Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

9/16 open thread w/ UPDATES


This is an open thread. We’ll post any breaking news.

UPDATE 9/16: – The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that a place of business can’t be required to make wedding invitations for same-sex couples if it violates their religious beliefs.

UPDATE 9/18: Stanford Law professor Pam Karlan will be arguing the two Title VII sexual orientation discrimination cases in the Supreme Court and the ACLU’s John Knight will argue the gender identity discrimination case. The arguments are on October 8.

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings


  • 1. guitaristbl  |  September 16, 2019 at 1:37 pm

    I guess some consolation can be taken on the specific nature of the ruling. But this is the second blow to an anti-discrimination ordinance and I suppose soon we will have a big gaping hole to anti-discrimination laws with Arlene's Flowers heading back to SCOTUS.

  • 2. VIRick  |  September 16, 2019 at 7:28 pm

    Arizona Supreme Court Rules in Favor of a Business Seeking to Turn Away Gays

    On 16 September 2019, in "Brush and Nib Studio v. City of Phoenix," the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that the City of Phoenix cannot apply its LGBT-inclusive Human Rights Ordinance to penalize a local business for refusing to make custom-made invitations for a same-sex wedding, delivering a victory for groups seeking to justify anti-LGBT discrimination in the name of “religious freedom.” In a 4-3 decision written Justice Andrew Gould, the court determined the guarantee of freedom of religion and speech under the Arizona state constitution permits Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, owners of Brush & Nib Studios, LC, to deny services to same-sex couples.

    The court issued its determination based on Article 2, Section of the Arizona Constitution, as well as Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act. The court did not issue the decision based on grounds of the First Amendment under the US Constitution, even though the anti-LGBT legal firm Alliance Defending Freedom, which is defending the business, argued the case on those grounds. The ruling finds freedom of speech under the Arizona state constitution is broader than the freedom of speech afforded under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

    The ruling marks another win for anti-LGBT groups seeking to justify the denial of service to LGBT people in the name of religious freedom. Last month, the Eighth Circuit of Court of Appeals found in the "Telemedia" case that a business could invoke a First Amendment right to refuse to make video for same-sex weddings. (Both challenges should have been dismissed for lacking "ripeness," as in neither case was there an actual violation of the law. Both suits are pre-emptive strikes against a law which might hinder their ability to discriminate, should a same-sex couple ever seek their services, a point which, in both instances, has yet to occur.)

    Writing the dissent in the case was Justice James Baker, who determined the City of Phoenix has a compelling interest in enforcing its ordinance against businesses seeking to deny wedding-related services for same-sex couples. “Our constitutions and laws do not entitle a business to discriminate among customers based on its owners’ disapproval of certain groups, even if that disapproval is based on sincerely held religious beliefs,” Baker writes. “In holding otherwise, the majority implausibly characterizes a commercially prepared wedding invitation as ‘pure speech’ on the part of the business selling the product and discounts the compelling public interest in preventing discrimination against disfavored customers by businesses and other public accommodations.”

    The decision overturns the ruling of the Arizona Court of Appeals, which found the City of Phoenix could penalize the company under its Human Rights Ordinance. The state appellate court invoked the 2017 US Supreme Court’s decision in the "Masterpiece Cakeshop" case to uphold the city's measure.

    Julie Watters, a spokesperson for the City of Phoenix, said in a statement that the Phoenix law “is still a legal, valid law and remains in effect” and that the ruling is limited to a solitary business.

  • 3. allan120102  |  September 17, 2019 at 8:34 am

    Guatemala to ban ss marriage and ss civil unions today. Do not expect the country supreme court to overturn the ban as its the most conservative in the region.

  • 4. scream4ever  |  September 17, 2019 at 9:13 am

    Couples will have to appeal directly to the IACHR for relief.

  • 5. VIRick  |  September 17, 2019 at 1:08 pm

    Guatemala in Full Retrograde Mode on Abortion, Gender Identity, Same-Sex Unions

    Per Michelle Mendoza:

    Esta martes, el 17 de septembre 2019, los diputados del Congreso Guatemalteco buscarán aprobar la Iniciativa de Ley #5272 que contiene 21 artículos. Uno de ellos, criminaliza los abortos espontáneos. Otro artículo, prohíbe la identidad de género. Otro, veta el matrimonio igualitario y prohíbe la Unión de Hecho en parejas del mismo sexo.

    This Tuesday, 17 September 2019, the deputies of the Guatemalan Congress will seek to approve Law Initiative #5272 which contains 21 articles. One of them criminalizes spontaneous abortions. Another article prohibits gender identity. Yet another vetoes marriage equality and prohibits the "de facto" unions of same-sex couples.

    By definition, a "de facto" union is cohabitation. I have no idea how one would go about prohibiting such. One can prohibit its legal recognition by the government, but one can not prohibit a couple,– any couple,– from choosing to live together.

    As pointed out by another person responding to Michelle, the majority of couples throughout Latin America, and in Guatemala specifically, informally live together, with or without legal recognition of such by the government. This is a particularly acute issue among the poorer classes who simply begin living together without any formal ties, and is why certain other Latin countries like Mexico, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Ecuador are so much more progressive, as they all accept this fundamental reality and grant legal status to cohabiting couples, whether hetero or same-sex.

    Also, prohibiting and criminalizing spontaneous abortions is where El Salvador created a major mess for itself, one which is only now being undone through the courts.

  • 6. VIRick  |  September 18, 2019 at 9:06 am

    Guatemala: No Vote on Retrograde Abortion, Marriage Equality, Gender Identity Bill

    Per Rex Wockner:

    Law Initiative #5272 was scheduled for discussion in Congress today (17 September 2019), but it did not come up and no vote occurred. This has happened before, as it may not have enough support for passage. Still, about 100 opponents of the bill protested outside the congress building.

  • 7. VIRick  |  September 17, 2019 at 5:44 pm

    Uruguay: Government Will Allow Gay Foreigners to Access Equal Marriage

    Uruguay: Gobierno Permitirá que Extranjeros Gays Accedan al Matrimonio Igualitario

    El Gobierno de Uruguay presentará una ley para que los extranjeros pertenecientes a la comunidad LGBTQ puedan casarse en ese país con su pareja del mismo sexo. El matrimonio igualitario es legal en esa nación sudamericana desde 2013, cuando se aprobó con votos de todos los partidos. Pero ahora, el Gobierno busca ampliar este derecho para incluir a la comunidad LGBT internacional, aunque no sean residentes del país.

    “Hemos avanzado en agenda de derechos y creemos que el ejemplo debe ser para todos los países, no solamente de la región sino del mundo”, declaró María Julia Muñoz, ministra de Educación y Cultura, en una rueda de prensa esta semana, según el diario, "La Tercera," de Chile.

    The Government of Uruguay will present a law so that foreigners belonging to the LGBTQ community can marry in that country with their same-sex partner. Marriage equality has been legal in the South American nation since 2013, when it was approved with votes from every party. But now, the Government seeks to extend this right to include the international LGBT community, even if they are not residents of the country.

    “We have advanced the rights agenda and believe that the example must be for all countries, not only in the region but throughout the world,” declared María Julia Muñoz, Minister of Education and Culture, at a press conference this week, according to the newspaper, "La Tercera," of Chile.

    Once this measure has gone into effect in Uruguay, watch to see Uruguay begin agitating that all the other Latin nations must recognize and honor ALL Uruguayan legal marriages on the grounds that a number of international agreements have previously been signed whereby most have agreed to the reciprocal recognition of each others' legal marriages/divorces.

  • 8. VIRick  |  September 17, 2019 at 6:27 pm

    Sonora: Morena Deputies Will Vote in Favor of Marriage Equality

    Per María Luisa Alatorre:

    According to Ernestina Castro Valenzuela, co-ordinator of the Morena caucus in the Sonora Congress, all 11 Morena deputies are solidly supportive of the marriage equality initiative presented by fellow Morena deputy, Yumiko Herrera Palomarez, and all will vote in favor of it (as will the one MC deputy).

    PAN (3 deputies) and PES (5 deputies) have both declared themselves to be against the measure. PRI (5 deputies) remains uncommitted (and should not be counted upon). In this account, there was no mention of PT (4 deputies), although from other sources, one is likely to be in favor and 3 claim to be against, as is the disgraced, expelled ex-Morena member, Luis Armando Colosio, who has independently declared himself to be against. From this, a slim majority of 17 would likely appear to be against the measure.

    On the other hand, in the 33-member congress, we need a minimum of 11 positive votes in favor of the measure (1/3 of the congress membership) in order for them to be able to file an "Action of Unconstitutionality" against the majority who will have unconstitutionally voted against established jurisprudence, as determined by the Supreme Court in 2015.

    The required number of deputies in the Zacatecas congress have already filed their own "Action of Unconstitutionality" before the Supreme Court against the majority for having narrowly rejected the marriage equality initiative recently presented in that state. If necessary, and it would appear as if we have the required votes to do so, the Morena and MC deputies in the Sonora congress can do the same, even if we narrowly lose this first vote, as long as we have the required 11 votes (or more) and as long as their "action" is filed within the 30-day window of opportunity following the vote itself.

    By doing it this way, via the Supreme Court, in both Zacatecas and Sonora, we also avoid the likely possibility of a veto of the measure from two hostile PRI state governors.

  • 9. VIRick  |  September 18, 2019 at 5:58 pm

    Zacatecas: Marriage Equality "Action of Unconstitutionality" Up-Date

    Per Raymundo Moreno:

    Hoy día, el 18 de septiembre 2019, nos reunimos con la Presidenta de la CDHEZ, Luz Domínguez Campos, y el Lic. César Balcázar, Subdirector de "Acciones de Inconstitucionalidad" de la CNDH, a fin de avanzar en la ruta jurídica de defensa de los DDHH de la comunidad LGBT en Zacatecas.

    Today, 18 September 2019, we met with the President of CDHEZ, Luz Domínguez Campos, and Lic. César Balcázar, Deputy Director of "Actions of Unconstitutionality" at the CNDH, in order to advance along the legal route in defense of the human rights of the LGBT community in Zacatecas.

    It has been Raymundo's inspiration to press ahead with the filing of an "Action of Unconstitutionality," on the part of one-third of the members of the Zacatecas congress who voted favorably, against the slim majority who rejected the marriage equality initiative, and thus, by having voted against it, unconstitutionally violated long-established jurisprudence on a settled matter, as already determined by the Supreme Court in 2015.

    I certainly hope the Morena deputies in the Sonora congress are paying close attention to what Raymundo, the CDHEZ and the CNDH are currently doing with the filing of the "Action of Unconstitutionality" against Zacatecas

  • 10. allan120102  |  September 18, 2019 at 6:11 pm

    Sinaloa should have done the same but the time for them has expired.

  • 11. VIRick  |  September 18, 2019 at 6:43 pm

    Indeed, the time has passed.

    I hesitate to critique anyone in particular, but we do have much better legal representation in certain states than we do in others. In the case of Zacatecas, Raymundo is a trained lawyer (abogado) who truly seems to understand some of the more obscure intricacies of Mexican law, and is not at all reluctant in applying them. That is why I am wholeheartedly encouraging those in Sonora to pay very close attention, and if necessary, to follow his lead.

    The LGBT groups, as well as the congress members in Sinaloa (and in a number of other states who missed opportunities, like in Tlaxcala and in Veracruz), do not have the same level of legal training, and undoubtedly were unaware of their ability to have filed an "Action of Unconstitutionality" (within the 30-day window) in the same manner, and under the same circumstances, as is being done in Zacatecas.

    On the other hand, I refuse to critique Mapo (Marco Antonio Paloalto Oliva). He at least is a law student at UNAM, and without any outside assistance whatsoever, is independently pursuing his own separate "Actions of Unconstitutionality" against both Querétaro and Edomex, with his suit against Querétaro being much further along in the process, and thus, one which ought to reach the Supreme Court first.

    We need to begin to watch for the several new cases to appear here:

  • 12. VIRick  |  September 17, 2019 at 9:23 pm

    Tlaxcala: Deputies Pledge to Vote Favorably for Marriage Equality, Gender Identity

    En la quinta sesión ordinaria, el pleno del Congreso del Estado de Tlaxcala aprobó, con 19 votos a favor (de 25), del proyecto de acuerdo por el que se informa al Congreso del Estado de Coahuila que los diputados de Tlaxcala realizan las adecuaciones legales necesarias para reconocer y garantizar el derecho al matrimonio para las parejas del mismo sexo, y lo relativo a la identidad auto percibida de las personas trans.

    Y se registró el voto en contra del proyecto de acuerdo del diputado estatal del Partido del Trabajo (PT), Víctor Castro López. De esa manera, los diputados tlaxcaltecas se comprometieron a legislar respecto a esos temas, aunque en la respuesta que dan al exhorto del Congreso de Coahuila, no especifica plazos o fechas en los que estarían sometiendo al pleno del Congreso del Estado los proyectos de decreto para reformar y adicionar las disposiciones del Código Civil estatal.

    In the fifth ordinary session, the full State Congress of Tlaxcala approved, with 19 votes in favor (of 25), the draft agreement informing the State Congress of Coahuila that the Tlaxcala deputies will make the necessary legal adjustments to recognize and guarantee the right to marriage for same-sex couples, as well as that relative to the self-perceived identity of trans persons.

    And the vote was registered against the draft agreement of the state deputy of the Labor Party (PT), Víctor Castro López. In this way, the Tlaxcala deputies pledged to legislate on these issues, although in the response they gave to the exhortation of the Coahuila Congress, they did not specify deadlines or dates by which they would be submitting to the full State Congress the draft decrees for reforming and adding the provisions to the state Civil Code.

  • 13. VIRick  |  September 18, 2019 at 10:52 am

    Japan: Court Recognizes Same-Sex Common-Law Partnership in Lesbian Break-Up

    Per LGBT Marriage News:

    On Wednesday, 18 September 2019, a court has awarded damages to a woman in her 30s who broke up with her same-sex partner because of infidelity, recognizing their common-law partnership despite same-sex marriage not being legal in the country. The Mooka branch of the Utsunomiya District Court in Tochigi Prefecture ordered the former partner to pay ¥1.1 million ($10,170) to the plaintiff, who was seeking damages of ¥6.3 million.

    According to the suit, the plaintiff and defendant moved in together in 2010. After acquiring a marriage certificate in the United States in 2014, the couple held a wedding ceremony in Japan the following year. Soon afterward, the defendant revealed her desire to raise a child with the plaintiff and was artificially inseminated after finding a sperm donor on a social networking site.

    However, the relationship between the couple broke down in January 2017 following the revelation that the defendant had had an affair with the sperm donor. The defendant subsequently gave birth, while the sperm donor went on to have gender reassignment surgery, and is now recognized as a woman.

    The plaintiff had earlier bought a house for the couple to raise the child in, and also paid for the defendant’s artificial insemination. The plaintiff argued that same-sex partnerships should have the same legal protections that common-law marriages receive in Japan. Specifically, she said her relationship with the defendant deserved protection because the couple held a wedding ceremony and had been long-term domestic partners.

  • 14. ianbirmingham  |  September 19, 2019 at 3:50 pm

    Because the couple acquired a marriage certificate in the US in 2014 (not just a marriage license, but instead a marriage certificate documenting actual marriage), they are still married regardless of this court's action regarding an inferred Japanese partnership, correct?

  • 15. VIRick  |  September 19, 2019 at 5:30 pm

    Yes, at least according to US law, that appears to be the situation. There is no evidence from this account that either party ever filed for divorce in any jurisdiction in the USA, and without such a divorce being granted, they are still married.

    In addition, the Japanese court did not grant a divorce, nor did the plaintiff request a divorce. Instead, the plaintiff, who indirectly insisted that they were still married, else there be no case, regardless of what the relationship might be called in Japan, was awarded a monetary settlement by the court for "damages" due to infidelity, thus causing the court to indirectly admit that there is still some sort of continuing legal relationship involved.

    However, your question, and my partial answer, do highlight the unintended legal complications which can arise whenever a party does one thing in one jurisdiction and something else quite different in another, particularly when the two jurisdictions have incompatible laws

  • 16. ianbirmingham  |  September 19, 2019 at 8:41 pm

    A complex situation indeed! However, it's not strictly necessary to file for divorce "in any jurisdiction in the USA" in order to become legally divorced under American law:

    …a divorce decree issued in a foreign country generally is recognized in a state in the United States on the basis of comity (Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 163-64 (1895)), where both parties had notice of the divorce proceeding and an opportunity to be heard within these proceedings. Under the principle of comity, a divorce obtained in a foreign country under the circumstances described above generally will be recognized by states within the United States. States also may consider the jurisdictional basis upon which the foreign decree is founded and may not recognize the foreign divorce if the court is not satisfied that at least one party was domiciled in the country at the time of the divorce.

  • 17. VIRick  |  September 19, 2019 at 10:17 pm

    Thanks, you have just provided me with a legal term, and its definition, which I could not remember,– comity. Within Latin America, I have been using the term, reciprocity, which does seem to apply whenever two countries sign agreements to recognize each other's laws, as well as those actions taken under said laws.

    I believe comity would apply within the host country, as a sort of "fairness" rule, when no such reciprocal agreement has been signed. Mexico uses comity to recognize legally-valid foreign same-sex marriages, and both Perú and Panamá are being pressed in court to do the same. Uruguay, on the other hand, goes one step further and wants everyone to sign reciprocal agreements with them to force the other nations to recognize Uruguay's very liberal no-fault divorces, as well as their legally-valid same-sex marriages, soon to apply to non-resident foreigners. It worked with the no-fault divorces; we will soon find out if it also works with the same-sex marriages.

    I wish I knew as much about Japanese law.

  • 18. Elihu_Bystander  |  September 20, 2019 at 8:21 am

    In addition to its formal legal definition, the word comity has a second common meaning: courtesy and considerate behavior toward others. I am more familiar with this second meaning. "There was comity among the faculty of the university."

  • 19. ianbirmingham  |  September 18, 2019 at 1:35 pm

    CNN announces details for LGBTQ town hall

    Nine Democratic presidential candidates have accepted the Human Rights Campaign Foundation's invitation to participate in a CNN town hall next month focused on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer issues. HRC is billing the October 10 town hall in Los Angeles, "Power of our Pride," and it coincides with the 31st anniversary of National Coming Out Day on October 11. It will air live on CNN from 7 p.m. ET to 11:30 p.m. ET. HRC says it will be the largest audience for a Democratic presidential town hall devoted to LGBTQ issues.

    * Businessman Tom Steyer will be interviewed by CNN's Dana Bash at 7 p.m.
    * New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker will be interviewed by Bash at 7:30 p.m.
    * Former Vice President Joe Biden will be interviewed by CNN's Anderson Cooper at 8 p.m.
    * California Sen. Kamala Harris, will be interviewed by Cooper at 8:30 p.m.
    * Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren will be interviewed by CNN's Chris Cuomo at 9 p.m.
    * South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg will be interviewed by Cuomo at 9:30 p.m.
    * Former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke will be interviewed by CNN's Don Lemon at 10 p.m.
    * Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar will be interviewed by Lemon at 10:30 p.m.
    * Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro will be interviewed by Cooper at 11 p.m.

    Citing scheduling conflicts, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and businessman Andrew Yang each declined HRC's invitation to participate in the event.

  • 20. VIRick  |  September 18, 2019 at 4:10 pm

    Mauritius: Supreme Court Challenge to Anti-Sodomy Law Presented

    Per LGBT Marriage News:

    On 6 September 2019, four young Mauritians, who come from all parts of Mauritian society, have approached the Supreme Court of Mauritius for leave (permission) to seek constitutional redress by the declaration that Section 250 of the Mauritian Criminal Code Act of 1838, as amended, violates their fundamental rights and freedom and is unconstitutional.

    The leave application was called (presented) yesterday, 17 September 2019, before the Chief Justice, E. Balancy, and the Applicants were ordered to serve copies of the leave application on the State of Mauritius, the Attorney-General, and the Director of Public Prosecutions, and for them, in turn, to inform the Supreme Court of their views on the leave application by 30 September 2019.

    As stated by lead Plaintiff, Najeeb Ahmad Fokeerbux, “LGBT people in Mauritius are your friends, family, and neighbors, and deserve the same rights to have loving, caring relationships as everyone else. It’s time to get rid of this colonial-era law, and we ask all Mauritians to support our effort.”

    The Plaintiffs are contending in their (com)plaint for constitutional redress that Section 250 does not have its place in modern and democratic Mauritius in that:
    •LGBT people, like all other citizens, should have the fundamental rights to choice of sexual partner, privacy, dignity, protection of the law, and equality.
    •Section 250 is contrary to the values of democracy and treats LBGT people as second-class citizens.
    •Mauritians believe in an equal society free from discrimination, and the continued existence of Section 250 brings about discrimination, inequality, stigma, and persecution of LGBT people.

    The Plaintiffs, who come from Hindu, Christian, and Muslim backgrounds, are all members of the Young Queer Alliance, a youth-led NGO advocating for the respect of equal human rights for LGBT people in Mauritius. The Plaintiffs are legally represented before the Supreme Court on a pro-bono basis by Dentons (Mauritius) LLP, the local office of the world’s largest law firm, and by the Franco-Mauritian Law Chambers LCMB et Associés, based in Paris and Mauritius.

  • 21. VIRick  |  September 18, 2019 at 9:33 pm

    California Appeal Court Rules in Favor of Transgender Man in Transition-Related Case

    Per Equality Case Files:

    On 17 September 2019, in "Minton v. Dignity Health," the case in which a Catholic hospital refused to perform transition-related surgery, a California appeal court has revived Evan Minton's lawsuit, after a state Superior Court had ruled in Dignity Health's favor. The court did not make a decision on whether the hospital had a right to refer Minton to another facility for the services. Instead, for purposes of this appeal, the Court ruled that the medical provider's initial refusal of service was sufficient to make a claim for discrimination under California law. The case is sent back to the trial court for further proceedings.

    "Without determining the right of Dignity Health to provide its services in such cases at alternative facilities, as it claims to have done here, we agree that plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Dignity Health initially failed to do so and that its subsequent rectification of its denial, while likely mitigating plaintiff’s damages, did not extinguish his cause of action for discrimination in violation of the Unruh (Civil Rights) Act."

    A statement from the ACLU Foundation of Northern California regarding this case is here:

    The Opinion is here:

  • 22. VIRick  |  September 19, 2019 at 12:38 pm

    First Same-Sex Marriage in Ébano, San Luis Potosí, 19 September 2019

    Cintia y Marisol son la primer pareja del mismo sexo en casarse en el municipio de Ébano en el estado de San Luis Potosí.

    Cintia and Marisol are the first same-sex couple to marry in the municipality of Ébano in San Luis Potosí state.

    Note: The municipality of Ébano (pop. 42,000) is in the very northeastern corner of the state, abutting Veracruz and almost touching Tamaulipas, two states still without marriage equality. This brief clip did not mention whether the couple in question is actually resident in Ébano, or whether they came across the state line to marry there.

  • 23. VIRick  |  September 19, 2019 at 3:15 pm

    Sark: Politicians to Vote on Marriage Equality

    Per LGBT Marriage News:

    Politicians in Sark are set to vote on allowing same-sex marriage on the island. The change would bring Sark, the last of the Channel Islands, in-line with Alderney, Guernsey, and Jersey which already allow same-sex marriages.

    Sark's Policy and Finance committee Chairman, Conseiller Peter La Trobe-Batemans, has made the proposition after being approached by several individuals about adopting same-sex marriage on the island. A vote on the proposals is set to take place on Wednesday, 2 October 2019.

  • 24. VIRick  |  September 19, 2019 at 11:44 pm

    Zacatecas: "Action of Unconstitutionality" Filed with Supreme Court against the State

    Per Raymundo Moreno‏:

    Reconozco a los 11 Diputados que suscribieron la "Acción de Inconstitucionalidad" interpuesta el día de hoy, el 19 septiembre 2019, ante la SCJN a fin de garantizar los DDHH a la igualdad y no discriminación de los zacatecanos. Confío en que la Corte fallará en favor del matrimonio igualitario.

    I congratulate the 11 Deputies (only 10 were needed from the 30-member Congress) who signed the "Action of Unconstitutionality" filed today, 19 September 2019, before the Supreme Court in order to guarantee the human rights of equality and non-discrimination in Zacatecas. I am confident that the Court will rule in favor of marriage equality.

    And thank you, Raymundo, for knowing how to do this, and for proceeding to complete it in a timely manner.

  • 25. allan120102  |  September 20, 2019 at 12:58 am

    Zacatecas is now done. We just need the ruling that will probably take nine months to a year. While we wait for Zacatecas hopefully other states do the same.

  • 26. VIRick  |  September 20, 2019 at 11:08 am

    USA: Colorado River Indian Tribes Approve Marriage Equality

    Per LGBT Marriage News:

    On 8 August 2019, the Colorado River Indian Tribes of California and Arizona collectively became the latest native tribal jurisdiction to pass a marriage equality law.

    The Colorado River Indian Reservation is located primarily in western La Paz county, Arizona, with smaller portions in SE San Bernardino and NE Riverside counties, California. However, it is actually one contiguous chunk of land, straddling state and county lines, with its headquarters in Parker, Arizona. The federally-recognized "tribe" consists of 4 distinct ethnic groups, the Chemehuevi, Mojave, Hopi, and Navajo. This artificial tribe has senior water rights to the Colorado River, controlling about one-third of Arizona's entire allotment.

    Note: Some of these so-called tribes make no sense, and this one is a good example, as both the Hopi and Navajo have their own separate reservation lands in NE Arizona. However, remembering that most Native American groups were nomadic, and that US troops rounded up assorted Native Americans without regard to tribal affiliation, and dumped them off here and there, one surmises that small numbers of both were thus deposited alongside the other two, who, in turn, were also lumped together. In addition, many of the Chemehuevi themselves were "deported" here from other parts of southern California. And further north, the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation, straddling California, Arizona, and Nevada, also with senior water rights to Colorado River water, and which is primarily Mojave, is considered to be a separate "tribe," even though both reservations contain about the same number of actual Mojave members. This group's tribal headquarters is located in Needles, California.

    And in between, there is a separate, newly re-recognized Chemehuevi Indian Reservation in San Bernardino county, California, bordering on Lake Havasu, whose tribal headquarters is located at Havasu Lake, California, and who are now also counted as a separate "tribe." There are 6 additional Chemehuevi/Mission/Cahuilla/Serrano/Luiseño Indian reservations scattered across the desert portion of southern California, each counted as yet another separate "tribe," even though assorted ethnicities have been lumped together on each.

  • 27. VIRick  |  September 20, 2019 at 8:18 pm

    Indonesia: President Delays Vote on New Nationwide Penal Code Criminalizing LGBT Activity

    Per LGBT Marriage News:

    On Friday, 20 September 2019, Indonesia’s president ordered lawmakers to delay a planned vote on updates to the country’s penal code. He has been urged to scrap the changes, as they would further persecute the country’s beleaguered LGBT community.

    Under draft laws agreed by lawmakers and the government earlier this week, unmarried couples who “live together as a husband and wife” could be jailed for six months. The revisions, which were due to be voted on in parliament on Tuesday, 24 September, before President Joko Widodo ordered the delay today, would also apply a one-year prison term to anyone who has sex with someone who is not their spouse. This portion of the draft laws would impact the LGBT community in particular, as gay marriage is not recognized in Indonesia.

    Indonesia’s penal code revisions, which would replace a Dutch colonial-era set of laws, also includes prison terms for those found to commit “obscene acts,” defined as violating norms of decency and politeness through “lust or sexuality.”

  • 28. VIRick  |  September 20, 2019 at 8:46 pm

    Maryland: Court Challenge to Conversion Therapy Ban Dismissed

    Per Equality Case Files:

    On 20 September 2019, in "Doyle v. Hogan," the federal challenge to Maryland's ban on conversion therapy for minors, Judge Chasanow has granted the state's motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

    The Memorandum Opinion is here:

  • 29. VIRick  |  September 21, 2019 at 5:33 pm

    Querétaro: PAN Querétaro Purportedly Set to Vote against Masturbation

    Per Frente Queretano por el DNDEL‏:

    PAN Querétaro niega (existencia de la) supuesta iniciativa contra la masturbación!! Este desmentido sólo indica que la ciudadanía sí la, y los creen (que PAN tiene) capaces de esas mocherías!! Tan es así que no pasan al Pleno las iniciativas de matrimonio igualitario e identidad de genero.

    PAN Querétaro denies (the existence of) the alleged initiative against masturbation!! This denial only shows that the citizens understand it, and they (the citizens) believe them that they (PAN) have the capacity for such mockeries!! Much more so from not passing the marriage equality and gender identity initiatives on to the full Congress.

    So, the original headline is fake, and was first published at a site named "El Acueducto." But the fact that PAN Querétaro felt that the allegation was believable to many citizens was enough for them to then feel that there was a need to step in and deny the allegations, with this latter point thus becoming actual news. And the snide manner by which the entire affair was reported, as expressed here by the Frente Queretano, is also quite real.

    Here is a second widely-read nationwide source, spreading the news much further while providing more detail, even naming the alleged PAN deputy in the Querétaro congress who was purported to be the author of the proposed statewide ban on masturbation, while also rather snidely reporting on the entire matter:

    It should definitely be noted that masturbation is a subject that is never discussed publicly in polite society in Mexico, so for it to even be breached, even as a denial, is quite eye-opening. However, the allegation regarding the proposed statewide ban definitely served its purpose of embarrassing PAN and putting the party very much on the defensive.

  • 30. arturo547  |  September 22, 2019 at 2:10 pm

    Peru: Worrying situation for the LGBT community as Congress to elect new judges to the Constitutional Court on 30 September.

    The problem with this election is that the homophobic fujimorismo party and its allies have proposed conservative bigots to replace six (out of seven) judges, whose service period concluded in June of this year.

    Unlike countries like the US, the Peruvian Constitutional Court judges are proposed and elected by the Congress only.

    However, this election might be irregular, as they proposed the list of judges in just half and hour and scheduled the vote within a week, without conducting interviews or participation from the publicó.

    Five parties (leftists especially) have criticised this tactic from fujimorismo, as it is clear that they want to control the Constitutional Court in order to free Keiko from prison.

    Some Congresspeople say they will ask for intervention from internacional organizations to stop this mess.

    The judges should be elected by the next congress, which will take place very soon thanks to president Vizcarra proposal to anticipate elections in the country.

    The Constitutional Court has a pending marriage equality case. The latest news about it occurred on 8 August, when the judges decided to accept amicus curiae from different organizations prior to ruling on the issue. More than a month has passed and the ruling should already must be voted. We don't know. It would be terrible if the case were to be solved by the incoming homophobic judged. They would surely rule that marriage equality is "unconstitutional" and the issue would then be blocked for almost a decade.

    However, yo choose a judge the Congress needs 87 votes. Let's hope the leftists and moderates don't give their votes.


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