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

Ninja108 said:
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.
Click to expand...

States do not determine who may be stand for defense in federal court. It is a separate sovereign.
 
McShane will be holding the hearing this morning at 9 a.m. local time on whether to grant NOM standing to defend Measure 36.
 
NOM's attempt to intervene has been denied!

I've heard reports that McShane will not issue his ruling on the merits today. It's still pretty early so I'm not sure about that honestly...
 
NOM will appeal to the 9th Circuit and ask for a stay on McShane's inevitable ruling. I doubt they'll be successful either, but there's always a chance for a delay.
 
The lawyers for our side have requested that McShane give them 24 hours notice before he hands down his ruling to allow the state to be ready when marriages begin.
 
Alnitak said:
States do not determine who may be stand for defense in federal court. It is a separate sovereign.
Click to expand...

But has a federal court ever said that someone could represent a state when the state has said, "They can't speak for us?" From all the discussion around the Perry case, it was my understanding that if they state says they can't speak for the state, that settles it, but that if the state says they can, that may not settle it.
 
frankfrank said:
They won't let themselves retreat to the world of Model T's and tintype photography, where thankfully death is certain, without a fight.
Click to expand...

I've actually been a little surprised (and impressed) at how effectively the right has kept gay marriage from happening in the USA. They have lost everywhere they have gone to court, with almost a 100% failure rate. State attorneys general and governors have sometimes refused to defend bigoted laws. Polls show a majority of Americans in favor of marriage equality.

And yet, despite their complete and utter failure everywhere, almost nowhere is gay marriage happening in places where the courts have ordered that it should be happening. They have almost a 100% failure rate in court - but almost a 100% success rate at preventing the courts from bringing us marriage equality.
 
^^^That's because your average voter is prone to misinformation, which is all they can ride on to win.
 
I'm guessing Oregon United for Marriage is still planning to turn in the signatures Friday next week, so I'm also guessing McShane will try to get in the ruling by then.
 
T-Rexx said:
I've actually been a little surprised (and impressed) at how effectively the right has kept gay marriage from happening in the USA. They have lost everywhere they have gone to court, with almost a 100% failure rate. State attorneys general and governors have sometimes refused to defend bigoted laws. Polls show a majority of Americans in favor of marriage equality.

And yet, despite their complete and utter failure everywhere, almost nowhere is gay marriage happening in places where the courts have ordered that it should be happening. They have almost a 100% failure rate in court - but almost a 100% success rate at preventing the courts from bringing us marriage equality.
Click to expand...

There are a few reasons for this.

1) Our opponents are psychotically tenacious and will exhaust every conceivable legal option, theory, tactic, and then some.

2) Realize that the current lawsuits are young. They have not matured to the point where stays and appeals are exhausted. Even in the case of Virginia, we nearly have an appeals decision and it's only a 10 month old case! Who has heard of such speed?

3) These lawsuits were all filed within a few months of each other. It seems like a lot, yet combined with the above reason it is so little.

4) Courts are insufferably slow and secretive. It is the smallest branch of government and chronically understaffed, but it is politically impossible to expand it under any one president.
 
T-Rexx said:
I've actually been a little surprised (and impressed) at how effectively the right has kept gay marriage from happening in the USA. They have lost everywhere they have gone to court, with almost a 100% failure rate. State attorneys general and governors have sometimes refused to defend bigoted laws. Polls show a majority of Americans in favor of marriage equality.

And yet, despite their complete and utter failure everywhere, almost nowhere is gay marriage happening in places where the courts have ordered that it should be happening. They have almost a 100% failure rate in court - but almost a 100% success rate at preventing the courts from bringing us marriage equality.
Click to expand...


Only for a little while in the larger scheme of things.

One day soon, there will be big change and then only the most recalcitrant and backward states will cling to their 'right' to define marriage.
 
rareboy said:
Only for a little while in the larger scheme of things.

One day soon, there will be big change and then only the most recalcitrant and backward states will cling to their 'right' to define marriage.
Click to expand...

I hope and believe that is true.

But, I do pause. What we are all waiting for is SCOTUS. All these myriad federal court cases will ultimately be appealed to SCOTUS. The "victories" are only useful to the extent that they may help to persuade SCOTUS of the mood of the nation. The arguments against gay marriage have been laughable. You would think that any SCOTUS ruling on marriage equality would be a slam dunk in our favor.

And yet, this court has given us some inexplicable idiocy recently. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Bush v. Gore, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, Berghuis v. Thompkins, Buckley v. Valeo, etc. etc, etc.... This court is the product of 30 years of Republican anti-gay rule. It has struggled valiantly to avoid addressing the issue of marriage equality, with which it seems strangely uncomfortable.

I tremble to realize that the happiness of so many rests on the wisdom of so few. So few who are so flawed, if only by the fact of their humanness.
 
T-Rexx said:
I hope and believe that is true.

But, I do pause. What we are all waiting for is SCOTUS. All these myriad federal court cases will ultimately be appealed to SCOTUS. The "victories" are only useful to the extent that they may help to persuade SCOTUS of the mood of the nation. The arguments against gay marriage have been laughable. You would think that any SCOTUS ruling on marriage equality would be a slam dunk in our favor.

And yet, this court has given us some inexplicable idiocy recently. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Bush v. Gore, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, Berghuis v. Thompkins, Buckley v. Valeo, etc. etc, etc.... This court is the product of 30 years of Republican anti-gay rule. It has struggled valiantly to avoid addressing the issue of marriage equality, with which it seems strangely uncomfortable.

I tremble to realize that the happiness of so many rests on the wisdom of so few. So few who are so flawed, if only by the fact of their humanness.
Click to expand...

Citizens United was the greatest of the idiocies: it was a technically correct decision, upholding the right of people to organize and engage in the spread of information that may have a political impact, but for the most moronically possible reasoning, i.e. that inanimate objects somehow have free speech.

Berghuis v. Thompkins is scary; it essentially requires a competency test in order to enjoy the exercise of rights. We don't allow literacy tests for voting, so we certainly shouldn't have such a gate for the right to remain silent.
 
Opinion will be released 12:00 p.m. on Monday.

According to the ACLU of Oregon via Twitter
 
Couples are already waiting outside the Multnomah Building in Portland.

BoAx3O6CAAA7nRq.jpg


Only two hours and 20 minutes left.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top