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?

Today's the big day everyone! I promise to post pics as soon as possible.
 
Repors are saying Roberts and Kennedy asked tough questions of both sides and didn't really reveal their positions.
 
It will be 5-4 in our favor but I think it will be a narrow ruling.
 
I think 6 - 3 is possible, with Roberts fearing that in a future land where gays aren't the "new N people", and he's remembered as Justice Jim Crow, might vote to overturn. Alito I hold out as a remote possibility. The Italian-American gasbag's dissent might prove tepidly entertaining.
 
JackinSea said:
I think 6 - 3 is possible, with Roberts fearing that in a future land where gays aren't the "new N people", and he's remembered as Justice Jim Crow, might vote to overturn. Alito I hold out as a remote possibility. The Italian-American gasbag's dissent might prove tepidly entertaining.
Click to expand...

Alito's questions were about incest and polygamy, pretty standard fare for a closed minded bigot.
 
JackinSea said:
I think 6 - 3 is possible, with Roberts fearing that in a future land where gays aren't the "new N people", and he's remembered as Justice Jim Crow, might vote to overturn. Alito I hold out as a remote possibility. The Italian-American gasbag's dissent might prove tepidly entertaining.
Click to expand...

I can Roberts issuing a concurring opinion, perhaps siding just on the recognition issue.
 
JackinSea said:
I think 6 - 3 is possible, with Roberts fearing that in a future land where gays aren't the "new N people", and he's remembered as Justice Jim Crow, might vote to overturn. Alito I hold out as a remote possibility. The Italian-American gasbag's dissent might prove tepidly entertaining.
Click to expand...

I agree that 6-3 is possible, but I suspect it will be 5-4.

I do think Roberts is worried about his place in history. It is clear where this is headed, and Roberts surely does not want to be remembered as the bigot who tried to stop one of the great historical acts of American justice from occurring - on his own court, even. I'm not convinced he has the courage to do what is right, however. He is too beholden to the special interests which placed him on the court in the first place, and on whom he depends for comfort.

Since the founding of the republic, virtually all of the momentous advances in justice for which the Supreme Court is remembered have been swings to the left. Brown v. Board of Education, Miranda v. Arizona, Loving v. Virginia, etc. are all remembered as great historical advances in justice.

The Court's momentous swings to the right (Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu v. United States, Citizens United, etc.) are remembered as unfortunate historical mistakes.


CoolBlue71 said:
Any chance it could be unanimous?
Click to expand...

That it will not be unanimous is problematic. That it will likely be 5-4 is more problematic.

Loving v. Virginia in 1967 was unanimous. SCOTUS sent an unambiguous message that marriage discrimination based on race was not acceptable in the United States; that the federal government would everywhere defend the rights of minorities in this matter; and that challenges to this decision could not prevail.

A 5-4 decision in Obergefell is ambiguous. Anti-gay bigots will point out - correctly - that their view would be the law of the land, but for a single person within the makeup of the Supreme Court. They will point out that a future court might therefore possibly overturn gay marriage in the USA. They will continue to insist that the matter is not settled and that the issue of gay marriage must be re-considered by future courts.
 
I figure that Anthony Kennedy is No. 5; John Roberts is No. 6; Samuel Alito is No. 7; Antonin Scalia is No. 8; Clarence Thomas is No. 9.

Those feeling that the decision will be either the narrowest (a 5-to-4 outcome) or that it will be a more comfortable majority (a 6-to-3 result) are aware enough of the Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court.

It's that I think those Republican justices know that Corporate America (whom they support; and Corporate America supports a number of them) are also wanting the decision, anyway, for marriage equality. So, either they give some more cover (5 to 4; or 6 to 3)—or they can really squash the homophobes and their desperation (which is why a unanimous decision would be wonderfully delicious).
 
T-Rexx said:
The Court's momentous swings to the right (Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu v. United States, Citizens United, etc.) are remembered as unfortunate historical mistakes.
Click to expand...

Citizens United was hardly a swing to the right. If it had been ruled on the other way, it would have handed Congress authority to decide who gets to participate in elections and who doesn't. Remember that Citizens United was a grass-roots group organized for the purpose of free speech, and the ruling was in their favor, saying that citizens can indeed engage in free speech and Congress can't decide who can and who can't. If it had gone the other way, a GOP-controlled Congress would right now be able to pass legislation saying that gays can't give out information during elections, that unions can't participate in elections -- and those would be legitimate laws.

The idiocy of the ruling was not the ruling itself, but the setting out of the idea that inanimate objects somehow have speech. That's something that can be corrected, but if the decision had gone the other way then a DoJ under the GOP would have been able to legitimately declare in the future that the Sierra Club, the Alliance for Separation of Church and State, or even JUB are forbidden from so much as discussing candidates and issues during campaigns.
 
T-Rexx said:
A 5-4 decision in Obergefell is ambiguous. Anti-gay bigots will point out - correctly - that their view would be the law of the land, but for a single person within the makeup of the Supreme Court. They will point out that a future court might therefore possibly overturn gay marriage in the USA. They will continue to insist that the matter is not settled and that the issue of gay marriage must be re-considered by future courts.
Click to expand...

Or we could get a decision where a basic principle was set down unanimously but the actual decision was split. The Court did that in Heller, where all the justices agreed that the right under discussion was an individual one, but disagreed on how far it reached. So we could see an agreement that gays have a right to marry, but disagreement on whether all states have to provide for that, ending with a mess where two men couldn't get married in, say, Wyoming, but they could get married in Iowa, and Wyoming might have to honor that status.

This court has been very good at agreeing that all are equal, but declaring in practice that some are more equal than others*. I don't really expect that here, but OTOH it wouldn't surprise me.



*That's really what happened in Citizens United: the Court decided correctly that Congress can't decide that some groups get political speech during elections while others don't, thus declaring all equal, but relying on the notion that money is speech asserted that those with more money get more speech and thus that some are more equal than others.
 
Any decision which passes with the support of Scalia and Thomas is by definition a swing to the right, for that is the only criterion for their decision-making. There isn't one principle between the two of them.
 
CoolBlue71 said:
I figure that Anthony Kennedy is No. 5; John Roberts is No. 6; Samuel Alito is No. 7; Antonin Scalia is No. 8; Clarence Thomas is No. 9.

Those feeling that the decision will be either the narrowest (a 5-to-4 outcome) or that it will be a more comfortable majority (a 6-to-3 result) are aware enough of the Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court.

It's that I think those Republican justices know that Corporate America (whom they support; and Corporate America supports a number of them) are also wanting the decision, anyway, for marriage equality. So, either they give some more cover (5 to 4; or 6 to 3)—or they can really squash the homophobes and their desperation (which is why a unanimous decision would be wonderfully delicious).
Click to expand...

Scalia invents his own "facts" when he feels like it, so there's no way he's going to support equality here. Thomas is too much Scalia's shadow to step up. Alito is too lost in his half-century out of date view of the country and his ingrained bigotry to suddenly uphold basic liberties.

Roberts is the only hope for better than 5 - 4.
 
bankside said:
Any decision which passes with the support of Scalia and Thomas is by definition a swing to the right, for that is the only criterion for their decision-making. There isn't one principle between the two of them.
Click to expand...

Accepting that for the sake of argument, then in Citizens United there was only a choice of degrees of swinging to the right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top