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.

What is new on the Gay Marriage front?

hotatlboi said:
...So while theoretically opening it up to everyone, in reality it would only be available to relatively affluent people who can afford to travel to one of those states (potentially far away) to have their marriage...
Click to expand...

Well if Mark didn't want those twenty Ice swans...
 
TX-Beau said:
Is that legally possible? Can The Nine order a state to violate it's laws by de-facto enforcing something another state has legalized. If it's illegal to be married in Texas, is it possible to enforce illegal marriages from California? If the Nine tried that, I suspect the lawsuits would fly even faster.

Say it's legal to posses Mary Jane in - oh I don't know - Colorado, and I bought me some killer ass hydro in Denver, could the Nine rule that since the transaction was made where it was legal, Texas must therefore enforce my right to possession?

That would just mean there was no legally enforceable ban, since any idiot would simply hop the state line, get married, and expect Texas to enforce the license, while collecting in Texas all the rights and privileges incurred wherever the licence was issued - which The Nine would have made mandatory.

I suspect not.
Click to expand...

Correct. Comity is not guaranteed by the U.S. constitution. However, consistent policy is. Therefore, Texas may not apply a more restrictive policy towards same sex couples and deny recognition of their marriages when they recognize similarly situated straight ones.
 
Teddybear71 said:
How sure are we realistically of winning this, considering the makeup of the court?
Click to expand...

The odds are in our favor, but it is still within possibility that we could lose.

There are 5 justices who will probably rule in our favor: Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer, and Kennedy.

There are 3 justices who will unquestionably rule against us: Thomas, Alito, and Scalia.

It is unclear which direction Roberts will take.

If Ginsburg dies within the next 6 months, and Roberts sticks to his conservative roots, that leaves a 4-4 split. Since these cases are appealed from the Sixth Circuit, which ruled against us, then the Sixth's ruling stands: no gay marriage for America.

We're probably going to win this. But it is not the slam dunk that many here would have you believe.


Teddybear71 said:
Personally, I'm shocked that in this day and age even ONE justice will vote against equality, let alone 3 or 4 (or more)...
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly.

The court's 1967 decision in Loving v. Virginia (anti-miscegenation) was unanimous, as it should have been.

It's embarrassing that there is even a possibility of losing this case.
 
The federal district court cases have been stayed in North Dakota and Georgia, pending resolution from the Supreme Court. This is good news since the judge in Georgia was poised to rule against us, and the GWB judge in North Dakota likely wasn't too enthusiastic either.
 
T-Rexx said:
The court's 1967 decision in Loving v. Virginia (anti-miscegenation) was unanimous, as it should have been.

It's embarrassing that there is even a possibility of losing this case.
Click to expand...
Ah, back in the day when all the Justices were, more or less, NONPARTISAN AND NEUTRAL - and actually ruled on Constitutional law. I believe that 7-2, 8-1, and 9-0 decisions were FAR more common in those days. Of course that wasn't always true, including during many times prior to 1967, and sure as fucking hell not true now, with AT LEAST EIGHT of the Justices being pure political meat puppets.

With so many 5-4 decisions (and, in almost all cases, being ENTIRELY PREDICTABLE how all nine Justices will rule), that rather proves that the bench is entirely ideological and partisan, doesn't it?
 
scream4ever said:
8th Circuit refuses to lift the stay in Missouri, but will not put the proceedings on hold. Sets expedited briefing schedule:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/253449764/14-3779-Order

I wonder if the plaintiffs will petition the Supreme Court to lift the stay. They might as well. At this point we really have nothing to lose.
Click to expand...

They might as well. If SCOTUS lifts the stay, that will be another good sign for us.
 
JackinSea said:
I fucking LOVE this part: Conservative US Senator Jeff Sessions, long against marriage equality and anything related to it, praised this judge at her confirmation. Having known her personally, Sessions called her "levelheaded, fair minded, trustworthy, and very smart."
Click to expand...

Alabama? :eek:
 
Wow. Yes, Alabama. If it was left up to all the states' dominoes to fall one by one, I figured it would have been at least the 47th one to fall. (I would have figured Mississippi the 48th, Utah the 49th, and Oklahoma the 50th.)

Maybe 46th with Kansas somewhere after Alabama, too.

Of course the sequence has been different, and fucking **MICHIGAN** still has the ban...
 
We should count ourselves lucky that Michigan hasn't adopted Sharia law - at least on city is trying, I think I've heard.
How much is fact and fiction to that I don't know.
 
smokeshadow said:
Alabama has joined civilized people :=D:

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_yo...s-alabama-marriage-ban-no-stay-on-ruling.html
Click to expand...

JackinSea said:
I fucking LOVE this part: Conservative US Senator Jeff Sessions, long against marriage equality and anything related to it, praised this judge at her confirmation. Having known her personally, Sessions called her "levelheaded, fair minded, trustworthy, and very smart."
Click to expand...

chrisrobin said:
Alabama? :eek:
Click to expand...

frankfrank said:
Wow. Yes, Alabama. If it was left up to all the states' dominoes to fall one by one, I figured it would have been at least the 47th one to fall. (I would have figured Mississippi the 48th, Utah the 49th, and Oklahoma the 50th.)

Maybe 46th with Kansas somewhere after Alabama, too.

Of course the sequence has been different, and fucking **MICHIGAN** still has the ban...
Click to expand...

Alabama is only required to recognize out of state marriages. The state will not be issuing licenses.
 
I felt the ruling pretty well overturned Alabama's mini-DOMA in total, not just out-of-state recognition?
 
Proceedings for the Nebraska case have been put on hold. I'm hoping Batallion simply issues a ruling based on the briefs alone. He might as well considering the 8th Circuit has made it clear by expediting the Missouri case that they want to rule.

Also, there was an error in reporting that the Georgia case had been put on hold. The judge has requested for the plaintiffs to respond to the request from government officials. Regardless, I suspect it will now be put on hold due to the judge likely not wanting to issue a favorable ruling and the Florida/Alabama cases are already proceeding through the 11th Circuit.
 
OK, that's the city I thought I'd heard, but I didn't want to put it out there, unsure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top