On 1 March 2022, Colombia’s Constitutional Court ruled that the government must introduce a third gender marker option for non-binary people on official identity documents
Read: https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/08/colombias-constitutional-court-advances-gender-diversity
New Article: Angelo Schillaci, Back at It. Italy’s Struggle for a Law against Homophobia and Transphobia: Freedom of Expression versus Equal Dignity?
published in the latest issue of the Italian Review of International and Comparative Law (Vol. 1, no. 2, 2021).
USA: Federal judge rules Kentucky clerk who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses violated constitutional rights
Judge David Bunning of the District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky ruled Friday that former Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis violated the constitutional rights of same-sex couples when she denied them marriage licenses during the summer of 2015.
Davis became infamous in 2015 for refusing to issue same-sex couples marriage licenses despite the Supreme Court ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges. This ruling established the Constitutional right of same-sex couples to be married. Davis stated that she was refusing to issue licenses “under God’s authority.”
In 2015, the US Supreme Court denied Davis’s bid to continue refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples pending an appeal. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a motion to hold her in contempt, and a US district court judge held Davis in contempt of court for her continued refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
In the wake of her refusal, two of the impacted couples began the litigation which was resolved Friday. The two couples sued Davis for a constitutional violation and motioned for summary judgement. In defense, Davis stated that the Obergefell ruling raised serious issues of First Amendment rights to religious expression. She also argued that, under the First Amendment, she was immune to litigation.
Judge Bunning disagreed with Davis’s argument, writing:
It is . . . readily apparent that Davis made a conscious decision to violate Plaintiffs’ right . . . The explicit holding in Obergefell was that states could not exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage. The logical next step is clear. Davis, an elected county official who was tasked by her constituents to manage marriage licensing in Rowan County, could not exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage.
A jury will now decide what damages to award to the affected couples.
The Liberty Counsel, which represented Davis in this litigation, has stated a plan for appeal. In a press release, Liberty Counsel President Mat Staver stated that: “Davis is entitled to protection to an accommodation based on her sincere religious belief. This case raises serious First Amendment free exercise of religion claims and has a high potential of reaching the Supreme Court.”
The post Federal judge rules Kentucky clerk who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses violated constitutional rights appeared first on JURIST – News.
US Supreme Court justices say court should decide whether religious organizations can discriminate against diverse faiths
US Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas wrote a six-page concurring opinion for the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari Monday in Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission v. Woods, stating that the court should decide whether religious organizations may practice hiring discrimination against LGBTQIA+ Americans and people of diverse faiths.
According to his brief, Matthew Woods is a legal aid attorney in Seattle. He is a practicing Christian and identifies as bisexual. Woods applied to his “dream job” with Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission (SUGM), but the organization rejected his application due to his sexual orientation.
Woods filed a lawsuit alleging that SUGM violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) and that a blanket exemption for non-profit religious organizations was unconstitutional. The Washington Supreme Court reasoned that an exception from WLAD for ministerial employees who perform “vital religious duties” balanced all constitutional interests involved. The court then remanded the case to a lower court for further proceedings. SUGM appealed to the Supreme Court.
Alito and Thomas acknowledged that “threshold issues would make it difficult” for the court to take up case. However, they believe “[t]he Washington Supreme Court’s decision to narrowly construe [the WLAD] religious exemption to avoid conflict with the Washington Constitution may, however, have created a conflict with the Federal Constitution.” Further, the justices noted that the lower court did not address whether requiring SUGM to hire someone who does not share its exact beliefs would infringe the First Amendment.
Alito and Thomas accused Woods of applying to SUGM “not to embrace and further its religious views but to protest and fundamentally change them.” They stated fears that hiring equality would erase religious organizations from existence, saying:
If States could compel religious organizations to hire employees who fundamentally disagree with them, many religious non-profits would be extinguished from participation in public life—perhaps by those who disagree with their theological views most vigorously. Driving such organizations from the public square would not just infringe on their rights to freely exercise religion but would greatly impoverish our Nation’s civic and religious life.
The post US Supreme Court justices say court should decide whether religious organizations can discriminate against diverse faiths appeared first on JURIST – News.
Sentenced for a selfie: Middle East police target LGBTQ+ phones
WhatsApp, Grindr and Facebook were once a place that gay, bisexual and trans Arabs could find freedom. Now, their digital footprints could land them behind bars
The United Kingdom Privy Council Monday ruled against same-sex marriage in Bermuda and against same-sex marriage in the Cayman Islands.
Section 53 of Bermuda’s Domestic Partnership Act, 2018 limits marriage to a union between man and woman. The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal of Bermuda held that the said restriction is invalid, and the Attorney General of Bermuda challenged the decisions.
The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals had allowed the plea for same-sex marriage on three grounds altogether. It held that Section 53 was inoperative because it was enacted for a religious purpose. Also, the court held that the respondents had a constitutional right to freedom of conscience with regard to their belief that same-sex unions should be legally recognised as marriage, and, thus, section 53 violated the constitution. Same-sex marriage was legally recognised as a creed, entitling the respondents to constitutional protection from discrimination. The court, however, decided that the respondents should not have succeeded on any of these grounds, and allowed the attorney general’s appeal.
On the other hand, in the case relating to same-sex marriage rights in the Cayman Islands, the considered Section 2 of the Marriage Law, 2010, which again defined marriage as a union between man and woman. The appellants, a couple in a committed relationship wishing to enter into a same-sex marriage, were unsuccessful before the Court of Appeal in the Cayman Islands, which held that when correctly interpreted the bill of rights did not confer on same-sex couples the right to marry. The appellants were unsuccessful in their appeal to the Privy Council. The council held that, although the interpretation of the bill of rights does not endorse the right of same-sex couples to marry, the interpretation does not limit the Legislative Assembly from introducing legislation to recognise same-sex marriage.
Only 31 countries have legalised gay marriage. Over 70 countries still criminalise same-sex consensual sexual activity.
The post UK court restricts same-sex marriages in Bermuda and Cayman Islands appeared first on JURIST – News.
USA: Florida senate passes ‘Don’t Say Gay’ parental rights bill
The Florida Senate voted Tuesday to pass a controversial bill HB 1557, or the Parental Rights in Education. LGBTQIA activists have deemed the legislation a “Don’t Say Gay” bill because it limits discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity in classrooms. The Florida House of Representatives passed the bill on February 25, 2022.
The bill restricts “[c]lassroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity” for students in kindergarten through third grade that is deemed inappropriate by state standards.”
The bill also bans:
procedures or student support forms that prohibit school district personnel from notifying a parent about his or her student’s mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being, or a change in related services or monitoring, or that encourage or have the effect of encouraging a student to withhold from a parent such information.
In a press release, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said the bill will “significantly limit the ability” of school personnel to be a “confidential resource” for students questioning their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Florida Representative Joe Harding told Fox News that the bill “defines that there are certain instructions related to gender and sexual orientation that are just not appropriate at certain ages.” Harding believes the bill will “keep school districts from talking about these topics before kids are ready to process them.”
Senator Dennis Baxley said he was “attracted” to the bill because of a “trending posture” in schools wherein children may be “trying on all these different identities of life, trying to see where they fit in.” According to a study by the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, 17 percent of self-identified gay and bisexual men and 11 percent of gay and bisexual women were aware of their sexuality in grade school.
HRW also noted that the bill does not specify what material is inappropriate for young children or who should decide what materials or topics are not age-appropriate.
Senator Tina Polsky questioned her colleagues as to why discussion of sexual orientation must be tightly controlled but mature topics like suicide and drug use are not specifically named in the bill. Senator Shevrin Jones, the first openly gay senator in Florida history, said, “I want to remind my colleagues that I am not a hypothetical, I sit in the room [with] you, and your actions and words matter.”
The bill will now go to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis for approval.
The post Florida senate passes ‘Don’t Say Gay’ parental rights bill appeared first on JURIST – News.
USA: Texas appeals court upholds order blocking state from investigating parents of trans youth
The Third Texas Court of Appeals Wednesday upheld a trial court’s decision to temporarily block the state from proceeding with an investigation into the parents of a transgender teenager.
In February, Texas Governor Greg Abbott sent a letter to Commissioner of the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) Jamie Masters, instructing her to investigate the parents of children subjected to certain types of gender-affirming care. This care typically aids transgender persons in their transitions and can be either social, hormonal, or surgical. Included in the governor’s letter was a non-binding legal opinion by Attorney General Ken Paxton, which claimed that such care could constitute child abuse when administered to minors.
The parents, represented by the ACLU and Lamba Legal, sued the state after one of them, a state worker, claimed she was put on leave and investigated by the DFPS when she inquired after the governor’s directive. The District Court of Travis County granted a restraining order preventing the state from continuing its investigation until a hearing can be conducted. The state appealed the restraining order. However, the court of appeals denied the state’s request, noting a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Beyond Texas, several other states have sought to criminalize medical care for transgender youths. In Arkansas, the legislature overcame the governor’s veto to become the first state to ban gender-affirming care. Experts, however, stress that such care is crucial to the health and wellbeing of gender-diverse youth.
The trial court scheduled a hearing for Friday.
The post Texas appeals court upholds order blocking state from investigating parents of trans youth appeared first on JURIST – News.
USA: Iowa became the eleventh American State barring transgender athletes from female sports
The Constitutional Court of Colombia ruled that citizens should be able to have their gender registered as non-binary
International and Comparative SOGIESC Law - Professor Andreas R Ziegler 