divorce, and family planning, but does not further the rights of the LGBT community, drafts published by parliament show. Zang said the marriage section of the draft civil code maintains the bond as being between a man and a woman.

    Prominent gay rights activist Sun Wenlin told Reuters he was disappointed in the comments, but not surprised. “I feel that my partner and I are sacrificing our happiness for the country’s legal system,” said Sun, who three years ago had his application to legally marry his partner rejected by a Chinese court.

  • 13. ianbirmingham  |  August 25, 2019 at 12:14 pm

    China’s Parliament Says No to Marriage Equality – Political leader says changing law would go against “cultural traditions”

    Emboldened activists in Hong Kong have also set their sights on marriage rights in the former British territory, where a nonprofit organization called Hong Kong Marriage Equality was launched earlier this month, according to the South China Morning Post. Activists there are embarking on a campaign to educate Chinese people about LGBTQ rights and warm them up to the idea of same-sex marriage.

    There have been some signs of progress for LGBTQ rights in Hong Kong in particular. China’s Court of Final Appeal earlier this summer ruled that same-sex partners in the city can file joint tax returns and that gay civil servants have a right to spousal benefits like healthcare coverage.

    Evan Wolfson, who spent years at the forefront of the American fight for marriage equality as the founder and president of Freedom to Marry, isn’t buying [China's Zang Tiewei, a spokesperson for China’s Parliament]’s cultural justification for rejecting the rights of same-sex couples in China.

    “Instead of selectively invoking China’s ‘traditions’ — including marriage of one man dominating many women — I think the Chinese government will want to study the progress underway among its neighbors and worldwide and listen to the aspirations of Chinese young people to see the country move forward,” Wolfson, who recently helped push for marriage rights in nearby Taiwan, told Gay City News in a written statement.

    Wolfson further pointed to statistics regarding marriage rights internationally, stressing that more than 1.1 billion people live in 28 different parts of the world where marriage equality is a reality. He re-emphasized existing bodies of evidence that have shown the benefits marriage rights have had on families and societies around the globe.

    “It makes more sense to allow gay people to participate alongside others as they build lives and are part of families in China, and China’s gay people and their non-gay family members, co-workers, businesses, and friends deserve nothing less,” he said.

  • 14. VIRick  |  August 21, 2019 at 10:00 pm

    Argentina: A Same-Sex Marriage in Villa Ocampo, Santa Fe

    Per Esteban Paulón:

    En Villa Ocampo, norte santafesino, me encontré con Uli y Santi quienes hace unos días celebraron su matrimonio igualitario. Qué lindo es saber que en cada rincón de Santa Fe estamos cada vez más juntes y somos cada vez más fuertes y visibles.

    In Villa Ocampo, northern Santa Fe, I met Uli and Santi who a few days ago celebrated their equal marriage. How nice it is to know that in every corner of Santa Fe we are coming closer together and we are becoming stronger and more visible.

    Note: Villa Ocampo, a city of 25,000 inhabitants, is located on the Río Paraná in the far north-eastern corner of Santa Fe province, the closest point in the province to Paraguay.

  • 15. VIRick  |  August 21, 2019 at 11:06 pm

    The Mysterious Mapo Strikes Again,– in Querétaro

    Per Mapo:

    Una realidad para la justicia constitucional y de DDHH. He conseguido la protección definitiva para contraer matrimonio igualitario en Querétaro. Que no haya duda, la esperanza sigue, la justicia llega.

    A reality for constitutional justice and human rights. I have obtained the definitive protection to contract equal marriage in Querétaro. Of that, there is no doubt, hope continues, justice arrives.

    This is at least the second recalcitrant state in Mexico (the other being Edomex) in which the mysterious Mapo has sued, and then subsequently won the right to contract an equal marriage. The documents currently displayed on his web-page indicate that his suit demanded an "Audiencia Constitucional" (Constitutional Hearing), based upon having obtained amparo 838/2019-VIII.

    Earlier, he reported;

    El 11 de julio 2019, un juzgado federal me otorga el amparo para contraer matrimonio igualitario en Querétaro. Sus efectos serán relativos, pero se demuestra la INCONSTITUCIONALIDAD del gobierno de Querétaro y de la Legislatura de Querétaro.

    On 11 July 2019, a federal court has granted me an amparo for the right to an equal marriage in Querétaro. Its effects will be relative, but the UNCONSTITUTIONALITY of the Querétaro government and the Legislature of Querétaro is demonstrated.

    Specifically, what was granted at that time was this:

    Amparo Indirecto, Juzgado Primero de Distrito de Amparo y Juicios Federales en el Estado de Querétaro, 838/2019

    Indirect Amparo, First District Court of Amparo and Federal Judgments in the State of Querétaro, 838/2019

    And now, it appears he has obtained his sought-after declaration of unconstitutionality against the state and congress of Querétaro. With this, I assume he intends to force the issue all the way to the Supreme Court, and in due course, if necessary, will also do the same with Edomex. Mapo appears to be a wild card, operating independently of any group or organization, so it is difficult to grasp the precise over-all plan. I just noticed:

    Mapo = Marco Antonio Paloalto Oliva

  • 16. VIRick  |  August 22, 2019 at 10:31 am

    Argentina: Same-Sex Couple Performs in Tango World Championship

    Per AFP News Agency:

    Argentinian twin dancers Nicolas Filipeli and Germán Filipeli performed as a same-sex couple during the final competition of the Tango Dance World Championship in Buenos Aires.

  • 17. VIRick  |  August 22, 2019 at 1:53 pm

    Thailand: New Government Revives Same-Sex Unions Proposal

    Per LGBT Marriage News:

    Thailand's new government has revived debate over a bill that would make the country the first in Southeast Asia to legalize same-sex unions but which has split the LGBT community for falling short of proposing full equal rights. The cabinet of the then-ruling military government endorsed the bill in December 2018, before the proposal stalled ahead of elections in March 2019 that returned the top junta leaders to power. The Justice Ministry's Rights and Liberties Protection Division has just wrapped up a series of public forums to hear feedback on the Life Partnership Bill before the new government presses ahead.

    As it stands, the bill would allow same-sex couples to jointly manage their assets and liabilities and to give and receive inheritance. It would also let partners act as legal guardians if one of them is deemed incompetent. But some LGBT groups oppose the bill because of what it does not offer, namely full marriage rights, including the right to adopt children jointly. Instead, they want Parliament to amend Thailand's Civil Code — which the Life Partnership Bill would not do — to make marriage between "persons" rather than a "man and woman."

    Other LGBT rights groups are prepared to take the long view, convinced the bill will prove a springboard for achieving full equal rights down the road and give them time to prepare for the much tougher fight of amending the Civil Code itself. Nareeluc Pairchayapoom, director of the Rights and Liberties Protection Division's International Human Rights Department, which is spearheading the bill, said moving slowly will also give advocates more time to bring conservative critics around.

    Given the feedback and the drafting committee's leanings, the department director said the bill was likely to see a few changes before heading back to the cabinet for final approval. She said the committee would probably raise the proposed minimum age for a same-sex union from 17 — the legal age for marriage in Thailand — to 19 and drop a condition that at least one partner be a Thai citizen. Nareeluc expected the bill to reach Parliament by the end of the year.

  • 18. VIRick  |  August 22, 2019 at 4:39 pm

    El Salvador: Meet the Young Lawyer Who Filed the Marriage Equality Lawsuit

    La Corte Suprema de Justicia de El Salvador admitió analizar una "Demanda de Inconstitucionalidad" en relación a la prohibición del matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo. Conversamos con Gabriel Gasteazoro, el joven activista y abogado que redactó e interpuso el documento que está en boca de todxs y que podría revolucionar el concepto de familia en ese país.

    Empezó la demanda siendo muy joven, en tercer año de derecho, y le tomó dos años terminarla. Escribirla despacio y en el período de universidad, le ayudó a ir incorporando ideas que surgían al evidenciar que en el derecho de familia las normas sólo incluían a parejas heterosexuales, pero también en el derecho administrativo, derecho societario, y en la ley de ética gubernamental para prevenir la corrupción. Es decir, evidenció como la heteronorma excluía a quienes tienen una orientación sexual por fuera de ella y eligen vivirla, lo que, en El Salvador, no sólo implica discriminación y señalamientos de la sociedad, sino que también les acarrea inseguridad jurídica.

    Gabriel es abogado y activista salvadoreño. Su experiencia se ha centrado en derecho constitucional con enfoque de género, y desde allí nos explica: “la Constitución salvadoreña no da un concepto de familia; en ella se establece que TODA persona tiene derecho a constituir su propia familia. Por eso, sostiene la idea que familia no es sinónimo de amor, ni de la unión de dos personas que procrean vida. Pensar que el concepto se limita a mamá, papá, e hijxs, deja fuera un sin número de familias constituidas, en la praxis, como tal. Una familia persigue un fin común: amor, sí; pero también fines socio económicos, de responsabilidad afectiva, económica.”

    The Supreme Court of Justice of El Salvador has admitted for analysis a "Demand for Unconstitutionality" in relation to the prohibition of same-sex marriage. We talked with Gabriel Gasteazoro, the young activist and lawyer who wrote and filed the document that is on everyone's lips and that could revolutionize the concept of family in that country.

    The lawsuit began when he was very young, in his third year of law school, and it took him two years to complete it. Writing it slowly, and during the university period, helped him to incorporate ideas that arose by evidencing that the normative rules only included heterosexual couples, not only in family law, but also in administrative law, corporate law, and in the government ethics law to prevent corruption. That is, it showed how heteronormativity excluded those who have a sexual orientation outside of it and who choose to live it, which, in El Salvador, not only implies discrimination and accusations by society, but also causes them legal uncertainty.

    Gabriel is a Salvadoran lawyer and activist. His experience has concentrated on constitutional law with a focus on gender, and from there, he explains: “The Salvadoran Constitution does not give a concept of family; it establishes that EVERY person has the right to establish their own family. Therefore, it maintains the idea that family is not synonymous with love, nor with the union of two people who procreate life. To think that the concept is limited to mom, dad, and children, in practice, as such, leaves out a number of constituted families. A family pursues a common goal: love, yes; but also socio-economic, emotionally responsible, economic ends.”

  • 19. VIRick  |  August 22, 2019 at 6:46 pm

    Edomex: Group Seeks Amparo #5 to Obtain Statewide Jurisprudence

    Tres parejas de personas del mismo sexo del Estado de México buscarán un nuevo juicio de amparo a nivel federal por unirse en matrimonio, luego de que la Legislatura estatal aplazara la aprobación de la Ley de Identidad Sexogenérica (y la del Matrimonio Igualitario). Este jueves, el 22 de agosto 2019, las tres parejas acudieron a la Oficialía número uno del Registro Civil de Toluca para solicitar el trámite de matrimonio, el cual se les fue negado, y por lo que iniciarán el proceso de juicio de amparo ante la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación.

    Ricardo Coyotzin Torres, representante de la asociación, Fuera del Clóset, explicó que actualmente existen cuatro juicios de amparo en el Estado de México, y con este, serían cinco. Por lo cual se podrá recurrir al recurso legal de jurisprudencia ante los juzgados federales para las tres parejas solicitantes. ''Los procesos serán individuales de cada pareja pero como asociación buscaremos apoyar a más parejas.''

    Este jueves, el 22 de agosto 2019, tras acudir a los juzgados civiles en Toluca, el colectivo mostró el documento para el juicio de amparo que será promovido ante la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, y el cual podría tener fallo en seis meses.

    Three same-sex couples from the State of Mexico will seek a new federal amparo judgment in order to join in marriage, after the state Legislature postponed the approval of the Gender Identity Law (and that of marriage equality). This Thursday, 22 August 2019, the three couples went to Office #1 of the Civil Registry of Toluca to request the marriage process, which they were denied, and for which they will now begin the process toward an amparo judgment before the Supreme Court of Justice.

    Ricardo Coyotzin Torres, representative of the association, Fuera del Clóset, explained that four amparo judgments currently exist in the State of Mexico, and with this, there would be five. As a result, the legal recourse toward jurisprudence may be appealed within the federal courts by the three requesting couples. "The processes will be individual for each couple, but as an association, we will seek to support more couples."

    This Thursday, 22 August 2019, after going to the civil courts in Toluca, the group showed the document for the amparo judgment that will be placed before the Supreme Court of Justice, and for which they could have a ruling in six months.

    And what about Mapo? Reportedly, he has already filed for an amparo judgment against Edomex in his own name to force jurisprudence, and thus, should be at least one step ahead of Fuera del Clóset on this matter. Still, it might be best if he were to focus all of his energy against Querétaro, and let Fuera del Clóset handle Edomex. Or tackle Guanajuato or Guerrero. There's no point in duplicating efforts.

  • 20. allan120102  |  August 22, 2019 at 10:40 pm

    Oaxaca has approve ssm in commisions and is expected to vote soon in the full pleno o chamber.

  • 21. VIRick  |  August 23, 2019 at 12:00 am

    Oaxaca: Massive Marriage Equality/Cohabitation/Gender Identity Bill Passes in Committee

    This is a massive piece of legislation, approved in committee on 22 August 2019, which not only legalizes same-sex marriage and cohabitation, but also includes the recognition of self-identifying gender identity via administrative means. Morena holds 26 seats in the 42-member Oaxaca congress, an absolute majority. However, in addition, their coalition partners and allies hold 7 more (PT-3, PES-3, and PRD-1), one of whom is proving to be a key mover of the legislation:

    En un acto de justicia y de reconocimiento a los derechos humanos, la Comisión de Administración, Procuración de Justicia, e Igualdad de Género del Congreso del Estado, tuvo a bien aprobar la propuesta de ley del diputado Noé Doroteo Castillejos (PT) para garantizar matrimonio igualitario en Oaxaca, misma que será votada en el pleno el próximo miércoles, 28 de agosto 2019.

    In an act of justice and recognition of human rights, the Committee on Administration, Procurement of Justice, and Gender Equality of the State Congress, has approved the proposed law by Deputy Noé Doroteo Castillejos (PT) to guarantee marriage equality in Oaxaca, which will be voted upon in the full congress next Wednesday, 28 August 2019.

    Noé Doroteo Castillejos is the leader of the PT caucus in the Oaxaca state congress.

    Most of the remaining portion of this article is a photo-copy of the proposal itself:

  • 22. guitaristbl  |  August 23, 2019 at 12:50 pm

    RBG is undergoing cancer treatment according to reports. I do not know how many believe in any form of God but let's send her our best thoughts and wishes. We cannot lose her now, only a year left.

  • 23. scream4ever  |  August 23, 2019 at 1:07 pm

    The cancer is localized and not spreading since they caught it early. I'm not worried.

  • 24. VIRick  |  August 23, 2019 at 3:27 pm

    Kentucky Supreme Court and Lexington's Fairness Ordinance

    Per Equality Case Files:

    Today, 23 August 2019, more than seven years after a Lexington shop refused to make T-shirts for the 2012 Lexington Pride Festival, the Kentucky Supreme Court will hear arguments about whether or not the company violated the city’s Fairness Ordinance.

    Before the case began moving through the court system, the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Right’s Commission accused the business of violating the ordinance that prohibits discrimination. In 2015, Fayette County Circuit Court Judge James Ishmael reversed the commission’s decision, saying there was no violation. The Kentucky Court of Appeals upheld Ishmael’s ruling in 2017 with a 2-1 vote.

    Despite losing before two courts, the commission maintains that the business violated the ordinance, and hopes that a decision by the state supreme court will help guide commissions across the country facing similar questions.

  • 25. VIRick  |  August 23, 2019 at 3:40 pm

    Illinois: Federal Transgender Employment Discrimination Case Filed

    Per Equality Case Files:

    Circle K, the national convenience store chain, fired an African-American transgender woman after she complained about the harassment and discrimination she experienced. Today, 21 August 2019, Judi Brown filed a federal lawsuit in response to Circle K’s harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, asserting that Circle K violated state and federal law. The case has been assigned to Judge John Z. Lee.

    The ACLU of Illinois' statement on the case is here:

    The Complaint in "Brown v. Mac's Convenience Stores, LLC, d/b/a Circle K" is here:

    Note: In addition to prying questions and taunts regarding genitalia, during portions of the harassment before being fired, the "n" word was allegedly hurled, thus potentially making this case a "two-for."

  • 26. VIRick  |  August 23, 2019 at 4:07 pm

    Kansas: Billionaire David Koch Is Dead at 79

    Billionaire industrialist David Koch — who worked with his brother Charles to shape conservative ideology and politics for decades through massive donations to libertarian causes, only to watch in shock as the Republican Party under Hair Furor drifted toward populism and protectionism — has died. He was 79. His death was confirmed to media in a statement from Koch Industries, the massive Kansas-based conglomerate he helped build and lead, which is involved in the production of a wide range of products from manufacturing paper to refining oil.

    Although he donated more than $1 billion to philanthropic causes like the arts, education, and medicine, David Koch became best known in the last decade for his political contributions. The Koch brothers have together given hundreds of millions to political candidates and policy-focused groups to advance their libertarian strain of conservatism. Their money and influence helped the rise of the Tea Party following President Barack Obama's election. The pair were also among the largest sponsors of groups denying the science of climate change, with Greenpeace once calling them "a prime example of the corporate takeover of government."

    "Senate Republicans … are addicted to Koch," said Democratic Sen. Harry Reid, then the Senate majority leader, in a 2014 speech that played up the fact that the brothers' surname is pronounced "coke." (and with that thought in mind, whether addicted to it or not, I always pronounced the surname to match with a certain part of the male anatomy.)

    David Koch lived in New York City and was seen at many high-end social events, in contrast to his reclusive brother, Charles, who stayed in Wichita and seldom appears in public. David’s survivors also include his wife, Julia, and three children.

  • 27. Fortguy  |  August 23, 2019 at 10:32 pm

    Koch Industries, besides its considerable fossil fuel interests, also owns Georgia-Pacific which manufactures such consumer paper products under the brand names of Brawny, Angel Soft, Mardi Gras, Quilted Northern, Dixie, Sparkle, and Vanity Fair. Chances are you have cleaned your kitchen counter or wiped your ass today to their corporate profit.

    The Koch brothers have claimed to be supportive of SSM and LGBT rights overall. However, civil rights have always been very low on their priorities choosing instead candidates that offer them tax cuts, lower regulation, and science-denial to further their own bottom line even though nearly all of these candidates' positions are mutually exclusive to LGBT civil rights or those of other marginalized communities.

    In an era where the threat of climate change becomes an increasing threat to the long-term health of their own corporation, the Koch brothers have always taken the short-term, quarterly dividend view of corporate governance. I have no doubt that the brothers detested the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes, I'm sure they would have agreed with one statement Keynes said:

    In the long run we are all dead.

    At least David got to cash in his chips while he was still winning. Too bad he can't take that cash with him wherever he is.

  • 28. ianbirmingham  |  August 23, 2019 at 8:35 pm

    Canada: Goodale's same-sex-marriage gambit is staggeringly arrogant and hypocritical

    It was a profound moral failure that it took so long for Canada to at the very least stop discriminating against LGBT people on those tangible grounds — pension rights, bereavement leave, old age security, adoption — and that it almost always came as a result of litigation.

  • 29. ianbirmingham  |  August 24, 2019 at 8:50 am

    Lesbian PM Or Not, Serbia Blocks Gays' Path To Parenthood

    When the gay partner of Serbia's prime minister gave birth to a son in February, reportedly via artificial insemination, it was seen by LGBT rights activists everywhere as a historic milestone.

    Within a month, Health Minister Zlatibor Loncar imposed a ban against anyone with a "history of homosexual relations during the last five years" from donating "reproductive cells" in Serbia for artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, or even for laboratory tests.

    Taken together with Serbia's other laws on marriage and reproductive rights, the decree effectively bans same-sex couples from having children unless – like Brnabic's partner, Milica Djurdjic, had done — they travel abroad to undergo the necessary medical procedures.

    Adoption by same-sex couples in Serbia is banned, although a single person is allowed to adopt regardless of their sexual orientation.

    Dragoslava Barzut, executive director of the Belgrade-based LGBT rights group De Se Zna!, says several nongovernmental organizations in Serbia have now filed formal complaints that call for the ministry's edict to be amended or annulled.

    "This bylaw violates the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination as well as the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia" that was adopted in 2006, Barzut told RFE/RL. "It is not in line with other legal documents and other laws. Therefore, it should be revised."

    Brankica Jankovic, Serbia's commissioner for the protection of equality, is empowered to issue a legal opinion on whether the groups' complaints of discrimination have merit.

    If Jankovic formally declares that the bylaw is an act of discrimination, the Health Ministry could be obliged to withdraw or amend the rule within 30 days.

    Under Serbian law, Jankovic could force the ministry to publicly apologize to "the victims" of discrimination and to "refrain from giving statements or spreading ideas, attitudes, and information that incite discrimination, hatred, or violence."

    Political analysts have suggested Vucic handpicked Brnabic as part of a "tactical Europeanization" strategy — a way to speak to the EU's self-proclaimed LGBT-friendly identity without engaging with LGBT issues domestically.

    Analysts also say Brnabic has limited room to maneuver on LGBT issues due to her lack of a power base in a country where homosexuality is often frowned upon and the gay community regularly faces discrimination, harassment, and violence.

    Amnesty International in 2014 listed Serbia as a country with a lack of political will to tackle homophobia — ensuring that same-sex couples do not receive the same legal protections as heterosexual couples.

    Same-sex marriages are not legal in Serbia. The 2006 constitution specifically defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and gay civil partnerships are not officially recognized.

    Serbian law bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the workplace, education, media, and other areas. But LGBT activists say the laws against discrimination are often not enforced.

  • 30. VIRick  |  August 24, 2019 at 3:10 pm

    Kentucky Still Must Pay $225,000 because Kim Davis Refused to Marry Gay Couples

    On 23 August 2019, in "Miller v. Davis," the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the state of Kentucky must pay the $225,00 in legal expenses of the same-sex couples to whom Kim Davis, the notorious anti-gay Kentucky county clerk, refused to issue marriage licences.

    In 2017, District Court Judge David Bunning ruled in favor of four couples – two same-sex couples and two opposite-sex couples – ordering that the state of Kentucky must reimburse them $225,000 for their legal fees and expenses. Bunning also ruled that the state of Kentucky must pay the fees because he said that Davis was acting in her official capacity when she ignored court orders and refused to issue the marriage licences to the same-sex couples (and as a result, at the same time, so as not to be seen as "discriminating," as least in her peculiar mind-set, refused to issue to all couples).

    Kentucky governor Matt Bevin said Kim Davis acted independently, despite supporting her views all the way through the endless fracas. In January 2019, in court depositions, Kentucky governor Matt Bevin (R) argued that Davis should be responsible for the fees, despite the fact that he had previously voiced support, and in effect, through that support, encouraged her to continue being defiantly unhinged. Bevin’s lawyer said previously: “Davis had an independent and sworn duty to uphold the law as an elected county officer.” (And at the same moment in time, lest anyone forget, as an elected state officer, so did the rabble-rousing governor.)

    On 23 August 2019, the three-judge panel for the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati upheld Bunning’s decision and maintained that the state must still pay the fees and expenses.

    Afterward, the ACLU, which had been representing the couples, issued a statement: “By affirming the sizeable fee award, the Court also sent a strong message to other government officials in Kentucky (like the governor) that it is not only unconstitutional to use public office to impose one’s personal religious views on others, but that it also can be a very expensive mistake.”

    Note: In addition to everything else, the State of Kentucky will also get stuck paying for the full cost of this present appeal, one which they just lost. The final legal cost for marriage equality, given this appeal, has yet to be fully tallied.

  • 31. VIRick  |  August 24, 2019 at 7:53 pm

    9th Circuit Court of Appeals: Gender Reassignment Surgery Must Be Granted to Trans Inmates

    On Friday, 23 August 2019, in "Edmo v. Idaho Dept of Corrections," a federal appeals court ruled that denying gender reassignment surgery to transgender prison inmates is prohibited under the US Constitution. A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued the per curiam decision on the basis that gender reassignment surgery is medically necessary, so denying the procedure to prison inmates violates the Eighth Amendment.

    “We hold that where, as here, the record shows that the medically necessary treatment for a prisoner’s gender dysphoria is gender confirmation surgery, and responsible prison officials deny such treatment with full awareness of the prisoner’s suffering, those officials violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment,” the decision says.

    The three-judge panel that issued the ruling consists of US Circuit Judge Mary Margaret McKeown; US Circuit Judge Ronald Gould; and US District Judge Robert Lasnik, sitting by designation on the Ninth Circuit. The ruling affirms taxpayer funds will be used to provide gender reassignment surgery to Adree Edmo, who is transgender and who has been an inmate in the Idaho State Correctional Institution since 2012.

    The case came to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, upon appeal, after Chief District Judge B. Lynn Winmil in Idaho issued a decision ordering the state to grant gender reassignment surgery to Edmo, who had sued the state in 2017 after the Idaho Department of Corrections refused to grant her the procedure.

  • 32. VIRick  |  August 24, 2019 at 8:19 pm

    Colombia: Public Policy Ordinances Banning LGBT Discrimination

    Saludamos decisión política de Asamblea del Atlántico que hoy, el 24 de agosto de 2019, luego de 5 años, aprobó por Ordenanza la política pública LGBT, haciendo del Atlántico el 4 departamento del Caribe (en Colombia) en tener entre instrumento legal para la igualdad, luego de Bolívar, Magdalena, y San Andrés.

    We welcome the political decision of the Atlántico Assembly which today, 24 August 2019, after 5 years, approved by ordinance the LGBT public policy, making Atlántico the 4th department of the Caribbean (in Colombia) to have a legal instrument for equality, after Bolívar, Magdalena, and San Andrés.

    Note: In Colombia and Ecuador, LGBT public policy ordinances are local departmental laws banning LGBT discrimination.

    Atlántico is Barranquilla and surrounds.
    Bolívar is Cartagena and the west side of the Río Magdalena.
    Magdalena is Santa Marta and the east side of the Río Magdalena.
    San Andrés is the Caribbean islands of San Andrés, Providencia, Santa Catalina, and 7 surrounding cays.

  • 33. ianbirmingham  |  August 25, 2019 at 8:22 am

    Eighth Circuit Court Of Appeals: Christian Videographers Cannot Be Compelled By Public Accomodation Law To Work Same-Sex Weddings

    In a 2-1 decision penned by Circuit Court Judge David Ryan Stras, the court wrote that wedding videos “are a form of speech that is entitled to First Amendment protection. The Supreme Court long ago recognized that ‘expression by means of motion pictures is included within the free speech and free press guaranty of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.’”

    The appellants in the case Telescope Media Group v. Linsey, are Carl Larsen and Angel Larsen, the owners of a Christian videography business specializing in making wedding videos. The Larsens sued the Minnesota Human Rights Commission in 2016, arguing that the state’s public accommodation law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation would cause them to incur steep fines and even prison time if they refused their services to same-sex ceremonies, which they claimed would conflict with their religious view of marriage.

    In her dissent, U.S. Circuit Judge Jane Louise Kelly argued that Minnesota’s public accommodation law was generally applicable and neutrally protected citizens from unlawful forms of discrimination.

    “Although religious and philosophical objections to same-sex marriage are protected by the First Amendment, ‘such objections do not allow business owners . . . to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law,’” Kelly wrote. “That well-established principle should have easily disposed of this case.”

    She argued that as public accommodation business owners, the Larsens were not being compelled to communicate any message and were simply prohibited from not serving customers based on their sexual orientation.

    “The Larsens remain free to communicate any message they desire—about same-sex marriage or any other topic—or no message at all. What they cannot do is operate a public accommodation that serves customers of one sexual orientation but not others. And make no mistake, that is what today’s decision affords them license to do,” she wrote.

    Friday’s ruling overturns a 2017 District Court ruling by Chief U.S. District Judge John Tunheim which originally dismissed the lawsuit and sends the case back to the District Court to decide whether the Larsens are entitled to a preliminary injunction to continue operating their business until a decision is reached on the merits of the case.

  • 34. VIRick  |  August 25, 2019 at 10:49 am

    ". . . if they refused their services to same-sex ceremonies, . . ."

    This is a phony ADF-sponsored "if-schmiff" case seeking to invalidate Minnesota's public accommodation law, just like their attempts in Colorado and Arizona. There has never been an instance of a same-sex couple even approaching this part-time Minnesota pseudo-business seeking their services, let alone of any denial of such service. So, there is no valid complaint, only some "what-if" scenario that it is possible that something "dreadful" might happen at some future point in time. This case should be dismissed, just as the district court judge originally ruled. Period.

    My advice to Angel Larsen: If you are so "worried" that your pinch-nosed hate will eventually be called out for what it is, your pseudo "religious" views notwithstanding (and which have no bearing here since nothing happened), then find some other part-time Saturday morning work to keep you busy.

    Note to Judge Stras: In this instance, the party making the "free speech" statement is the couple getting married. They have simply requested the videographer to passively record that statement for them. On their own, the videographer, without someone else's wedding being involved, has no statement to make. This is not a movie, and should not be compared to such.

  • 35. ianbirmingham  |  August 25, 2019 at 11:36 am

    David Ryan Stras
    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
    Nominated by Donald J. Trump on January 8, 2018

  • 36. scream4ever  |  August 25, 2019 at 11:43 am

    Hopefully the Supreme Court will reverse this on appeal, like the Pavin ruling out of Arkansas.

  • 37. VIRick  |  August 25, 2019 at 12:32 pm

    "Pavan" is one of my favorite cases in the sense that Gorsuch, in his very first written dissent while sitting on the Supreme Court, proved himself to be an utter fool, one who did not understand (or who chose not to understand) the very basic concept of the presumed parenthood of the spouse, a concept already deeply embedded in every state's law in the USA.

    In this "Larsen" ruling, the very first written ruling of any consequence since being seated on the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, Stras has proven himself to be equally inept, in the sense that there is no case if there is no violation.

  • 38. VIRick  |  August 25, 2019 at 11:48 am

    Additional thought:

    At least in my mind, given its Latin American slant, the legal aspect of a marriage is the part wherein which the couple records their intent with the county clerk of court and obtains a marriage license. The wedding itself is an unnecessary, excess after-thought, one which, independently, has no stand-alone legal validity. So, a simple video recording of it is neither here nor there, but still, is even less necessary than the actual wedding ceremony itself.

    This videographer matter is in the same extraneous category, along with the flower arranger in Washington State and the cake decorator in Colorado, but with a twist,– there was no denial of any service. The Arizona case involving the calligrapher, where there was also no denial of service, only a presumptive "what-if," has already been tossed.

  • 39. Elihu_Bystander  |  August 25, 2019 at 3:58 pm

    Keep in mind this is not nearly over. We got a bad decision from the 8th. But, there was no ruling. The majority opinion: We affirm the district court’s judgment in part, reverse it in part, and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the district court must consider in the first instance whether the Larsens are entitled to a preliminary injunction, keeping in mind the principle that, “[w]hen a plaintiff has shown a likely violation of his or her First Amendment rights, the other requirements for obtaining a preliminary injunction are generally deemed to have been satisfied.”

    I had trouble finding the order. Here is the link

  • 40. VIRick  |  August 25, 2019 at 5:14 pm

    " . . . [w]hen a plaintiff has shown a likely violation . . . "

    Therein lies the problem. There has been no violation, as no service has been denied. No request for service has even been tendered. No vague inquiries for possible service have ever been broached. The case has no merit, as it is based purely on a "what-if," theoretical make-believe argument, akin to "what if the sky should fall." It should be summarily dismissed, which is precisely what the district court judge did with it in the first instance. Why should he now rule any differently?

    In 2016, the Larsens sued the Minnesota Human Rights Commission over a matter that did not happen. The Minnesota Human Rights Commission has not done anything, as there was never any case for them to review and rule upon.

  • 41. Elihu_Bystander  |  August 26, 2019 at 8:11 am

    “Why should he now rule any differently?”

    Rick, you are absolutely correct; this is purely a spurious case. The Larsen’s have not passed the first element of Article III standing: (1) the plaintiff has suffered a concrete injury. If they cannot do that, then the other three elements need not be considered. And, neither does the question about a preliminary injunction (PI).

    [Even it they could pass Article III standing, and they cannot, they could not pass the test for a PI. There is a four-prong test for a PI and “[w]hen a plaintiff has shown a likely violation of his or her First Amendment rights…” is not one of them. Regardless, they have not been able to show any loss of First Amendment rights.]

    So, could the district court simply ask the parties to submit briefs on the one complaint the 8th circuit allowed and come to the same conclusion that they did in the first instance: There is no injury and uphold their dismissal on lack of Article III standing?

    We know the 8th circuit is likely the most conservative of all appellate courts. No matter which party prevails, this case is bound to return to the 8th circuit. Regardless, whether MDHR or the ADF prevails, there is likely going to be a petition for certiorari to SCOTUS, If so, could SCOTUS simply rule per curium as they did in Pavan?

  • 42. ianbirmingham  |  August 25, 2019 at 5:49 pm

    Plea For LGBT Rights In Uzbekistan Provokes Police Raid, Online Backlash

    In a video statement, Uzbek activist Shokhruh Salimov called on the country's president to address the persecution of LGBT minorities. Two days later, police raided Salimov's family's house to try to arrest him.

  • 43. VIRick  |  August 25, 2019 at 6:53 pm

    El Salvador Constitutional Court: Next Steps for the Marriage Equality Cases

    Luego de esta admisión (a la corte), hay 10 días para que la Asamblea Legislativa y la Fiscalía General de República dar sus opiniones, para que luego la Sala de lo Constitucional otorgue un espacio para que las partes interesadas participen del proceso. Posteriormente, la misma emitirá una sentencia.

    After this admission (to the court), the Legislative Assembly and the Attorney-General's Office have 10 days to give their opinions, so that afterwards, the Constitutional Chamber will then grant time for interested parties to participate in the process. Subsequently, it will issue a ruling.

    On the face of it, this procedure seems identical to that followed in Ecuador. Now that the cases have been admitted, first we hear from the governmental entities, then from the human rights advocates, after which, we then have a ruling.

    I take it that these cases, now accepted by the court, particularly the one filed by Gabriel Gasteazoro, have a fairly high likelihood of winning, as everyone who is anyone in El Salvador has suddenly been paying very close attention to the matter.

    Note: We have now had at least three law students in various locations in Latin America file court challenges in favor of marriage equality. First, back in 2012, Alex Alí Méndez Díaz won the very first successful legal challenge against Oaxaca (or any other state in Mexico) before the Supreme Court of Mexico while still a student. Then, in 2016, Gabriel Gasteazoro filed his challenge in the instant case in El Salvador, a case only now being considered by the Constitutional Court of El Salvador. More recently, Mapo (Marco Antonio Paloalto Oliva) has done the same in both Querétaro and Edomex while still a student at UNAM, has already won his case against Querétaro, and is now seeking to carry it all the way to the Supreme Court as an "Action of Unconstitutionality."

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