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.

Schedule set for oral arguments over Proposition 8

All in all a good day for the forces against irrational homohate in the US.
 
Did anybody else notice the black haired guy wearing glasses who was making facial expressions in response to the Olsen testimony?
 
^ yup.

I wish I could have seen the faces of more of the participants when the arguments were being delivered.
 
I give up.

Even on the DSL "high speed internet", I can't get more than a couple of minutes at once. I keep having to reload the page every time it freezes up.

Maybe if I can get to the library....
 
Prop 8 uh uh uh, marriage, uh uh if Midler, Bette, that is, if if if, case, uh, uh pond, uh uh across, Supremes, uh uh Diana, the pond, uh uh California uh uh crikey uh tha Cher, tha tha,, Loving uh uh Princess uh uh Di, uh Baker uh, Lawrence, uh uh. We have a pond here, uh uh if if if but it's only 10 miles across uh I I I I I I uh uh uh uh uh, crikey!
Now doesn't that make more sense than Charles Cooper?
Now Teddy Olson, he's my man!!!
The sentence under his name:
Aruguing in Support of Same-Sex Marriage.
Really? Really!
Is this the guy that won the Gore v Bush case in 2000? Or, is that 2001?
Therese M Stewart, I like this dyke!
Oh! Shit. I'm posting like Chance 1.
 
All in all, it turned out that the proponents of prop 8 could only argue on the basis of faulty logic and this bizarre emotional appeal for keeping the word marriage as sacrosanct for heteros who produce children through missionary position fucking.

The pro-homo-marriage side argued eloquently from the standpoint of legal precedent, constitutionality and fair play.

I hope that the ninth decides as broadly as they possibly can, using the cogent and compelling arguments of Olson et al. to send a message across the entire nation.
 
Is there gonna be anything televised today? I've been looking but all the links I went to just show what happened yesterday. OF course it's only about 8:30 there.
 
Nevermind!

I did some surfin and found the judges would not give an answer for maybe 2 weeks. So I guess the trial part is over.
 
Yup.

The televised oral arguments only seem to have been the opportunity for the homohaters to have the weakness and absurdity of their bankrupt logic exposed and for the public to understand the basis of the constitutional and common law arguments for ending the ridiculous patchwork of marriage laws in California.
 
I listened to the whole thing in one sitting last night, except for a break when the court took a break.

I don't see Cooper as being as incoherent as is being claimed. All the people addressing the court had their ways of keeping verbal and cognitive processes in sync, which is what "uh" or "and... and...and" are, so that's just silly to jump on. Olsen was probably the best of the bunch on that, which isn't surprising given his encyclopedia-like memory and thoroughness of preparation. But Cooper's argument was coherent and rational, however contorted and senseless -- it wasn't his ability that was his problem, it was the material he had to work with: there really isn't any rational basis for limiting marriage to one male plus one female.

At one point a judge was asking if "marriage" was just a label. I kept hoping he'd go on with, "So what if we changed the label?" I still think the best thing would be to let the people who are so up tight about marriage have the word, and the civilized part of society could use a new one without any of the religious overtones -- rules they'd have to play by or stop getting the benefits and privileges now accorded marriage but would be accorded to bonding/whatever.

But regardless of that, Prop 8 has to go. I suppose in a way, we can thank all the young folks who stayed home in droves and didn't vote against it, because we now have the chance to get such laws struck down in a big portion of the country.

I'm worried more about the question of standing: if the proponents have no standing, this is all just spinning wheels. Personally I think the one group does, the ones who authored the measure in the first place, because they're in a parallel position to a state legislature when it sends something to the people for a vote.
 
^ I agree that any lawyer who had to work with the irrational and hate based emotional based arguments from the anti-homo Brigham Young brigade would have faltered. In fact, unless you were totally devoid of any intellectual capacity, it would have been hard not to totally laugh out loud at the nonsense you were being paid to spew.

It is odious though, that he immediately resorted to painting the ugly folk who spearheaded this assault on the civil liberties of a class of US citizens as the 'victims' in all of this.

Fuck them and fuck Cooper for sinking to this level of discussion in order to hopefully obscure the stench of the mess that the Prop 8 proponents left behind.

But fingers crossed that having dared, the religious right will not only have failed to build a fence around the homos in California, but will have triggered the most profound defeat of the fundamentalists to impose their narrow view on the country that we have seen in decades.

Because once the ninth hopefully establishes the precedent for the entire circuit, the anti-homo marriage issue will start to collapse across the country and the US can hold up its head among the other western nations when it is lecturing other countries on human rights and civil liberties.
 
Ok, Kuli and rareboy. I stand corrected.
Your explanations are the best way to go.
 
FEARLESS PREDICTION:

The case will go to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the usual suspects (stormtroopers in robes) will vote it down 5-4... the same margin that launched W into the White House.

In fact, the vote may be 6-4 if Clarence Thomas' incredibly large genitals count as a separate person. :rotflmao:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top