JustUsBoys.com gay porn forum

logo

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 141
  1. #51
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,931

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    There is NO way that Prop 8 will survive. At this point, the worst case scenario is SCOTUS not taking the case, and that STILL repeals it.
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  2. #52
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    65,680

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Prop 8 is dead in the water,period.

  3. #53
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    5,314

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by JockBoy87 View Post
    ...no civil union can ever obtain federal benefits, and thus is materially unequal regardless of how equal states try to make them.
    I have been making this point on JUB for years, and have taken a surprising amount of fire (from alleged gays) because of it.


    Quote Originally Posted by JockBoy87 View Post
    Even North Dakota is changing, and it is an initiated constitutional amendment state. The legislature there, and in 23 other states, cannot block this change forever.
    Maybe not forever, but for a very, very long time.

    If the south had not been forced at gunpoint to give up slavery, the USA would have had slavery well into the twentieth century. There is a reasonable chance that it might be with us still.

    The same for the civil rights movement. If SCOTUS had not forced interracial marriage on the entire nation in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, we would still have states in 2013 enforcing anti-miscegenation statutes.

    Prejudice is an extremely intractable thing. It usually requires outside intervention to correct. If the current SCOTUS does not sweepingly outlaw anti-gay marriage laws in the USA, we will have them still one hundred years from now.


    Quote Originally Posted by JockBoy87 View Post
    With CA, that's 10 states and 27% of the country's population.
    I suppose that's better than nothing.

    But 27% is not very good.


    Quote Originally Posted by JockBoy87 View Post
    We'll probably need Arizona, Ohio, and Michigan to get to a majority of states and a 52% majority of the population, hopefully by 2020.
    Ohio and Michigan will eventually come around, since they are in a relatively civilized portion of the country. So will Pennsylvania and New Jersey. But, it may take another decade or so.

    But half of the country's population will remain without adequate rights for its citizens indefinitely.


    Quote Originally Posted by JockBoy87 View Post
    By the end of the decade, another SCOTUS challenge better be taken up, and Kennedy, if alive, will be cornered.
    I can't see SCOTUS taking up the question of gay marriage yet again in only 10 years. If we don't get a sweeping decision this year, we will live with a patchwork of homophobic vs. enlightened states in the USA for the rest of our lives. That will be very complicated. A gay couple moving from one state to another will have their marriage dissolved and/or reconstituted, based on their geographic location.
    Last edited by T-Rexx; March 28th, 2013 at 02:09 AM.

  4. #54
    JubberClubber White Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Kerrville
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Widower
    Posts
    10,990

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    I found this in my email this AM. I will let y'all decipher it. Looks good to me..

    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...ion/?mobile=nc

    Justice Kennedy Will Likely Vote To Strike Down DOMA, Let’s Just Hope No One Joins His Opinion

    By Ian Millhiser on Mar 27, 2013 at 2:55 pm

    WASHINGTON DC — The clearest sign that a majority of the Court believes the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional is how tenaciously three of the most conservative justices fought to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on its constitutionality in the first place. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Alito fought tooth and nail to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds — an effort that is likely, if not certain, to fail. Most of the left-of-center bloc appeared skeptical of the conservatives’ theory, and Justice Kennedy at one point stated that it “seems to me there’s injury here” sufficient to justify the Court hearing the case. Kennedy did make a pointed comparison between President Obama’s decision not to defend DOMA and President Bush’s infamous signing statements, but this is more likely a gratuitous swipe at the President, than a sign that Kennedy will ultimately vote to kill the case.
    BEWARE! Harassing the Indian may result in sudden and severe hair loss.

  5. #55
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    65,680

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Keep in mind the DOMA hearing only applies to section 3 of it. There very well could be lawsuits dealing with the other parts soon. One can only hope Scalia has croaked by then.

  6. #56
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    65,680

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Sadly,I feel T-Rexx is right. By kicking the can down the road,there will be states that have gay marriage and those that don't. I'll say this though..rights of miniority should NEVER be put up to majority vote.

  7. #57
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    65,680

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    WHich is why it angers me the Supreme Court isn't going to strike down all of them. Even the four states that voted to legalize gay marriage did so with slim margins.

  8. #58
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,931

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases






    As a side note - I was thinking of putting a red equality avatar (I have a couple of awesome ones), but I figure, if we have to show support of gay marriage on a gay board, there's something wrong with us...
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  9. #59

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    The situation at present appears to be thus:

    Highly probable: There are four Justices ready to uphold traditional-marriage laws and four Justices ready to strike them down

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/re...8/#more-161948

  10. #60
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    65,680

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by EastMed View Post
    The situation at present appears to be thus:




    http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/re...8/#more-161948
    Which was always going to be the case. Just another reason it stinks Bush won. Scalia and Thomas will never,ever support gay rights in any way shape or form.

  11. #61
    JubberClubber White Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Kerrville
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Widower
    Posts
    10,990

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolyo85 View Post





    As a side note - I was thinking of putting a red equality avatar (I have a couple of awesome ones), but I figure, if we have to show support of gay marriage on a gay board, there's something wrong with us...
    Is this a real cover or did someone just make it up. ya know photoshop.
    BEWARE! Harassing the Indian may result in sudden and severe hair loss.

  12. #62
    Halleluja! chrisrobin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    9,217

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by JockBoy87 View Post
    It's real. I went to the Time website but they have no issues in print right now.
    Definitely real.

    http://lightbox.time.com/2013/03/28/...peter-hapak/#1

    Check out the video. It's awesome!

    No one can make you feel inferior without your consent. - Eleanor Roosevelt

  13. #63
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,931

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by JockBoy87 View Post
    It's real. I went to the Time website but they have no issues in print right now.
    It should be coming out on Monday or Tuesday. I'm gonna raid my B&N for both covers.
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  14. #64
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    65,680

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Before 2020,I have a feeling gay marriage will be legal in Nevada and Oregon.

  15. #65
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    65,680

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Nevada already has civil unions..just a matter of time I would say.

  16. #66
    I love the way you laugh. Thynight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Gender
    Male
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    7,517

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by GiancarloC View Post
    Arizona is still republican... they have some ways to go.

    Both Nevada and Oregon have civil unions. I think Oregon does... or maybe just domestic partnerships? Those states are likely because they have lesser roadblocks.

    I think we have to push harder in Colorado. Civil unions is a first step, but it's not enough.

    Edit: Is there any push in Hawaii? Barack Obama's home state? They were at one point looked like the first state to get gay marriage. I know they have unions.



    What is the difference between a civil union and domestic partnerships?
    I couldn't get my mind off you all day.
    ~~~~ ~~

  17. #67
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    65,680

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    It still boils down to seperate but equal. And the weak domestic partnership in WI is still in court over whether or not it should be overturned due to a lawsuit by a "family values" group that says it resembles marriage,despite one of the judges who upheld it saying how weak it is and how few rights it grants.
    So many of these state amendments put to the rest the lie that these groups would be happy if they called it something other then marriage as they ban civil unions as well.

  18. #68
    It ain't easy being King MisterMajestic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    10,461

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    I was watching the Lawyers talking about the case during a CNN segment last night and all they got was 20-minutes to plead their case. Then the Lawyer said the Justices can spit out 50-plus questions in 30-min. The whole process lasted 90-min....

    It took them 3yrs to get the case heard and had only 20-min to break it down and an Hour to watch the Justices interupt one another......

  19. #69
    Likes cock.
    ChickenGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Brighton, England
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    5,509

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    There is nothing wrong or derogatory about civil unions and domestic partnerships, and I resent the implication I often hear in popular gay opinion that it's somehow 'seperate but equal' and 'taking scraps from the table', etc. etc. etc. etc.

    It has NOTHING to do with that, it's about having a system in place whereby those who despise the word 'marriage' as I do having a choice in place that removes the neccessity to use that word. It is also a useful distinction for the many like me who see marriage as either heterosexual or religious or both.

    It goes without saying that the civil unions I support would confer every and all rights that marriage does. It also goes without saying that I would support those who wished to have a marriage to achieve that goal. I'm just saying I find the whole debate in America to be polarised and limited in options.

    It's high time that the legal union aspect of marriage be seperated from the religious ceremony. I believe that in Germany a couple can have two marriages - a civil AND a religious if they so choose.

    That's what I support. A MANDATORY civil/federal/legal contract for ALL couples gay and straight conferring all rights to them and giving them the status of civil union, followed by, if they wished, an OPTIONAL civil OR religious ceremony open to ALL couples gay and straight at a church of their choosing whereby whatever blessing they wish is given and they are given the status of marriage.

    And it is the refusal of the Republican states to offer the mandatory civil part that angers me far more than the ongoing marriage debate. Why is it that I never hear about Utah or Oklahoma or Louisiana or Arkansas or Tennessee? Why are gay couples in states like those basically ignored? Why is Congress and/or the President not pushing for a Civil Union bill?

    I don't believe civil unions are the end of the matter, but it is the basic framework that ALL states should have and which can be built upon. Take away the religious aspect, take away the eternally polarised and toxic marriage debate, and concentrate on the fundamental right of ALL states to endorse ALL couples with a federal/legal union. Surely that is more important?

  20. #70
    Likes cock.
    ChickenGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Brighton, England
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    5,509

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by JockBoy87 View Post
    Why do you think it was wrong to have two completely identical sets of drinking fountains and bathrooms before 1964? Even if the two porcelain bowls are absolutely identical. Why is it wrong to have two of them? What does it say about one group, and the other group. What ideas does that reinforce for society?
    Nothing about civil unions endorses gay segregation because it wouldn't be a case of all straights going for marriage and all gays going for civil unions. Many straight couples would probably prefer them too. Not sure if it's as common in the US as the UK, but in my extended family I know of at least two long-term heterosexual partners who have never married, whether by cost or lack of incentive I don't know.

    So using your analogy I'd propose that both blacks and whites would be permitted to use either of two fountains/bathrooms of their choice, with the only difference that they had slightly different water.

    Quote Originally Posted by JockBoy87 View Post
    You are going to run into people who do not know that civil unions are materially and legally equal.
    Which is why Obama and/or the Democrats in Congress should launch a publicity campaign or something to dispel the rumour, despite all the evangelist propaganda.

    But I go back to my point about gay couples living in say the Bible Belt states - who is standing up for them? Marriage for those who wish it is all well and good, but what about those couples who are denied anything and everything, EVEN the most basic domestic partnership? It is THAT which I find most disgraceful and something that political and legal action should be taken against.

  21. #71
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    65,680

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Seperate but equal never will be,end of story. I will agree with you that not enough attention is given to the fact that in many states,the gay marriage bans also forbid civil unions/domestic partnerships.

  22. #72
    Likes cock.
    ChickenGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Brighton, England
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    5,509

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by JockBoy87 View Post
    I will answer the questions for you.

    The idea behind separate but equal segregation is to prevent the contamination of the majority by a disfavored minority. It reinforces the idea that something about the minority is dangerous or ill favored, and must not be allowed to join the majority under the same roof. Such a notion regarding civil unions pervades all aspects of life, not just relationship status.
    That is simply your (and by some measure the political left-wing in your country's) CHOSEN way to describe it, simply because you disapprove of it.

    And you conveniently ignored the rest of by point. There is no segregation when both parties have both options, and both parties take one or both options of their choosing, and in equal measure.

    I admit we're a long way in real social/political terms from achieving that goal, but it is possible if those that frame the debate in the United States don't do so in such a repetitively blinkered and single-minded monolithic way.

  23. #73
    Likes cock.
    ChickenGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Brighton, England
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    5,509

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by JockBoy87 View Post
    If you recall in my original response, I said I agree with that point,
    Then why all this talk about 'separate but equal' when you've already agreed with my second quote and stated that it's definitively NOT what I'm suggesting?

    Quote Originally Posted by JockBoy87 View Post
    but that civil union partners would still encounter problems in some of the most trying moments of life.
    Which of course they shouldn't. To coin a phrase, the Democrats should be busy 'redefining civil unions' - as open to all, both straights and gays, and equal to marriage in all ways except the religious overtones, the ceremony, and the word itself.

    All I'm wishing is that we get out of the mindset: "Civil unions = separate but equal = BAD."

    The prevailing notion on websites/media is dumbing down the whole idea into that stupidly simplistic manner. It deserves more attention and nuance than that - which I've hopefully explained.

  24. #74
    The Boy Next Door LuvFindsAndyHardy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Boston
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    4,091

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by ChickenGuy View Post

    It goes without saying that the civil unions I support would confer every and all rights that marriage does.
    Be sure to let us Americans know when that particular brand of civil union is invented.

  25. #75
    Porn Star Love me 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Tucson
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    387

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by GiancarloC View Post
    If one thinks Civil unions and domestic partnerships doesn't endorse the "separate but equal" fallacy they need to re-examine their position. Civil unions and domestic partnerships will never be the same as marriage no matter which way we want to slice it. No matter if they contain the "same amount of rights". They are still separate. And marriage doesn't entail religion. Atheists get MARRIED all the time. So I don't see why we need to accept a different word because "same sex marriage" irritates certain people.

    Sorry, but you're totally mistaken, chickenguy. Separate but equal is never equal and it doesn't matter if civil unions even contain the same amount of rights... they'll never be the same. It's not a mindset "we need to get out of". This is pure fact under legal and constitutional terms. It isn't about dumbing down the whole idea. Civil unions are a fucking spit in the face... they are NOT the same and they lack numerous rights. And even if they were somehow "made the same", they still wouldn't be the same. At all!

    Rather than insulting those who disagree with the civil union and domestic partnership fallacy (by claiming they are accepting a dumbed down idea), understand where they are coming from. Gay couples want to get married and that should not be a problem. Civil unions will NEVER be equal to marriage, ever. Marriage doesn't entail religion. And quite frankly I don't care about those religious types offended by same sex marriage. Those same religious types don't seem to care about atheists getting MARRIED.

    As far as I'm concerned, you failed to demonstrate your case.

    Oh and last I checked ALL OVER EUROPE, they are granting same sex MARRIAGE. So what's the problem here? Spain, Holland and some others...
    Government cannot force a Religious Institution to perform Gay Marriages....it's as simple as that.

  26. #76
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Beware the deepity.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    17,780
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by ChickenGuy View Post
    It has NOTHING to do with that, it's about having a system in place whereby those who despise the word 'marriage' as I do having a choice in place that removes the neccessity to use that word. It is also a useful distinction for the many like me who see marriage as either heterosexual or religious or both.

    It goes without saying that the civil unions I support would confer every and all rights that marriage does. It also goes without saying that I would support those who wished to have a marriage to achieve that goal. I'm just saying I find the whole debate in America to be polarised and limited in options.

    It's high time that the legal union aspect of marriage be seperated from the religious ceremony. I believe that in Germany a couple can have two marriages - a civil AND a religious if they so choose.

    That's what I support. A MANDATORY civil/federal/legal contract for ALL couples gay and straight conferring all rights to them and giving them the status of civil union, followed by, if they wished, an OPTIONAL civil OR religious ceremony open to ALL couples gay and straight at a church of their choosing whereby whatever blessing they wish is given and they are given the status of marriage.
    Basically, I want the same legal recognition and protections of my relationship that was given to my parents and to my grandparents.

    You can call it "mnumu" or "ptarpkartation" or "civil union" and claim that it is the same as marriage and decide you've honoured my equality.

    But "ptarpkartation" is a particularly stupid word for it. If we are changing terminology due to a list of forbidden words that you might happen to hate, then I have my own list as well, and you can be sure "civil union" is on it.

    The reality is we already have a perfectly serviceable, plain-meaning, and well-established word for that package of rights and recognition due to me and my husband: marriage. Governments have regulated marriage for centuries not because they are in the thrall of the church, and not because they are meddling in church affairs, but because they have always had their own reasons for exercising temporal power over marriage. In the law, it is not a religious word; it is not a heterosexual word; it is a word that describes the identical rights and responsibilities granted to heterosexual couples and denied to homosexual couples.

    It is the one field of law and the one term that unambiguously describes the way in which my relationship is to be treated in an equal society, and particularly when you would "confer every and all rights that marriage does," I couldn't give a damn that you feel like inventing some other word for what is already called "marriage" because you've got it into your head that the word "marriage" is somehow unpleasant. Or, I've no idea, that we should avoid the word out of a desire to make peace with bigots. Fuck that. If it annoys some small-minded religious dickwad that I can be as married as he can, even better.
    Last edited by bankside; April 1st, 2013 at 06:27 AM.

  27. #77
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Beware the deepity.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    17,780
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by loki81 View Post
    the only two-tiered system of marriages I could see endorsing would be if all government-sanctioned partnerships were called civil unions, and "marriage" was relegated to a religious ceremony with no recognition by federal or state governments.
    Does it not seem odd to you that governments should abandon a perfectly legitimate word?

  28. #78
    Likes cock.
    ChickenGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Brighton, England
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    5,509

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    So what I basically get from GiancarloC and bankside is the usual spin on the whole civil union premise.

    No, GianCarloC, civil unions CAN work, they CAN be equal to marriage, they CAN carry the same weight. Just because you apparently demand that everyone engaging in ANY union must automatically accept 'marriage' and 'husband' forced onto them doesn't mean we all do. I and many others PREFER civil union and WANT civil union, and you don't have a monopoly on defining what I should and can want.

    No, bankside, civil unions are NOT the same as kdjeiogje or oajjfcvbbh or whatever word you wish - they ARE legitimate and a recognised term that can encapsulate all rights of marriage. And nor do I give a damn that YOU and many others are trying to force this infernal word marriage as the sole definition of what I could ever have as a union.

    And before EITHER of you start running around shouting the usual tired 'separate but equal' bullshit about my position, look back at what I said - I said BOTH options AVAILABLE TO ALL.

    You can both denigrate civil union all you want since it's obvious you both despise the term, but it does not give you the right to dictate to me what I'm supposed to think, nor stop me from supporting it.


  29. #79
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Beware the deepity.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    17,780
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by loki81 View Post
    it's also odd that the government needs 5 different database progams all to track the exact same information about vet benefits, so it'd be odd but acceptable if the very use of the term "marriage" became a deal breaker as long as rights are equal across the board.

    First, I'd caution against making deals on matters of equality; equality is something that is achieved by the law, and where this leaves bigots bewildered or disgruntled, or feeling disenfranchised, it's one of the positive effects! We say "Yay!" at that point. It is a good thing when Joel Osteen is upset because the four walls of his church are surrounded by a society of human dignity and a government deaf to his pleas for more bigotry.

    Second, churches can't appropriate everyday words. What next? "Well in our church the pastor says 'I now pronounce you husband and wife!' Those are sacred religious words that the government should not redefine! If you go to a justice of the peace, they should say 'I now pronounce you 'male spouse' and 'female spouse.' And while we're at it, the buddhists shouldn't be able to say 'husband and wife' either! They should say 'male heathen' and 'female heathen.' "

    The fact that their views are even being entertained on this question is an unwarranted interference in public life. Once the question is answered "Will marriage equality force my church to perform a marriage that does not meet the standards of our creed?" and the answer is "Of course not, no more than you'd have to perform a marriage for divorced people, or offer a jewish ceremony to a buddhist couple, or host a bris in a basilica, etc…etc.." then it is no more the business of any church, nor the business of any religious person to force their views on the rest of us. Mel Gibson does not get to write the dictionary. And marriage is the word for the thing we're after.

  30. #80
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Beware the deepity.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    17,780
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by ChickenGuy View Post
    So what I basically get from GiancarloC and bankside is the usual spin on the whole civil union premise.

    No, GianCarloC, civil unions CAN work, they CAN be equal to marriage, they CAN carry the same weight. Just because you apparently demand that everyone engaging in ANY union must automatically accept 'marriage' and 'husband' forced onto them doesn't mean we all do. I and many others PREFER civil union and WANT civil union, and you don't have a monopoly on defining what I should and can want.

    No, bankside, civil unions are NOT the same as kdjeiogje or oajjfcvbbh or whatever word you wish - they ARE legitimate and a recognised term that can encapsulate all rights of marriage. And nor do I give a damn that YOU and many others are trying to force this infernal word marriage as the sole definition of what I could ever have as a union.

    And before EITHER of you start running around shouting the usual tired 'separate but equal' bullshit about my position, look back at what I said - I said BOTH options AVAILABLE TO ALL.

    You can both denigrate civil union all you want since it's obvious you both despise the term, but it does not give you the right to dictate to me what I'm supposed to think, nor stop me from supporting it.

    You have painted yourself into a corner trying to have it both ways. Either "civil union" means something different in substance from "marriage," in which case I'm not interested, or it means the same thing, in which case why invent a word like "civil union" when "marriage" is already the word we use for that?

    Whatever legitimacy might come with the rights in your proposal, "civil union" is not a legitimate word for it. It was made up in our lifetime to appease religious bullies who wanted specifically to deny equality to same-sex couples, not just within their sects but everywhere in society. But for that offensive political intrusion on their part, the term "civil union" would not even exist.

  31. #81
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Beware the deepity.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    17,780
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    I should also note that no pressure group opposed to equal marriage in the courts, in referenda, in legislation, is saying "Wait! We we're only opposed because we should have civil unions for all, and marriage for all, but they should be separate! We need something else other than just 'single' or 'married!' "

    The argument just isn't made. They all make arguments appealing to bigotry against gay relationships, or appealing to the history of bigotry against gay relationships.

  32. #82
    Porn Star Love me 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Tucson
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    387

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by JockBoy87 View Post
    Here is an interesting example of supportive evidence for the reasons behind separate but equal:

    Gay marriage 'takes precious gift and drags it down in the mud and degrades it'

    Homophobes don't want gay marriage primarily because they believe gays are dirty and should not contaminate straight marriage.
    Str8 Marriages have been dragged through Mud, dirtied, and contaminated all by themselves. They don't need us to do it. Look at the High divorce rates.

  33. #83
    The Boy Next Door LuvFindsAndyHardy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Boston
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    4,091

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by Love me 2 View Post
    Government cannot force a Religious Institution to perform Gay Marriages....it's as simple as that.
    Who cares? Who wants to force them to? What does that even mean?

    In the United States, all legally recognized marriage is civil marriage. Religious institutions have the privilege of performing marriages on behalf of the state but they are not any more valid in the eyes of the law than those performed by justices of the peace.

    A Catholic Church is not going to perform a marriage ceremony between two Jews and, to my knowledge, no one has ever forced them to nor taken them to court for refusing. The idea that religious institutions would be forced to perform gay marriages against their will is both nonsensical and demonstrably false.

  34. #84
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    65,680

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    On a different note,leaving it up to the states is also a stupid idea. To do that,it would have to get through legislatures and there is no way in hell Republicians will ever let that happen.

  35. #85
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    65,680

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by JockBoy87 View Post
    I estimate that there are only 17 states that will not be feasible without major changes in the GOP.
    At which point the SUpreme Court (hopefully with Hilary picks) will have to do something.
    The Bible Belt states and many of the Mid West states are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

  36. #86
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    65,680

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Wisconsin goes back and forth. The fact they elected a openly lesbian senator shows hope in that regards.

  37. #87
    Rambunctiously Pugnacious JayHawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    River Quay - KC
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    24,258

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by JockBoy87 View Post
    We can get all of the Midwest except for Indiana, and Wisconsin if it stays a red state.

    The Bible Belt states will definitely be the last to go, except that Arkansas, Missouri, and Mississippi have initiated amendments.

    There's also a question of when Utah or Idaho would go voluntarily as they have no initiated amendment process.

    There's no telling when we could get to the 33 states with either good political support or initiated amendment repeals. I don't think it will be less than 15 years. By that time, Breyer would certainly be retired, and perhaps Thomas and Alito.
    SAY WHAT?

    No offense bu Kansas and Missouri will allow gay marriage sometime after they accept that slavery doesn't need to exist.
    Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.
    ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.


  38. #88
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Beware the deepity.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    17,780
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by JayHawk View Post
    SAY WHAT?

    No offense bu Kansas and Missouri will allow gay marriage sometime after they accept that slavery doesn't need to exist.
    Is it possible to win the ballot by asking them whether they want to ban gay marriage, or queer marriage? "No way we'll let the goddamn queers marry, but i guess gay marriage is okay as long as they know English!!"

    And then, as they say, never correct your opponent when he's making a mistake...

  39. #89
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    65,680

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Sadly,the reasons you mentioned is why I wish the court would simply strike down the bans. Walker fought a domestic partnership law in Wisconin that even one of the judges in the case said was a joke compared to marriage rights.
    Didn't matter to Walker and the WI Republicians,it resembled marriage in a way and had to be fought. That's the mindset there and trust me,they are NOT happy a lesbian is in the U.S. Senate representing their state right now.

  40. #90
    JubberClubber White Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Kerrville
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Widower
    Posts
    10,990

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Ok, I'm hoping this is the thread about Proposition 8 and the SCOTUS.
    I would like opinions on what this link is saying. They are looking at what can and can't happen.
    It is from the American Foundation for Equal Rights and I've been receiving their newsletters since forever.
    Just wanting your opinions on it.

    http://www.afer.org/blog/supreme-cou...ible-outcomes/

    Marriage News Blog

    Supreme Court to Rule on Prop. 8: Decision Timing & Possible Outcomes
    May 8, 2013

    The Supreme Court is expected to rule by the end of its term in June on whether Proposition 8, California’s ban on marriage for gay and lesbian couples, violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Here’s what could happen:
    BEWARE! Harassing the Indian may result in sudden and severe hair loss.

  41. #91
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,931

    Code of Conduct
    I can't read it right now, but based on all the analyses I've read, as well as the transcripts of both hearings, it's most likely that SCOTUS will either support the 9th circuit's decision on Prop 8 in a narrow ruling, or will decline to make a ruling at all. Either way, Prop 8 is finished but its unlikely we'll see any broader ruling based on that case just yet.

    As for Section 3 of DOMA, it's toast. While one can never say how SCOTUS will rule with absolute certainly, it would be incredibly shocking and in total reverse of their attitude so far if they do anything less. Whether they could make a broader decision based on that - I doubt it.

    Or in other words, it's almost certain we won't see national marriage equality in June, but even so, we'll still win both cases.
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  42. #92
    JubberClubber White Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Kerrville
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Widower
    Posts
    10,990

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    What they are predicting looks promising anyway.
    BEWARE! Harassing the Indian may result in sudden and severe hair loss.

  43. #93
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    65,680

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    I think Prop 8 is finished but that they will simply rule the people that brought the suit don't have standing and thus let the lower court's ruling stand.
    As for Section 3 of DOMA,I predict a 5-4 ruling or a 6-3 ruling. Kennedy (at least from his statements) does not like how DOMA overreaches into the states.
    My prediction is that a ruling will be made that it should be left to the states (stupid I know) and those that have marriage equality should be able to have their marriage acknowledged by the federal government.

  44. #94
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    65,680

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    From the latest reports I've read,if Illinois passes gay marriage and Prop 8 is struck down,the next states most liekly to allow gay marriage will be New Jersey,Oregon,Nevada,Hawaii and possibly Michigian through a court ruling.
    That will mean about 40-45 % of the population will be allowed to have gay marriage. I don't get how kicking the can down the road will help,there will be lawsuits galore for narrow rulings.

    P.S. reading this thread is depressing in a way. We've lost some good peeps here in the past month and a half.

  45. #95

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    ^^^New Mexico, Ohio, Colorado, and Arizona as well. By kicking the can down the road another few year, it'll allow for public opinion to grow and thus create less controversey when they do declare same-sex marriage to be a fundamental right nationwide. I do think though that they could do that now and it wouldn't create near the controversey some expect it to.

  46. #96
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    65,680

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by scream4ever View Post
    ^^^New Mexico, Ohio, Colorado, and Arizona as well. By kicking the can down the road another few year, it'll allow for public opinion to grow and thus create less controversey when they do declare same-sex marriage to be a fundamental right nationwide. I do think though that they could do that now and it wouldn't create near the controversey some expect it to.
    They could..but they won't IMO. Where ballots won't work,there will be lawsuits. That will include Illinois if they don't pass gay marriage. Because if Prop 8 is dismissed on standing and section 3 of DOMA is struck down,there will be a strong case that civil unions are seperate but unequal.

  47. #97
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    104,559
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninja108 View Post
    I think Prop 8 is finished but that they will simply rule the people that brought the suit don't have standing and thus let the lower court's ruling stand.
    I think that decision is one that the State of California should appeal: their Supreme Court said that under California law, those people have standing, and that should be the end of it -- otherwise, the SCOTUS is getting into the business of interpreting state law for the states, which is ludicrous.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  48. #98
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    65,680

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    I think that decision is one that the State of California should appeal: their Supreme Court said that under California law, those people have standing, and that should be the end of it -- otherwise, the SCOTUS is getting into the business of interpreting state law for the states, which is ludicrous.
    It is but keep in mind Alito,Scalia and Thomas(whose marriage would have been illegal before 1967 in many states) hate the LGBT community and have no qualms about using any kind of bullshit to keep us second class citizens. I really wouldn't be shcoked to see they are the ones that took case up.
    They know marriage equality is coming but they can do their best to delay it as long as possible.

  49. #99
    Sex God AstareGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Portland
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    667

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Hey boys! It's June, the month during which the Supreme Court of the United States is supposed to give us their decision on the hearings they held a few months ago regarding DOMA and Prop 8.

    Anyone know what day we can expect these decisions to come?
    Brad's Search - 70,000 words and counting!

  50. #100
    Virtus in medio stat JUB Admin opinterph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Jawja
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    22,884
    Blog Entries
    14

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by AstareGod View Post
    Anyone know what day we can expect these decisions to come?
    The Court normally recesses at the end of June.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | About JustUsBoys.com | Site Map | RSS | Webmasters | Advertise | Link to JUB | Report A Bug on this Page

Visit our sister sites: Broke Straight Boys | CollegeDudes.com | CollegeBoyPhysicals.com | RocketTube
All models appearing on JustUsBoys.com were over 18 at the time of photography. The records for sexually explicit images required by U.S. 2257 are kept by the
individual producers of the images. The location of the records is available by clicking the Custodian of Records link at the bottom of each gallery page.
© 2012 JustUsBoys.com. The JustUsBoys.com name and logo are registered trademarks. Labeled with ICRA and RTA. Member of ASACP and The Free Speech Coalition.