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?

^^^ Usually countries, states, provinces that pass some basic recognition of gay couples usually move to equality within a decade, but can take many years. That would be a very good sign for Greece and Greek couples.
 
The federal case in Pennsylvania, Whitewood v. Wolf, will tentatively go to trial on June 9, 2014.

Not much going on this week, just a waiting game for more court announcements.

It has been one month since arguments were heard in New Mexico. The decision could come at any time, and there is no reason to think it will not be unanimous in our favor.
 
Well the Louisiana case was dismissed.

Apparently, the plaintiffs didn't actually try to obtain a license or get their marriage recognized. Likely they are represented by a small firm with no experience. This is why it is important to have the support of national legal organizations such as Lambda Legal or AFER.

It also doesn't help that the courts in Louisiana, and the whole 5th Circuit, are mostly hostile to LGBT rights. The dismissal may be appealed, but if what the court said is true, this particular one has met its end. The plaintiffs can of course fulfill the proper requirements for subject matter jurisdiction and start over.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/187686571/2-13-cv-05090-33
 
AstareGod said:
I meant difficult in the sense of states like my home state of Mississippi, where it will likely take a federal court ruling to get anything accomplished in the next 10 or 20 years, and I hesitate to say my lifetime, but who knows? That's why I have plans to get out of here. I'm not going to sit around waiting for the leaders in my state to get their shit together. I have a life to live and no time to wait. Unfortunately, if potential voters like me move to marriage equality states, that reduces the chances that if it ever does come down to a popular vote in a state like Mississippi that we'll get marriage equality.

I don't know off the top of my head, but have we had any constitutional amendments repealed so far? I hesitate to call Hawaii's ban a constitutional one since the amendment simply gave the legislature the power to define marriage and didn't actually define marriage itself. I'd figure constitutional amendments would be more difficult to reverse, and we have a bunch more of those than just state statutes.
Click to expand...

You could be like Romney and have residency in 2 states. :rotflmao: j/k
 
Alnitak said:
Well the Louisiana case was dismissed.

Apparently, the plaintiffs didn't actually try to obtain a license or get their marriage recognized. Likely they are represented by a small firm with no experience. This is why it is important to have the support of national legal organizations such as Lambda Legal or AFER.

It also doesn't help that the courts in Louisiana, and the whole 5th Circuit, are mostly hostile to LGBT rights. The dismissal may be appealed, but if what the court said is true, this particular one has met its end. The plaintiffs can of course fulfill the proper requirements for subject matter jurisdiction and start over.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/187686571/2-13-cv-05090-33
Click to expand...

The dismissal was based on lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity. I follow the reasoning, but don't find it particularly compelling; after all, if the attorney general is in charge of seeing that the state's laws are enforced, then he is the one ultimately responsible for denying recognition of marriage between persons of the same sex.

Perhaps their biggest mistake was naming only the attorney general in the complaint -- if they'd named the state of Louisiana, the court's reasoning wouldn't apply, and the suit would probably be going ahead. That suggests to me that you're right, that they don't have a firm with sufficient experience.
 
Kulindahr said:
The dismissal was based on lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity. I follow the reasoning, but don't find it particularly compelling; after all, if the attorney general is in charge of seeing that the state's laws are enforced, then he is the one ultimately responsible for denying recognition of marriage between persons of the same sex.

Perhaps their biggest mistake was naming only the attorney general in the complaint -- if they'd named the state of Louisiana, the court's reasoning wouldn't apply, and the suit would probably be going ahead. That suggests to me that you're right, that they don't have a firm with sufficient experience.
Click to expand...

Right but ultimately how the plaintiffs went about their cause if action removed the attorney generals relationship from the case sufficiently that it did not substantiate an exception to sovereign immunity.
 
Alnitak said:
Right but ultimately how the plaintiffs went about their cause if action removed the attorney generals relationship from the case sufficiently that it did not substantiate an exception to sovereign immunity.
Click to expand...

They were married in Iowa, as was the second couple who joined the suit. That really shouldn't have any bearing on sovereign immunity. The attorney general countered that there is no record of any attempt to get official recognition of their marriages in Louisiana. So the court concluded that since there had been no official act, sovereign immunity applied. I think it would have made more sense to say that since there was no record of any attempt to have their marriages recognized, there was nothing to challenge, so the suit was void.
 
'
Dolan: Catholics 'outmarketed' on gay marriage

Wasn't Dolan the one who won't let us march in the St. Patrick's Day parade in NYC?

Asked why the church is losing the argument on gay marriage, Dolan responded, "Well, I think maybe we've been outmarketed sometimes. We've been caricatured as being anti-gay."
Click to expand...
Outmarketed? Why don't you contact J. Walter Thompson. You can afford it.

He said the church supports "traditional marriage and is not "anti-anybody," adding, "When you have forces like Hollywood, when you have forces like politicians, when you have forces like some opinion-molders that are behind it, it's a tough battle."
Click to expand...
Actually, you can blame individuals who love their partners. Love has nothing to do with either politicians or Hollywood. You're just looking for someone to blame.

But, he said the church will not give up on the gay marriage issue.
Click to expand...
I know it won't, but don't tell Pope Francis. [-X

Your eminence, please check the part of the U.S. Constitution which reads, "Equal protection under the law." If you can forgive me for being gay, I'll disregard the Spanish Inquisition.
 
We will see more of these musings as time goes on as more conservatives realize that they have lost.

Dolan is just one of the major figures who have conceded defeat in recent years, and several of NOM's former major players already have, including Orson Scott Card, Maggie Gallagher, and their Facebook page guy.

Several media and other religious leaders among conservatives have also urged people to just move on, so to speak, which has been uttered in various ways even by Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Jim Daly from Focus on the Family, and Frank Page who is the president of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee.

So make no mistake, these are not comments coming from nobodies. Major conservative players are saying this now. Marriage equality is inevitable.
 
That said, NOM's propaganda machine and Brian Brown are on an overdrive trying to say that this year has just marked all the liberal "easy" states and now the "lie of momentum" will be shown as they start winning against us again.
 
Rolyo85 said:
That said, NOM's propaganda machine and Brian Brown are on an overdrive trying to say that this year has just marked all the liberal "easy" states and now the "lie of momentum" will be shown as they start winning against us again.
Click to expand...

You know what the irony in that is?

Brown was screaming that New York and Illinois were the most important, cannot lose, must win states. He even tried a fundraiser to reverse the makeup of the NY legislature and repeal the marriage act. Now, to him those states are total throwaways, "oh they're totally liberal and don't count" states. Do you really think people do not notice? Brown is an increasingly deluded Don Quixote, and his fate will be the caricature that people like Mat Staver make of honest men.
 
Actually, I don't know that he cares. NOM has always been a money laundry for the Vatican and affiliated "donors" and I am fairly certain they are just keeping appearances at this point. While I am sure Brown hates gay marriage, I think it's all about keeping that money coming.
 
Rolyo85 said:
Actually, I don't know that he cares. NOM has always been a money laundry for the Vatican and affiliated "donors" and I am fairly certain they are just keeping appearances at this point. While I am sure Brown hates gay marriage, I think it's all about keeping that money coming.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure.

His lengthy trips to Russia and all that lobbying to get the "take kids away from their parents" law suggest that he is genuinely passionate about fighting gay people, and probably holding back a lot more hate than he reveals publicly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top