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

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); 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.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Gay Marriage Updates By State

Also, upon further research, I've realized that District 22 (Brooklyn) seems pretty moveable as well. The Republican incumbant is for the first time in several terms facing competition and there are 43,000 more registered Democrats then Republicans in said district.

"The Scozzafava event is definitely what caused defeat last year in NY, and probably in
New Jersey as well."

I'd say in New Jersey it was Chris Christie bullying the undecided/leaning yes into voting no. Just the other day he was trying to act all sympathetic towards Mr. Clamentti's suicide when obviously it's people like him who help cause these things (even if they don't say it directly, it sends a message to these youth that they can't turn to the government for help when rejected by society). I'm so glad his approval ratings are dwindling.

BTW if anybody knows people in Maine tell them to get out and vote for Libby Mitchell next month! Don't let another Chris Christie come to power!
 
Something about that survey just doesn't seem right. Padavan won by less then 500 votes in 2008 and now he's 24% ahead in the polls against a popular Democrat from the area?

Some other observations:

-It has Foley ahead by 1%, and I thought he was the most vulnerable Democrat too. I think that likely now is Aubertine, which it won't matter for marriage equality if he's kicked out since he voted no and is not considered moveable.

-I read another Sienna poll of other districts, and it said Valesky was ahead by about 10%, Greg Ball and the Dem. candidate were pretty much neck and neck, and Kennedy was 3% behind Quinn (though the poll also included Stachowski, who's running on the Working Families and Independent tickets).

Good news though is Cuamo is really picking up in the polls (30%+ leads like before) so his coattails will help a bit.
 
An interesting development in New York.

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/10/12/NY_GOP_Leader_Commits_to_Marriage_Vote/

I remember he said something similar to this during the Republican coup last year. It sounds to me like maybe Skelos wants it to pass just so it'll be over with (his words are very similar to Governor Jim Douglas' after he vetoed the gay marriage bill in Vermont, basically indirectly telling others to support it while not supporting it himself).
 
RazorzEdge88 said:
Very interesting!

I'm not sure that can happen without the pro-equality side losing seats, though.

In order for the Repubs to win back a majority, we'd have to see losses from at least two of Aubertine/Addabbo/Valesky. We'd need Valesky's vote, and probably Addabbo's if it's going to pass (we'd need Addabbo to actually switch over to our side this time, but his vote is still needed).

Either that or nearly that whole block of moderate Republicans would have to cross over. *Maybe* that could happen, but I won't count on it.
Click to expand...

From what I understand it's actually Aubertine/Kennedy/Foley that are the most likely Republican switchovers, with Aubertine being the most vulnerable. Obviously Aubertine is not moveable, so him getting voted out would not be a loss regarding marriage equality. Something else to point out about Kennedy too is that while he's behind in the poll, Stachowski is likely taking some of his votes that he will get on election day (Stachowski has the Working Families party ticket and had 12% of those surveyed in the poll). Foley's race seems to otherwise be pretty much a dead tossup, though his opponent is a Tea Partier, and I've heard they are not as popular in New York as they are in other areas of the country.
 
Cuomo vows same-sex marriages in NY

"I don't want to be the governor who just proposes marriage equality. I don't want to be the governor who lobbies for marriage equality. I don't want to be the governor who fights for marriage equality. I want to be the governor who signs the law that makes equality a reality in the state of New York," Cuomo said.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/politics&id=7725954
 
Cuomo's lead is picking up again to the 30%+ mark. If he can break 60% election day, his coattails will help the Democrats running for the State Senate.
 
RazorzEdge88 said:
](*,) I fucking hate John Roberts.
Click to expand...

Finally?

I knew he was a trash appointment when he was picked. He certainly doesn't deserve to be the chief. About the only things in his favor are he has a strong position on the Second Amendment and feels very strongly that no part of the Constitution should be overruled by treaties.

Oh -- and he's marginally better than John McCain would be.
 
I think it's safe to say though that even if the Supreme Court takes this case, they will uphold the prior rulings. In the event of them overturning the prior rulings, I think it's pretty much a given that an area that voted 92% for Obama would also vote to keep gay marriage.
 
fetaby said:
Go Iowa! :)
Click to expand...

Well, for now maybe. It turns out some republican (Bob Vander Plaats) who has been cranky about never winning a gubernatorial race decided to launch a massive campaign to oust three of the Iowa Supreme Court justices who voted the gay marriage ban unconstitutional- legalizing it. It was a unanimous decision, but three of the state's seven judges are up for retention and it is now a ballot measure. "Judges in Iowa are not elected, but face retention elections every eight years, which usually get almost no attention."
They're calling it Iowa for Freedom. Seriously.
And it's bank-rolled by Mississippi's American Family Association: "a conservative group that believes Muslims should not serve in the military and that gays and lesbians should not hold public office. Campaign disclosure records show AFA's political action arm, known as AFA Action Inc., has given about $100,000 to Iowa for Freedom... A total of nearly $320,000 has been spent on the campaign to oust the justices. Besides money spent by AFA, the National Organization for Marriage has spent $235,000 on television ads.... Iowa for Freedom is not from Iowa and it is not for freedom."-AP

It's hard to say how Iowa will vote. It isn't something most voters would care about, but if the judges' decision angers them enough, or the ads are effective, they just might vote NO. But enough of Iowa is concerned about how it would undermine its judicial system. Judges don't represent the electorate, they represent the constitution. But to the far right, the Bible> the Constitution. The response I've run into is pretty much split.
Iowa has a long, proud history of being a leader on progressive issues. Let's hope we can retain that reputation.
 
^^^I heard a poll showed 40% favor outing all 3 judges, 44% are against outing any of them, while 16% are unsure.

It won't change anything even if they are booted out. Even if they are, Culver is still in office for another 3 weeks after their final day, and he will simply appoint 3 equally liberal judges.
 
JockBoy87 said:
Concerning IOWA:

All three Justices on the ballot were ousted. Disgusting...

Republicans won the Iowa House but the Senate remains in Democratic hands. We likely will see a movement to put the question of gay marriage to the voters through a constitutional amendment, especially with three good justices gone.

However, Iowa voters turned down a constitutional convention (thank heavens)
Click to expand...

It seems pretty clear that Iowa for Freedom was more about making an example out of these three judges on a national level, hoping to influence gay marriage rulings across the country. If they were really just concerned about overturning the Iowa decision, they would have spent more of the campaign on the constitutional convention, something I don't think nearly as many voting Iowans were clear on or aware of.

It's funny that Branstad made it a point to advise Culver not to appoint three replacement judges before the end of his term, in his acceptance speech, and how Iowans wouldn't approve of it. They got their way, their punishment, their point across that our constitution means nothing to them. The damage has been done whether Culver does so or not, I doubt "Iowa for Freedom" bat an eye.
 
arpeggi said:
It seems pretty clear that Iowa for Freedom was more about making an example out of these three judges on a national level, hoping to influence gay marriage rulings across the country. If they were really just concerned about overturning the Iowa decision, they would have spent more of the campaign on the constitutional convention, something I don't think nearly as many voting Iowans were clear on or aware of.

It's funny that Branstad made it a point to advise Culver not to appoint three replacement judges before the end of his term, in his acceptance speech, and how Iowans wouldn't approve of it. They got their way, their punishment, their point across that our constitution means nothing to them. The damage has been done whether Culver does so or not, I doubt "Iowa for Freedom" bat an eye.
Click to expand...

I truly fear for our rights across the country now. Politicions and judges will refuse to do the right thing for fear of not being reelected or retained.
Sounds harsh but I wish a slow and painful death on all of these religious right bastards, I truly do.
 
JockBoy87 said:
^^^

I agree that it was damaging, and Brian Brown is probably gloating like the arrogant bastard he is. Though not all states vote to retain their Supreme Court justices.

If I were Culver, I'd reappoint the same ousted justices just to make a point.
Click to expand...

I like the idea, but it could just feed a worse backlash. How that might really turn out, given the rhythm of elections and such, I'll lead to the professional prognosticators.

I heard tow pundits last night on TV discussing whether out-of-state money should be allowed on state issues. We were flipping channels so much I don't know which, but my guess would be our KATU2, which is an ABC affiliate, or Fox12, which is a Fox affiliate but darned independent.

I think it's an idea whose time has come; it wouldn't surprise me if 2/3 of voters would happily say "It's our state; keep the outsiders out".

Republicans should love it, in theory -- it emphasizes state sovereignty....

"Whereas Oregon is a sovereign state within a federal system...." :cool:
 
Ninja108 said:
I truly fear for our rights across the country now. Politicions and judges will refuse to do the right thing for fear of not being reelected or retained.
Sounds harsh but I wish a slow and painful death on all of these religious right bastards, I truly do.
Click to expand...

The Religious bigots love demagoguery. For all that Billy Graham earned respect across the spectrum, he began as a demagogue fueled by a right-wing newsman. Since then, it's only gotten worse; I suppose that once they got seriously into politics, the RBs would go demagogue.

So far it's mixed signals across the country -- but I'm keeping my rifles oiled.
 
oh my gosh....I think that every GLBT rights supporter for major office won in California.

Governor: Jerry Brown
Lieutenant Governor: Gavin Newsom
Secretary of State: Debra Bowen
Controller: John Chiang
Treasurer: Bill Lockyer (hated his commercials)
Attorney General: Kamala Harris (close race - used her stance on being against the death penalty against her. It is so close that I'm not sure that this is final yet. 97.1% reporting and it is 3,246,146 to 3,215,104 votes)
Insurance Commissioner: Dave Jones
State Board of Equalization: Chris Parker


The judges results are just plain stupid. It looks like most people just voted yes on everything without doing any research. So Supreme Court Justice Ming Chin won. He votes against us time and time again.

I think that the majority of Californians see tea party candidates as a joke. Obviously, much of the rest of the country does not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top