The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

All Eyes on Oregon Marriage Case

A

Alnitak

JockBoy87
Joined
Aug 24, 2013
Posts
8,136
Reaction score
67
Points
48
Location
Maryland
Oregon will be the next state to enjoy a court hearing on its marriage ban.

Oral Arguments will be heard in two consolidated cases tomorrow, April 23 at 1:30 pm

Wayne L. Morse US Courthouse​
Courtroom 2​
405 East 8th Avenue​
Eugene, Oregon 97401​

Judge Michael J. McShane presiding. McShane is openly a member of the gay community and an Obama appointee.

Barring some unlikely events, such as intervention from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), there will not be a defense presented. It is possible given that circumstance that Judge McShane will rule from the bench. Oregon would be the 20th state to issue legal marriage licenses to same sex couples.
 
He denies the intervention, and issues a ruling that the matter is uncontested. NOM appeals their denial, but the decision is not stayed.
 
Perry made it abundantly clear that groups like NOM do not have standing to appeal in federal court.

Regardless, the state appears to be anticipating a quick ruling in our favor which will not be stayed since they've already begun making updated marriage licenses.
 
A stay has to be based on NOM's having at least a reasonable (something more certain than "remote") chance of succeeding in their appeal.
 
I love that Oral Arguments are heard in a case about homo marriage equality.

I know that I could argue expertly.
 
McShane has denied NOM's attempt to delay oral arguments tomorrow, but will allow them their own oral arguments to argue that they have the right to intervene in the case, which have been scheduled for May 14th. I looks like no rulling on the marriage case will come before that time unfortunately.
 
Well then, what's the point of meeting tomorrow? Have no one defending the matter, give a summary judgment victory, and then stay marriage licenses until after the NOM hearing?
 
JackinSea said:
Well then, what's the point of meeting tomorrow? Have no one defending the matter, give a summary judgment victory, and then stay marriage licenses until after the NOM hearing?
Click to expand...

NOM is insufferable that way. Even Bryan Fischer said recently that winning is not really all that important, just the effort of being a pain in the ass.
 
scream4ever said:
McShane has denied NOM's attempt to delay oral arguments tomorrow, but will allow them their own oral arguments to argue that they have the right to intervene in the case, which have been scheduled for May 14th. I looks like no rulling on the marriage case will come before that time unfortunately.
Click to expand...

He has to for sake of appearances giving the other side due process.
 
JackinSea said:
Well then, what's the point of meeting tomorrow? Have no one defending the matter, give a summary judgment victory, and then stay marriage licenses until after the NOM hearing?
Click to expand...

He will have heard the one set of arguments. If he decides later that NOM can have a say, he only has to hear them. If he decides not, then he goes ahead and issues his ruling.
 
Kulindahr said:
He will have heard the one set of arguments. If he decides later that NOM can have a say, he only has to hear them. If he decides not, then he goes ahead and issues his ruling.
Click to expand...

The face that he is still hearing the arguments as scheduled is IMO a strong indicator that he will not allow NOM to intervene. As Alnitak said, the reason he's even allowing them this much of a say is for purposes of due process.
 
I don't see how they have standing either. Honestly, when they lose this motion, they're better off ranting about activist judges overturning the Will of the People (ten years ago) than forcing a vote they should know they'll lose fairly solidly. Oregon is an all-mail state, so beating the bushes to get out all your bigots isn't as much of an advantage as it might be elsewhere.
 
A news account of the Oregon hearing from the Eugene Register-Guard.

Judge probes marriage issues
With no attorneys arguing against ending the same-sex wedding ban, McShane raises questions himself

Faced with lawyers on both sides of the courtroom urging him to strike down Oregon’s ban on same-sex marriage, U.S. District Judge Michael McShane often played devil’s advocate during Wednesday’s oral arguments in the potentially historic case.
....
Lawyers representing ban opponents said they didn’t think McShane had tipped his hand at all during the hearing. His questions centered primarily on probing the different approaches taken by judges in their recent rulings on the same-sex marriage issue, they said.

www.registerguard.com/rg/news/local/31478216-75/mcshane-marriage-ban-oregon-case.html.csp
Click to expand...
 
I suppose he has to go ahead and make sure he seems as impartial as possible.
 
palbert said:
A news account of the Oregon hearing from the Eugene Register-Guard.
Click to expand...

O
M
G

The Oregon Catholic Conference endorsed the NOM intervention attempt!

From hanging out with the RC students at OSU, I know there's already a disconnect between the hierarchy and a lot of the faithful. Educated Catholics already understand that the Church has no business trying to dictate to the state, and this is just going to make the hierarchy look sillier.
 
Kulindahr said:
It's not so much about appearances as about leaving no room at all for anyone to tell a higher judge that he didn't give a fair hearing. Any avenue he fails to address is an opening for an appeal.
Click to expand...

They refer to this colloquially as "protecting the record."
 
Here's the problem for NOM trying to use a clerk as standing.
Li & Kennedy v. Oregon nullified the 4,000 or so gay marriages that had been performed in 2004.
Part of that ruling made clear clerks in Oregon do NOT have standing in cases of marriage licenses and who can get them.
So this clerk NOM claims to represent has no legal leg to stand on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top