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?

Alnitak said:
Mob rule is flawed, sorry. You have no protection from demagoguery. Anyone, including some of the most malicious corporations and conservative groups, with misleading ads can enact any dangerous legislation they want.
Click to expand...

Of course mob rule is flawed -- but one would think it would be Republicans pointing that out.

As for corporations and ads, those are separate topics.

Alnitak said:
I know. Our politicians are constantly "campaigning" while in office and getting nothing practical done, just more soundbites for the media.
Click to expand...

We're not that bad... yet. But it is bad enough I sometimes think we should just draw randomly from a set of all the college educated people in the country.
 
Kulindahr said:
Of course mob rule is flawed -- but one would think it would be Republicans pointing that out.

As for corporations and ads, those are separate topics.
Click to expand...

You can't separate the good from the bad on this one. Mob rule can be used for both, but I argue it has been mostly abused, and the benefits do not outweigh the threat to minority rights.
 
Alnitak said:
You can't separate the good from the bad on this one. Mob rule can be used for both, but I argue it has been mostly abused, and the benefits do not outweigh the threat to minority rights.
Click to expand...

There's a point: for any initiative measure, any party should be allowed to petition a court to declare the matter one of individual rights, minority or otherwise, and if the court so declares, the measure is off the ballot. My theory of standing would be that if the rights of one person are suffering, then all suffer. Oh -- such a petition should get an immediate hearing, straight to the head of the line above everything else.

The real problem with intitiatives, in the way they've been abused in Oregon, is that they mitigate against "government of the people, by the people, and for the people", because in practice they mean that the people in the cities are lords and masters of the rest.
 
I do think the Oregon measure will pass but I'm still loathe to put our rights up for a majority vote.
 
Ninja108 said:
I do think the Oregon measure will pass but I'm still loathe to put our rights up for a majority vote.
Click to expand...

You know what it could actually be overturned by the 9th Circuit in the Nevada case before it is even voted on. You're right these campaigns send the wrong message but for right now we have to exercise all options. The lies that come out from the other side are hard to bear, and that's why courts are ideal. However there are major cultural benefits to winning big at the ballot that can't be ignored. Next year is the year when we bury the anti SSM movement for good, in the US anyway.
 
Alnitak said:
You know what it could actually be overturned by the 9th Circuit in the Nevada case before it is even voted on. You're right these campaigns send the wrong message but for right now we have to exercise all options. The lies that come out from the other side are hard to bear, and that's why courts are ideal. However there are major cultural benefits to winning big at the ballot that can't be ignored. Next year is the year when we bury the anti SSM movement for good, in the US anyway.
Click to expand...

I don't see how the Ninth can fail to toss Nevada's ban, and thus all those in the rest of the circuit. The argument that the state by its law is standing between citizens and their lawful federal benefits is death to the opposition.
 
Kulindahr said:
I don't see how the Ninth can fail to toss Nevada's ban, and thus all those in the rest of the circuit. The argument that the state by its law is standing between citizens and their lawful federal benefits is death to the opposition.
Click to expand...

The three judge panel has not been drawn yet. There have only been magistrate judges assigned to the case so far. Even if we get unlucky, an en banc certainly would rule in our favor. We are just waiting for ruling on the motions and oral arguments could be scheduled at any time for any time. I'm guessing sometime in the spring.

We really need to address the complicated cases individually in their own threads. It's getting difficult to follow here. I am just waiting for New Mexico, really in my estimation it is past due, and then I'll issue some new ones.
 
Sad news from Australia. I'm upset. Croatia is Croatia, but Australia is prosperous country. I didn't know that it can happen in such country as Australia.
 
I hope that Austrlia will allow gay marriages in the nearest future. Otherwise Russian homophobes will have celebration. It's awful!
 
Russian Bottom Slut said:
Sad news from Australia. I'm upset. Croatia is Croatia, but Australia is prosperous country. I didn't know that it can happen in such country as Australia.
Click to expand...

Australia is a complicated case. It was actually the tiny federal territory that tried to circumvent federal law and pass what was essentially a mirror image of marriage. The High Court did not fall for it and just cancelled the whole thing. They could have allowed the technicality, but I can't blame them for their reasoning. States cannot violate Australian federal law on marriage, quite the reverse of the policy we have in the United States.
 
Thanks, I see. What makes me less upset that even our TV had to mentioned the fact, when they were speaking about the other news ,on Croatia, that there is difference between marriage and civil partnership and that even Croatia may have civil partnership in the nearest future. I was afraid that they will hide the fact that there is such form as civil partnership from Russian public, but they didn't.
 
Russian Bottom Slut said:
Thanks, I see. What makes me less upset that even our TV had to mentioned the fact, when they were speaking about the other news ,on Croatia, that there is difference between marriage and civil partnership and that even Croatia may have civil partnership in the nearest future. I was afraid that they will hide the fact that there is such form as civil partnership from Russian public, but they didn't.
Click to expand...

Yes. Croatia will get a very good quality life partnership law soon.

I am fearful for Russian media and Putin's strengthening grip on information, but there is always the Internet.
 
A bit more in depth on the Virginia case Bostic v. Rainey

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...urt-_n_4442035.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

There are major reasons why the Prop 8 legal team picked this lawsuit to sponsor. With Democratic victories in all statewide offices last month, there is a good chance that there will be no defense left as well, so it may not be appealed if we win. Given its profile with AFER, and as this case progresses it is likely that I will start a new thread on it.
 
Alnitak said:
A bit more in depth on the Virginia case Bostic v. Rainey

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...urt-_n_4442035.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

There are major reasons why the Prop 8 legal team picked this lawsuit to sponsor. With Democratic victories in all statewide offices last month, there is a good chance that there will be no defense left as well, so it may not be appealed if we win. Given its profile with AFER, and as this case progresses it is likely that I will start a new thread on it.
Click to expand...

I'm not clear from the article just exactly what is at stake. It looks like they're aimed at getting a ruling that states have to recognize marriages done in other states, even if the marriage wouldn't be legal in their state. That's seems like a slam-dunk one, but still an important step.
 
Kulindahr said:
I'm not clear from the article just exactly what is at stake. It looks like they're aimed at getting a ruling that states have to recognize marriages done in other states, even if the marriage wouldn't be legal in their state. That's seems like a slam-dunk one, but still an important step.
Click to expand...

Well for example the section titled "A case with all the angles" elaborates on the many issues this case brings, not just the state's DOMA but Section 2, adoption, joint custody, and federal benefits. It's very important that cases involve children as that disarms a lot of the defense that the other side tries to get away with. Not every current lawsuit involves that many issues or is led by a powerful legal team, and some of the "40" or so don't actually attack state DOMA laws entirely. By my count only 24 of them do, including this one.
 
Kulindahr said:
I'm not clear from the article just exactly what is at stake. It looks like they're aimed at getting a ruling that states have to recognize marriages done in other states, even if the marriage wouldn't be legal in their state. That's seems like a slam-dunk one, but still an important step.
Click to expand...

I thought the article was pretty clear: the case is about marriage and parental rights for gay couples.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top