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:
The Oregon Citizens Alliance formed in the 1980s to stop anti-discrimination laws. It is now defunct.
Click to expand...

It began as the Oregon CHRISTIAN Alliance. And there are people definitely dedicated to eliminating every trace of every success they ever had.

Though it officially is defunct, it just transformed into something else, but it has too many determined foes to be a serious force any longer.
 
palbert said:
While not directly on the marriage equality question, this ruling is encouraging. I suspect the decision had more to do with a stste court's ability to interpret its own laws, although I wonder what the freedom of (practicing) religion argument was.
Click to expand...

Nice. There have been similar cases in other states (Oregon and Washington, for starters); I have no idea where they stand.
 
Kulindahr said:
It began as the Oregon CHRISTIAN Alliance. And there are people definitely dedicated to eliminating every trace of every success they ever had.

Though it officially is defunct, it just transformed into something else, but it has too many determined foes to be a serious force any longer.
Click to expand...

Their success was short lived and Scott Lively left to do other things.
 
Hopefully in one more month in OR the ban will be gone. I still don't get why they didn't push for a repeal in 2012.
 
Listened to the audio of today's hearing and I'm thinking there will be a 2-1 ruling in our favor.
We'll likely know by Fall, so keep your fingers crossed.
 
Kulindahr said:
It began as the Oregon CHRISTIAN Alliance. And there are people definitely dedicated to eliminating every trace of every success they ever had.
Click to expand...

Though it officially is defunct, it just transformed into something else.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a retrovirus. :eek: I've heard Scott Lively on my radio and he appears to be batshit crazy. IMHO, fewer and fewer people are taking him and others like him seriously.
 
Ninja108 said:
Hopefully in one more month in OR the ban will be gone. I still don't get why they didn't push for a repeal in 2012.
Click to expand...

Some people told me it was because they wanted people focused on the marijuana initiative. I thought that was foolish partly because the marijuana piece was very badly written.
 
Ninja108 said:
Listened to the audio of today's hearing and I'm thinking there will be a 2-1 ruling in our favor.
We'll likely know by Fall, so keep your fingers crossed.
Click to expand...

I expect a ruling on this and the OK case by the end of June, and likely earlier. The 10th Circuit so far has given every indication that they don't want to drag this out.
 
JackinSea said:
I know it may be quibbling, but the writer's use of the word "forced" rather than "required" smacks of a "liberal judges!" bias to me.

Agreed that the Circuits want to get their rulings out before the end of this SCOTUS term (June).
Click to expand...

I don't think we will get a 10th Circuit opinion in two weeks like the highly motivated lower court judges have done, and then there is the petition for en banc, and that can take months too. Certainly by October there will be a petition ready to go on the 10th and 4th, and hopefully the 9th if it ever gets around to scheduling its "expedited" consideration. What a joke.
 
If this is obviously going to be decided by SCOTUS anyway, an en banc would be a waste of time.

I expect a SCOTUS decision by 6/30/15.
 
I think the only way en banc reviews will be requested at this point would be if they wish to bypass the 3-judge panels, like what Snyder did.
 
Alnitak said:
Yes. Within 15 months we will have equality in 50 states and five territories.
Click to expand...

I'm not betting on the territories being included. Actually, I think they'll be excluded, given the reluctance of the court. I think they'd prefer a case originating out of the territories before they're included (btw-can that actually happen?).
 
mightbe said:
I'm not betting on the territories being included. Actually, I think they'll be excluded, given the reluctance of the court. I think they'd prefer a case originating out of the territories before they're included (btw-can that actually happen?).
Click to expand...

Guam and the Marianas come under the Ninth Circuit; I presume all other territories are included in others.
 
mightbe said:
I'm not betting on the territories being included. Actually, I think they'll be excluded, given the reluctance of the court. I think they'd prefer a case originating out of the territories before they're included (btw-can that actually happen?).
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all sovereign US territory. What it says goes everywhere, and three circuits have jurisdiction over the territories. DC has its own circuit, Puerto Rico is in the first, and the Pacific islands are under the ninth.
 
Alnitak said:
The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all sovereign US territory. What it says goes everywhere, and three circuits have jurisdiction over the territories. DC has its own circuit, Puerto Rico is in the first, and the Pacific islands are under the ninth.
Click to expand...

I thought PR was in the First, but wasn't sure.
 
Alnitak said:
The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all sovereign US territory. What it says goes everywhere, and three circuits have jurisdiction over the territories. DC has its own circuit, Puerto Rico is in the first, and the Pacific islands are under the ninth.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court can also exclude, though it depends on the specific case how they can. Downes v. Bidwell wasn't overturned. The Constitution doesn't necessarily apply to territories at present. Historically, we've used that extensively to impose otherwise unconstitutional measures on territories.

Technically, they could break their pattern and just totally legalize it, but the record shows a great deal of reluctance. I'm thinking they may decide to only include states.

Though I think a district ruling would just include the entire district, regardless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top