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?

frankfrank said:
PISSES ME OFF.

Michigan is where I hope to retire, but how can I consider it with all the goddammed fucked-up shit that's going on in Lansing?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't pick Michigan for retirement. But, if you do, come live in a county which is Strongly Democratic in presidential elections. I'm in Wayne County (county seat is Detroit), and this county moved away from the Republicans as Franklin Roosevelt unseated Herbert Hoover (the last Republican to carry Wayne County in 1928) in the Democratic presidential realigning election of 1932.

Tom Hooker, a state representative, is from Byron Center which is in Kent County. That county is a Republican-voting county. Its only Democratic presidential carriage, in the last fifty years, was with Barack Obama having flipped it in 2008 by 0.51 percentage points while he carried the state by 16.44 percentage points. (Obama was the first Democrat to carry Kent County since Lyndon Johnson landslided Barry Goldwater nationally by 22.58 percentage points, won Michigan by a 2-to-1 margin, and carried 44 states plus District of Columbia in 1964. A 2008 Obama won nationally over John McCain, in the U.S. Popular Vote, by 7.26 percentage points.) Kent County, which has had around 300,000 of the state's 4.5 to 5 million presidential votes, is about 16 to 20 percentage points more Republican than the state of Michigan. So, Tom Hooker is sucking up to his constituents. (His base.) But, no matter, he has nothing. The governor, Rick Snyder, who comes across as being as much a moderate as you could ask for from a Republican governor in a Democratic presidential base state, is not interested in the issue…and is far more skilled than Tom Hooker (when you compare how they perform in each of their respective offices). And the most that could come of this is Tom Hooker, a former school teacher who is now age 65, making a name for himself. (And that would last about 10 minutes.)
 
I do like how he's proposed that the body that defines constitutionalism is unconstitutional.
 
CoolBlue71 said:
I wouldn't pick Michigan for retirement. But, if you do, come live in a county which is Strongly Democratic in presidential elections. I'm in Wayne County
Click to expand...
Well, if I end up in Michigan, that's the plan. It's pretty much 100% assuredly certain that Washtenaw County would be my destination. Either Ann Arbor itself, or somewhere which is one easy BUS RIDE away from there such as Ypsilanti (or even Chelsea?). I'd really like to be in Saline but I think they're even pricier than Ann Arbor??? I recently had a tour of the current high school there, and it's palatial, with facilities that would be more typical of an upscale university.

I'd want to consider buses into and from Ann Arbor, because parking can be a REAL issue there sometimes. When I visit, I often end up parked around one-half mile from my destination.

I hate the idea of moving to any state where I may HAVE MY RIGHT TO VOTE taken away, if I reach a time that I can no longer drive. I take that right seriously. If I do not vote, I have not earned the right to bitch about anything political. (OK, if I'm DENIED the right to vote, I guess I'd still retain the right to complain, because I WANTED to vote, and did everything that I could do to vote, but it was made illegal for me to do so.)
 
Having grown up and lived most of my life in Michigan, the Ann Arbor or Saugatuck areas are probably the only two in which we could live. We like the arts and have grown quite accustomed to mass transit and walking so much of Michigan is out of touch with our desires.

Downtown Detroit may someday become attractive but I still think it is on the tipping point either way.

Our next move will likely be to San Diego....cool in the morning and warm in the afternoons with no snow and little humidity. My only fear there is the lack of potable water....
 
^ The problem with Saugatuck is that it's in a fucking SNOW BELT!!! Not to mention quite surrounded by extremely conservative places/towns/cities. Ann Arbor has too much snow for my tastes, as it is, but "knowing the ropes" there more than any other city, gives great advantages. Yes, water could become a problem in many parts of the West, though OR/WA are unlikely to be in the brunt of such issues - but that's also quite far from S. D.

I think there are a LOT of people who would love to have a reliable crystal ball, and ask it about Detroit's future. If they do it right in Detroit, that's about the closest thing we have anywhere with EXISTING infrastructure which is also kind of a "blank slate." Done right, Detroit could be the premier modern 21st Century city in the world.

Even absent of that, I'm sure there are a lot of people who would love to know what real estate prices will do there, and invest if it's called for.

GAY MARRIAGE!!

See? I kept my post on topic.
 
smokeshadow said:
Are these IDIOTS NUTS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...ke_obergefell_null_and_void_in_south_carolina
Click to expand...

Once they accomplish this....they will be looking to nullify abolition of slavery.

It is the same old, same old, same old.

When a judgement doesn't favour the religious right, they want to nullify the will of the third branch of the federal government.

To a large degree, they are being successful with abortion....so I'm sure this has emboldened them on homo marriage.
 
smokeshadow said:
Are these IDIOTS NUTS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...ke_obergefell_null_and_void_in_south_carolina
Click to expand...

They've forgotten -- or never learned -- that while the Founding Fathers and the Framers believed in a lot of things that today would fall under the category of states' rights and 'nullification', their understanding of the extent of states' rights did not allow for limiting individual rights which had been recognized by the federal government.

This principle, BTW, is exemplified in how the Founding Fathers addressed the matter of slavery: while the Continental Congress could have put together a majority opposed to slavery, doing so would have been the equivalent of a military commander issuing orders he knew wouldn't be obeyed; thus they refrained from asserting that bit if individual liberty at the time, regretfully leaving it for later. But any individual right which was recognized on a federal level was understood to be, if not immediately then eventually, meant to be upheld against individual states as well.

Given that all authority in human society proceeds from the citizen(s) upward, what is how it must be. Claiming a "right" to nullify individual rights finally recognized by the whole is tantamount to abandoning the whole.
 
rareboy said:
Once they accomplish this....they will be looking to nullify abolition of slavery.

It is the same old, same old, same old.

When a judgement doesn't favour the religious right, they want to nullify the will of the third branch of the federal government.

To a large degree, they are being successful with abortion....so I'm sure this has emboldened them on homo marriage.
Click to expand...

These folks remind me of a phenomenon I observed in college: a certain number of students in my remedial reading course as well as in regular classes failed not because they lacked the ability to succeed, but because they refused to accept that the college environment/society wasn't going to change to accommodate them, and they refuse to adjust to it -- so they fail. The difference is that these are people in positions of authority and think they can use that authority to force society to stagnate in their image. The danger is that historically, where such efforts have been successful the society ends up failing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top