6/29 open thread UPDATED 7/2
June 29, 2020
This is an open thread. We’ll post any breaking news.
UPDATE: The Eighth Circuit has vacated a district court decision that dismissed a housing discrimination case involving a same-sex couple. The housing discrimination law uses the same language as Title VII, “because of… sex”, and after Bostock that language refers to sexual orientation and gender identity. The order tells the district court to reconsider the case in light of the Bostock decision. More here.
Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!
33 Comments
1.
VIRick | June 29, 2020 at 3:20 pm
Poland: Presidential Election Goes to Run-Off
Per LGBT Marriage News:
In Poland, the Presidential election will be going into a second-round run-off, scheduled for 12 July 2020, between the homophobic incumbent, Andrzej Duda, and the pro-LGBT, liberal mayor of Warsaw, Rafal Trzaskowski.
Duda fell short of the 50% he needed in order to win without a second round of voting. He received 43.7% of the vote with 99.78% of all ballots counted, while Trzaskowski was in second place with 30.3%.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/28/pol…
2.
ianbirmingham | June 30, 2020 at 2:22 am
From this report, Trzaskowski seems to have a very tough job ahead: closing a 13-point gap within 14 days. However, opinion polling shows that these two finalists are actually very evenly matched, with some polls showing homophobic Duda in the lead and other polls showing pro-LGBT Trzaskowski ahead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for…
3.
VIRick | June 30, 2020 at 1:26 pm
Supreme Court: Opinion in "Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue"
Per Equality Case Files:
On 30 June 2020, in a 5-4 decision in "Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue," the Court holds that excluding religious schools from a state program that provides tax breaks to donors who fund scholarships that families can then use at private schools, while allowing the credits if funding non-religious schools, but disallowing the credits if funding religious schools, violates the First Amendment. In short, if the state is going to allow tax-payer benefits for funding private schools, it can not exclude religious schools from the program.
The opinion is written by Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, with Thomas and Gorsuch writing concurring opinions. Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor dissented.
The Opinion is here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-11…
The answer here is simple: States need to stop all funding, including any/all tax breaks for scholarship donors, for all private schools of whatever description. Too many private schools in too many localities, whether religious or not, are what is deemed to be "segregation academies," that is, they were established to maintain de facto segregation.
4.
guitaristbl | July 1, 2020 at 1:10 am
Let's not pretend that this decision is not a Trojan horse against separation of church and state and the establishment clause. A truly dangerous precedent. But Roberts, being the opportunist he is, has to throw a bone to the right wing as well.
5.
VIRick | June 30, 2020 at 3:07 pm
Gabon Decriminalizes Same-Sex Sexual Activity
Per LGBT Marriage News:
On 29 June 2020, with the Gabonese Senate favorably voting 59-17 on the same bill using identical language as that already passed in the National Assembly, Gabon has repealed the law in the Penal Code that criminalizes homosexuality. Said law, first passed on 5 July 2019, lasted less than a year. The repeal takes effect upon its promulgation.
This repeal drops the total number of countries worldwide that still criminalize same-sex sexual activity down to 72.
https://lalibreville.com/gabon-le-senat-vote-larg…
According to ILGA World, 39 of these 72 are ex-British colonial possessions which had laws criminalizing same-sex sexual activity imposed upon them by the British during the colonial era, and despite becoming independent, have retained said colonial impositions. The last 9 remaining nations of the Americas all fall into this category. Additionally, some 29 more, with some overlap, are Muslim majority, in a wide belt stretching from Mauretania and Morocco, through the Middle East, to Malaysia and Brunei. An additional 8 more are non-ex-British, non-Muslim majority, sub-Saharan African nations. https://ilga.org/sites/default/files/ENG_ILGA_Wor…
6.
ianbirmingham | July 1, 2020 at 11:31 am
Turkey cries 'LGBT propaganda' after official faces backlash for pedophilia tweet
Kerem Kinik, [head of the Turkish Red Crescent] who also serves as one of five vice-presidents at the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), appeared to equate homosexuality with pedophilia in a tweet he made Sunday, when the Turkish LGBTI community typically celebrates Pride Day.
“These words are both wrong and offend us all. We condemn homophobia and hate speech of all kinds,” the IFRC said. The Geneva-based organization said its code of conduct forbid Kinik from engaging in homophobia, hate speech and prejudice. “We are assessing our next course of action,” the statement read.
In response, Fahrettin Altun, a senior adviser to President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, tweeted, “LGBT propaganda poses a grave threat to freedom of speech. The IFRC became complicit in that attack by targeting [Kinik] — a doctor who devoted his entire life to protecting children around the world. We won’t be silenced!”
Erdoğan weighed in on morality in a speech on Monday, without specifically addressing homosexuality. He suggested an assault on traditional values that is on par with national security threats was underway.
“Some people insidiously attack our national and moral values … by normalizing perversions that have been condemned throughout history and aim to poison young minds,” he said. “I invite all members of my nation to watch out for and take a stance against those displaying any type of perversion forbidden by our God and those who support them.”
In April, Erdoğan defended Ali Erbaş, the head of the state’s religious affairs directorate, after he said homosexuality caused disease and corruption. Prosecutors opened probes into bar associations that accused Erbaş of inciting hatred.
Turkey ranks 48th out of 49 countries tracked by ILGA Europe, a nongovernmental organization advocating for human rights, in its survey of the impact of laws and policies on LGBTI lives. The lack of legal protections contributes to discrimination and harassment. The European Union said hate speech and crimes and violations of LGBTI people’s rights in Turkey cause it “serious concern.”
The government has banned the Pride March since 2015, citing security concerns. Restricting this freedom of expression, assembly and association means Turkey is contravening international obligations, Human Rights Watch has said.
https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2020/0…
7.
VIRick | July 1, 2020 at 3:11 pm
Montenegro Adopts Registered Partnerships for Same-Sex Couples
Per LGBT Marriage News and ILGA-Europe:
Today, 1 July 2020, the Parliament of Montenegro voted in favor of the bill on "life partnership" for same-sex couples, a law which will thus legally recognize same-sex couples. The measure comes into force in one year's time, after regulations have been drafted.
https://twitter.com/ILGAEurope/status/12783598149…
Montenegro is the first Orthodox-majority nation worldwide to legally recognize unions for same-sex couples in any manner whatsoever. Their "life partnership" measure appears to be rather similar to the "life partnership" laws already extant in Croatia and Slovenia, but it makes clear that it does not give same-sex couples in Montenegro the right to adopt. In Croatia, through court rulings, same-sex couples have won the right to legally adopt.
8.
guitaristbl | July 2, 2020 at 4:08 am
"Montenegro is the first Orthodox-majority nation worldwide to legally recognize unions for same-sex couples in any manner whatsoever."
That is incorrect. Greece was the first Orthodox-majority nation to offer recognition to same sex couples.
9.
DevilWearsZrada | July 2, 2020 at 4:41 am
Greece and Cyprus became the first Orthodox-majority countries to legally recognise same-sex couples in 2015. But we can also say that Montenegro is the first Slavic Orthodox-majority country, the first non-EU Orthodox-majority country and the first Slavic non-EU country to do that. Given that the president is a leader of the party that voted in favor of this bill, he will sign it.
10.
VIRick | July 2, 2020 at 9:22 am
Both of you are correct. However, Devil seems to have been following my basic train of thought, as indeed, Montenegro is the first Slavic Orthodox-majority country to legally recognize unions for same-sex couples. Apparently, I was too focused on the constituent parts of the ex-Yugoslavia when I wrote that statement, to the detriment of both Greece and Cyprus.
11.
VIRick | July 1, 2020 at 3:36 pm
Nepal: Marriage Equality Up-Date from National Human Rights Commission
Per LGBT Marriage News:
The National Human Rights Commission of Nepal, in its report issued on 1 July 2020, calls on the government to legalize LGBT marriage, 13 years after the Nepalese Supreme Court ordered the government to do so. As mandated by a landmark 2007 Supreme Court verdict, an expert team formed to study the possibility of legalizing same-sex marriage in Nepal had recommended, in 2015, that the government lift legal restrictions preventing marriage between two individuals of the same sex.
“While it is positive that the government has started providing citizenship and passports under the ‘O’, or ‘other’, gender category, it is unfortunate that no steps have been taken to implement the report of the expert team formed as per the Supreme Court verdict,” reads the study report on sexual minorities, released today. The December 2007 Supreme Court verdict had not just acknowledged the rights of sexual minorities, but also directed the government to make the necessary arrangements, including new laws or amendments to existing ones, to ensure that people of different gender identities and sexual orientations could enjoy their rights without discrimination.
While Nepal is often hailed as a progressive beacon of LGBTIQ individuals in the region, its comparatively progressive laws have yet to trickle down into mainstream society. Queer individuals, particularly those who are transgender, continue to face harassment, discrimination, and violence. A planned amendment to the Citizenship Act is also considering requiring proof of gender reassignment before allowing transgender individuals to claim citizenship under their new identity.
According to the human rights commission, only 170 individuals have so far received citizenship under the ‘O’ category. Similarly, 1,500 identified themselves under the ‘other’ category in the 2011 national census. According to the commission, these figures do not represent the actual population of the LGBTIQ community, so it has recommended the involvement of all three tiers of government to ensure that no transgender individuals are excluded in the national census being conducted next year.
https://kathmandupost.com/national/2020/07/01/nat…
12.
VIRick | July 1, 2020 at 4:40 pm
South Africa Dumps Conscience Clause Exemption in Civil Union Law
Per LGBT Marriage News:
The South African Parliament has amended the Civil Union law to remove the right of civil officiants to refuse to perform marriages for same-sex couples. On Wednesday morning, 1 July 2020, in a hybrid sitting of Parliament’s second house, the National Council of Provinces (NCOP), members voted to adopt the Civil Union Amendment Bill.
Said bill proposes the removal of civil marriage officers’ right to conscientious objection, a right which had protected marriage officers employed by the state from being forced to preside over marriage unions if it would violate their conscience or sincerely-held beliefs. The effect of this bill is to remove said conscientious objection clause in Section 6 of the Civil Union Act, meaning marriage officers, as public servants employed by the Department of Home Affairs, would no longer be allowed to refuse to perform a civil union ceremony.
This amendment was approved by the National Assembly in 2018, and has taken almost two years to come before the NCOP and be approved. All that now remains is for President Cyril Ramaphosa to sign off on it.
https://www.news24.com/citypress/news/what-it-mea…
Note: In South Africa, civil marriage is legally known as Civil Union, and since 2005, has been equally applicable to everyone.
13.
VIRick | July 1, 2020 at 6:58 pm
HUD, Like HHS, Appears Not to Have Received the "Bostock" Memo
In apparent defiance of the recent US Supreme Court decision against anti-LGBTQ discrimination in "Bostock," the Trump administration has announced plans to change Obama-era regulations to allow homeless shelters to refuse to house transgender people consistent with their gender identity. In a statement on Wednesday, 1 July 2020, Secretary of Housing & Urban Development Ben Carson announced the plan would allow homeless shelters to voluntarily establish policies on the admission of transgender people.
In 2016, the Obama administration under then-Secretary of Housing & Urban Development Julian Castro updated the Equal Access Rule, which had been interpreted in 2012 to bar anti-LGBTQ discrimination in government-subsidized homes, to require homeless shelters with single-sex facilities to house transgender people consistent with their gender identity. But the Trump administration proposal, according to a 28-page proposed rule being circulated among congressional committees, seeks effectively to undo those Obama-era regulations.
The proposal would purportedly preserve the 2012 Equal Access Rule barring anti-LGBTQ discrimination in federally-funded housing programs, but “require any determination of sex by the shelter provider to be based on a good faith belief, and require the shelter provider to provide transfer recommendations if a person is of the sex not accommodated by the shelter."
https://www.washingtonblade.com/2020/07/01/hud-ap…
Although the "Washington Blade" goes on to give space to HUD's preposterous argument, essentially, said argument discriminates "because of . . . sex." It disallows transgender women from being housed with other women, while allowing transgender men to be housed with other men.
14.
ianbirmingham | July 2, 2020 at 3:52 am
Massachusetts City Decides to Recognize Polyamorous Relationships
Under its new domestic partnership ordinance, the city of Somerville now grants polyamorous groups the rights held by spouses in marriage, such as the right to confer health insurance benefits or make hospital visits.
J.T. Scott, a city councilor who supported the move, said he believed it was the first such municipal ordinance in the country. He said he knew of at least two dozen polyamorous households in Somerville, which has a population of about 80,000.
As the Council prepared language for an ordinance last week, Mr. Scott raised the issue that it excluded Somerville’s polyamorous residents by specifying that domestic partnerships were “an entity formed by two persons.”
The councilor drafting the ordinance, Lance Davis, rewrote it to allow for multiple partners. It passed unanimously.
Under the new ordinance, city employees in polyamorous relationships would be able to extend health benefits to multiple partners. But it is not clear, Mr. Davis said, whether private employers will follow the city’s lead.
“Based on the conversations I’ve had,” he said, “the most important aspect is that the city is legally recognizing and validating people’s existence. That’s the first time this is happening.”
Nancy Polikoff, a professor at American University Washington College of Law and a widely published scholar of family law, said she was not aware of any other city that has extended such protections to polyamorous families.
Andy Izenson, a lawyer with the Chosen Family Law Center, a nonprofit organization that provides legal services to polyamorous and other nontraditional families, said the ordinance could be put to a judicial test if health insurance companies reject the city’s more expansive definition of domestic partnership. It could also run into resistance from conservatives, as same-sex marriage did in 2015.
Mr. Scott, the councilman, said he had been inundated by calls and messages all day, including from lawyers interested in pursuing a similar measure at the state or federal level.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/01/us/somerville-…
15.
VIRick | July 2, 2020 at 9:15 pm
Chile: Civil Registry Recognizes Gay Married Couple as Co-Parents
Per LGBT Marriage News:
Por primera vez en su historia, el Registro Civil reconoció esta semana, el 30 de junio 2020, la paternidad de una pareja homosexual y rectificó la partida de nacimiento de los dos hijos adoptados por esta, tras un fallo dictado hace tres años. El Movilh calificó el hecho como “un avance que marca un hito para las familias homoparentales y abre la puerta para la plena igualdad y el respeto integral al interés superior del niño y de la niña.”
El dictamen, desconocido hasta ahora, fue emitido el 5 de julio del 2017 por el Séptimo Juzgado Civil de Santiago, beneficiando a dos hombres que contrajeron matrimonio en 2010 en Connecticut (Estados Unidos) y que luego contrajo el Acuerdo de Unión Civil (AUC) en Chile. La pareja chilena-estadounidense adoptó dos niños en 2014, y su proceso en Chile fue representado por la abogada Daniela Hirsch, quien logró que la justicia refrendara la en julio del 2019 por la Corte de Apelaciones de Santiago.
http://www.lanacion.cl/registro-civil-efectuo-pri…
This week, on 30 June 2020, for the first time in its history, the Civil Registry recognized the paternity of a homosexual couple and rectified the birth certificates of the two children adopted by them, following a ruling issued three years ago. Movilh described the event as "an advance that marks a milestone for homoparental families and opens the door for full equality and for full respect of the best interests of the children."
The decision, unknown until now, was issued on 5 July 2017 by the Seventh Civil Court of Santiago, benefiting two men who married in 2010 in Connecticut (United States) and who later contracted a Civil Union Accord (AUC) in Chile. The Chilean-American couple adopted two children in 2014, and their proceedings in Chile were represented by attorney Daniela Hirsch, who in July 2019 managed to have said ruling endorsed by the Santiago Court of Appeals.
Note: On 8 June 2020, a different Chilean court (el 2° Juzgado de Familia de Santiago) (Second Family Court of Santiago) ordered the Civil Registry to register a child as being the son of two unmarried (no AUC) women.
https://www.cnnchile.com/pais/historico-registro-…
In the intervening time period between these two favorable rulings, the TC ruled against a third same-sex couple who were seeking co-parental recognition for their newborn, but tied it together with a request for Chilean recognition of their Spanish marriage. Apparently, in Chile, according to the blatantly homophobic TC ruling, one is not supposed to tie the first request (already granted in these two other instances) together with a request for marriage equality recognition.
16.
VIRick | July 2, 2020 at 9:58 pm
Chile: Same-Sex Adoption Bill Passes in Principle in Senate
Per LGBT Marriage News:
On 1 July 2020, by a vote of 27 in favor, 13 against, and 1 abstention, the Chilean Senate approved in principle a bill that would grant co-parental rights to same-sex couples, thus allowing them to be legally recognized in adoption/step-child adoption cases. The same bill would also recognize the right of single persons and LGBT couples to access assisted reproduction.
The bill now heads to committee (Comisión de Infancia) for the discussion/analysis in particular on the entire matter. The Government has already indicated that it will object to the bill.
https://www.elmostrador.cl/dia/2020/07/01/otro-pa…
https://www.dw.com/es/chile-busca-garantizar-los-…
17.
VIRick | July 3, 2020 at 6:55 pm
Zacatecas: 5 Municipalities Now Allow Marriage Equality, Most Recently, Fresnillo
En los estados donde los Congresos estatales no han regulado el matrimonio igualitario, las parejas LGBTQ se ven obligadas a tramitar amparos para poder casarse. Así ocurre en la mayor parte de Zacatecas, cuya legislatura rechazó aprobar la unión civil entre personas del mismo sexo en agosto del año pasado.
Sin embargo, ello no ha sido impedimento para que los municipios de Fresnillo, Zacatecas, Villanueva, Cuauhtémoc, y Miguel Auza permitan el matrimonio igualitario. En ellos, las autoridades han demostrado un auténtico compromiso con los derechos humanos y la diversidad sexual al permitir al Registro Civil asentar la uniones entre personas del mismo sexo.
El Cabildo de Fresnillo cerró el Mes del Orgullo 2020 adoptando un acuerdo administrativo que permitirá la celebración de matrimonios entre personas del mismo sexo en el municipio.
A la fecha, se tienen registradas 25 uniones entre personas del mismo sexo realizadas en el municipio de Zacatecas. Hasta la capital del estado han viajado para casarse parejas LGBTQ provenientes de municipios como Fresnillo, Villanueva, Río Grande, Vetagrande, y Guadalupe. Incluso han llegado parejas de otras entidades, como Durango.
https://www.homosensual.com/lgbt/zacatecas-tiene-…
In states where the state Congresses have not legalized marriage equality, LGBTQ couples are forced to file amparos in order to marry. This is the case in most of Zacatecas state, whose legislature in August 2019 refused to approve civil unions between same-sex couples.
However, this has not been an impediment for the municipalities of Fresnillo, Zacatecas, Villanueva, Cuauhtémoc, and Miguel Auza to allow for marriage equality. In them, the authorities have demonstrated a true commitment to human rights and to sexual diversity by permitting the Civil Registry to establish unions between same-sex couples.
The Mayor of Fresnillo closed Pride Month 2020 by adopting an administrative agreement that will allow for the celebration of marriages of same-sex couples within the municipality.
To date, 25 unions between same-sex couples have been registered in the municipality of Zacatecas. LGBTQ couples from other municipalities such as Fresnillo, Villanueva, Río Grande, Vetagrande, and Guadalupe have traveled to the state capital to marry. Even couples from other states have arrived, such as Durango.
Note: Fresnillo is the most-populous municipality in the state of Zacatecas, followed by the state capital, Ciudad Zacatecas. Both now allow for marriage equality. In addition, to date, Fresnillo is the sole municipality in all of Mexico to have ever elected an openly gay mayor (alcalde). Both Guadalupe and Vetagrande are suburbs of the state capital, and together more than double the capital's metro population. The 5 municipalities (of 58) allowing for marriage equality account for 28% of the state's population, and over 40%, if we add in these several spill-over metro suburbs.
18.
VIRick | July 4, 2020 at 10:25 am
Chiapas: Bill Introduced to Amend Civil Code to Codify Marriage Equality into Law
Per LGBT Marriage News:
This measure codifies into law what has been legal in Chiapas state ever since the 2017 Supreme Court ruling against Chiapas was officially published.
La diputada estatal por el PVEM (Verde) en Chiapas, Valeria Santiago Barrientos, señaló que el 3 de julio 2020, junto a sus compañeras legisladoras, Adriana Bustamante Castellanos y Aida Guadalupe Jiménez Sesma, presentaron ante el Congreso del Estado de Chiapas la iniciativa de decreto por el que se deroga el Artículo 144 y se reforma el Artículo 145 del Código Civil para el estado de Chiapas, para permitir el matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo.
https://diariodechiapas.com/ultima-hora/presentan…
The state deputy for PVEM (Verde) in Chiapas, Valeria Santiago Barrientos, pointed out that on 3 July 2020, together with her fellow legislators, Adriana Bustamante Castellanos and Aida Guadalupe Jiménez Sesma, they presented to the Chiapas State Congress the initiative for a decree that repeals Article 144 and amends Article 145 of the Civil Code for the state of Chiapas to allow for marriage between same-sex couples.
19.
VIRick | July 4, 2020 at 12:10 pm
Tlaxcala Congress Postpones Vote on Marriage Equality Bill to Next Session
Per LGBT Marriage News:
A pesar de la solicitud de organizaciones civiles para que diputados estatales sometan a discusión la iniciativa para instituir el matrimonio igualitario en Tlaxcala, la Junta de Coordinación y Concertación Política (JCCP) determinó posponer el trámite hasta el próximo periodo ordinario de sesiones.
En entrevista, la congresista Laura Yamili Flores Lozano (PRD) (la propuesta fue presentada en octubre de 2018 por dicha diputada) informó que el titular de este organismo, Ramiro Vivanco Chedraui (Morena) instó a las comisiones encargadas a establecer un dictamen de la iniciativa.
https://www.elsoldetlaxcala.com.mx/local/posponen…
Despite the request from civil organizations for the state deputies to submit for discussion the initiative to institute marriage equality in Tlaxcala, the Political Co-ordination and Steering Board (JCCP) decided to postpone the process until the next regular session.
In an interview, Congresswoman Laura Yamili Flores Lozano (PRD) (the proposal was presented in October 2018 by said deputy) reported that the head of this body, Ramiro Vivanco Chedraui (Morena), urged the committees in charge to establish a final draft of the initiative.
20.
VIRick | July 4, 2020 at 2:07 pm
Mexico: Nationwide Bill on Marriage Equality Introduced into Federal Senate
Morena propone legalizar matrimonios entre parejas del mismo sexo en todo el país.
https://www.elsoldemexico.com.mx/mexico/morena-pr…
Morena proposes nationwide legalization of marriage between same-sex couples.
Per Senador Martí Batres Guadarrama, expresidente de Morena (Morena):
A propósito del Día del Orgullo LGBTTTI, el 3 de julio 2020, presentamos iniciativa de reforma al Código Civil Federal para armonizarlo con la orientación internacional de derechos humanos sobre diversidad sexual y la resolución de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación sobre matrimonio igualitario.
https://twitter.com/martibatres
On 3 July 2020, the occasion of LGBTTTI Pride Day, we presented an initiative to reform the Federal Civil Code to harmonize it with the international orientation of human rights on sexual diversity and the resolution of the Supreme Court of Justice on marriage equality.
This measure is co-sponsored by Senador Martí Batres Guadarrama (Morena), by openly gay Senadora Jesusa Rodríguez (Morena), and by Senadora Blanca Piña Gudiño (Morena).
Per Gonzalo Kinich:
La bancada de Morena en el Senado propuso una iniciativa para que los códigos civiles de los estados se adecuen al matrimonio igualitario. Esta iniciativa se une a la presentada por Morena en la Cámara de Diputados a través de la diputada, Celeste Ascencio.
https://twitter.com/Kiwi_lloron/status/1279534429…
The Morena grouping in the Senate has proposed an initiative so that the civil codes of the states adapt to marriage equality. This initiative joins the one presented by Morena in the Chamber of Deputies through the deputy, Celeste Ascencio.
21.
VIRick | July 4, 2020 at 4:17 pm
Baja California Congress to Vote on Marriage Equality Legislation on 7 July 2020
Per Enrique Pozo:
En el Congreso de Baja California, se está avanzando en temas de derechos humanos y el próximo martes, 7 de Julio a las 12:00 (hora Mexicali), se votará el dictamen del matrimonio igualitario. Eliminemos la pandemia del odio.
https://twitter.com/kikekmot
In the Baja California Congress, progress is being made on human rights issues and next Tuesday, 7 July at 12:00 (Mexicali time), the marriage equality draft legislation will be voted upon. Let's eliminate the pandemic of hatred.
22.
VIRick | July 5, 2020 at 10:38 am
Yucatán: 3 of 4 Marriage Equality Appeals against State Congress to Supreme Court
Per Kalycho Escoffié, Alex Orué, César, y Colectivo PTF Yucatán:
En 2019, presentamos 4 amparos contra el Congreso de Yucatán por rechazar la iniciativa de matrimonio igualitario y por haberlo hecho con una votación secreta e ilegal.
El 12 de junio 2020, el Ministro Alcántara (de la SCJN) propone atraer dos de ello, y el 2 de julio 2020, un Tribunal Colegiado de Circuito de Yucatán (Tribunal Colegiado de Circuito en Materia Laboral y Administrativo del Estado de Yucatán) le pidió a la SCJN atraer otro.
https://twitter.com/ColectivoPTFYuc
In 2019, we filed 4 appeals against the Yucatán Congress for rejecting the marriage equality initiative and for having done so with a secret and illegal vote.
On 12 June 2020, Justice Alcántara (of the SCJN) proposed to engage with two of them, and on 2 July 2020, a Circuit Court of Appeals of Yucatán (Tribunal Colegiado de Circuito en Materia Laboral y Administrativo del Estado de Yucatán) asked the SCJN to engage with another.
https://www.lajornadamaya.mx/yucatan/23912/SCJN-a…
Ministro Alcántara = Juan Luis González Alcántara Carrancá, Presidente de la Primera Sala
23.
VIRick | July 5, 2020 at 7:54 pm
Italy: Government Bill Introduced to Ban Anti-LGBT Hate Speech
Per LGBT Marriage News:
The Government has introduced the first bill to ban hate speech against LGBT people. The measure also increases the punishment for anti-LGBT hate crimes.
https://www.oasport.it/oaplus/attualita/lgbt/legg…
24.
ianbirmingham | July 6, 2020 at 1:34 am
Russia persecutes lesbian artist Yulia Tsvetkova
In January 2020, she was charged under the so-called "gay propaganda" law, an administrative offense which can carry a hefty fine, for a drawing depicting two same-sex families with children, accompanied by the caption "Family is where there's love. Support LGBT families!" http://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/20070417291…
https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/yulia-tsvet…
25.
VIRick | July 6, 2020 at 10:32 am
8th Circuit Court of Appeals Reverses Employment Discrimination Decision in Light of "Bostock"
Per Equality Case Files:
On 6 July 2020, in "Horton v. Midwest Geriatric Management," a federal case wherein which a gay man appealed a district court ruling to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, one that had dismissed his Title VII employment discrimination claim, the 8th Circuit Court has issued its opinion, reversing the district court decision and sending the case back for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in "Bostock."
"The district court, relying on our (8th Circuit) precedent in 'Williamson,' dismissed the case. In light of the Supreme Court holding, our contrary conclusion in 'Williamson' is no longer good law. We accordingly reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings in light of 'Bostock'."
The Opinion is here:
http://files.eqcf.org/cases/18-1104-14032696/
Note: This is the second such case to be reversed and remanded by the retrograde 8th Circuit Court of Appeals "in light of 'Bostock.'" In the first, "Walsh v. Friendship Village," a housing discrimination case in which the defendant admitted to the discrimination, the appeal was not as advanced, thus allowing Friendship Village's attorney to voluntarily request that the district court's ruling in its client's favor be vacated and remanded. In the present matter, an employment discrimination case which had advanced much further in the appeals process, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals was thus required to issue its own ruling, reversing the district court decision while simultaneously reversing its own circuit precedent as no longer being "good law." As a result, "Horton" has become the precedent within the 8th Circuit, while "Walsh" was vacated and "Williamson" is dead.
26.
VIRick | July 6, 2020 at 2:35 pm
Dominican Republic: The Law Permits Marriage between Same-Sex Couples
Note: The following article is an opinion piece, nevertheless a very eye-opening opinion piece, as found in "El Nuevo Diario" of the Dominican Republic.
La República Dominicana: La Ley Permite Matrimonio entre Homosexuales
Opinión Por Jhon Garrido, 2 de mayo 2019
La República Dominicana adoptó una legislación que permite que se pueda celebrar el matrimonio entre los miembros GLTB. De igual modo, esta legislación asigna validez al matrimonio, y ordena al Estado a reconocerlo cuando dicho matrimonio haya sido celebrado en el extranjero conforme a la ley del domicilio de al menos de unos de los cónyuges. Es decir, que el matrimonio (cualquiera que sea) celebrado fuera del país podrá tener validez en nuestro país.
La ley es la No. 544-14 de Derecho Internacional Privado de La República Dominicana. Los Artículos 40 y 41 de dicha ley establecen los siguientes: Art. 40. Celebración del matrimonio. La capacidad para contraer matrimonio, y los requisitos de fondo del matrimonio, se rigen para cada uno de los contrayentes por el derecho de su respectivo domicilio. Art. 41. Validez del matrimonio. El matrimonio es válido, en cuanto a la forma, si es considerado como tal por la ley del lugar de celebración, o por la ley nacional, o del domicilio de, al menos, uno de los cónyuges al momento de la celebración.
Estos articulados son claros y precisos. El primero permite la celebración del matrimonio en el país entre personas sin distinción de sexo y establece la determinación del derecho aplicable, mientras que el segundo ordena que el estado deba reconocer el matrimonio celebrado fuera del país.
Por su parte, la Ley No. 659 sobre Actos del Estado Civil establece en su Artículo 58, Numeral 14, que el matrimonio celebrado en un país extranjero entre dominicanos, y entre dominicanos y extranjeros, será válido si el mismo se ha celebrado respetando las formalidades exigidas en dicho país.
Estas legislaciones tienen respaldo sustento constitucional y convencional. La República Dominicana, como parte de la comunidad internacional y conforme a la Constitución, puede adoptar convenios, tratados, y resoluciones en al ámbito del derecho internacional. Una vez adoptado, este derecho, el mismo, pasa a ser parte del orden jurídico dominicano, y en consecuencia, es de aplicación inmediato por parte de los poderes del Estado.
https://elnuevodiario.com.do/ley-permite-matrimon…
(to continue in English)
27.
VIRick | July 6, 2020 at 2:58 pm
(Continued in English)
Dominican Republic: The Law Permits Marriage between Same-Sex Couples
The Dominican Republic has adopted legislation that allows marriage to take place between GLTB members. Likewise, this legislation assigns validity to the marriage, and orders the State to recognize it when said marriage has been celebrated abroad according to the law of the domicile of at least one of the spouses. In other words, the marriage (in whatever form) celebrated outside the country can have validity in our country.
The law is No. 544-14 of Private International Law of the Dominican Republic. Articles 40 and 41 of said law establish the following: Art. 40. Celebration of marriage. The capacity to contract marriage, and the basic requirements of marriage, are governed for each of the contracting parties by the law of their respective domicile. Art. 41. Validity of marriage. Marriage is valid, in terms of form, if it is considered as such by the law of the place of celebration, or by the national law, or of the domicile of at least one of the spouses at the time of the celebration.
These articulations are clear and precise. The first allows the celebration of marriage in the country between people without distinction of sex, and establishes the determination of the applicable law, while the second orders that the state must recognize marriages celebrated outside the country.
For its part, Law No. 659 on Civil Status Acts establishes in its Article 58, Number 14, that marriage celebrated in a foreign country between Dominicans, and between Dominicans and foreigners, will be valid if it has been celebrated respecting the formalities required in that country.
These laws have constitutional and conventional support. The Dominican Republic, as part of the international community and in accordance with the Constitution, can adopt conventions, treaties, and resolutions in the field of international law. Once adopted, this law, as well, becomes part of the Dominican legal order, and consequently, is immediately applicable upon the powers of the State.
28.
VIRick | July 6, 2020 at 3:53 pm
Morelos and Quintana Roo: Votes by Congresses on Gender Identity Bills Pending
Per Gonzalo Kinich:
Mañana, 7 de julio 2020, se vota la iniciativa de Morena para legalizar el matrimonio igualitario en Baja California. Además está pendiente la votación de la iniciativa de Morena para aprobar la Ley de Identidad de Género en Morelos, y hoy, el 6 de julio 2020, Morena presentó esa misma iniciativa en Quintana Roo.
https://twitter.com/Kiwi_lloron
Tomorrow, 7 July 2020, the Morena initiative to legalize marriage equality in Baja California is to be voted upon. Also pending is the vote on the Morena initiative to approve the Gender Identity Law in Morelos, and today, 6 July 2020, Morena presented the same initiative in Quintana Roo.
29.
guitaristbl | July 7, 2020 at 6:21 am
Just an afterthought of the 5 year anniversary of Obergefell : I do know we'll never get the inside scope of SCOTUS delibarations other than bits and pieces once justices retire and speak more openly but, to my mind, the denial of cert on October 2014 to Kitchen, Bishop and those other 4th, 9th and 10th circuit cases is mind boggling in light of Roberts's strong dissent in Obergefell. There were no 4 votes to grant Kitchen v. Herbert consolidated with the others but 4 strong dissents for Obergefell so a denial of cert did what exactly ? Bought time to change Kennedy's mind ? And if they did what would happen in Utah, Oklahoma, Idaho and so many other states in those circuits if not legal chaos ?
I am no legal expert and the workings of SCOTUS are more complicated than I can grasp probably but to this day I just cannot understand that course of action in Oct. 2014.
30.
JayJonson | July 7, 2020 at 7:16 am
I think the liberal justices (and perhaps Kennedy) were hoping that marriage equality would come primarily through the Appeals Courts without it necessarily being codified by the Supreme Court until there was a clear consensus in favor of marriage equality. That, I think, is why they refused to grant cert to the appeals from the various Circuits until one (the 8th) deviated from the Appellate rulings. That not only advanced marriage equality across the country, but also made it difficult to reverse rights that had already been granted. In addition, the delay to hear a case allowed marriage equality to rise in the polls. So when SCOTUS considered Obergefell, 60% of the country was in favor and a large majority of the country lived in states that had already experienced marriage equality without chaos or any great resistance. It was a little frustrating for those of us who got married in a liberal state but lived in a red state and therefore for two years (after DOMA was knocked out by Windsor) had our marriages recognized by the feds but not by our states. Still, the strategy was sound and paid off in the end.
31.
scream4ever | July 7, 2020 at 9:04 am
I too was shocked by Robert's extreme dissent in Obergefell. He likely knew that marriage equality would win in the end and wanted to assure a smooth transition for the nation.
32.
guitaristbl | July 7, 2020 at 9:56 am
But it takes 4 votes to grant. Why didn't Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Thomas voted to grant ? What purpose did a delay that on top of that allowed marriage equality to become settled precedent in 3 circuits serve ? I understand the majority in Obergefell did not have any rush to grant without circuit split but for the minority it makes no sense. They had the votes to grant.
33.
JayJonson | July 7, 2020 at 12:21 pm
Although the liberals probably thought of the delay as strategic, I suspect that Roberts and Kennedy were also content to allow the Appellate Courts to sound off before intervening. Roberts perhaps because he views the role of the Chief Justice as "calling balls and strikes," wanted for his own reasons to let the process continue. Similarly, Kennedy probably also wanted a long record established before SCOTUS heard the case. The ultra conservatives, of course, were interested in stopping the process unfolding in the country, but lacking that fourth vote they could only sputter in their notations that they would have granted cert or stayed decisions. And, of course, we have to remember that the Windsor decision in many ways telegraphed what the ultimate decision would be. Despite his own opposition to same-sex marriage, Roberts may have seen an interest in allowing it become a reality in the smoothest way possible.