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?

scream4ever said:
I'm not sure if I'd call the 10th Circuit conservative (5 Dem appointments vs 5 Rep appointments), but I guess it would be compared to the others we've dealt with prior. Depending on how fast the cases all move forward, the Supreme Court may actually deny cert with those out of Nevada and Utah, in anticipation of an appeals court ruling against us (likely the 5th and/or the 6th).
Click to expand...

One reason these discussions can get very tangled is that some words have more than one meaning in the same context. When we say a court is conservative, do we mean it in the current political sense, the classic political sense, or the classic social sense? The last would mean a court cautious about making major changes; the middle one something similar, while the first would mean leaning toward the reactionary views of today's GOP.
 
.
As a chronic college football fan, every year I make it a point of watching the Rose Bowl game, preceded by the Tournament of Roses parade. To those unfamiliar, every float must be covered with some sort of natural vegetation - no crepe paper allowed. Right now, the floats are being given their finishing touches. This year's parade is special for two reasons: its the 125th Anniversary. The other reason is that there is going to be wedding of two gay men on one of the floats. As one might expect, there is opposition by the usual suspects and threat of a boycott and its predictable silliness. The theme of this year's parade is aptly named "Dreams Come True." Read all about it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/31/rose-parade-gay-protest_n_4521985.html

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Aubrey Loots and Danny Leclair joke that they're getting married New Year's Day in front of 80 million of their closest friends, and the men say they aren't that concerned that a few thousand others may boycott the first gay marriage at the 125-year-old Rose Parade.

The pair, together for 12 years, plan to tie the knot atop a giant wedding cake on the AIDS Healthcare Foundation float when it stops at the Rose Parade's reviewing stand on Wednesday. Hundreds of thousands of people line the 5 1/2-mile parade route through Pasadena and an estimated 80 million more are expected to watch on TV from around the world.
Click to expand...

If I may indulge... (run 'til 1:10)


Ceremony should last about 15 seconds. The whole world will be watching! Who would have thought? With the hope that everyone's dreams will come true - Happy New Year!
 
chrisrobin said:
.
As a chronic college football fan, every year I make it a point of watching the Rose Bowl game, preceded by the Tournament of Roses parade. To those unfamiliar, every float must be covered with some sort of natural vegetation - no crepe paper allowed. Right now, the floats are being given their finishing touches. This year's parade is special for two reasons: its the 125th Anniversary. The other reason is that there is going to be wedding of two gay men on one of the floats. As one might expect, there is opposition by the usual suspects and threat of a boycott and its predictable silliness. The theme of this year's parade is aptly named "Dreams Come True." Read all about it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/31/rose-parade-gay-protest_n_4521985.html


Ceremony should last about 15 seconds. The whole world will be watching! Who would have thought? With the hope that everyone's dreams will come true - Happy New Year!
Click to expand...

Fifteen seconds?! That's like punching a time card.....
 
West Virginia is one of the few states that is homophobic as Utah if not more so. YOu can be sure a ban would be pushed through if judgement was granted,even though it wouldn't likely last long.
 
Ninja108 said:
West Virginia is one of the few states that is homophobic as Utah if not more so. YOu can be sure a ban would be pushed through if judgement was granted,even though it wouldn't likely last long.
Click to expand...

The state legislature is dominated by Democrats, which is why a ban has never advanced. I expect like Indiana, it is now too late for voters to pass one.
 
Alnitak said:
It's sort of a sperm and egg race now. Reviewing the 24 cases on Plainsite and elsewhere, they are all moving forward with briefing and discovery schedules. Many have even had motions for preliminary injunctions as Texas has and summary judgments as the cases in Virginia have.

So much is going on behind the scenes that it is already a part time job for me to keep track of. I won't post every little thing that happens, but don't worry major stuff will be enough to post about.

In any event, one case is destined to mate with the Supreme Court, if not Utah, if not Nevada, then Virginia or Texas. Utah in particular has changed everything, and if the denial of a stay means anything we will win at the conservative 10th Circuit. Thus the Supreme Court can't ignore the post-Windsor aftermath forever. I think they know it and want to deal with it, especially because of Utah, which is why they will take its or Nevada's appeal in October.
Click to expand...

I'll have to disagree with you a little bit there. I get the impression that they want as little as possible to do with this issue at least for a little while longer.

That said, you are right that they will not be able to avoid it indefinitely. As soon as Judge Walker's invalidation of a state ban based on the federal constitution was allowed to stand, I knew the federal courts would start seeing a flood of similar cases.
 
hotatlboi said:
I'll have to disagree with you a little bit there. I get the impression that they want as little as possible to do with this issue at least for a little while longer.
Click to expand...

I meant they want to deal with an untenable situation, not necessarily that they want to get to the issue itself. You can't have split circuits on an issue like this. By October it is likely that we will have different opinions in three, as we already have an adverse judgment from the 8th going back to 2006 when some idiot tried to sue Nebraska, and even more from several districts. Anyway, on a high profile issue, that can't stand without review.
 
Kulindahr said:
I'm not seeing anything about W Virginia in the article. :confused:
Click to expand...

fivethirtyeight-0326-marriage6-blog480.png


Interesting that Ole Miss is going to be the last state to bend over and accept homo marriage.

A6-H4YUCYAMi45N.jpg
 
^^^ Those projections ended up being off the mark, with a significant error for some states, e.g. Michigan.

Maine was actually 54% on the ballot, and thus the true sentiment was probably a bit higher, and the national opinion flipped some time in 2010 according to multiple aggregate polls. Maryland and Washington's predictions for 2012 were probably correct even though the vote scored lower.
 
Alnitak said:
^^^ Those projections ended up being off the mark, with a significant error for some states, e.g. Michigan.

Maine was actually 54% on the ballot, and thus the true sentiment was probably a bit higher, and the national opinion flipped some time in 2010 according to multiple aggregate polls. Maryland and Washington's predictions for 2012 were probably correct even though the vote scored lower.
Click to expand...

I believe the projections were from March, 2013. Also, Maine approved of SSM with 52.6% at the ballot box.
 
Alnitak said:
I meant they want to deal with an untenable situation, not necessarily that they want to get to the issue itself. You can't have split circuits on an issue like this. By October it is likely that we will have different opinions in three, as we already have an adverse judgment from the 8th going back to 2006 when some idiot tried to sue Nebraska, and even more from several districts. Anyway, on a high profile issue, that can't stand without review.
Click to expand...

So long as they might have been able to say the districts were dealing with different issues, like recognizing out-of-state marriages or whatever, they could have stalled some more. But the recent flat statements that the one-man, one-woman status quo violates both the due process and equal protection clauses leaves no room I can see for fiddling around; their only stalling maneuver at this point that I see is to put a case or two on hold so they can hear several from different circuits all at once -- and that won't buy them much time, anyway.
 
Kulindahr said:
So long as they might have been able to say the districts were dealing with different issues, like recognizing out-of-state marriages or whatever, they could have stalled some more. But the recent flat statements that the one-man, one-woman status quo violates both the due process and equal protection clauses leaves no room I can see for fiddling around; their only stalling maneuver at this point that I see is to put a case or two on hold so they can hear several from different circuits all at once -- and that won't buy them much time, anyway.
Click to expand...

One year at best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top