Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

2/3 open thread


This is an open thread. We’ll post any breaking news. The Supreme Court is in its recess until the end of this month, so we don’t expect any major news from them until then.


  • 1. Fortguy  |  February 4, 2020 at 1:24 am

    Here's a fascinating article about the large coterie of gay reporters from national media outlets who are embedded in the Pete Buttigieg campaign:

    Adam Wren, Politico: Being Gay on the Campaign Trail With Pete Buttigieg

  • 2. VIRick  |  February 4, 2020 at 3:04 pm

    Virginia House Passes Bill Banning "Conversion Therapy" for Minors

    On Monday, 3 February 2020, in a bipartisan vote, the Virginia House of Delegates approved a bill that would ban so-called conversion therapy for minors. House Bill 386, sponsored by state Del. Patrick Hope (D-Arlington County), would prohibit health providers who counsel minors from engaging in the practice that has been widely discredited. It passed by a 66-27 vote margin with support from several Republicans.

    In January, the Virginia Senate approved its own bill that would ban the controversial practice in the state. Gov. Ralph Northam still needs to sign the measure before it becomes law

    Virginia House Approves Transgender Patients Rights Bill

    On Tuesday, 4 February 2020, the Virginia House of Delegates approved a bill that would ban health care providers in the state from discriminating against patients based on their gender identity. House Bill 1429, which state Del. Danica Roem (D-Manassas) introduced, passed by a 54-41 vote margin.

  • 3. VIRick  |  February 4, 2020 at 3:59 pm

    Deborah Batts, First Lesbian Federal District Court Judge, Dies at 72

    US District Court Judge Deborah Batts, the first openly gay federal judge in the nation, has died at age 72. Batts, who was also the first African-American faculty member at Fordham University Law School, died in her sleep Sunday, 2 February 2020, according to a Fordham press release. The cause of death was not stated.

    Batts was nominated to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton in 1994 and confirmed by the Senate, joining the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. Her confirmation went smoothly, and her sexual orientation did not come up. She once observed that it took a Democratic president to appoint her, as she did not fit the George H.W. Bush administration's idea of what a federal judge should be. She retired from the court in 2012 but continued to volunteer her services in hearing cases, CNN notes.

    Batts graduated from Harvard Law School in 1972 and then clerked for a federal judge. She was an attorney in private practice from 1973 to 1979, when she became an assistant US attorney in the Southern District of New York. She became a law professor at Fordham in 1984, then resigned that position when she became a federal judge. She eventually returned to Fordham as an adjunct professor.

    Batts is survived by her wife, Gwen Zornberg, and her children, James and Alexandra McCown.

  • 4. VIRick  |  February 4, 2020 at 4:54 pm

    ILGA: Annual Review of LGBTI Human Rights Situation in Europe/Central Asia

    ILGA-Europe has prepared an 121-page country-by-country review for 2019 as to the LGBTI human rights situation for each of the 54 nations comprising all of Europe and Central Asia (so as to include all portions of the ex-USSR within the report), plus Turkey.

    In ILGA's report from Liechtenstein, on page 70, as noted by LGBT Marriage News, one finds this entry regarding a previously-unreported same-sex marriage constitutional court case:

    Liechtenstein: Same-Sex Marriage Constitutional Court Case

    In 2018, a gay couple applied for a marriage license at the Civil Registry Office. Same-sex couples are not allowed to marry in Liechtenstein, but they can enter a civil partnership since the 2011 Civil Partnership Act. The Administrative Court ruled that the Marriage Act restricting the right to marry to couples "of different sexes" is in violation of the Constitution. The court referred the Marriage Act to the State Court for constitutional review. In September 2019, the State Court ruled that the wording does not violate either the Constitution or the European Convention on Human Rights.

    This ILGA report needs to be carefully scrutinized for more previously-unreported court cases and/or additional legislative measures, as it appears to be a treasure-trove of under-reported events. I just looked one country ahead, at Latvia, on page 69:

    Latvia: Legislative Proposal for Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Unions

    In early 2019, in Latvia, for the third time, draft partnership legislation to legally recognize same-sex unions had again been introduced into the 101-member Saeima. However, yet again, for the third time, on 20 June 2019, said measure was voted down, with 23 in favor, 60 against, and one abstention.

  • 5. JayJonson  |  February 5, 2020 at 7:58 am

    Thanks for bringing attention to this important report.

    I am not sure that I understand the ramifications of the Liechtenstein case. The State Court upheld the Marriage Act's restriction of the right of same-sex couples to marry. Does anyone know whether this means that in Liechtenstein marriage equality can now be achieved only through legislative means?

    Or whether there is a constituency for marriage equality in the country? Would a referendum on the question be possible and likely successful?

    Or whether there any significant differences in the benefits afforded by Liechtenstein's civil partnership and a marriage?

  • 6. VIRick  |  February 5, 2020 at 11:12 am

    Here is some background on Liechtenstein:

    The last reigning monarch of the once-mighty Hapsburg Empire still rules in Liechtenstein, and as in Monaco, is not merely a figurehead, given that he still has the right to veto laws and elect judges. Prior to WWI, besides Liechtenstein, the Hapsburgs also ruled Austria-Hungary, which at the time included all of an extended Czechoslovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, half of Romania, and a portion of Italy, plus they had just taken over Bosnia-Herzegovina from Turkish rule. After WWI, they were left with nothing but Liechtenstein.

    Between the wars, Liechtenstein then switched from legally adhering to Austria to legally adhering to Switzerland in a whole host of governance matters. For example, for customs/immigration purposes, the Switzerland-Liechtenstein border is considered "domestic," while the one between Liechtenstein and Austria is not. Liechtenstein utilizes Switzerland in all matters of foreign affairs, military defense, and diplomatic representation, while also following the Swiss penchant for referenda. The Swiss Franc is their official currency, and banking is a big business. On all routes, the Liechtenstein Postal Bus honors the Swiss Rail Pass.

    Obviously, though, they have their own court system, and their own family law, separate from Switzerland. However, the Liechtenstein 2011 Civil Partnership Act closely parallels that of Switzerland, which was enacted on 1 January 2007 following a 2005 referendum. In the interim, it may also be pertinent to note that Austria passed its own (now-defunct) Civil Partnership Act in the fall of 2009.

    Here is what the one in Switzerland states:

    In Liechtenstein, in August 2010, Prince Alois declared his support for the civil partnership bill. By a 21-4 vote, it was passed in the second reading in the Landtag on 16 March 2011 and published on 21 March. In a referendum held on 19 June 2011, Liechtenstein citizens then indicated their support for the Civil Partnership Act (Partnerschaftsgesetz), with 68.8% in favor. The measure finally went into effect from 1 September 2011. In the 8 years since, 2011-18, there have been 24 registered partnerships performed in Liechtenstein.

    Essentially, a same-sex marriage bill would have to follow this same 3-step procedure: princely support, approval by the Landtag, and approval by voters in a referendum.

  • 7. JayJonson  |  February 5, 2020 at 3:55 pm

    Thanks for this informative summary of Liechtenstein's history and current legal situation re same-sex marriage.

  • 8. VIRick  |  February 5, 2020 at 7:20 pm

    And Jay, to answer your 4 original questions most directly, their answers would be: Most likely, yes, yes to its likely being required and yes to its probable success, and yes to their being differences. See the Wikipedia entry for Switzerland listing those major differences. However, marriage equality will not come about in Liechtenstein until after the complicated process currently under way in Switzerland has been completed and marriage equality has become the law of the land in that jurisdiction. Then, shortly thereafter, expect Liechtenstein to commence the process of changing its own law.

  • 9. VIRick  |  February 4, 2020 at 6:19 pm

    Notice to the Trolling Individual(s) Who Feel It Is Their Life's Mission to Passively Sit in Judgment, Down-Voting Postings Pertaining to Positive Events from Mexico without Offering Any Further Comment or Insight

    Here is your challenge:

    ILGA just published its 121-page country-by-country review for 2019 on the LGBTI human rights situation for 54 nations in Europe/Central Asia.

    In it, from Liechtenstein, LGBT Marriage News quickly found an important, previously-unreported same-sex marriage constitutional court case and duly reported upon it.

    Following behind them, from Latvia, I found an important legislative proposal which would legally recognize same-sex unions within that country, and also reported upon it.

    That still leaves you with 52 remaining nations to peruse and search to see how many more additional previously-unreported same-sex marriage constitutional court cases, and/or legislative proposals to legally recognize same-sex unions, you can find. And once you do find such, you are then cordially invited to post your findings here so that they can be shared with one and all. One thus hopes that this exercise will keep you sufficiently occupied so as to prevent your bored, judgmental thumb from down-voting any further postings made by others (regardless of the country being down-voted), while refusing to offer any further comment or insight.

    As a clue in getting started, check Estonia, Finland, France, Lithuania, and Cyprus, while enjoying this court ruling from Austria, found on page 27:

    Austrian Court: Children of Mexican-Austrian Married Lesbian Couple are Dual Citizens

    In May 2019, the Administrative Court in Vienna ruled that the children of a Mexican-Austrian married lesbian couple must be granted citizenship and Austrian passports. The family lives in Mexico.

  • 10. VIRick  |  February 5, 2020 at 4:40 pm

    Northern Ireland: First Same-Sex Marriage Now Scheduled for 11 February 2020

    Per LGBT Marriage News and Rex Wockner:

    A lesbian couple is set to hold Northern Ireland's first same-sex marriage next week. Sharni Edwards and Robyn Peoples, 26, will marry in the coastal town of Carrickfergus on 11 February, their sixth anniversary as a couple.

    Same-sex couples have been able to get civil partnerships, offering most of the same legal protections as marriage, since 2005. They were extended to straight couples at the end of 2019.

    The British government is currently running a consultation until 23 February on same-sex religious marriages and how couples can convert civil partnerships into marriages in Northern Ireland.

  • 11. allan120102  |  February 6, 2020 at 12:30 pm

    Costa Rica judge who annul the first ssm is not hiding his homophobia from anyone. In his ruling he even criticise the supreme Court for following the ich and not the European court decision .

  • 12. VIRick  |  February 6, 2020 at 3:14 pm

    Virginia: Legislators Pass Comprehensive LGBTQ Non-Discrimination Bills

    Per LGBT Marriage News:

    Today, 6 February 2020, the Virginia Values Act (SB 868 and HB 1663) passed its third and final readings in both the House of Delegates and the Senate with strong bipartisan support, paving the way for Virginia to become the 21st state, and the first Southern state, to update its law to explicitly provide comprehensive non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ people, covering employment, housing, and public spaces. The bills now face final procedural steps before going to the desk of Gov. Ralph Northam, who has indicated he will sign the act into law.

    In the Virginia Senate, the vote was 30 in favor and 9 against. The 9 Republicans who voted against are Chafin, Chase, McDougle, Newman, Obenshain, Peake, Reeves, Stanley, and Suetterlein, while Pillion did not vote. However, 9 other Republicans, along with all 21 Democrats, voted in favor.

    Per Rex Wockner:

    These 20 states already prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, and public accommodations: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, as does DC.

    Wisconsin prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, but not gender identity, in employment, housing, and public accommodations. Utah prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment and housing, but not in public accommodations. Guam and Puerto Rico prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment.

  • 13. scream4ever  |  February 6, 2020 at 11:58 pm

    In addition, Michigan and Pennsylvania ban discrimination for both sexual orientation and gender identity as a result of rulings from their human rights commissions. Indiana bans discrimination for sexual orientation through court order. Several other states ban it for gender identity only through court order, while others ban it among both sexual orientation and gender identity in public employment only.

  • 14. VIRick  |  February 6, 2020 at 3:44 pm

    Tonga: Out Gay Swimmer Seeks 2020 Tokyo Olympic Qualification

    Amini Fonua represents Tonga, a country where homosexuality is illegal and elite athletes do not receive financial support. To cover his expenses, Fonua works as a barista along with side jobs teaching private swimming lessons and mentoring high school athletes hoping to swim in college.

    Fonua, whose father is Tongan and whose mother is British, grew up in Auckland, New Zealand, in a sports-oriented family and was active in rugby, basketball, and swimming. By age 14, he turned his full attention to swimming. Fonua served as Tonga’s flag-bearer in the 2012 Summer Olympics Parade of Nations in London and competed in the 100 meter breaststroke. He was not out publicly at the time.

    His path to the 2016 Rio Olympics included a stop at the 2015 Pacific Games in Papua-New Guinea where he won gold medals in the 50-, 100- and 200-meter breaststroke events, breaking two Games records. He gained international attention in Rio when he publicly criticized a Daily Beast article that outed fellow Olympians, including some from homophobic countries.

    In his quest for a third Olympics in 2020 in Tokyo, Fonua says that this time it is with a sense of purpose that includes being an LGBTQ representative. Tonga has never censored Fonua and he takes pride in representing the country. He spent a month last September training in Japan and has several tune-up meets before Tokyo, including the 2020 Oceania Championships in Fiji this June where he is a five-time medalist.

  • 15. VIRick  |  February 7, 2020 at 6:07 pm

    México: There Will Be Free Equal Marriage Ceremonies in These States

    México: En Estos Estados, Habrá Bodas Igualitarias Gratis

    En diferentes estados de la República Mexicana donde el matrimonio igualitario es legal, se llevan a cabo campañas que invitan a las parejas LGBT a ejercer este derecho a través de bodas comunitarias:

    Zacatecas, Zacatecas (la primera vez)

    La asociación civil, Grupo Juvenil Lambda, hace la invitación a todos los zacatecanos que quieran contraer nupcias el próximo viernes, 14 de febrero. La ceremonia se llevará a cabo en el Museo Rafael Coronel en punto de las 5 de la tarde.

    Ciudad de México, CDMX

    Para conmemorar los 10 años de la aprobación del matrimonio igualitario, el gobierno de la Ciudad de México puso en marcha la “Jornada de Matrimonio Igualitario y Cambio de Identidad de Género, 2020,” que concluirá con una boda comunitaria massiva el próximo 14 de marzo a las 12:00 horas.

    Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua

    Sin la necesidad de tramitar un amparo para contraer matrimonio, según declaró Margarita Guardado, encargada de Oficialías de Registro Civil, las parejas lgbt podrán participar en la ceremonia de Matrimonios Colectivos 2020 que se realizarán en este municipio el próximo 17 de febrero en el Gimnasio Universitario de la Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez (UACJ), en punto de la una de la tarde.

    Estado de Oaxaca (la primera vez)

    Por primera vez, parejas del mismo sexo podrán participar en el programa de Bodas Colectivas que realiza el Registro Civil local en todo el territorio oaxaqueño. La documentación será recibida hasta el 25 de febrero en las 142 oficialías ubicadas en todo el estado.

    In various states of the Mexican Republic where marriage equality is legal, campaigns are being carried out to invite LGBT couples to exercise this right through communal marriage ceremonies:

    Zacatecas, Zacatecas (first time)

    The civil association, Grupo Juvenil Lambda, has made the invitation to all Zacatecans who wish to marry next Friday, 14 February. The ceremony will take place at the Rafael Coronel Museum at 5 PM.

    Mexico City, CDMX

    To commemorate 10 years since the approval of marriage equality, the government of Mexico City has launched the “Day of Marriage Equality and Change of Gender Identity, 2020,” which will conclude with a massive communal marriage ceremony on 14 March at noon.

    Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua

    According to Margarita Guardado, the official in charge of the Civil Registry Offices, without the need for processing an amparo in order to marry, LGBT couples can participate in the ceremony of Collective Marriages 2020 that will be held in this municipality on 17 February at the University Gymnasium of the Autonomous University of Ciudad Juárez (UACJ), at 1 PM.

    Oaxaca State (first time)

    For the first time, same-sex couples will be able to participate in the Collective Marriage program to be carried out by the Civil Registry offices throughout all of Oaxaca. Documentation will be received until 25 February at all 142 offices located throughout the state.

  • 16. VIRick  |  February 7, 2020 at 8:00 pm

    Mexico: Supreme Court: Gender Identity Jurisprudence Is Obligatory

    Per Rex Wockner:

    Today, 7 February 2020, Mexico's Supreme Court officially published its recent jurisprudence of 30 January 2020 in the Semanario Judicial de la Federación that transgender people can change their name/gender on their birth certificates via a simple administrative process at their local civil registry, citing "the human right to free development of personality."

    From Monday, 10 February 2020, the application of said jurisprudence will be considered obligatory. That is, the jurisprudence is considered obligatory on all judges of the federal judiciary, who will no longer have any leeway, and who now must grant all amparo requests for gender change if/when civil registry officials refuse to allow for the simple administrative method to proceed.

    On Monday, we will see how many civil registry officials comply with Supreme Court jurisprudence. At this moment, 11 jurisdictions of 32 are already in compliance, while the remaining 21 are not. However, unlike marriage equality, which has encountered narrowly-defined state laws defining marriage, and which in defiance of Supreme Court jurisprudence, many state legislators seem reluctant to modify due to their own political expediency, given the number of noisy nut-jobs running loose in those self-same states, the gender identity matter is completely one of bureaucratic custom.

    State laws in Mexico do not touch upon the subject of gender identity, other than in 10 jurisdictions which have specifically made provision to allow for it to occur administratively, while Chihuahua, commencing from late November 2019, is solely following Supreme Court jurisprudence. So, for the remaining 21 states, the negative responses to date from those Civil Registry officials are entirely a matter of bureaucratic interpretation of whatever they have pulled out of thin air. And the basic non-thinking, negative bureaucratic response would be something along these lines: "We do it the way we do it because we have always done it that way. We do not do changes because we do not do changes." But there are no laws in those 21 states requiring that that be so. And from Monday, they must now grant all requests for gender change based on the petitioner's own self-perception. If they refuse, a federal judge can force them to comply, as has already recently been done in Morelos, while the Supreme Court itself has already issued amparo requests to petitioners from Tamaulipas, Jalisco, and Veracruz.

  • 17. VIRick  |  February 7, 2020 at 9:35 pm

    Croatia Constitutional Court: Same-Sex Couples Can Foster

    Per LGBT Marriage News:

    On Friday, 7 February 2020, in a legal victory for gay couples, the Croatia Constitutional Court ruling has been published which states that everyone should have equal opportunities to foster children, irrespective of their family status. The ruling, made at the end of January, obliges courts and relevant authorities to give all competent applicants for fostering equal opportunities to do so, including same-sex couples.

  • 18. VIRick  |  February 8, 2020 at 4:42 pm

    Baja California State Civil Registrar: Statewide Marriage Equality Now in Effect

    Per Rex Wockner:

    Juan Manuel Molina García (Morena), el presidente de la Comisión de Gobernación, Legislación, y Puntos Constitucionales de la XXIII Legislatura, comentó que recibieron un documento en el que la directora del Registro Civil del Estado les avisa que mandó un oficio a sus similares de los ayuntamientos para que autoricen, celebren, y materialicen las bodas entre personas del mismo sexo, en acatamiento de las disposiciones de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (SCJN).

    “El gobierno del estado toma esta decisión. Tenemos copia del oficio, tenemos que analizar el alcance, y aparte, un exhorto del Congreso de la Unión, donde nos pide que legislemos el tema de matrimonio igualitario."

    Juan Manuel Molina García (Morena), the chairperson of the Governance, Legislation, and Constitutional Points Committee of the XXIII Legislature, commented that they received a document in which the director of the State Civil Registry advises them that she sent an official letter to the civil registrars of the various municipalities in order to authorize, celebrate, and materialize marriages between people of the same sex, in compliance with the provisions of the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN).

    "The state government makes this decision. We have an official copy for which we have to analyze the scope, and besides, an exhortation from the Federal Congress, where it asks us to legislate the issue of marriage equality."

    I know it is nuts, but this is how Mexico operates. While the Baja California Congress dithers and procrastinates, the head of the State Civil Registry issued a decree stating that henceforth marriage equality is in effect statewide based on Supreme Court jurisprudence, regardless of whatever the State Congress does or does not do. Done. Obviously, though, she had the prior approval of the state governor before announcing her decree, applicable statewide, without any further bowing or scraping to any other outside party.

    This news article of 7 February 2020 mentioning this rather important fact is deceptive, as its big headline declares: "Congress Delays Discussion on Marriage Equality," as if that were the most important point, although it might be so for the haters and the obfuscators. That way, in a sense, both sides "win." We have our statewide decree authorizing marriage equality, and the haters and nut-jobs have their temporary pause in the discussion in the State Congress.

  • 19. VIRick  |  February 8, 2020 at 11:44 pm

    Comment on Baja California State Civil Registrar's Marriage Equality Decree

    As we have always maintained, simply adhere to Supreme Court jurisprudence. It is not a requirement to change state law beforehand. Whoever is in charge simply needs to issue their decree, stating the new procedure, and the matter is resolved. Chihuahua did it with marriage equality in mid-2015, and again with gender identity in late 2019. In the meantime, the Chihuahua State Congress has done absolutely nothing in terms of passing any laws on either subject. Yet, Chihuahua is in compliance on both matters. State governors (and their executive officers) have very dictatorial powers,– if they choose to utilize them, or authorize them to be utilized by another person within the executive branch.

    However, in what is probably the strangest twist, municipal mayors and their city councils also have the same power to enact decrees, stating that henceforth, on a given matter, they are adhering to Supreme Court jurisprudence within their municipality. In the context of Baja California, that is Tijuana's position, whose mayor and city council have already done just that. As the mayor of Tijuana, Arturo González Cruz, has stated, "Ya fueron resuelta" (Already been resolved). And in Zacatecas State, Ciudad Zacatecas has done likewise, as did Santiago de Querétaro in Querétaro State and the two municipalities of San Pedro Cholula and Puebla in Puebla State.….

  • 20. JayJonson  |  February 9, 2020 at 11:27 am

    Congratulations to Switzerland!

    Swiss voters have easily passed the plebiscite to outlaw discrimination against LGBT citizens, including the banning of incitements to hatred. Although opponents used fear tactics to suggest that the proposal would erode free speech, more than 63% of the voters embraced the proposal.

  • 21. VIRick  |  February 9, 2020 at 3:05 pm

    Swiss Referendum: Voters Ban LGB Discrimination, Criminalize Homophobia

    Per Rex Wockner:

    On Sunday, 9 February 2020, in yet another referendum, Swiss voters voted to ban anti-gay discrimination by a 63.1%-36.9% vote margin. Henceforth, publicly denigrating someone for being gay is now prohibited in text, speech, images, and gestures.

    The new law, originally passed by the Swiss Parliament in 2018, would widen existing legislation against discrimination or incitement to hatred on racial/ethnic or religious grounds by also including sexual orientation within its definition. It is the first law in the country’s history to offer any kind of legal protection for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people.

    Critics of the law forced the public referendum on the issue, believing that it would end up censoring free speech. In effect, the populist right-wing Swiss People's Party (SVP) and the Federal Democratic Union of Switzerland (EDU), a small party based on "christian" values, remain opposed.

    Of Switzerland’s 26 cantons, only three — Appenzell-Innerrhoden, Schwyz, and Uri — three small-population, mostly-rural cantons that are also the most staunchly Roman Catholic, had majorities vote against it.

    The revision approved Sunday expands the scope of a law in force since 1995 that bans discrimination on the basis of race/ethnicity or religion. Under the measure, in addition to the hate speech provision, operators of restaurants, cinemas, and public facilities such as swimming pools will not be able to turn people away because of their sexual orientation. The law allows fines and up to three years in prison for violations. In its new form, it will cover sexual orientation but not gender identity.

    This referendum vote is a good portent for the inevitable marriage equality referendum vote which undoubtedly will follow it in due course, as four other lightly-populated jurisdictions, almost as rural and almost as Catholic, namely Jura, Obwalden, Nidwalden, and Glarus, did not garner majorities opposed to the measure.

    Note: The heading on this post has been revised from "LGBT" to "LGB" based on the very specific content found in the second news report.

  • 22. Randolph_Finder  |  February 11, 2020 at 1:24 am

    Map of results by canton is at–202… . The

    Switzerland has two types of referenda, basically one for undo laws just passed by the parliament and the other to change the constitution. The change to the constitution requires a double majority, both a majority of population and a majority of cantons.* This LGB vote was the first which is purely based on population. If Marriage Equality were viewed as changing the constiuition, which I don't think it is, then I'd be more worried.

    Majority of Cantons isn't actually calculated on the 26 cantons, six of them are "half cantons", and as such count for half. Of the three that voted against, Appenzell-Innerroden is a half canton, the others are full, so the vote this time (which it doesn't matter) is 20.5 to 2.5.

    I *fully* agree on the fact that when Marriage Equality passes, there will the 50,000 signatures necessary to put it up for another referendum to undo it.

    And the Swiss hold these referenda on just about *everything* within the last 10 years, there have been referenda on "Subsidising farmers not dehorning their livestock" to "Road tunnel construction".

    And the big win was in 2016 when an effort to put Marriage being one man and one woman (among with some other things) into the constitution *failed* 49.2 to 50.8 (though did get a majority of Cantons.

  • 23. Mechatron12  |  February 11, 2020 at 7:43 pm

    Lots of good info and analysis here, just one real correction to make. The 2016 law was actually about ending the tax penalty on married couples. The right wing were assholes to throw in the definition of marriage part. So instead of being depressed about the vote being so close, I think it's amazing that so many straight Swiss people were willing to give up a potential tax break to support us.

    When (because it WILL go to a referendum one way or another) marriage equality is on the ballot, I think we've got a great chance to break 70% in Switzerland. There actually were quasi-legitimate free speech concerns about this latest law. I'm not worried in the least about marriage equality failing.

  • 24. Randolph_Finder  |  February 12, 2020 at 6:31 am

    Thanx for the information on the original purpose of the 2016 law. And yet according to the Wikipedia Article, the refendum's results were overturned by the Swiss Supreme Court due to bad data provided by the Government. But may or may not end up back on the ballot with the definition of Marriage.

    I agree *When*.

    My other question about Marriage Equality and a referendum. If ME passes the parliament, could their be a window in which the law is in effect prior to a *possible* referendum defeat of the law? Is it possible to have same sex couples during that window?

    Still wondering which tortoise will win the race in 2020 (If either): Switzerland or Chile.

  • 25. VIRick  |  February 11, 2020 at 1:16 pm

    That is an excellent interactive map, and shows that all the French- and Italian-speaking areas of Switzerland were much more heavily in favor of the anti-discrimination measure than were the German-speaking ones. In order, with languages indicated, these were the top 10 cantons (9 full cantons) voting favorably, all with approval percentages over 60%, with Vaud heading the list at an impressive 80.2%, and the next 3 French-speaking cantons each above 73%:

    Vaud – F
    Genève -F
    Jura – F
    Neuchâtel – F
    Baselstadt – G
    Fribourg – F/G
    Ticino – I
    Zürich – G
    Valais – F/G
    Baselland – G

    On the other hand, these are the 6 full cantons (the 2 Waldens and the 2 Appenzells each count as a half-canton), all German-speaking, and all in the central/northeastern area of the country where the approval percentage was under 52%:


    So, my concern about Jura was unfounded; instead, substitute Thurgau in its place. The 5 where it narrowly passed were all in a range between 50.8% and 51.5%, while the 3 where the majority vote was negative had an approval range between 45.9% and 48.9%. The remaining 8, also all German-speaking, mostly in the industrial, urban northwest, but including St-Gallen and multilingual Graubünden, had an approval range between 55.2% and 59.6%, and ought to be considered "safe" in a marriage equality referendum.

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