75 comments posted · 9 followers · following 0

16 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - 6/29 open thread UPDAT... · 0 replies · +3 points

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.

19 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - SCOTUS update 6/2-6/4 · 0 replies · +3 points

Wow. I suppose that was quite unexpected (if not a 5-4 ruling rejecting ME then at least such a bigoted wording of the ruling). I hope the couple will submit a complaint to IACHR, it would be such a shame for Chile to be specifically slapped down after the Court gave its binding opinion on marriage equality in 2018.

23 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - 5/4 open thread · 0 replies · +1 points

I am sorry for making my comment look negative, anyway that certainly was not me who downvoted your post. I just pointed out that the "coercion, threats or deception" clause looked strange, as if it would be legal to coerce a 27+ years old person to undergo "conversion therapy".
Undoubtedly this law will be of a great significance for German LGBT youth and for advancing similar laws in other European countries. But I am afraid that such minors only ban is not going to eradicate the discredited practice of "conversion therapy", but only to limit it as it leaves some legal space to perform it to adults.

24 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - 5/4 open thread · 1 reply · 0 points

So if you are at least 27 years old and are subjected to coercion, threats or deception "conversion therapy" will still be legal to perform? Or will coercion, threats or deception be illegal regardless of that?..

25 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - 4/27 SCOTUS update · 1 reply · +3 points

Well, such a conclusion to the story was quite predictable. And that reaction by the local LGBT community is not surprising at all. A similar story from Russia concluded much worse, I'd say

26 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - SCOTUS news (not stric... · 2 replies · +2 points

When will California follow? As far as I know, there needs to be a single vote by the legislature for this question to be placed on the ballot.

27 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - SCOTUS news (not stric... · 0 replies · +5 points

Actually, there already is a Muslim majority territory where same-sex marriage is legal, that is a French overseas department Mayotte, located between Madagascar and Mozambique, with population about 280,000. Although this fact is due to the whole of France legalising same-sex marriage in April 2013, out of three members of French Parliament representing Mayotte two ones voted in favour (one of two senators voted against). The first same-sex marriage there was performed in September 2013 and in the first four years of legalisation there were about 240 marriages of same-sex couples.
Anyway, when the FBiH legalises even some kind of same-sex partnerships by the decision of FBiH lawmakers only it will be another historic first for LGBT rights.

63 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - 8/5 open thread and ne... · 0 replies · +5 points

So, these countries' sodomy laws are doomed. Either their national courts or IACHR/CCJ/Privy Council will strike them down.

71 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - SCOTUS update 6/10 · 0 replies · +1 points

But will same-sex couples be able to marry after the ruling's publication, without changes to the Constitution and marriage laws?

108 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - Open thread 9/25 · 0 replies · +1 points

That article makes no sense.
"Thursday’s ruling was in a case brought by a US-Romanian couple who had asked the authorities to recognise their marriage, registered in Belgium, so the American could move with his husband to Romania. The constitutional court based its judgment on a ruling issued in June by the Court of Justice of the European Union." — That ruling was issued on Wednesday, July 18 (here is the text, Google Translate help us: ). Romanian CC was the very party that referred the Coman case to CJEU for an opinion, and after the ruling was issued by CJEU on June 5 Romanian CC issued a final ruling. CJEU ruling was based solely on the EU law, namely its freedom of movement directive, EU law doesn't regulate family/marriage law at all. And there is no need for a conservative court in a conservative country to step farther than CJEU stepped, even if the court was liberal it wouldn't want its ruling to inspire a new constitutional referendum that could punish the CC for its expressly pro-gay stance that wasn't induced by the evil, undemocratic, godless, lefty EU. If it was liberal it wouldn't want to rise the homophobic voter turnout at the upcoming October 7 same-sex marriage ban referendum by such a ruling as well.
We should understand that the both rulings do nothing at recognising gay couples' _family life_. Romanian family/marriage law was not touched by them. They just tell that due to EU law some persons are entitled to residency rights (and the freedom of movement within the EU) in Romania and, by the nature of the precedent, in several other EU member states.
Romanian CC's site doesn't mention such a ruling as was described in the article that was issued yesterday. There is a press release though dated September 27 but it is about a totally different ruling. I don't know why that was (mis)reported but sometimes such a mistakes happen to AFP, AP or Reuters.