Box Turtle Bulletin

Seychelles Repeals Colonial-Era Anti-Gay Law

There’s some rare good news coming out of Africa:

Section 151 of the country’s Penal Code states that a man who has sex with a man “against the order of nature” can be jailed for up to fourteen years.  The law is a hang-over from British colonial rule, and convictions are already very rare – but the Seychelles had pushed to scrap the law entirely.

Seychelles President James Michel highlighted the need to abolish the law based on its United Nations human rights obligations, when it agreed to undergo a Universal Periodic Review with an eye toward decriminalizing same-sex relationships. Seychelles popularity as a European vacation destination undoubtedly added an economic incentive to the decision.

Changing Mexico’s Constitution for Marriage Equality: What’s At Stake

Mexico’s President Enrique Peña Nieto

Yesterday, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto announced four initiatives aimed at bringing marriage equality across the entire nation and promoting LGBT rights around the world. One of those measures would also allow changes to birth certificates to accurately reflect trans people’s gender identity. The first initiative, which bears close watching as it is the one most likely to engender a dangerous backlash, would amend Mexico’s constitution.

According to yesterday’s announcement:

An initiative to reform Article 4 of the Constitution was signed to clearly incorporate the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation which recognized as a human right that people can marry without discrimination.

That is, that marriages are made without discrimination based on ethnic or national origin, disability, social status, health conditions, religion, gender or sexual preference. Thus, equal marriage would be explicit in the Constitution.

Article 4 is, a rather wide-ranging set of clauses whch can be summed up as a kind of an equal rights article. This is the full text of Article 4, in a translation provided by UNAM (The National Autonomous University of Mexico, the country’s most prestigious universities) (PDF):

Article 4

Men and women are equal under the law. The law shall protect family organization and development.

Every person has a right to decide in a free, mature and informed way, the number and spacing of their children.

Every person has a right to receive medical treatment when deemed as necessary. The law shall not only define the guiding criterial regulating access to health services but also establish concurrent activities to be carried out by the federation and the states in organizing public health services under article 73, paragraph XVI of this constitution.

Every person has a right to live in an adequate environment for her development and welfare.

Every family has a right to a dignified and decent household. The law shall establish all regulations and incentives deemed to be necessary to achieve such a goal.

Children’s needs to nourishment, health, education, recreation and integral development shall be fulfilled.

Ascendants, tutors and guardians shall be obligated to enforce the aforementioned rights. The States shall provide whatever deemed as necessary to uphold both children’s dignity and the enforcement of children’s rights.

The State shall help out private individuals in enforcing children’s rights.

Anti-gay groups in Mexico have claimed that the sentence about “protect family organization and development” precluded allowing same-sex marriage, but so far the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, Mexico’s highest court, hasn’t seen it that way. One can also imagine that several other clauses dealing with “a dignified and decent household” and children’s “integral development” could be spun by anti-gay groups as well. So in that sense, Peña Nieto’s proposal to clarify Article 4 would certainly do the trick.

But it seems like it could be a daunting task. Not because it’s so rarely done — Mexico’s constitution has undergone numerous substantial changes in its 99-year history, the most recent in 2011 when the right to food was inserted into Articles 4 and 27. (By the way, while the process of changing the Constitution is referred to as an amendment, Mexico’s Constitution is actually changed by the process. It does not carry a series of amendments like the U.S. Constitution.) The process for amending the Constitution is found in Article 135:

This Constitution can be amended or reformed by two thirds out of the attending members of Congress at the respective session. Such amendments and reforms shall be valid when ratified by the majority out of the State Legislatures. Either the Congress or the Permanent Commission during congressional recesses shall compute the State Legislatures votes and declare the approval of the respective amendments and reforms.

So, two-thirds of Congress and half of the Sates need to approve. When one looks at the partisan composition of Congress, at least that part looks doable:

Pena Nieto’s party and allies control about half the seats in both houses, and the measure could also pick up support from the leftist opposition Democratic Revolution Party.

As for the states, eight of the 31 states, and the Federal District, already have marriage equality. (The Federal District, which was the first jurisdiction to approve marriage equality in 2009, doesn’t get a say when amending the Constitution.)  Seven of those eight states completed the process under their own initiative. Only one was forced to do so by the Supreme Court. Peña Nieto’s ruling PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party) holds 19 of 31 governorships and 20 state legislatures, which means that at least from the standpoint of party control, that also looks doable.

But the entire process still bears watching. I don’t know how fast all of this can happen, but Peña Nieto’s term ends in 2018, when Mexico will elect a new President and Congress. And it’s not clear to me how much input Peña Nieto will have in the actual wording of Article 4, although I suspect it could be substantial. That will bear watching. And I don’t know to what extent this move could open the doors to anti-marriage mischief.  We can be assured the Catholic Church in Mexico will play a big role. And there’s no doubt that several American anti-gay groups will see an opening to expand their influence south of the border. Mexico’s politics have always been complicated, its legal system more so, and transparency has never been its strong suit. Fun times ahead…

House Republicans Refuse to Remove Anti-LGBT Provisions From Defense Bill

The House Rules Committee yesterday refused to take up a bipartisan proposal bipartisan amendment introduced by Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA) which would remove anti-LGBT language from the 2017 Defense Authorization Bill. If that language remains in the bill, it would overturn President Barack Obama’s executive order requiring that federal contractors maintain anti-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation and gender identity. The committee voted down the amendment 9-3 on strict party lines.

The original amendment overturning Obama’s executive order was inserted into the Defense Authorization Bill by Rep. Steve Russell (R-OK) when the House Armed Services Committee was marking up the legislation.

Rep. Steve Russel (R-OK)

The amendment, introduced by freshman Rep. Steve Russell (R-Okla.), would require the federal government when contracting with religious organizations to afford them exemptions consistent with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the American with Disabilities Act. Since neither of those laws prohibit anti-LGBT bias, the amendment would enable religious organizations doing business with the U.S. government to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Because the measure would have the force of law, it would overrule the executive order signed by President Obama in 2014 prohibiting contractors doing more than $10,000 a year in business with the U.S. government from engaging in anti-LGBT discrimination against employees. The president included no religious exemption in his order, although he left in place a Bush-era exemption allowing religious organizations contracting with the U.S. government to favor co-religionists in hiring practices.

The amendment provides an exemption for “any religious corporation, religious association, religious educational institution or religious society” contracting with the U.S. government. All of those terms are undefined in the amendment, but the lack of definition for “religious corporation” could allow courts to construe the term broadly to any federal contractor — not just religious organizations — in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in the Hobby Lobby case.

The White House has said that it strongly objects to the anti-LGBT provision. It has previously threatened to veto the bill over objections to several other provisions in the legislation.

The Senate version of the bill does not contain the anti-LGBT provision. The next opportunity to remove it from the house committee would be during conference committee after both houses approve their respective versions of the bill.

African, Asian, Caribbean LGBT Groups Banned From U.N. AIDS Conference

More than fifty Muslim countries, led by Egypt, banded together to ban several LGBT groups from attending a high level U.N.’s 2016 High-Level Meeting on Ending AIDS set for June 8 through 10. NGOs from across Africa, as well as Guyana, Jamaica, Peru, Estonia and Ukraine were among eleven groups that were banned:

On behalf of 51 members of the 57-nation Organisation for Islamic Cooperation (OIC), Egypt requested that the UN bar 11 groups from attending the conference, news agencies reported. Egypt reportedly provided no reason for excluding the groups in its letter.

The NGOs include Eurasian Coalition on Male Health, an Estonia-based group that fights for LGBTI equality in Russia and other former Soviet republics, and Global Action for Trans Equality, which has its headquarters in the United States. Aside from the Estonian and US gay activist groups, Egypt reportedly objected to the participation of Ishtar Men Who Have Sex With Men group from Kenya and the Asia Pacific Transgender Network from Thailand.

Ambassadors from the E.U., U.S., and Canada were quick to denounce the ban:

The United States has already protested the decision, with the US ambassador Samantha Power noting that the disallowed groups “appear to have been chosen for their involvement in LGBTI, transgender or youth advocacy.” …

“We are deeply concerned that at every negotiation on a new General Assembly gathering, the matter of NGO (non-governmental organization) participation is questioned and scrutinized,” Ms Power wrote.

“The movement to block the participation of NGOs on spurious or hidden grounds is becoming epidemic and severely damages the credibility of the U.N.”

“Given that transgender people are 49 times more likely to be living with HIV than the general population, their exclusion from the high-level meeting will only impede global progress in combating the HIV/Aids pandemic,” she added.

The 2016 High-Level Meeting was called to share lessons learned in responding to HIV with the stated goal of of ending AIDS by 2030:

The lessons learned in responding to HIV will play an instrumental role in the success in achieving many of the Sustainable Development Goals, notably Sustainable Development Goal 3, good health and well-being, and the goals on gender equality and women’s empowerment, reduced inequalities, global partnerships and just, peaceful and inclusive societies.

Openly Gay Mayor To Challenge Sen. Rand Paul

Lexington, Kentucky Mayor Jim Gray defeated six challengers in yesterday’s Democratic primary, clearing the way for him to challenge Sen. Rand Paul in November. He faces significant headwinds going into November:

Gray may not get much monetary help from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Democrats need only five seats to gain a majority of the Senate, and four for control of the chamber. Several senate races including races in Illinois, Florida and Wisconsin look more favorable for Democrats. …

Don Dugi, a professor of political science at Transylvania University, said money may not be Gray’s biggest problem heading into the November general election.

Among the other factors: Gray is the first openly gay candidate to run for U.S. Senate. The Republicans won all but two statewide offices in 2015. The state is becoming more conservative. Lexington leans liberal.

“The rest of the state does not look like Lexington,” Dugi said. Social conservatives in Eastern and Western Kentucky may not be as open-minded as Lexington voters, he said.

Eric Fanning Confirmed as Army Secretary

Here’s another historic first for LGBT Americans. This evening, the U.S. Senate confirmed the nomination of Eric Fanning as Army Secretary. This makes Fanning the first openly gay leader of any branch of the U.S. armed services, and it comes just four and a half years after “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was officially dismantled.

The voice vote came after Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan. dropped his opposition in a dispute over Obama administration efforts to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and transfer detainees to the U.S.

Roberts said he received assurances from the administration in private discussions that the clock has run out on moving detainees to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

Fanning served as the Army secretary’s principal adviser on management and operation of the service. He was undersecretary of the Air Force from April 2013 to February 2015, and for half a year was the acting secretary of the Air Force.

Fanning was nominated to the post last September. Roberts came under immense pressure to when it was learned that he had placed a hold on Fanning’s nomination. John McCain (R-AZ), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, took to the floor last month to implore that Roberts lift the hold. Roberts answered that he supported Fanning for the post, but he wanted assurances from the White House that Guantanamo detainees would not be transferred to Ft. Leavenworth.

Mexico’s President Proposes Federal Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages and Gender Identification

Los Pinos, the official office and residence of the President of Mexico.

One important way to understand how a few things are supposed to work in Mexico is to recall that the country’s official name translates as the Mexican United States. This refers to the fact that like here in the U.S.A., Mexico’s system of government is designed to work on a federalist model, with some powers reserved for the national government, and some powers reserved for the states. Their lines on which powers go where are drawn differently than here in the U.S., but in one way they are the same: only states can regulate what constitutes a valid marriage. The federal government’s role, like in the U.S., is limited to deciding what marriages the government will recognize. Mexico’s federal government cannot mandate marriage equality nationwide, nor can it prohibit it. It can, however, make perfectly legal and valid same-sex marriages irrelevant with regard to what gets recognized at the federal level.

And so as was the case in the U.S. under the Defense of Marriage Act, which barred our federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage even in states where those marriages were legal, Mexico’s Federal Civil Code also bars the national recognition of same-sex marriage even in the eight of Mexico’s 31 states, plus the Federal District, where same-sex marriage is legal.

There are only two mechanisms by which the federal government can impose same-sex marriage on the states. The first involves a very lengthy multi-year long process by which the Mexican Supreme Court can strike down marriage restrictions in each individual state, but it can only do that one state at a time, and even then it can only do that if it reaches the same conclusion five times in a row in five individual states. The Supreme Court has already done this a number of times, and has more or less ordered lower court judges to do the same when similar cases are filed in their jurisdictions. The second method is via a constitutional amendment, which rarely happens and is fraught with political peril. For example, marriage equality opponents could hijack the process to impose a national ban on same-sex marriage.

With all of that taken together, this announcement that was posted to the Presidential web site seems so important. Here is a highly unofficial translation:

The President of the Republic, Enrique Peña Nieto, led the ceremony of the National Day of the Fight Against Homophobia, at the residence of Los Pinos.

“I reaffirm my Government’s commitment to non-discrimination and building a Mexico, like you, Ari also said so, truly inclusive, where all people can exercise their rights fully.”

…He submitted proposals to the Secretariat of the Interior [which formally presents the president’s bills to Congress — JB] and the National Council to Prevent Discrimination, so that together with the competent agencies, they can analyze each of the proposals and, where appropriate, take necessary actions to address them.

The first package of reforms sent to Congress stemming from the recommendations of the Dialogues for Everyday Justice, calls for the identification and reform of Mexican legal standards including discriminatory content.

From this, four presidential determinations were derived:

First. An initiative to reform Article 4 of the Constitution was signed to clearly incorporate the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation which recognized as a human right that people can marry without discrimination.

That is, that marriages are made without discrimination based on ethnic or national origin, disability, social status, health conditions, religion, gender or sexual preference. Thus, equal marriage would be explicit in the Constitution.

“I do it with the conviction that the Mexican State must prevent discrimination for any reason and to ensure equal rights for all people.”

Second. An initiative to reform the Federal Civil Code was sent to ensure equal marriage. So that it can be carried out without discrimination among people over 18 years, in line with what already establishes the General Law on the Rights of Children and Adolescents.

This reform proposal modernizes the language to avoid discriminatory expressions which still exists in the Federal Code. It also contemplates that consulates, in its role as Civil Registry Judges, can issue new birth certificates to recognize gender identity.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs received directives to take the necessary steps so that, in the passport application process, it will recognize and accept, without any distinction, birth certificates which register a change in gender.

Third. The Legal Counsel of the Federal Executive, together with the institutions that participated in the Dialogs for Everyday Justice, are to identify any other federal, state or municipal law which could involve some form of discrimination, in accordance with the criteria of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation.

For this determination to be democratic and inclusive, a micro site on page of the Presidency of the Republic will open to receive citizen proposals. These will be analyzed by the Ministry itself, CIDE and the Institute of Legal Research of UNAM (the National Autonomous University of Mexico), in order to propose the necessary legal changes needed to eliminate discrimination.

In the case of local or municipal regulations, it will inform those authorities of those levels of government of proposals to initiate a reform process.

Fourth. Mexico, as an actor with global responsibility, will be part of the Nucleus Group on Homosexual, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender or Intersex Persons of the United Nations, in which 19 countries from different regions are involved, and which promote human rights internationally.

“Today, as we are here witnessing, having this meeting is very important in the evolution, that as a society we are taking a step. That the Government of Mexico has the conviction and wants to promote, and want to really ensure that in our country all and all Mexicans, regardless of their social status, religion, sexual preference, their ethnicity, no matter what his condition, has the opportunity to be fully realized, and has a chance to be happy.”

Alabama’s Proposed “Bathroom Bill”: A Shift in Tactics

Yesterday, I noted that Alabama State Sen. Phil Williams (R-Rainbow City, ironically) filed a filed a bill requiring anyone that makes restrooms available to the public to do so “in a manner that ensures the privacy of each individual.” That bit of news came from a brief article I found posted by the Florence Times Daily. Details were sketchy, but they included:

Williams said that can be done in three ways. By having:

• restroom, bathroom or changing facilities that are designed to be used by one person at a time.

• restroom, bathroom or changing facilities that are designed to be used by multiple persons of the same biological gender.

• restroom, bathroom or changing facilities that are designed to be used by multiple persons at once, irrespective of their gender, that are “staffed by an attendant stationed at the door of each restroom to monitor the appropriate use of the restroom and answer any questions or concerns posed by users.”

A few hours after I posted it and while I was doing other things away from the computer, I thought more about this and realized that there was something strange about this bill. Or, perhaps more accurately, the paper’s description of the bill, since I haven’t been able to find the bill itself. (It’s not yet listed on the Alabama Senate web site.) This bill, as far as I can tell so far, seems to focus exclusively on those who provide public facilities, and not on those who use them.

In other words, it seems to target Target more so than trans men and women. And in that way, it seems to anticipate the possibility that North Carolina’s law may be struck down in court. The law is currently being challenged by the ACLU and Lambda Legal, and by the Obama Administration in a separate case.

I wish I knew about this yesterday, but I found an op-ed Williams wrote last week for Al.com where he confirmed this approach:

Sen. Phil Williams

As I write this, a big-box retailer with multiple outlets in this state has decided to make all of their multi-stall restrooms unisex, with a complete disregard for long-standing law, tradition and biology. More egregiously, this decision was made with no concern for the privacy and security concerns of their customers. In essence, Target has thrown out the rule in favor of the exception.

In North Carolina, the city of Charlotte passed an ordinance requiring public restrooms to allow persons to use bathrooms according to their own gender self-identification. … That law is being litigated even now and Alabama must be ready by the next legislative session to deal with the outcome.

…If North Carolina’s law is struck down then my legislation will become a backstop to say that if any person or entity provides public restrooms, bathrooms, or changing facilities then they will do so in one of three ways: a single user facility; facilities separated by the physical gender of the users; or, if facilities are provided in a unisex/transgender manner, an attendant for each facility must be onsite to address any concerns or questions of the general public. Failure to do so would result in civil penalties and provide a private right of action in court for those individuals who have been harmed or aggrieved.

Alabama Lawmaker Files Bathroom Bill

Sen. Phil Williams

Alabama. Where else? Really, it was only a matter of time. Sen. Phil Williams (R-Rainbow City, ironically) filed a bill requiring anyone that makes restrooms available to the public to do so “in a manner that ensures the privacy of each individual“:

Williams said that can be done in three ways. By having:

•  restroom, bathroom or changing facilities that are designed to be used by one person at a time.

•  restroom, bathroom or changing facilities that are designed to be used by multiple persons of the same biological gender.

•  restroom, bathroom or changing facilities that are designed to be used by multiple persons at once, irrespective of their gender, that are “staffed by an attendant stationed at the door of each restroom to monitor the appropriate use of the restroom and answer any questions or concerns posed by users.”

This comes after the city of Oxford, Alabama had passed its own bathroom ordinance which threatened violators with up to six months in jail. After a national outcry, the Oxford city council rescinded the ordinance a week later.

The Target Trolls Are On the Loose

There’s never been a problem with Target’s bathrooms. People go in, they do what they need to do, and then they leave. And so when Target announced that people could go into whichever bathroom was most appropriate for them, all they did was confirm what had already been going on. But the American Family Association and other anti-LGBT groups see it differently, and have announced yet another of their uncountable boycotts. Unlike the others, this one seems to be having one effect: Bible-waving zealots have taken to marching through Target stores screaming, “Are you gonna let the devil rape your children?”

This guy in Colorado Springs took a different approach, while also trying to prove that zealots are not creativity-challenged:

There still have been no reported incidents of a transwoman assaulting anyone in a woman’s bathroom. However, this video of a man stalking a woman at a Florida Target — he’s a man dressed as a man — is making the rounds, as though it was somehow relevant.

Suspect Arrested Over Bangladesh LGBT Activists’ Murders

Police have arrested Shariful Islam Shihab.

Bangladesh has garnered a terrible reputation lately for violent attacks against bloggers, secular writers, professors, leaders of religious minorities, and other activists who dare to challenge the influence of conservative Islam in what had been a secular and relatively multicultural society. Militants have been specifically targeting those whom they accuse of atheism, like Professor Rezaul Karim Siddique who was hacked to death by machete-wielding Islamists as he set out to work one morning at Rajshahi University. He was the fourth professor at that university killed in recent year. (His daughter denies that he was an atheist.) More than two dozen have been killed since 2013, including two foreigners last October.

Two days after Siddique’s murder, Xulhaz Mannan, 35 and editor of the country’s first and only LGBT magazine, and fellow activist and actor, Tanay Mojumdar, were hacked to death on April 25. Mannan, who edited Roopbaan, and Mojumdar were attacked with meat cleavers in Mannan’s apartment by five to seven attackers, according to witnesses.

Xulhaz Mannan (left) and Tanay Mojum (right)

Mannan launched Roopbaan in 2014, and was an employee of the U.S. embassy in Dhaka where he worked for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). U.S. Ambassador Marcia Bernicat condemned the killing and called on the Bangladesh government “in the strongest terms to apprehend the criminals behind these murders.” An al-Qaeda affiliate claimed responsibility, a claim that was disputed by the government, which instead blamed local Islamist groups.

So far, only one of the two dozen attacks have resulted in an arrest and prosecution since 2013. Mannan’s connections as a cousin of a former Foreign Minister in the governing party may result in a second prosecution. Yesterday, police arrested Shariful Islam Shihab, a member of the the banned Harkat-ul Jihad al Islami and another militant group, Ansarullah Bangla Team. According to police, Shihab confessed to the killing, which was the result of two months of planning. Police say they are reviewing video evidence to try to identify Shihab and other attackers in the crowd.

Texas GOP Enters Race for the Most Hatin’-est Platform in the U.S.

The Texas Republican Party just wrapped up its state convention after putting its finishing touches on the state party’s platform (PDF). And what a doozy it is, with not just one, but two, bathroom bill-type planks. Also, the GOP renewed its support for sexual orientation conversion therapy, an expansive so-called “religious freedom” bill, and a whole lot of other stuff besides.

The first call for a bathroom bill is filed under the heading of “Strengthening Families, Protecting Life and Promoting Health”:

Gender Identity- We urge the enactment of legislation addressing individuals’ use of bathrooms, showers and locker rooms that correspond with their biologically determined sex.

John Wright reports that this plank was approved by 90 percent of the delegates. Other anti-LGBT planks in that section touch on marriage, support for sexual orientation conversion therapy, and planks on adoption and sex education:

Family and Defense of Marriage- We support the definition of marriage as a God-ordained, legal and moral commitment only between one natural man and one natural woman.

▪ We support withholding jurisdiction from the federal courts in cases involving family law, especially any changes in the definition of marriage.

▪ We shall not recognize or grant to any unmarried person the legal rights or status of a spouse, including granting benefits by political subdivisions.

▪ We urge the legislature to rescind no-fault divorce laws and support covenant marriage.

Overturning Obergefell v. Hodges- We believe this decision, overturning the Texas law prohibiting same sex marriage in Texas, has no basis in the Constitution and should be reversed, returning jurisdiction over the definition of marriage to the states. The Governor and other elected officials of the state of Texas should assert our Tenth Amendment right and reject the Supreme Court ruling.

Homosexuality- Homosexuality is a chosen behavior that is contrary to the fundamental unchanging truths that has been ordained by God in the Bible, recognized by our nations founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable alternative lifestyle, in public policy, nor should family be redefined to include homosexual couples. We oppose the granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

Counseling and Therapy- No laws or executive orders shall be imposed to limit or restrict access to sexual orientation change efforts for self-motivated youth and adults.

Adoption- We support reducing the time, bureaucracy, and cost of adoption. We oppose mandates that deny mothers a choice in selecting a traditional home for their children. We oppose mandatory open adoption. We oppose any government agency from forcing faith-based adoption or foster care organizations to place children with same-sex couples.

Sex Education- We respect parental authority regarding sex education. We support the teaching of biology of reproduction and abstinence until marriage. We should prohibit entities and their affiliates that contradict our beliefs from conducting sex education and/or teacher training in public schools. We oppose all policies and curriculum that teach alternate lifestyles including homosexuality, transgender and other non-traditional lifestyles as normal.

The second bathroom-bill plank appears under the “Educating our Children” heading:

Facility Utilization- We support public school facilities such as restrooms, locker rooms and
showers being reserved for the use of students based on biological birth gender.

John Wright reports that this plank garnered the support of 93 percent of delegates.

The call for expansive so-called “religious freedom” legislation appears under “Promoting Individual Freedom and Personal Safety”:

Safeguarding Religious Liberties- We affirm that the public acknowledgement of God is undeniable in our history and is vital to our freedom, prosperity, and strength. We pledge our influence toward a return to the original intent of the 1st Amendment and toward dispelling the myth of separation of church and state. … We also support vigorously protecting the rights of commercial establishments to refuse to provide any service or product that would infringe upon freedom of conscience of religious expression of the commercial establishments as stated in the 1st Amendment.

Freedom of Conscience- That legislation at the state and federal level be passed that concretely defines public accommodations as originally defined and understood in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that it prohibit any expansion of that legal definition by any federal, state or local law to expand government control to restrict any First Amendment rights; and to proscribe any law that requires any private business or individual to create or provide a custom product or service, or any kind of expressive work, or enter into a contract, or be coerced into any speech that is not their own.

And under “Strengthening the Economy,” there’s this odd entry:

Unnecessary Medical Procedures for Prisoners- We believe no extraordinary medical care such as sex-change operations, hormonal medications, or gender-altering therapies should be provided to prisoners at the expense of the taxpayers.

The rest of the platform is a veritable witches’ brew of conspiracy theories, theocracy and half-baked economic policies, including withdrawing from the World Bank, the W.T.O, the I.M.F. and the United Nations (and “the removal of the United States from United States soil” [sic]), as well as prohibiting the U.N. from levying taxes (because apparently, that’s a thing.) Also they support teaching Creationism, returning prayer and Bible study in the schools, the repeal of the Federal Reserve and a return to the gold standard, building Trump’s “high wall with a wide gate,” abolishing the Minimum Wage, and Benghazi!

On the other hand, they do support Uber, industrial hemp, and “improv(ing) the 2015 Compassionate Use Act to allow doctors to determine the appropriate use of cannabis to prescribed patients.” Because with a platform like this, it’ll take a whole lot more prescribed cannabis to make living in Texas bearable if they get their way.

We’re Back!

You may not notice it at first glance, but this web site has undergone some major changes over the last month. The type is larger, the space for our posts is wider, the Briefs are no longer with us, and the individual components of the Daily Agenda are now separately sharable.

This is the first significant update in ten years — since before Facebook became a thing. Which is why sharing on Facebook didn’t work. Unlike Twitter or Redit, for example, where I can clue those networks in on exactly what it is that needs sharing, Facebook says no thanks, it’ll figure it out itself. Which, of course, it couldn’t unless this web site was completely re-coded from the ground up.

So now, after a month’s effort, Facebook sharing finally works. There’s still more work to do to bring other aspects of social network integration up to snuff, but that’ll have to wait for an upcoming weekend. I also have some more tasks to complete to get some of the plugins working again and to help with some of the performance issues. But the worst is over, and now I can get back to doing all I ever wanted to do in the first place: blogging non-stop about North Carolina and Donald Trump. The serious bogging will resume tomorrow. Meanwhile there’s this from Freedom For All Americans, which began airing on TV stations in Raleigh and Charlotte:

I Didn’t Say WHEN In May…

…although I had meant for it to be the first of May. (In fact, Timothy went ahead and gave it a start.) I did manage to get most of the database repaired, although a number of comments will likely remained somewhat messed up for quite a while.

But last Saturday, my partner Chris got off the phone with his mother and was very worried about her. She’s 79, and has been laid up with a broken kneecap since last October. Both of my in-laws are very active, so for her to be essentially homebound has been especially hard. And last Saturday, she had reached her breaking point and had essentially given up hope of ever walking again. So we tossed some clothes into the car, dropped the dog off at the kennel, and on Monday headed to Abilene, Texas, arriving two days later just in time to see her hobbling not just using a walker but with a cane, albeit still somewhat unsteady. It appears that her rehab breakthrough occurred that Monday. By Friday, we got her out of the house and enjoying a nice dinner at Red Lobster, something that she had been craving for months.

So that’s the (very) good news. We are now working our way back to Tucson. After that, I still have more work to do to get this website back to full functionality. There are still problems going on with the back-end, and I have some other revisions I want to make in order to get Facebook working once and for all. I’m targeting Sunday May 15 to get everything put back together again. Until then, we will be doing some occasional posting here and there, but the Daily agenda won’t make its re-appearance until I can get the rest of the web site back up and running. I appreciate your patience, apologize for the interruption, and invite you to stick around for what I hope will be an even better BTB.

Congratulations Colombia

Marriage equality in Colombia has been a long time coming.

Back in 2011 the Constitutional Court ruled that limiting marriage benefits to opposite sex couples was unconstitutional and that if the legislature didn’t change the law within two years to allow recognition, they would do so. But the legislature didn’t act and neither did the court.

In 2013, a judge ruled for marriage equality for one couple. But it was limited to just that couple.

On April 7 the high court ruled on a challenge against equality that marriage for same sex couples did not violated family protections within the Colombian Constitution. And that set the stage for a ruling on Thursday that finally, finally, brought marriage equality to the South American country. (ABC)

“The judges affirmed by a majority that marriage between people of the same sex does not violate constitutional order,” presiding Judge Maria Victoria Calle told the court.

“The current definition of the institution of marriage in civil law applies to them in the same way as it does for couples of the same sex.”