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

Just because you think something is one way doesn't make it what it really is. I can call a dog a tree all day long and it won't make it true.
 
^ Unless your dog is named 'tree'.
 
Can someone explain to me why courts have been reluctant to apply intermediate scrutiny to sexual orientation and consider it at least a quasi-suspect class?

I've never understood how groups are placed under which scrutiny tests. How is this determined? The criteria that I'm looking at from the Wiki article makes me think that race doesn't even apply anymore, and if it does why can't sexual orientation and gender be on par with it? ](*,)
 
poolerboy said:
Can someone explain to me why courts have been reluctant to apply intermediate scrutiny to sexual orientation and consider it at least a quasi-suspect class?

I've never understood how groups are placed under which scrutiny tests. How is this determined? The criteria that I'm looking at from the Wiki article makes me think that race doesn't even apply anymore, and if it does why can't sexual orientation and gender be on par with it? ](*,)
Click to expand...

I've never been able to tell if there are really any object tests.

Is there a lawyer in the house?
 
poolerboy said:
Can someone explain to me why courts have been reluctant to apply intermediate scrutiny to sexual orientation and consider it at least a quasi-suspect class?

I've never understood how groups are placed under which scrutiny tests. How is this determined? The criteria that I'm looking at from the Wiki article makes me think that race doesn't even apply anymore, and if it does why can't sexual orientation and gender be on par with it? ](*,)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure as it does indeed seem to me that it should be, however Judge Walker's ruling was based on rational basis scrutiny, so it shouldn't even be needed.
 
Thanks.

I've got it on now, and there is a really cute guy doing the camera and mike checks.

The courtroom is also very gay...like a gay bordello would look, one imagines.

How can they but rule in favour of the homos given these factors?
 
Actually he could use a good haircut. But he has a nice smile.
 
Okay, found it.

Now I'm really pissed at the store that sold me a wireless router -- it doesn't work, and the signal I'm piggybacking makes this jerky.

Interesting argument that they have standing.
 
All is not necessarily smooth for David Boies, the lawyer for couples challenging Prop. 8. Judge Smith, and to some extent Judge Reinhardt, are troubled by the prospect that there would be no one to defend the voter-approved law because the governor and attorney general have refused to do so. Smith has been vocal about the fact Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown have refused to defend the law in the 9th Circuit.
Click to expand...

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_16789821?nclick_check=1
 
Uh oh.

The homohaters have just tumbled into the dangerous territory of holding that marriage is for pro-creation, which is why there is a state interest.


It has just been pointed out that homos are ensured all the equivalent rights as heteros are to raise children etc. so what is the deal with the use of the term marriage?

Epic Fail.
 
Olson is delivering an extremely solid presentation concerning the basis for knocking down Prop 8.
 
Mr Cooper's arguments were rather sad.

Every other word was "uh" or there was a pause for him to think about what he was saying.

I think the reason for this was twofold. One, he had a hard time putting together an argument that even made sense, and two, he had to be careful that at no time would he let slip the real reason for his position (his extreme dislike for gay people, as Boies/Olson team effectively pointed out was the reason behind prop8 ).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top