JustUsBoys.com gay porn forum

logo

remove these banner ads by becoming a JUB Supporter.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345 LastLast
Results 151 to 200 of 241
  1. #151
    The Boy Next Door LuvFindsAndyHardy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Boston
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    4,076

    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.

  2. #152
    GiancarloC
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    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...
    Last edited by GiancarloC; April 1st, 2013 at 04:13 AM.

  3. #153
    Porn Star Love me 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Tucson
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    359

    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.

  4. #154
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Beware the deepity.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    16,727
    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.
    Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

  5. #155
    loki81
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    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.

  6. #156
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Beware the deepity.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    16,727
    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?
    Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

  7. #157
    loki81
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    Does it not seem odd to you that governments should abandon a perfectly legitimate word?
    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.

  8. #158
    Likes cock.
    ChickenGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Brighton, England
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    5,241

    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.


  9. #159
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Beware the deepity.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    16,727
    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.
    Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

  10. #160
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Beware the deepity.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    16,727
    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.
    Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

  11. #161
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by ChickenGuy View Post

    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.
    I do not confer the same dignity or weight to civil unions, and many others do not as well.

  12. #162
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Beware the deepity.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    16,727
    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.
    Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

  13. #163
    GiancarloC
    Guest

    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.
    Where did I ever claim government is forcing or should force a religious institution to perform gay marriages? Point it out. I'll be waiting!
    Last edited by GiancarloC; April 1st, 2013 at 10:58 AM.

  14. #164
    GiancarloC
    Guest

    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.
    Absolutely wrong. They cannot work and they are NOT the same. Separate yet equal is not equal. And before accusing me of watching too much American media, realize that phrase came from a court decision regarding equal protection. Civil unions are not the same and never will be the same.

    Same sex marriage works better. And several European countries are doing this... as are some other countries. Civil unions are NEVER the same, no matter how much one tries to make it the same. It's perfectly fine you want to be a second class citizen that gets a double standard, but I don't want to live that way and I have all the right to say that... I also have a right to disagree with your opinion.

    I don't want both options. It's either marriage or nothing.

    Your argument has messed up big time. It assumes that marriage is a religious institution when it's clearly not. Churches perform weddings, not marriages.

    By the way, I can assure MOST gay people want same sex marriages, and not civil unions.
    Last edited by GiancarloC; April 1st, 2013 at 10:56 AM.

  15. #165
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    I don't even think 100 people have signed up for a civil union in Rhode Island. ^^^

  16. #166
    RazorzEdge88
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    People not from America don't understand what we've learned here: separate but equal is not equal.

    Maybe civil partnerships have proven adequate in the UK, but in the United States it's second-class status, end of story.

  17. #167
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    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.

  18. #168
    Porn Star Love me 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Tucson
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    359

    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.

  19. #169
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by Love me 2 View Post
    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.
    The lowest divorce rates in the country actually correlate with states that have marriage equality.

    All 15 states with an annual divorce rate over 1.1% have constitutional bans on same sex marriage, except Vermont.

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/wp-con...women-2009.png

  20. #170
    GiancarloC
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by RazorzEdge88 View Post
    People not from America don't understand what we've learned here: separate but equal is not equal.

    Maybe civil partnerships have proven adequate in the UK, but in the United States it's second-class status, end of story.
    This begs the question certainly... if people are happy with civil partnerships in the UK, why is there a push for same sex marriage in the UK?

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/05/world/...-marriage-vote

    If domestic partnerships/civil unions are so equal, why the push for a gay marriage vote? Perhaps it's not so equal in the UK either. This looks bound to happen... even with Cameron in power.

  21. #171
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by GiancarloC View Post

    If domestic partnerships/civil unions are so equal, why the push for a gay marriage vote? Perhaps it's not so equal in the UK either. This looks bound to happen... even with Cameron in power.
    They haven't even scheduled a third reading vote yet, and the undemocratic Lords will make it as painful as possible.

  22. #172
    The Boy Next Door LuvFindsAndyHardy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Boston
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    4,076

    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.

  23. #173
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    63,400

    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.

  24. #174
    RazorzEdge88
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by GiancarloC View Post
    This begs the question certainly... if people are happy with civil partnerships in the UK, why is there a push for same sex marriage in the UK?
    Oh god, do you have to argue about EVERYTHING? I just threw that in there as a qualifier because I don't know anything about how civil partnerships have worked in the UK, and I wanted to contrast their situation to ours, which is having a need for elimination of anything supposedly "separate but equal" given our history and present.

  25. #175
    RazorzEdge88
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninja108 View Post
    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.
    Exactly. It could truly take multiple generations in these southern states. Even a change in public opinion wouldn't be enough, as the Republicans starting to have throttle-holds in their state governments would thwart equality for a long time.

  26. #176
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninja108 View Post
    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.
    I estimate that there are only 17 states that will not be feasible without major changes in the GOP.

  27. #177
    GiancarloC
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by RazorzEdge88 View Post
    Oh god, do you have to argue about EVERYTHING? I just threw that in there as a qualifier because I don't know anything about how civil partnerships have worked in the UK, and I wanted to contrast their situation to ours, which is having a need for elimination of anything supposedly "separate but equal" given our history and present.
    I was actually agreeing with you, and disagreeing with the other poster. I should have made that clear.

  28. #178
    RazorzEdge88
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    My bad. I liked what bankside said to him, which is that if the word marriage is such a big deal, then that's all the more reason gay couples should have equal access to it.

    But really, I don't get the big freak-out over the term marriage, just because the term has some sort of supposed baggage attached. If one is willing to get a civil partnership, marriage shouldn't be much worse. Letting a word scare you like that and make you feel so trapped in a relationship seems like letting society dictate the terms of your own life.

  29. #179
    GiancarloC
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Well... best to keep it all the same. Marriage in the eyes of government. IF one wants to do a wedding in a religious institution that's their own thing. I think it's all about equality. If a gay couple wants to get married, they should have that right. I'm in a relationship but am not ready for marriage, but if a same sex couple couple feels that they are ready they should have that ability.

  30. #180
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by RazorzEdge88 View Post
    But really, I don't get the big freak-out over the term marriage, just because the term has some sort of supposed baggage attached.
    While you can decide for yourself, you cannot force people to change how they understand terms.

    Letting a word scare you like that and make you feel so trapped in a relationship seems like letting society dictate the terms of your own life.
    If you live in society, you do live under its terms, whether you like it or not.

  31. #181
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    63,400

    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.

  32. #182
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninja108 View Post
    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.
    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.

  33. #183
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    63,400

    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.

  34. #184
    RazorzEdge88
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Unfortunately, Walker is still ahead in polls and his approval rating is just high enough. He'd never sign marriage equality legislation.

  35. #185
    GiancarloC
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Wisconsin is a red state? I believe Obama won that state by 7% in 2012, and an even greater 14% in 2008. Kerry won it narrowly in 2004 (by less than 1%), as did Al Gore in 2000. Wisconsin was seen as a swing state, but that is no longer and it hasn't been in the last two elections. As far as socially, it's probably a tad bit more conservative than say Illinois.

    In fact looking it up the last republican to carry Wisconsin was Ronald Reagan in 1984. Even Dukakis won it in 88.

    It just sounds like there is a disconnect between local and national politics in the state... and douchebags end up getting elected to state wide offices. They'll come around. But I'm more focused on other states... like Illinois and California right now.
    Last edited by GiancarloC; April 1st, 2013 at 09:02 PM.

  36. #186
    Rambunctiously Pugnacious JayHawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    River Quay - KC
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    24,238

    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.


  37. #187
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Beware the deepity.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    16,727
    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...
    Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

  38. #188
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Equality Cases

    Quote Originally Posted by RazorzEdge88 View Post
    Unfortunately, Walker is still ahead in polls and his approval rating is just high enough. He'd never sign marriage equality legislation.
    Wisconsin would have to repeal its constitutional amendment, which does involve the governor.


    Quote Originally Posted by GiancarloC View Post
    Wisconsin is a red state? I believe Obama won that state by 7% in 2012, and an even greater 14% in 2008. Kerry won it narrowly in 2004 (by less than 1%), as did Al Gore in 2000. Wisconsin was seen as a swing state, but that is no longer and it hasn't been in the last two elections. As far as socially, it's probably a tad bit more conservative than say Illinois.
    Unfortunately, electors do not pass laws in the state of Wisconsin, or any other state. The lawmaking body, however, is Republican right now.

    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.
    Opinion is growing in Missouri. Slowly, I'll grant you, but growing nonetheless.

    Opposition has gone from 71% in 2004 to 52% today, with 12% undecided. Again, the legislature is not needed in Missouri.

    Kansas citizens, however, cannot place an amendment on the ballot.

  39. #189
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    63,400

    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. #190
    JubberClubber White Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Corpus Christi Tx
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Widower
    Posts
    10,855

    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. #191
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,924

    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. #192
    JubberClubber White Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Corpus Christi Tx
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Widower
    Posts
    10,855

    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. #193
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    63,400

    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. #194
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    63,400

    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. #195

    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. #196
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    63,400

    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. #197
    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
    103,993
    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. #198
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    63,400

    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. #199
    Sex God AstareGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Vancouver
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Dating
    Posts
    654

    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. #200
    Virtus in medio stat JUB Admin opinterph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Jawja
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    21,724
    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.