↧
Shower with a friend
↧
Looking from the outside in
 |
| Eduardo Vega-Patiño |
↧
↧
Judges in three more states allow same-sex marriage
Same-sex marriage is now legal in 30 states which account for more than half of the population of the United States.
The latest addition to the bandwagon came yesterday when a federal judge in Alaska bowed to the inevitable.
The judge's decision was made inevitable because last week the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to marry was unconstitutionally discriminatory. Alaska is within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit, so as a matter of practice the judge had adhere to the appellate court's ruling.
The same principle applied when North Carolina and West Virginia entered the fold late last week.
Judicial dispositions are pending in five other states: Arizona, Montana, Wyoming, Kansas and South Carolina.
Barring the unexpected, the number of states where same-sex marriage is legal will rise to 35 shortly because of appellate courts' rulings.
On its face, the trend toward marriage equality in all 50 states seems within reach. The domino trend, some people say.
But wait. A caution flag must be raised.
Things could go right. But just as easily they could awry. Appeals are pending in two circuit courts, including the very conservative Fifth Circuit, which is reviewing a case that originated in Texas.
Let’s dive into the judicial thicket.
Why some marriages are now legal
First, remember that federal circuit courts rank one notch above district courts and one notch below the Supreme Court. They decide appeals involving questions of law. The federal judiciary has 11 regional circuit courts of appeal.
Three of them did not need to sign off on marriage equality because the states within their jurisdiction legalized same-sex marriage by legislation, by referendum or through the state courts.
Four circuit courts—the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth—ruled that states could not deny same-sex couples an opportunity to marry.
(State officials in Alaska and Idaho are balking at the Ninth Circuit's decision. They vow to seek an alternative judicial recourse (which outside of legal circles is known as "a Hail Mary pass") by pressing for a new review, this time by all of the appellate judges on the Ninth Circuit, not just by the three-judge panel that spoke on behalf of the circuit court.)
Four circuit courts remain. Two of them are reviewing appeals right now.
Two decisions are expected shortly
Last month the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on cases in the four states within its jurisdiction: Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. Buzzfeed reported that the court’s decision appears to rest in the hands of a single judge. Buzzfeed based its conclusion on the nature of the questions that the judges asked of the lawyers—pro and con—during the oral argument.
Judge Martha Craig Dougherty, who was nominated to the court by President Clinton, raised questions generally sympathetic to the side favoring same-sex marriage. Judge Deborah Cook, a nominee of President George W. Bush, had few questions but seemed to be interested in issues that favored the states' positions for banning same-sex marriage. That left Judge Jeffrey Sutton, another Bush nominee, in the middle. His questions were complex and multifaceted; they gave no clue as to how he would decide.
As for the Fifth Circuit, that's still a mystery. I tried last week to locate the names of the judges who will be hearing the Texas case but had no luck. Apparently that's the way things are done in the Fifth Circuit: No one knows in advance until the judges enter the courtroom.
Another complication is that the Fifth Circuit has acquired a stepchild—Louisiana—for its care. A federal district court judge nixed same-sex marriage in Louisiana one month ago but more recently a state court said marriage equality was fine by it. The litigation in Louisiana is more tangled than a Mississippi River bayou so it is probable that the Fifth Circuit will set aside the Louisiana case for now and concentrate on Texas’s.
Actions slow elsewhere
The final two circuit courts haven't begun the process of review. The Eleventh Circuit is getting an appeal from Florida, where a federal judge decided that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is unconstitutional. A ruling is months away. In the Eighth Circuit, nothing has happened. A district judge is reviewing a lawsuit challenging Missouri's ban on same-sex marriage but it will be quite awhile before the case is ripe for the Eighth Circuit's appellate review.
Nothing much has happened yet in North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska, all of which are in the Eighth Circuit. Likewise developments await in Georgia and Alabama (Eleventh Circuit). Any action in Mississippi will be governed by what the Fifth Circuit does in the Texas case.
What happens when courts disagree?
OK. We are at the important part now.
If all four remaining circuit courts fall in line with their brethren, then same-sex marriage ultimately will be recognized nationwide. For instance, when the Supreme Court on October 6 chose to allow same-sex marriages to proceed in five states, it did so because the circuit courts at the time were consistent in their views. The justices had no need to intervene because, at the time, there was no dispute.
Under the federal court system, there cannot be what is called a "split among the circuits." The federal judiciary cannot allow same-sex marriage in one part of the country while disallowing in another. If circuit courts reach opposite conclusions on an important matter of law (as same-sex marriage unquestionably is) then the final arbiter is the Supreme Court.
But if one of the circuit courts allows a state to ban same-sex marriage, then the entire question of marriage equality must be put to the Supreme Court for final resolution. An appeal filed this year could be reviewed during the court's current term. The justices would hand down their ruling by June 30, 2015.
![]()
On its face, the trend toward marriage equality in all 50 states seems within reach. The domino trend, some people say.
First, remember that federal circuit courts rank one notch above district courts and one notch below the Supreme Court. They decide appeals involving questions of law. The federal judiciary has 11 regional circuit courts of appeal.
(State officials in Alaska and Idaho are balking at the Ninth Circuit's decision. They vow to seek an alternative judicial recourse (which outside of legal circles is known as "a Hail Mary pass") by pressing for a new review, this time by all of the appellate judges on the Ninth Circuit, not just by the three-judge panel that spoke on behalf of the circuit court.)
Last month the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on cases in the four states within its jurisdiction: Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. Buzzfeed reported that the court’s decision appears to rest in the hands of a single judge. Buzzfeed based its conclusion on the nature of the questions that the judges asked of the lawyers—pro and con—during the oral argument.
Actions slow elsewhere
Nothing much has happened yet in North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska, all of which are in the Eighth Circuit. Likewise developments await in Georgia and Alabama (Eleventh Circuit). Any action in Mississippi will be governed by what the Fifth Circuit does in the Texas case.
What happens when courts disagree?
Under the federal court system, there cannot be what is called a "split among the circuits." The federal judiciary cannot allow same-sex marriage in one part of the country while disallowing in another. If circuit courts reach opposite conclusions on an important matter of law (as same-sex marriage unquestionably is) then the final arbiter is the Supreme Court.
But if one of the circuit courts allows a state to ban same-sex marriage, then the entire question of marriage equality must be put to the Supreme Court for final resolution. An appeal filed this year could be reviewed during the court's current term. The justices would hand down their ruling by June 30, 2015.
Were a case to reach the Supreme Court, the counting of the states ends. The counting of justices begins. Whether those numbers add up to a majority on the court is anyone’s guess.
↧
Bright lights
 |
| Kes 64 |
↧
Purely naked
 |
| Claudiu |
 |
| Tom Gayle |
 |
| "Eric on Red," by Light-Weaver |
 |
| Tobias |
 |
| Ricardo, by New Manhattan Studios |
↧
↧
In search of pleasure
↧
HGTV-approved rooms suitable for nude men
 |
| Model: Hugh Plummer |
 |
| Photo by Abajapa |
 |
| Reggio Emilia, Fotografia Europea, 2014 |
 |
| Model: Karel Rok |
↧
The reader
All photos by Milton Saint Malo ...
↧
Men of industry
 |
| Paolo Caracas |
 |
| "Steel Work," by Panding |
 |
| Chris, by Dan Ostergren |
 |
| Chris, by Dan Ostergren |
 |
| Eric East, by Rome Grant Photography |
 |
| Photo by Panding |
 |
| Photo by Manuel Moncayo, July 21, 2014 |
.jpg) |
| Anton Eksib |
 |
| Photo by Stephen Tobias |
 |
| Photo by Panding |
 |
| Eric East, by Rome Grant Photography |
↧
↧
Another glance at London's 2014 Naked Bike Ride
↧
Railroad men
 |
| Photo by Gary Larson, June 2014 |
 |
| Jake Isaac, by Chris A Freeman |
 |
| Thomas Carlyle, self-portrait |
 |
| Photo by Fedya Ili |
 |
| Tim, by Chuck Smith |
 |
| Piotr Sokul |
 |
| Photo by Michael Bidner |
 |
| Photo by Eduardo Bravin |
↧
Rainy days
↧
Plains but not plain
 |
| Raul Herra Gordillo |
 |
| Warwick Rowers, 2015 calendar; by Angus Malcolm |
 |
| Warwick Rowers, 2015 calendar; by Angus Malcolm |
 |
| Model: Anton |
 |
| Photo by Gary Larson, June 2014 |
↧
↧
Empty rooms
 |
| Walter Delmar, by David Wagner |
 |
| Photo by Matt Hopkins |
 |
| Photo by Abajapa |
 |
| Walter Delmar, by David Wagner |
 |
| Photo by Felix Deon |
↧
Naked men walking
 |
| San Bernadino National Forest, California |
 |
| Crimea |
 |
| Burning Man |
↧
Tight places
 |
| Photo by Vish Studio |
 |
| Photo by Robert Maplethorpe |
↧
Tans to die for
↧
↧
Big things come with small packages
It could be nervousness. Or a chill. Or nonchalance. Or maybe just a fact of nature. What does it matter?
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
From the Los Angeles Times of July 4, 2011:
"Penis length cannot be determined how big his hands or feet are—those and other supposed indicators have been widely discredited for years. But now a team of Korean researchers has produced what may be a more reliable guide: the ratio of the length of his index finger to that of his ring finger. The lower the ratio, the longer the penis may be, the researchers wrote in Monday in the Asian Journal of Andrology."
That's a novel idea.
It started with 144 men aged 20 or older who were about to have urology surgery. The doctors weren't thinking about penis length then.
Except for two of them. Med students, I'll bet.
The first researcher came up with the idea of comparing the lengths of the index and ring fingers on the right hand of the guys about to have surgery. That provided a ratio.
The second waited until the patient was anesthetized. Then the researcher measured the penis length when flaccid. Next he (or she; the story doesn't say) gave a nice tug on each penis to see how far it stretched. The ratios were jotted down.
The two researchers then examined their results. Voilà! The ratios of finger length and penis length correlated nicely.
"Although it may seem like the results are coming out of left field, they actually are not," the Times reported. "A variety of studies suggest that the ratio of the two finger lengths is determined by prenatal exposure to sex hormones, both testosterone and estrogen. It is not unreasonable to assume that penis length might also be."
This study also has a moral for men: Don't get anesthetized unless you're cool with med students playing with your willy.
↧
Tan lines
Hot, sunny days have yielded to the chill and clouds of autumn. The beautiful tans we acquiring in the summer of soon will resemble the pale skin of those other guys who had concealed themselves with swimsuits.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
 |
| Photo by Ron Amato |
↧
Deep in the woods
 |
| Photo by Abajapa |
 |
| Photo by Luces de Bengala |
 |
| Ivan and Samuel, by Jean Baptiste Huong |
 |
| Photo by Alwaysanovice |
 |
| Photo by Manuel Moncayo |
 |
| Raoni, September 2014, by Manuel Moncayo |
 |
| Photo by Manuel Moncayo, 2014 |
 |
| Photo by Abajapa |
↧