Is this the case that ends gay marriage in America?
Mexico and Spain going in different directions on trans rights
Leading off with the US today, because it seems like that’s where the most consequential development was.
North Carolina: The NC Court of Appeals ruled that a same-sex partner cannot be obligated to pay child support under state law, which refers to parents in gendered terms. This is despite clear precedent from SCOTUS that requires that these laws be read gender-neutral. It seems like this is a perfect case to allow SCOTUS to reconsider or water-down same-sex marriage.
(Also, TF is wrong with the lesbian in this child support case? She’s clearly the kid’s parent, fought for and received shared custody, and doesn’t want to support it? *This* is the case that could cost us same-sex marriage in America?)
Hawaii: The proposed constitutional amendment on same-sex marriage has passed the house committee examining it. It moves to the full house, and then the senate.
Arkansas has stopped allowing people to use an ‘X’ gender marker on their state-issued ID.
Meanwhile, Connecticut legislators are considering a bill that would require state agencies to report on how they can allow people to use the ‘X’ marker or other nonbinary options on state forms and ID by January 2026. That honestly seems like a rather generous timeline to accomplish not very much.
Iowa: Most of the anti-LGBT legislation that was introduced this session has stalled out, having missed a key legislative deadline. The only one to pass is a so-called “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” which is awaiting the governor’s signature, and some have said enables anti-LGBT discrimination in the name of religion.
Primaries: Ohio has nominated the Trump-supported Brian Moreno as the GOP candidate for Senate. Moreno, you’ll recall, has been connected to an Adult Friend Finder account cruising for gay sex – which is only relevant because Moreno has recently recanted his previous support for LGBT rights in order to woo the Republican base in this primary.
Meanwhile, in the Rest of the World…
European Integration Update: Tensions have flared up between Kosovo and Serbia again, with the latter’s president Vucic threatening the West that it must choose between “loving Kosovo” or loving Serbia. This latest dust-up comes after Kosovo authorities have ordered Serbian citizens to stop using the Serb dinar for payments, in favor of the Euro, which the rest of Kosovo has been using since before independence. It also comes as the Council of Europe is set to vote on admitting Kosovo as a member later this spring. Should Kosovo be allowed to join, its citizens (including Serbs) would enjoy the benefits of membership, including protection of the European Convention/Court of Human Rights, including the obligation that the state provide for recognition of same-sex unions. It would also eventually allow Kosovo to participate in Eurovision, and if they can get Dua Lipa to enter, it might bring around some of the Western holdouts on recognition of Kosovo.
My view? At this point, the EU should give up on trying to integrate Serbia, and focus on the Balkan countries that are actually trying to reorient themselves toward the west. The EU doesn’t need another Orban.
The European Council is also set to meet on Thursday to decide if it will formally begin EU accession negotiations with Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Speaking of, the European Council is also holding a conference in Barcelona on Thursday on the growing problem of anti-LGBT hate crimes and discrimination in Europe.
Japan: Aichi prefecture has announced that its new same-sex partnership registry will include “familyship,” allowing same-sex parents to register their children as well. So far, only two other prefectures have begun registering same-sex-headed families, as opposed to just couples.
Spain: The left-wing national government has drawn the far-right Madrid regional government into negotiations over its anti-trans and anti-LGBT laws, which conflict with national standards. The government is threatening to take the issue to the Constitutional Court if they can’t come to an agreement.
Mexico: The Economist (Spanish) has a bit of an explainer on the proposed trans law before the federal congress, which it says may come up for a vote any day. It would guarantee legal gender recognition, access to health care, bar discrimination, penalize hate crimes, and promote access to justice and government services. Other articles have mentioned that the law is constitutional, and would thus require at least 16 states to ratify it (because it intrudes on state jurisdictions) but I’m not sure that’s true. (We are also still waiting for Congress to hold a final vote on a conversion therapy ban…)
Recently, Nayarit became the first state to enact a specific law against “transfemicide,” which is a hate-motivated killing of a trans woman. (22 states have hate crime laws that protect based on “gender” and “sexual orientation”). Also this month, the Supreme Court ruled that murders of trans women count as murders of women (“femicides”) for purposes of increased sentencing.
Canada: Former Ontario Attorney-General Roy McMurtry died this week, aged 91. McMurtry has a mixed history with the LGBT community in Canada. As Attorney-General, he helped draft Canada’s 1982 Constitution and Charter of Rights. But he was also AG during the 1981 Toronto bathhouse raids, “Operation Soap,” which was at the time the largest mass arrest in Canadian history, and went on to inspire the Toronto Pride March. He much later distanced himself from the events, saying he did not approve of the Toronto Police’s actions, and in 2003, as Chief Justice of Ontario, he wrote the decision that approved same-sex marriage, which ultimately led to it being legalized across Canada. Xtra has more on his complicated legacy.
The NC child support case does not involve any issues about the rights and responsibilities of married gay couples that flow from Obergefell. According to the AP article, the lesbian parents in the NC case were unmarried. I agree that the trial court decision was correct and the appellate decision was wrong, and may violate due process and equal protection claims. However, the appellate decision only concerns the obligations of a same sex partner in a non-legal “romantic relationship” that ended. Obergefell is not impacted.