1/13-1/14 open thread and SCOTUS updates
January 13, 2020
The Supreme Court issued orders Friday and this morning, but they still haven’t taken any action in the two cases we’re following: one in which a florist doesn’t provide flower arrangements to same-sex couples, and another about Philadelphia’s decision to stop contracting with Catholic Social Services over adoption for same-sex couples.
11/14 UPDATE: The Supreme Court issued two decisions this morning in argued cases, but did not issue the Title VII cases we’re following.
This is an open thread. We’ll post any breaking news.
Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!
14 Comments
1.
JayJonson | January 13, 2020 at 9:16 am
Marriage equality dawns in Northern Ireland. Because couples must wait 28 days after declaring their intent to marry, the weddings will begin in February. But the marriages of same-sex couples who have wed in other jurisdictions are now officially recognized as married. Congratulations!
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-5108…
2.
VIRick | January 13, 2020 at 10:52 am
Northern Ireland: Same-Sex Marriage Is Now Legally Recognized
From today, 13 January 2020, unmarried same-sex couples will be able to register to marry, with said ceremonies thus taking place after the 28-day waiting period has elapsed, meaning the first marriages will actually occur on or after 10 February. For couples who have already married elsewhere, their marriages will now be legally recognized in Northern Ireland.
However, at the moment, those who are already in a civil partnership will not be able to convert it to a marriage. The Northern Ireland Office is set to begin a consultation later this year about converting civil partnerships and the role of churches in same-sex marriages. Still, from today, heterosexual couples will now also be able to enter into civil partnerships.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-5108…
3.
VIRick | January 13, 2020 at 4:13 pm
Kentucky: Bill to Ban "Conversion Therapy" Introduced in House
Per LGBT Marriage News:
Two Kentucky legislators, State Reps. Patti Minter, D-Bowling Green, and Lisa Willner, D-Louisville, introduced legislation into the Kentucky House of Representatives on Tuesday, 7 January 2020, that would effectively ban the controversial practice of "conversion therapy" for minors in the commonwealth.
If the legislation passes, mental health professionals in Kentucky would be prohibited from engaging in "conversion therapy" with minors under the age of 18 and with certain adults, defined by a Kentucky state statute as "a person eighteen (18) years of age or older who, because of mental or physical dysfunction, is unable to manage his or her own resources, carry out the activity of daily living, or protect himself or herself from neglect, exploitation, or a hazardous or abusive situation without assistance from others, and who may be in need of protective services."
Professionals who do practice conversion therapy on these individuals would be subject to discipline. Additionally, if signed into a law, the legislation would prohibit public funds from being used for "conversion therapy."
Willner, the bill's primary sponsor, said she's the only psychologist in the General Assembly and thus knows about what she called a shame-based treatment that causes psychological harm. “Even calling it a therapy is misleading," Willner said. "It’s not only ineffective, but it’s also dangerous. It’s a shame-based treatment that is so often associated with depression, with anxiety, with suicidal thinking, with self-harm, with suicidal attempts, and with death by suicide.”
Willner said it’s difficult to anticipate how the bill will be received, but she’s trying to educate her colleagues about the dangers of the practice.
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politi…
4.
VIRick | January 13, 2020 at 6:13 pm
Zacatecas Activists to Copy Sinaloa Marriage Equality Court Case
Per Raymundo Moreno:
En Sinaloa, los activistas encabezados por Tiago Ventura ganaron el juicio de amparo. Los grupos anti-derechos apelaron, pero perderán. El congreso de Sinaloa tendrá que aprobar el matrimonio igualitario. En Zacatecas, vamos por la misma ruta.
https://twitter.com/RayMoreno1
In Sinaloa, activists headed by Tiago Ventura won the amparo judgment. Anti-rights groups appealed, but they will lose. The Sinaloa congress will have to approve marriage equality. In Zacatecas, we will go the same route.
5.
VIRick | January 13, 2020 at 6:51 pm
Former Mayor of San Pedro Cholula Agrees with Puebla City Council's Action
Per José Juan Espinosa:
El matrimonio igualitario lo resuelve en positivo cualquier Ayuntamiento de Puebla, como lo hicimos en mi periodo al frente de (San Pedro) Cholula; basta la ruta jurídica que utilizamos.
https://twitter.com/JoseJuanEsp
Marriage equality is resolved in the positive by any Puebla City Council, as we did it during my tenure at the head of (San Pedro) Cholula; the legal route that we utilize is sufficient.
Currently, José Juan Espinosa (PT) is a deputy in the Puebla state congress and has already pronounced himself to be in favor of the pending statewide marriage equality legislation, as sponsored by Rocío García Olmedo (PRI),
San Pedro Cholula was the sole municipality in Puebla state to approve marriage equality on its own, prior to the first Supreme Court ruling against Puebla state.
6.
VIRick | January 13, 2020 at 7:07 pm
Chilean Senate Moving Forward on Marriage Equality
Per el Presidente del Senado de Chile, Jaime Quintana:
Este miércoles, el 15 de enero, la Mesa del Senado de Chile quiere discutir proyecto de matrimonio igualitario. Llevaremos esa propuesta mañana a reunión de comités. Todos tenemos los mismos derechos, especialmente cuando se trata del derecho a amar. Espero que la mayoría de las bancadas así lo entienda.
https://twitter.com/senadorquintana
This Wednesday, 15 January 2020, the Chilean Senate Board wishes to discuss the marriage equality bill. Tomorrow, we will take up that proposal at the committees meeting. We all have the same rights, especially when it comes to the right to love. I hope that the majority of caucuses understand that.
7.
VIRick | January 14, 2020 at 3:36 pm
Chile: Senate Committees Vote to Move Marriage Equality Bill on to Full Senate
Per Eugenia Subiabre, Periodista Universidad de Chile:
Este Miércoles, el Senado Vota la Ley de Matrimonio Igualitario
Tras dos meses de espera, el proyecto de Ley de Matrimonio Igualitario será finalmente votado mañana, el 15 de enero 2020, a las 16:00 horas, por el Senado en el Congreso en Valparaíso.
https://www.elmostrador.cl/braga/2020/01/14/misio…
This Wednesday, the Senate Votes on the Marriage Equality Bill
Between 4-8 PM tomorrow, 15 January 2020, after two months of waiting, the bill on the Marriage Equality Law will finally be voted upon by the Senate at the Congress in Valparaíso.
Per Felipe Andrés:
Se requieren 22 votos a favor para aprobación. Va así:
A Favor: (12) Quintana, Allende, Rincón, Lagos, Goic, Harboe, F.Kast, Letelier, Ordenes, De Urresti, Quinteros, Elizalde
En Contra: (4) Moreira, Ebensperger, Durana, Coloma
https://twitter.com/JerryAndresS
The bill needs 22 votes in favor for approval. So far:
In Favor: (12) Quintana, Allende, Rincón, Lagos, Goic, Harboe, F. Kast, Letelier, Ordenes, De Urresti, Quinteros, Elizalde
Against: (4) Moreira, Ebensperger, Durana, Coloma
Per Diego Villalobos León:
Con 22 votos a favor (oposición DC, PP, PPD, PS, RD, Ind., y Evópoli), 16 en contra (UDI, RN), y 1 abstención (RN), se aprueba en general proyecto de matrimonio igualitario en el Senado.
https://twitter.com/diegovl92
With 22 votes in favor (opposition DC, PP, PPD, PS, RD, Ind., and Evópoli), 16 against (UDI, RN), and 1 abstention (RN), the marriage equality bill is approved in general in the Senate.
Per La Guacolda:
Fue aprobada la Ley de Matrimonio Igualitario por el Senado, con 22 votos a favor, 16 en contra, y 1 abstención. Ahora, falta que lo ratifique la Comisión de Constitución. No se incorpora derechos de filiación.
https://twitter.com/La_Guacolda
The Law on Marriage Equality was approved by the Senate, with 22 votes in favor, 16 against, and 1 abstention. Now, the Constitution Commission needs to ratify it. No rights of filiation (no automatic second parent recognition for children) are included.
Here is the exact senator-by-senator count as to which way they voted, complete with political party marked, per Priscilla Lopetegui and Movilh:
https://twitter.com/prisi_lop
https://twitter.com/Movilh
8.
VIRick | January 15, 2020 at 7:43 pm
Chile: A Reminder Concerning the Legislative Complexities
Per Jorge Lucero R.
Se aprobó la idea de legislar matrimonio igualitario pero ahora vuelve a la Comisión de Constitución del Senado para su discusión en particular. Aún estamos en su primer trámite constitucional, por lo que nos queda un gran camino antes de llegar a la Cámara.
https://twitter.com/jorgelucerossel
The idea of legislating marriage equality was approved but now returns to the Senate Constitution Commission for discussion in particular. We are still in its first constitutional process, so we have a long way to go before it reaches the House.
9.
allan120102 | January 15, 2020 at 8:22 pm
You should see Luis Larraín explanation in his tweets of 4 hours ago. It looks like it might take years before ssm becomes law in chile. The judicial way looks to be the easiest way. https://mobile.twitter.com/LuisLarrain
10.
VIRick | January 15, 2020 at 9:14 pm
Allan, I do see why this step was delayed and delayed. They were one vote short of the required 22 for the 55% majority (and knew it, but refused to say so out loud), that is, until Felipe Kast of Evópoli, who regularly supports the government faction, switched sides on this particular vote and joined the opposition.
And yes, as Luis Larraín noted, since it took the Senate 2 1/2 years to decide to vote in favor of the idea of legislating in favor of marriage equality, it will probably take considerably longer for the entire process to complete itself. Unlike many Latin nations, but mirroring the USA, Chile has both a Senate and a House, and the bill must pass both. Still, the positive vote this evening means the bill can now move on to its next step.
11.
VIRick | January 14, 2020 at 4:14 pm
Sinaloa Congress Reopens Marriage Equality Debate
El Congreso de Sinaloa reabre el debate sobre el matrimonio igualitario entre personas del mismo sexo en Sinaloa, y este martes, el 14 de enero 2020, dieron lectura a tres iniciativas que buscan reformar el primer párrafo del artículo 40 y el primer párrafo del artículo 165 del Código Familiar del Estado de Sinaloa.
https://twitter.com/noroestemx/status/12172324265…
Las iniciativas fueron promovidas en un caso por varios miembros de la comunidad LGBTTTIQ, en otro por el Comité de la Diversidad (Santiago Ventura y Almendra Negrete), y uno más por ciudadanos independientes.
https://www.noroeste.com.mx/publicaciones/view/co…
The Sinaloa Congress reopened debate on equal marriages between same-sex couples in Sinaloa, and on Tuesday, 14 January 2020, they read three initiatives that seek to reform the first paragraph of article 40 and the first paragraph of article 165 of the Family Code of the State of Sinaloa.
The initiatives were promoted in one case by several members of the LGBTTTIQ community, in another by the Diversity Committee (Santiago Ventura and Almendra Negrete), and one more by independent citizens.
And as a reminder to all and sundry:
Per El Sol de Sinaloa:
Cuando se cumplan los cinco juicios por amparos, la SCJN ordenará que se legisle sin necesidad de votación (del congreso).
https://www.elsoldesinaloa.com.mx/local/el-matrim…
When the five amparos judgments are completed, the SCJN will order that it be legislated without the need for a vote (of the congress).
12.
VIRick | January 15, 2020 at 9:29 am
Municipality of Puebla: Same-Sex Marriages Continue
Boletín de Prensa, No. 1029.2020, 15 de enero 2020, del Titular de Gobernación, René Sánchez Galindo:
En la junta auxiliar San Baltazar Campeche, llevaron a cabo 3 matrimonios igualitarios y estos se seguirán celebrando, explicó el Secretario de Gobernación Municipal.
https://twitter.com/hashtag/matrimonioigualitario…
At the San Baltazar Campeche auxiliary board, they carried out 3 equal marriages and these will continue being held, explained the Municipal Government Secretary.
San Baltazar Campeche is one of the 17 branch offices of the civil registry of the municipality of Puebla.
This two-page press release is quite lengthly, as it presents the entire legal history behind their justification and reasoning as to why, from a purely legal standpoint, same-sex marriages will continue to be celebrated within the extended municipality of Puebla. The city government is not playing games with the state congress, despite the fact that said state congress is located within their city.
And here is a news report based upon the above-cited press release by René Sánchez Galindo, which basically reiterates the point that the Supreme Court has already issued its resolution on the subject of same-sex marriage in the state of Puebla, a resolution that the city will continue to follow:
http://pueblaenterate.com/capital/suprema-corte-d…
13.
ianbirmingham | January 15, 2020 at 1:59 pm
EoT is still failing the Tene.maza test…………..
Did anyone ever make contact with Scottie, etc.?
14.
VIRick | January 15, 2020 at 5:40 pm
From the moment I began to receive this message:
This comment has been deleted by the administrator.
whenever I attempted to make a post containing that person's surname from Ecuador, even with your assistance, matters continued to go downhill for me, to the point where, in the "Happy Holidays open thread" of 23 December 2019, all my "reply" buttons went mute, and the "Post a new comment" box at the bottom of it disappeared. And it is still that way in that thread. And all the posts which disappeared, including from others who had responded, are still missing.
I did not contact Scotty about it, as I had no idea how one would do that directly. Instead, I was content to wait until he began a new thread. In the interval, I made posts in what was then the next most-recent thread, the one marked "12/16 open thread UPDATED."
But yes, there is a serious glitch in the "Intense Debate" system which we blindly stumbled upon, and for which there is no rational explanation. But that is not really Scotty's problem, but rather, a problem for whomever is marketing "Intense Debate." Scotty's actual problem is that none of the several methods identified on the EoT site for reporting problems are still functioning. All of that information is completely out-of-date. I mean, right here, on the very bottom of this page, it says:
Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!
So, do it, and see what happens. Clue: nada. No hay ninguna respuesta. No hay ningun problema reparado.
And if one goes to the "Contact" page, it states: Fill out the form below to get in touch with us. One problem: no form.