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

JockBoy87 said:
The people in "we the people" means all the people, one public vested in a representative government. A state represented in court by a lobby group, and a malicious one at that, is a dangerous and destructive precedent for the country's minorities.
Click to expand...

There's no "lobby group" involved, just the legally-designated Proponents of an issue the people decided.
And in a system designed for the people to overrule their elected representatives, that's exactly what's wanted.
 
JockBoy87 said:
The Constitution says "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government"

Republican means representative, not direct democracy.

That means a malicious lobby group can't just take over the executive and legislative branch of a state as California supposedly has allowed them to do.

Why do we have a Constitution? Because the framers envisioned such a situation where the people would take over direct control of government and suppress minority groups. The California justices are just too dumb to acknowledge that.
Click to expand...

So you think the theme of the California state constitution is unconstitutional? Interesting notion.

The California justices are following their state constitution and precedent. Unless there's a suit challenging the validity of that constitution, that's what they're supposed to do.

And no "malicious lobby group" has " take[n] over the executive and legislative branch" -- a legally designated group of four people is doing what their constitution allows them to do. The only thing new is that they're doing it in front of a federal court.
 
metta said:
Columnist says gay marriage would make the institution of marriage stronger
Click to expand...
I don't think I believe this any more than I believe the person who says that a gay marriage in Massachusetts will harm his[her] own Pensacola household.

If same-gender marriages were MORE stable than the "traditional" mixed-gender ones, then maybe that would present a better role model to emulate, but I don't think that same-gender marriages are more stable. I think their stability is similar, which would mean the status quo for role models (and, of course, "traditional" marriages NOT being destroyed at all).

Is there any analysis which says whether "gay marriages" are more stable or less stable? I'm thinking it's too soon for a valid study, as "gay marriage" hasn't existed anywhere for very long.
 
JockBoy87 said:
Or maybe the Prop 8 crowd is as cuddly and well-intentioned as you say (doubt it!)
Click to expand...

Where did I characterize them?

And they're not a lobbying group. Or can you show me where they have offices in the state capital and are registered as lobbyists?

JockBoy87 said:
Fixed it for you, and by the way state constitutions do not preempt federal law, i.e. they do not get to just hand their own powers out to the mob to have at LGBTs or any other minority. That is the point of a Constitution, a federal system of government, and republicanism as a virtue.
Click to expand...

You made it false. California law makes them the official Proponents.

Did you read the decision?
 
I'm sure that the Penn State scandal will be tied into the gay marriage arguments soon enough...
 
The 9th Circut once again has expedited the case, will hear arguments regarding Walker's sexual orientation on December 8 immediately following the hearing regarding the release of the tapes:

http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/20...ding-motion-to-vacate-judge-walkers-decision/

Since they allowed the main part of the case and the one regarding Walker's sexual orientation to be consolidated, and they are not hearing anything regarding the merits on Dec 8, it is unlikely they will hear any further testimony regarding the merits of the case. I expect rulings on each issue to come sometime in January.
 
scream4ever said:
The 9th Circut once again has expedited the case, will hear arguments regarding Walker's sexual orientation on December 8 immediately following the hearing regarding the release of the tapes:

http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/20...ding-motion-to-vacate-judge-walkers-decision/

Since they allowed the main part of the case and the one regarding Walker's sexual orientation to be consolidated, and they are not hearing anything regarding the merits on Dec 8, it is unlikely they will hear any further testimony regarding the merits of the case. I expect rulings on each issue to come sometime in January.
Click to expand...


Sweet -- they're dealing with it all at once! Prop 8 Proponents have been trying to drag it out, maybe in hopes of getting a new neo-con of the Supreme Court.
 
Kulindahr said:
Sweet -- they're dealing with it all at once! Prop 8 Proponents have been trying to drag it out, maybe in hopes of getting a new neo-con of the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

If you read past posts on that site I posted legal experts are saying it's unlikely that the 9th Circut will grant an en banc hearing.

Maybe we will be able to hear it during this term of the Supreme Court (the 9th would have to issue a ruling by the end of December, since the deadline for hearing cases in the Supreme Court during this term ends at the end of January)!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top