The homophobic thread :>

[O Really]

Commentary from people who know what they're talking about...

Law360, New York (October 06, 2014, 6:46 PM ET) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear seven petitions seeking review of lower court rulings striking down same-sex marriage bans in five states, preserving decisions that effectively rendered gay marriage legal in Indiana, Wisconsin, Utah, Virginia and Oklahoma. Here, attorneys tell Law360 why the Supreme Court denials are significant.

Hunter Carter, Arent Fox LLP
“Thanks to the Supreme Court's latest ruling now there will be marriage equality in 30 states. But that means 20 more are missing, and we are filing briefs on behalf of clients in federal appeals courts in the 5th and 6th circuits. Five states are directly affected by today’s ruling and six more are bound by the precedents involved. Expect marriage applications from same-sex couples immediately in those states, where officials would violate federal precedent to deny them. Our clients — policemen, firefighters, paramedics and other first responders — are uniquely affected by laws denying marriage equality to same-sex couples. While they risk their lives for the public safety, these laws deny them the status and respect afforded by state-recognized marriage, harming their children, and fostering discrimination and disunity in their units.”
Jon W. Davidson, Lambda Legal
“This is historic — the Supreme Court has chosen not to stand in the way of love. It’s important not only because we have added five more states where same-sex couples can marry, but also because it will have an impact on the other states in those circuits. Courts with pending cases in the Fourth, Seventh, and Tenth circuits should quickly issues orders allowing same-sex couples to marry there, as they are bound by the rulings of those federal courts of appeal. That means same-sex couples in Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming who want to marry should be able to soon start to plan their weddings as well.”
Sean Gallagher, Polsinelli PC, filed amicus briefs in certain circuit court cases


“This is one instance in which the high court’s inaction is going to have a major ripple effect. Many of the court decisions addressed today had been stayed pending a decision on certiorari by the Supreme Court. Now that the court has denied certiorari, those stays will presumably be lifted and same-sex marriages can commence. But the ripple effect is going to be even broader than that. Colorado was not one of the states directly affected by the decision today, but the Colorado Supreme Court had stayed implementation of a state court decision invalidating Colorado’s ban, pending a final determination of the two Tenth Circuit cases, Kitchen and Bishop. Now that the court has denied certiorari in those two cases, the Colorado Supreme Court will presumably lift its stay on the state court decisions. The floodgates will now open.”
Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, Ropes & Gray LLP
“The decision not to grant cert. in the same-sex marriage cases indicates that the Windsor dissenters wanted to avoid the perception (perhaps especially by Justice [Anthony] Kennedy) that they were rushing to get the question before the Supreme Court when the traditional criteria for granting certiorari such as a circuit conflict were not met. But by allowing the appellate decisions to stand, and stays to be lifted, the denial of cert. will further cement marriage equality across the country. For the same reason the court previously granted stays, it may be reluctant later to undo couples’ existing marriages.”
Misha Isaak, Perkins Coie LLP
“Before today, all federal court decisions striking down state marriage bans had been stayed except two: in Oregon and Pennsylvania, where defendants did not appeal. Conventional wisdom was that the Supreme Court had blocked implementation of every other case to preserve its ability to decide the constitutional issue before the issue was effectively resolved by “facts on the ground” — the reality of tens of thousands of loving, committed same-sex couples exchanging vows across the county. Today’s decision allowing marriages to go forward reflects a recognition that this issue is now all but settled.”
B. David Joffe, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
“The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari with respect to the circuit court decisions that had struck down bans on same-sex marriage in Indiana, Wisconsin, Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia is a victory for proponents of same-sex marriage. These states and others in the same circuits (Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming) will now have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. It remains to be seen, however, whether the Supreme Court will later accept a case involving a split among the circuit courts. Until it does, the patchwork of state laws on same-sex marriage will remain in place.”
Marilea Lewis, Godwin Lewis PC
"In my opinion the significance of the court declining to hear these cases is to allow each state to determine whether or not to allow same-sex marriage. Since there is currently no conflict in the circuit courts, the Supreme Court does not have to make the final decision. However, should there become a conflict between the circuit courts' decisions, the court may grant certiorari to resolve the issue and provide binding authority."
Laura Maechtlen, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
“Based on this patchwork of state laws relating to relationship recognition for same-sex couples, the Supreme Court’s refusal to review these cases has far-reaching effects on the employment relationship. Employers in each of the states impacted should be aware that laws impacting marriage will — in turn — impact a variety of issues including provision of employee benefits, retirement plans, health and welfare plans, leave entitlement, among other issues. Because same-sex marriages and/or same-sex relationships are recognized under a growing number of states' laws (but not others), multi-state employers continue to be faced with a non-uniform mixture of state and federal law that impacts their provision of benefits and employment protections. Accordingly, employers in jurisdictions impacted by the change in law should undertake a review of their offered employee benefit plans, including a review of the definition of ‘spouse’ in plan documents. They should also reevaluate their own internal policies and training materials to ensure that they adequately address new employee leave rights, and application of existing law protecting employees based on marital status.”
Susan Baker Manning, Bingham McCutchen LLP, filed amicus brief in the Fourth and Tenth circuit cases
“The Supreme Court is signaling an incremental and cautious approach to this issue, but that doesn’t change the clear momentum. The immediate practical impact of the decision is that almost half of the states now have marriage equality. Given the case law, there is every reason to think all of the states will soon allow same-sex couples to wed, which is good for our society, our businesses and our place in the world. If that does not happen, the prospect for the Supreme Court stepping in to ensure equal access to marriage seems quite high.”
Michael P. Maslanka, Constangy Brooks & Smith LLP
"The message from SCOTUS: we will let gay marriage become the social norm and not intervene now, or ever. A very pragmatic decision by the Roberts court. Likely, the Chief Justice does not want his legacy to be the adoption of gay marriage. Even if an appeals court rules against gay marriage, creating a split in the circuits, there is almost zero chance the court would accept the issue for review and invalidate gay marriage. It would mean that tens of thousands of marriages would be retroactively invalidated. As I mentioned, this is a pragmatic court. The fight against gay marriage went out yesterday with a whimper, not a bang."
Virginia E. McGarrity, Robinson & Cole LLP
“By rejecting appeals in these cases, the Supreme Court effectively made same-sex marriage legal in five additional states but stopped short of resolving the question on a nationwide basis. Unfortunately, this prolongs the disparate federal and state tax treatment between legally married same- and opposite-sex couples in the rest of the country. With no ruling on the issue, we expect litigation to continue in states with same-sex marriage bans.”
Nicholas M. O’Donnell, Sullivan & Worcester LLP
“The decision dissolves the stay of the various orders striking down the laws that prohibited same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriages can now commence in those states immediately. More broadly, it raises the question of when, if ever, the Supreme Court will hear such cases. The Courts of Appeal have been unanimous thus far, and it is conceivable that there will not be a split among the circuits. Without that split, and having passed on the opportunity today to address the issue, it is entirely possible that the court will stay out of the issue. That would be a surprise.”
Michelle May O'Neil, Godwin Lewis PC
"The Supreme Court's refusal to hear these cases underscores the hints we have been hearing from Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsberg for a couple of weeks. She has indicated that as long as the courts of appeals are in agreement and without a conflict between the courts of appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court would not take up the issue. Thus far, the courts of appeals have been congruent in striking down the laws banning recognition of same-sex marriages. When there is a conflict between the courts of appeals, it will give rise to ‘conflict jurisdiction’ which will give the U.S. Supreme Court the legal basis to have jurisdiction to take up the issue. Unfortunately, that may not be during this term unless one of the courts of appeals gets on a fast-track."
Mark Phillis, Littler Mendelson PC
“While advocates on both sides of the issue are disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear any of these cases, the court’s decision extends marriage equality to couples in these five states and creates binding precedent that likely will extend it to six other states in the Fourth, Seventh and Tenth circuits. With approximately 60 percent of the country’s population now living in states that recognize marriage equality, even though the court did not agree to finally resolve the issue, it provided additional clarity for employers in dealing with employees in same-sex marriages.”
Sanford Jay Rosen, Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP
"Hopefully, the circuits yet to be heard from will create no conflicts among the circuits and the Supreme Court will remain out of the fray until it can no longer stop the tide of marriage equality."
Chad Ruback, Appellate Lawyer
“By declining to grant review on all seven of the pending petitions involving same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court is allowing the circuit courts of appeals to decide the issue on a circuit-by-circuit basis for the time being. Thus far, the issue has been decided by three circuits, and all have ruled that it is unconstitutional for states to prohibit same-sex marriage. If one of the remaining eight circuits that have jurisdiction over the issue rules that such a ban is constitutional, it is quite likely that the Supreme Court will grant review to resolve the conflict between the circuits.”
Nonnie Shivers, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC
“Same-sex marriages will begin or resume as early as today in all states within the Fourth, Seventh and Tenth circuits. Employers face the challenge of determining who amongst their employees is legally married for purposes of myriad company, state and federal benefits and ensuring compliance despite daily changes in the law. While today’s decision is not surprising given Justice Ginsburg’s recent remarks that the court felt no urgency to act unless a split emerged in the Circuit Courts — watch the Sixth Circuit — it seems very unlikely the court will reverse course in the future to retroactively invalidate same-sex marriages.”

Charles S. Sims, Proskauer Rose LLP
“The court’s decision to pass on all seven gay marriage decisions before it makes sense only on the assumption that the four dissenters from the Windsor case two terms ago concluded that they would certainly lose again, by at least a 5-4 result, if the issue were before the court this term. The decision is thus extremely good news for those fighting in the remaining states where gay marriage bans are in effect.”
Paul M. Smith, Jenner & Block LLP
“It was surprising to see the court deny review in all the pending marriage cases after it had stayed several of the decisions, preventing them from going into effect. One conclusion has to be that the four justices who dissented in Windsor, and were always viewed as likely to dissent from a marriage equality victory, don’t think they have a fifth vote. And the rest of the court was happy to let the issue continue to be addressed in the lower courts, seeing no reason to rush to a nationwide decision. Put differently, given the irreversibility of all the marriages the court just allowed to start happening, it seems very likely the court knows it would vote for marriage equality if the issue is ever squarely presented in a case but there were not four justices who saw a good reason to reach the issue right now.”
Nancy R. Van Tine, Burns & Levinson LLP
“SCOTUS' denial of certiorari for gay marriage cases is fascinating. It means, among other things, that SCOTUS doesn’t care about the political heat and theater surrounding gay marriage. Justice Ginsberg had indicated in recent remarks that she felt the Supreme Court would not view the matter as urgent unless, and until, there was a divergence in the lower Federal circuit courts. Right now the decisions from three federal appeals courts are being upheld. All of these courts legalized same-sex marriage. Now it looks as if there will have to be a case in which a federal circuit disagrees with these decisions before SCOTUS weighs in.”
Peter G. Verniero, Sills Cummis & Gross PC


“The immediate significance of today’s action by the U.S. Supreme Court is that the lower appellate court decisions in the various circuits remain in place. Rejection of a petition for certiorari is not a decision on the merits by the high court. Whether the court grants future petitions, assuming they are filed, might depend on whether a split develops among the lower appellate courts. For now, the high court appears satisfied in allowing the various circuit courts to rule without the high court’s intervention.”
Jon Yarbrough, Constangy Brooks & Smith LLP
"Right now it's somewhat limited effect on labor and employment issues given recent developments. We already have Executive Order 13672 amending EO11246, making it illegal for federal contractors to discriminate on basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. [The Department of Labor] for Employee Retirement Income Security Act issues and [Internal Revenue Service] for employment taxes take the position that the place of celebration controls for same-sex marriage issues under benefit and tax laws. So, if someone married in a state where same-sex marriage is legal but lives/works in a state where it is not, they can cover spouse under benefits plans or claim refunds of overpayment of employment taxes. This is due to SCOTUS's Windsor decision. DOL for Family and Medical Leave Act purposes uses place of residence to determine if a spouse can take time off for their spouse under the FMLA. If SCOTUS had accepted the cases and ruled bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, then same-sex spouses could take time off under the FMLA for the serious health condition of their spouse regardless of residence. However, DOL has proposed a place of celebration rule under FMLA that would operate to provide same-sex couples time off under FMLA if married in a state where such is legal. Also, [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] filed its first transgender cases and will likely prevail. In general, the movement is toward more acceptance of same-sex marriage by employers and states and toward more inclusion and addressing of LGBT issues in the workplace."

[indago]

It's adorable that indago now joins Mr.B in fantasizing about my orientation. Clearly, they both desperately want to have intercourse with gays, nttawwt.

You are obviously on some kind of hallucinogen...

[Mr.B]

"This is historic — the Supreme Court has chosen not to stand in the way of love."

Opps! they got it all wrong...it should have read "“This is historic — the Supreme Court has chosen not to stand in the way of perverted lust."

"There you go fantasizing about the gay sex act again....Are you ashamed of your obsession with the gay sex act?"

I said nothing of the sort about "gay" sex, dumass; I spoke of homosexuals and "gays".......that is what this thread is about, isn't it?

If O Really, Banni, neoplacebo, or anyone else posts a comment, does that make them "obsessed with gay sex"?
Your obsession with blaming others for your love of perverted sex is overloading your brain....what's left of it, that is.

"Not getting enough from Mrs.B?"

What I get from Mrs.B is love, not pure, evil, unnatural, filthy lust...otherwise, it's none of your business; or more aptly put from your highly sophisticated mind: NOYFB.

[Mr.B]

"It's adorable that indago now joins Mr.B in fantasizing about my orientation. Clearly, they both desperately want to have intercourse with gays..."

In your book, anyone who responds to your post is fantasizing about you. Grow up.

As far as having intercourse with you, no thanks.

[indago]

"It's adorable that indago now joins Mr.B in fantasizing about my orientation. Clearly, they both desperately want to have intercourse with gays..."

In your book, anyone who responds to your post is fantasizing about you. Grow up.

As far as having intercourse with you, no thanks.

Well, he might enjoy "takin' it in the ass", but not from me...

[indago]

Tick-tock, the chime is about to peal and America will greet a new and slightly sunnier day.

Like a plague, sweeping across the country...

Yes, a PESTILENCE



Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse


WAR — FAMINE — PESTILENCE — DEATH

[O Really]

Wait - why is Pestilence carrying the scale - typically a symbol for a lawyer?

[Mr.B]

"Wait - why is Pestilence carrying the scale - typically a symbol for a lawyer?"

Maybe it has something to do with ensuring even weight distribution on a bus, in case.........?

[Mr.B]

"My parents were your fucking business?"

All I said, concerning your parents, was that when you were growing up, they didn't beat your ass (discipline you) enough when you needed it.
You got all unhinged over that, just like a typical spoiled brat would.

[O Really]

So the old guy in the white suit is Pestilence,and the lawyer is Famine? Penalties of excessive billing, I guess.

[O Really]

Too confusing. I'll check with the character list for "Sleepy Hollow." http://www.fox.com/sleepy-hollow/

[indago]

So the old guy in the white suit is Pestilence...

indago kinda screwed that up, too.

I never intended that the listing that I made be in the order of appearance; they are listed in a more poetic style.


White Horse: Pestilence
Red Horse: War
Black Horse: Famine
Grey Horse: Death

[Mr.B]

"My parents are dead so they can't care but you've chosen to make Mrs.B a victim.........You lie, again."

No...YOU chose to make my wife the victim because you didn't know my parents' status (they're dead as well) , so since you couldn't hack being called 'undisciplined', you accuse me of "attacking" your parents, and you unleashed on my wife. Grow up.

[neoplacebo]

My parents are both dead, too, and they would both be against homosexual marriage. And I pride myself on being undisciplined; it's what I do most of the time. In fact, I recommend it. I'm for equal rights and equal and unanimous undisciplined behavior as needed.

[indago]

WAR — FAMINE — PESTILENCE — DEATH

You see, first there is WAR, then comes a FAMINE, then the PESTILENCE, and then the finality of DEATH.



"It's true; I seen it on the internet!"

[O Really]

But death is not final to the religious, right? So wouldn't the Death guy be a hero instead of a villain? Especially after you had already dealt with his colleagues?

[Mr.B]

"You opened the door you built and you know exactly how to close it. My parents are dead so they can't care but you've chosen to make Mrs.B a victim, just like a typical spoiled brat would. Either way is fine with me."

When I called you undisciplined, it was not my intent to diss your parents, rather to ridicule you for your condescending nature. You have no people skills, i.e., in interacting with others. You take the slightest jab at you personal, accusing others of obsessing with you, fantasizing about you, and in so many words, desiring to be you, and then twisting their words and opinions in a manner that makes you appear to be superior and them small.

I will apologize for even mentioning your parents, maybe they aren't to blame for the way you turned out. Own that; is that fine with you?

[Mr.B]

Reply moved to the Religion Thread

[O Really]

15..And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.[/i]
Revelation 20:11-15

So one could say after the first death, those called up are zombies, and those who fail the judging are tossed into the lake of fire. But I'd guess it isn't a literal "lake of fire" since by the time the judging takes place, they've already left the physical plane and wouldn't be affected by a physical fire. You probably can't really burn a spirit.

[Mr.B]

If that's your interpretation.....