JustUsBoys.com gay porn forum

logo

remove these banner ads by becoming a JUB Supporter.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst ... 234 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 150 of 241
  1. #101
    Wildly Inappropriate SonOfSlobone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    3,230

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    ^^^Yeah, I think that's about right. There seemed to be a consensus among the judges, even the conservative ones, that DOMA was a bad law, because it interfered with state control over marriage, and the requirement that the federal government respect state marriage laws. I agree that Part 3 of DOMA is going to be overturned on that basis. Section 2, which says that states don't have to honor other states' same sex marriages, wasn't addressed today, so most likely it will stand.

    What I thought was interesting was that the anti-DOMA lawyers kept trying to bring up equal protection, and the justices kept steering them back to the question of whether the federal government should even have its own definition of marriage (apart from that definition being "whatever each state says it is".) So I think it's going to be a narrow decision. But hey, for married couples living in states that have gay marriage, this will have a lot of practical consequences, especially for taxes. By no means a minor victory.

  2. #102
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,607

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by SonOfSlobone View Post
    ^^^Yeah, I think that's about right. There seemed to be a consensus among the judges, even the conservative ones, that DOMA was a bad law, because it interfered with state control over marriage, and the requirement that the federal government respect state marriage laws. I agree that Part 3 of DOMA is going to be overturned on that basis. Section 2, which says that states don't have to honor other states' same sex marriages, wasn't addressed today, so most likely it will stand.

    What I thought was interesting was that the anti-DOMA lawyers kept trying to bring up equal protection, and the justices kept steering them back to the question of whether the federal government should even have its own definition of marriage (apart from that definition being "whatever each state says it is".) So I think it's going to be a narrow decision. But hey, for married couples living in states that have gay marriage, this will have a lot of practical consequences, especially for taxes. By no means a minor victory.
    That is my sentiment, also.

    But it means that it will be another century or more before all of America has marriage equality.

  3. #103
    GiancarloC
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    That is my sentiment, also.

    But it means that it will be another century or more before all of America has marriage equality.
    Unfortunately this court is too apprehensive in pushing sweeping reform. We're not dealing with an Earl Warren court. As long as DOMA is overturned, and marriages are recognized federally in states where it is legal, that is where we need to get. Plus Prop 8 should hopefully be overturned.

    We won't get marriage in all the states... Colombia, Brazil and France will all beat the US to full complete marriage equality. Considering some states are living in the 1950s when it comes to social views, what do we expect? North Dakota for one.

    This is the unfortunate case where we must accept victories where we can get them. And consider, if marriage is legalized in California, the bulk of this country's population will be in areas where same sex marriage is LEGAL.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sa...age_in_USA.svg

    Just a good map to reference. If prop 8 gets overturned, we will have marriage legal in California and New York. That's states with 47-49 million people.

    We'll just have to take what we can get for now... some parts of this country are still stuck in the 19th century.
    Last edited by GiancarloC; March 27th, 2013 at 11:04 PM.

  4. #104
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by GiancarloC View Post
    As long as DOMA is overturned, and marriages are recognized federally in states where it is legal, that is where we need to get.
    That will be a crucial talking point, because no civil union can ever obtain federal benefits, and thus is materially unequal regardless of how equal states try to make them.

    I expect another wave of support for marriage equality on that point after June.

    Considering some states are living in the 1950s when it comes to social views, what do we expect? North Dakota for one.
    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.

    This is the unfortunate case where we must accept victories where we can get them. And consider, if marriage is legalized in California, the bulk of this country's population will be in areas where same sex marriage is LEGAL.
    With CA, that's 10 states and 27% of the country's population.

    An additional 10 easy states in a few years, and we'll be up to 130 million or 40%.

    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. Most of the western hemisphere will have marriage equality as well. By the end of the decade, another SCOTUS challenge better be taken up, and Kennedy, if alive, will be cornered.

  5. #105
    GiancarloC
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by JockBoy87 View Post
    That will be a crucial talking point, because no civil union can ever obtain federal benefits, and thus is materially unequal regardless of how equal states try to make them.
    Even same sex marriage as they stand are getting roadblocked... DOMA must be overturned. Same sex marriages are being treated differently on the federal level and it's wrong. Even if it's not a sweeping change, it'll be a significant one of still historical proportions.

    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.
    Well perhaps more like Alabama and Mississippi is what I mean.

    With CA, that's 10 states and 27% of the country's population.

    An additional 10 easy states in a few years, and we'll be up to 130 million or 40%.

    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.
    That's correct. I was exaggerating a bit. Still a great chunk of the country's population.

    We really NEED Prop 8 thrown out. And I mean this year. We can't wait. California having same sex marriage would be hugely symbolic and significant... a state with almost 40 million people (btw, I said NY + CA were 48-49 million... bad math... 58-59 million actually as NY has around 19 million).

    Also New Mexico could be a target... they don't have any laws banning same sex marriage. Colorado could also transition to full marriage equality too. Same thing with Illinois.

  6. #106
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by GiancarloC View Post
    We really NEED Prop 8 thrown out. And I mean this year.
    Gavin Newsome expects the California legislature has the 2/3 vote to put it on the 2014 ballot, so there won't be any signature gathering necessary if things go ill.

    California having same sex marriage would be hugely symbolic and significant... a state with almost 40 million people
    Agree with you there. California is used as a persuasive authority in many cases around the country. With New York, it has preeminance in interstate common law.

    Also New Mexico could be a target... they don't have any laws banning same sex marriage. Colorado could also transition to full marriage equality too. Same thing with Illinois.
    We got the ball rolling in New Mexico now, actually yesterday I think a resolution was introduced to the Santa Fe Council that would advise clerks to issue marriage licenses. Any challenge will likely combined as a counterclaim in another case.

    Illinois is an open question, but you will find a lot of optimistic people talking about passage after spring break.

    I fully expect repeal in Colorado, Oregon, and Nevada in the next two-three years.

  7. #107
    Impish and Mercurial Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,679

    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

  8. #108
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    62,037

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Prop 8 is dead in the water,period.

  9. #109
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,607

    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.

  10. #110
    JubberClubber White Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Corpus Christi Tx
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Widower
    Posts
    10,849

    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.

  11. #111
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    62,037

    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.

  12. #112
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    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.
    Ohio and Michigan are initiated constitutional amendment states. Citizens can repeal it all by themselves, and some polls by PPP indicated they want to.

    But half of the country's population will remain without adequate rights for its citizens indefinitely.
    It will take longer in states with a higher proportion of white Evangelicals, the slowest demographic to improve on gay rights.

    Nonetheless, 23 states have initiated constitutional amendments, including Montana, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Arkansas, and even Mississippi. If citizens want it on the ballot, the legislature has no power to stop them in those states.


    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.
    If it is a different case, and different justices, they might. The gap between Bowers and Lawrence was 17 years though.

  13. #113
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    62,037

    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.

  14. #114
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninja108 View Post
    I'll say this though..rights of miniority should NEVER be put up to majority vote.
    They should never have to be put to a vote, but in some states we will have no choice.

    I would go further, and say that there are not many states left that are just legislative or state court fights, about seven actually (MN, IL, RI, DE, NJ, HI, NM). The other 34 have constitutional amendments or a conservative majority (PA, WY, WV, IN). To get even a majority of states, we would need 10 repeals. It's a tall order, but doable.

  15. #115
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    62,037

    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.

  16. #116
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninja108 View Post
    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.
    They might eventually. Those "slim margins" didn't exist even three years ago. The trend projected Nate Silver says by the end of the decade it will be an undeniable majority in all but six states, and we should be enjoying landslide victories at the ballot box by then. The international scene will be well established by 2020 as well. I think that is what Kennedy is looking for.

    By the way, here is a link to a neat little summary of the peripheral things going on: http://news.yahoo.com/however-court-...141747008.html

  17. #117
    Impish and Mercurial Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,679

    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

  18. #118
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    ^^^ I'm gonna keep mine for the 88 days until the decision deadline, unless another jurisdiction passes marriage equality. In that case, I usually post the flag or seal of that state or country.

  19. #119

    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

  20. #120
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    62,037

    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.

  21. #121
    JubberClubber White Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Corpus Christi Tx
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Widower
    Posts
    10,849

    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.

  22. #122
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by White Eagle View Post
    Is this a real cover or did someone just make it up. ya know photoshop.
    It's real. I went to the Time website but they have no issues in print right now.

  23. #123
    JUB Addict chrisrobin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    7,998

    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!

    Why should anyone have to know anything? - Sheldon Cooper

  24. #124
    GiancarloC
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by JockBoy87 View Post
    Gavin Newsome expects the California legislature has the 2/3 vote to put it on the 2014 ballot, so there won't be any signature gathering necessary if things go ill.
    I'm too impatient for that. I want it gone now... and I hope it is. The SCOTUS, as Rolyo has said, could simply refuse the case and it could be overturned on that alone. But I think they may overturn it in a narrow 5-4 decision. I think DOMA may be more 6-3. But we'll see.

    Agree with you there. California is used as a persuasive authority in many cases around the country. With New York, it has preeminance in interstate common law.
    That's why it is so important the Court overturns it as this state could be used as a pretense for other states to legalize it... in a certain legal context. It could also speed up the process in other states that are on the verge of getting it.

  25. #125
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by GiancarloC View Post
    I'm too impatient for that. I want it gone now... and I hope it is. The SCOTUS, as Rolyo has said, could simply refuse the case and it could be overturned on that alone. But I think they may overturn it in a narrow 5-4 decision. I think DOMA may be more 6-3. But we'll see.
    Couldn't agree with you more. I'm saying that there is no reason to dispair if we lose. Proposition 8 has no lifelines. There ought not even be a need for patience, but that is reality. There were no doubt 90 year old emancipated slaves at the end of the Civil War who remembered being disappointed when the Bill of Rights didn't ban slavery. In some respects, I am grateful for not having to really wait.

    That's why it is so important the Court overturns it as this state could be used as a pretense for other states to legalize it... in a certain legal context. It could also speed up the process in other states that are on the verge of getting it.
    How much influence do you think California has on Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona?

  26. #126
    Impish and Mercurial Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,679

    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

  27. #127
    GiancarloC
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by JockBoy87 View Post
    Couldn't agree with you more. I'm saying that there is no reason to dispair if we lose. Proposition 8 has no lifelines. There ought not even be a need for patience, but that is reality. There were no doubt 90 year old emancipated slaves at the end of the Civil War who remembered being disappointed when the Bill of Rights didn't ban slavery. In some respects, I am grateful for not having to really wait.
    I think we won't lose on that one. I think we'll get a narrow decision repealing both. The issue is it won't be sweeping. It won't overturn bans in all the other states. But I think California's time is now. We've waited long enough.

    How much influence do you think California has on Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona?
    Well it's a significant west coast state. BTW, Arizona... yeah... as long as Jan Brewer is around I'm not sure they'll get it. If California gets it, I think Oregon and Nevada could follow suit. Of course, Washington state beat us all to it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sa...age_in_USA.svg

    If we can shade California, Nevada and Oregon in dark blue (in this map) like Washington state (and DC for that matter), Iowa and the New England states that in itself will be significant.
    Last edited by GiancarloC; March 29th, 2013 at 01:21 AM.

  28. #128
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by GiancarloC View Post
    Well it's a significant west coast state. BTW, Arizona... yeah... as long as Jan Brewer is around I'm not sure they'll get it. If California gets it, I think Oregon and Nevada could follow suit. Of course, Washington state beat us all to it.
    Fortunately, 1) governors do not play a part in constitutional amendments, and 2) Arizona is an initiated constitutional amendment state. We can do it all by ourselves. I'm just wondering if California has any influence on Arizonans.

  29. #129
    GiancarloC
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by JockBoy87 View Post
    Fortunately, 1) governors do not play a part in constitutional amendments, and 2) Arizona is an initiated constitutional amendment state. We can do it all by ourselves. I'm just wondering if California has any influence on Arizonans.
    I don't think Arizona really likes us. I see it more likely in Nevada or Oregon than Arizona because of politics. It's not just their governor, but also their voting public.

  30. #130
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    62,037

    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.

  31. #131
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by GiancarloC View Post
    I don't think Arizona really likes us. I see it more likely in Nevada or Oregon than Arizona because of politics. It's not just their governor, but also their voting public.
    Gotcha.

    It's curious because Arizona is flanked by Democratic states.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninja108 View Post
    Before 2020,I have a feeling gay marriage will be legal in Nevada and Oregon.
    I would say by 2016. The RAN poll in February showed 54% support in Nevada, and the same in Oregon by PPP in December.

  32. #132
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    62,037

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

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

  33. #133
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninja108 View Post
    Nevada already has civil unions..just a matter of time I would say.
    They gotta get a repeal done. SJR 13 is in committee now. It will have to pass twice in order to make it on the ballot. Citizens' initiative can get it on the ballot too. I think the next general election would be a good time.

  34. #134
    GiancarloC
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by JockBoy87 View Post
    Gotcha.

    It's curious because Arizona is flanked by Democratic states.
    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.
    Last edited by GiancarloC; March 29th, 2013 at 02:43 PM.

  35. #135
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    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.
    The latest poll shows a dead heat. We have a ways to go, but not long.

    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 agree. Having domestic partnerships is a very good indicator for eventual support of marriage equality.

    Oregon and Nevada both have legally and materially equal domestic partnership laws, along with California and six civil union states.

  36. #136
    I love the way you laugh. Thynight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Gender
    Male
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    7,044

    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.
    ~~~~ ~~

  37. #137
    GiancarloC
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by Thynight View Post
    What is the difference between a civil union and domestic partnerships?
    I think domestic partnerships have even less rights than civil unions, but that's a good question. I'll need to investigate it fully and I'll get back to you.

    Either way, the most significant voice on the court said it well enough (well at least I view Ginsburg as one of the most important on that court)... gay couples are essentially getting skim milk "marriages". "Marriages" that aren't worth the paper they are printed on with DOMA still existing. This insightful analogy can also be said about civil unions and domestic partnerships.

  38. #138
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by Thynight View Post
    What is the difference between a civil union and domestic partnerships?
    There are two classes of domestic partnership, comprehensive and limited. Comprehensive domestic partnerships in three states are civil unions in all but name. Only one state left has a limited registry, Wisconsin. The name 'civil union' is supposed to be more dignified.

  39. #139
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    62,037

    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.

  40. #140
    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......

  41. #141
    GiancarloC
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    An interesting new poll:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...p_ref=politics

    While 46 percent of Virginians oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally here, 45 percent support the idea, according to a new poll sponsored by the University of Mary Washington's Center for Leadership and Media Studies. The result is a marked shift from a 2006 Virginia vote in which 57 percent supported the ban and 43 percent opposed it.

    ---

    The younger the person, the greater the support for same-sex marriage. Those aged 18-29 back same-sex marriage by 66 percent, followed by 30-44 year olds with 54 percent. Support drops off with people aged 45-64, with 56 percent in opposition, which swells to 65 percent among those 65 years or older.
    Virginia has a constitutional ban that was approved by voters. This shows a clear shift in support... Virginia I have always considered to be a more conservative despite being a swing state. Indeed, the urban centers are probably leading this shift in public opinion... the same urban centers that delivered Virginia to Obama in 2008 and 2012.
    Last edited by GiancarloC; March 31st, 2013 at 08:11 PM.

  42. #142
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by GiancarloC View Post
    An interesting new poll:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...p_ref=politics



    Virginia has a constitutional ban that was approved by voters. This shows a clear shift in support... Virginia I have always considered to be a more conservative despite being a swing state. Indeed, the urban centers are probably leading this shift in public opinion... the same urban centers that delivered Virginia to Obama in 2008 and 2012.
    Suburbs and exurbs of DC are swollen with long distance commuters seeking affordable housing. They have turned formerly conservative counties in Maryland liberal. Frederick county out west voted to approve Question 6 despite being flanked by two deeply Republican counties, because it has become an exurb of DC through I-270. Virginia seems to be going the same way, so that it might become a safe Democratic state some day.

  43. #143
    Likes cock.
    ChickenGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Brighton, England
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    5,133

    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?

  44. #144
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    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.
    I would agree, so long as access to marriage is not denied. Then everyone would have equal rights to get whatever partnership status they want.

    However, of people who reject the 'separate but equal' argument I find they are ignorant of what that actually means.

    So let me ask you these questions.

    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?

    It goes without saying that the civil unions I support would confer every and all rights that marriage does.
    You are going to run into people who do not know that civil unions are materially and legally equal.

    There are several cases in hospitals where the staff did not know that civil unions entitles couples to see each other. You would not get that problem with marriage, ever. It is an instantly recognizable and universal institution.

    That is why 'separate but equal' does not work. It is not that they aren't philosophically equal, it is that in all practicality, de facto inequality does exist in that situation.

  45. #145
    Likes cock.
    ChickenGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Brighton, England
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    5,133

    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.

  46. #146
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    62,037

    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.

  47. #147
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by ChickenGuy View Post
    Nothing about civil unions endorses gay segregation
    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.

  48. #148
    Likes cock.
    ChickenGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Brighton, England
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    5,133

    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.

  49. #149
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by ChickenGuy View Post
    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.
    It is a factual reflection of the state of affairs.

    The Supreme Court ruled emphatically seventy years ago that 'separate but equal' is inherently unequal.

    Separate but equal institutions are established to keep minorities from proverbially infecting the majority, and the very idea that the superior institution needs protecting reinforces the idea in society that there is something wrong with the minority. Hence, racism is a naggingly difficult problem to rid in the United States still to this day.

    Frankly, difficulty in getting conservatives to understand basic points like these explains their flogging in the recent election.

    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.
    If you recall in my original response, I said I agree with that point, but that civil union partners would still encounter problems in some of the most trying moments of life.

  50. #150
    Likes cock.
    ChickenGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Brighton, England
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    5,133

    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.

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.