WIN: a trip for two to Vienna for the Eurovision Song Contest with the Gay Star Travel Expo – details revealed…

WIN: a trip for two to Vienna for the Eurovision Song Contest with the Gay Star Travel Expo – details revealed…

To be in with a chance of winning, register your attendance at the Expo (taking place at London’s Heaven nightclub on 17 Jan)

read more

jamiet

www.gaystarnews.com/article/win-trip-two-vienna-eurovision-song-contest-gay-star-travel-expo-%E2%80%93-details-revealed090115

SCOTUS to Consider 6th Circuit Marriage Equality Cases: What To Watch For

SCOTUS to Consider 6th Circuit Marriage Equality Cases: What To Watch For

Scotus

BY ARI EZRA WALDMAN

Today, the Supreme Court is meeting in private to decide what cases on its docket it will hear.

Among the many cases on the docket are a handful of marriage equality cases out of Tennessee, Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Louisiana. The first four of those states are under the jurisdiction of the Sixth Circuit, which, in November, became the first federal appellate court in the post-Windsor era to uphold the constitutionality of state bans on the freedom to marry. As I have argued, that opinion was not just wrong on the law, it was an abdication of the judicial role. The case out of Louisiana is there because a district court judge upheld that state’s ban in a decision that doesn’t even pass the laugh test. Both parties to the case decided to skip over an appellate court decision and go right to the Supreme Court.

The requests before it are called “petitions for a writ of certiorari,” or, literally, a request for an order from a higher court (SCOTUS) to review a lower court (intermediate appellate court) decision. The petitions look like, sound like, and are sometimes as long as regular substantive briefs, and they make many of the substantive arguments the parties will make at trial. A minimum of 4 justices are required to grant a writ. Granting the writ does not say anything about how the Court will decide: a justice can vote to hear a case because he or she agrees or disagrees with the decision below. Also, bear in mind that there are many cases on the Court’s docket; the justices do not always get to all of them. If we don’t hear immediately about an order granting a hearing, do not fret. It may mean that there were too many cases to consider in one meeting.

Notably, the Court rarely takes cases. In 2012, there were 8,806 cases on its docket. It granted review in 93 of them. That comes out to almost exactly 1% of cases.

Many considerations go into a decision to hear a case. Circuit splits and confusion in the law weigh heavily on the Court, but any law professor and practitioner will tell you that the Supreme Court does not always do a good job clarifying the law. The Court’s recent decision in ABC v. Aereo, which concerned the online streaming television company, is a good example of a decision that did not really clarify much of anything. Some scholars think Windsor falls into that category.

In any event, the Supreme Court takes cases when it wants to and it rarely, if ever, explains its reasoning for a grant or a denial. Court watchers and insiders have written books about the process. But none of them are in the room; only the justices are there. The bottom line is the Supreme Court has almost limitless leeway in determining its docket.

CONTINUED, AFTER THE JUMP

Granting or denying a hearing is, at times, much more a strategic decision than a substantive one. According to several biographies of former Supreme Court justices, including ones on master tacticians like Justice William J. Brennan, Chief Justice Earl Warren, and Justice Felix Frankfurter, justices have reasons to decline to hear cases they really want to hear if they are worried they can’t get a majority on their side. The strategy to wait is based, of course, on the expectation that the make up of the Court would change in your favor, which does not always happen. Felix Frankfurter found himself on both sides of that coin at different points in his tenure.

However, there is reason to believe that seven justices would be willing to grant a hearing in the marriage equality cases.

GinsburgJustices Ginsburg has indicated her willingness to move forward. I expect Justices Sotomayor and Kagan to follow suit.

Justice Breyer is a bit of a wild card on the Court, a consumate moderate if there ever was one. His jurisprudence has made clear that he finds the kind of discrimination at issue in marriage equality cases more than distasteful, and he dislikes confusion in the law and circuit splits.

Those four justices are enough.

Justice Kennedy, who is a staunch ally of gay equality, might see this case as the culmination of a long career. Despite a very conservative voting record in other areas of law, his gay marriage decisions have lionized him among the left. He wants this case and he probably wants to write the decision.

That’s five.

Chief Justice Roberts is a strategic thinker. He might not want his Court remembered for ducking the largest civil rights question of its time. He voted to deny a stay in the Florida marriage case, as well.

Justice Alito, although almost certainly an anti-equality vote on the merits — if you have any doubt, just take a look at his decision in Hobby Lobby or his dissent in Windsor — may vote either way to grant or deny. Alito is no originalist; if anything, he’s a conservative maximalist, original document be damned.

The only justices I can see definitely denying review are Justices Scalia and Thomas. As I have argued before, these conservative jurists probably realize that their bigotry cannot win the day at the current Supreme Court. As conservatives and originalists, the last thing they want is to have a Supreme Court decision enshrining what Scalia has derisively called “a right to gay marriage” into the Constitution. Better, they might think, that the Supreme Court stays out of it because any decision would serve as a progressive precedent.

So, what happens next? If the Court grants a hearing, an order will be issued as soon as possible on the next business day. It will usually set a briefing schedule and a hearing date. With briefs likely due over the course of the next 2 months, the Court would be able to hear the cases in March. That would place a decision ready for release at the end of the term, that is, on the anniversary of the decision in Lawrence v. Texas and Windsor.

***

Follow me on Twitter and on Facebook.

Ari Ezra Waldman is a professor of law and the Director of the Institute for Information Law and Policy at New York Law School and is concurrently getting his PhD at Columbia University in New York City. He is a 2002 graduate of Harvard College and a 2005 graduate of Harvard Law School. Ari writes weekly posts on law and various LGBT issues.


Ari Ezra Waldman

www.towleroad.com/2015/01/scotus1.html

Are Hookup Apps Fueling A Spike In Sexually Transmitted Diseases?

Are Hookup Apps Fueling A Spike In Sexually Transmitted Diseases?
More gay men in the U.S. and abroad are testing positive for certain STDS, and sites like Grindr are catching the heat.

This week, British public health officials set off a flurry of headlines after blaming the rising rates of syphilis and gonorrhea in the United Kingdom on apps that allow people to find prospective partners as easily as takeout pad thai.

“Thanks to Grindr or Tinder, you can acquire chlamydia in five minutes,” said Peter Greenhouse, spokesman for the British Association for Sexual Health and HIV, according to the Daily Mail.

According to the CDC, syphilis in the U.S. “remains a major health problem, with increased cases occurring among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men.” For gonorrhea, current rates of infection point to more gay and bisexual men contracting the disease or becoming aware of their status, the CDC says.

New apps have made casual hookups easier. But some sexual health experts say the reasons for the jump in STD infections are more complex, and it makes more sense for public health officials to embrace these online tools as an outreach method than to point fingers.

In an interview with The Huffington Post, Greenhouse pointed to a study published last summer by the peer-reviewed journal “Sexually Transmitted Infections.” It shows that gay men who use apps with geographic networking have a greater chance of testing positive for gonorrhea and chlamydia, compared with men who pick up dates at bars or on hookup websites.

“If you can find somebody who is within a couple of yards, then you’re bound to be able to meet them quicker,” he said.

But the people behind some of the apps argue that the real story is more complicated. Carl Sandler, the founder of hookup apps Daddyhunt and Mister, says public health officials could actually use the apps to reach those most at risk of STDs and encourage them to get tested and treated. Sandler said he has taken some measures with Daddyhunt and Mister to promote safe sex. He asks people to sign a code of conduct, which “basically says they’ll take care of themselves and their sexual partners,” and to state if they’re open to dating someone of any status. “We’ve found that very very few people are willing to publicly disclose if they’re HIV positive,” he noted.

Sandler said he is frustrated by public health officials who point fingers at apps, rather than offering to work with them to reduce STD infections. “We can’t tell people ‘don’t suck dick,’ but we can say, get tested regularly, we can say, be aware of the signs that you might have something, and most importantly, we can tell people, anyone who has something should get treated as soon as possible,” he said. “That’s what’s going to reduce the risk of transmission.”

While some American public health experts have started working with apps and website owners to develop better sexual health measures online, Sandler says he is “disappointed” by the pace. “What public health needs to do is figure out what interventions work, and what doesn’t work,” he said. “As app owners, we don’t have that expertise.”

Public health experts agreed with this sentiment. Sandler was one of seven owners of hookup apps and websites who participated in a meeting last fall hosted by the San Francisco AIDS Foundation and amfAR. (A representative from Grindr, which did respond to request for comment, also attended.) At the meeting, the group of experts and owners brainstormed the best ways to encourage safe sex in the world of online hookups. Dan Wohlfeiler, a professor at the University of California, San Francisco, who has been working on STD prevention since 1987, said he found the meeting very encouraging.

“Public health has always said ‘we need to go where the people are,’ and by working with these sites we can do just that,” Wohlfeiler said.

Dr. Stephanie Cohen, the medical director of the city clinic for the San Francisco Department of Public Health, said she is not convinced the apps are fueling a spike in STDs.

“There’s no doubt that the apps facilitate sex partnering and make it easier to meet sex partners,” Cohen said, “and there’s also no doubt that the STD rates are rising among gay men and men who have sex with men. But whether there’s really a causal relationship between the two is not clear.”

Wohlfeiler agreed. Among the men in the study Greenhouse cited, Wohlfeiler pointed out that using crystal meth was much more strongly associated with getting STDs than using apps.

“For years we have tried to understand what the reasons are for why disease transmission continues to increase,” he said. “There so many factors that go into it, and no one factor can explain it. But what we do know is that if guys are going online and meeting partners, then it’s up to us to figure out how to bring together the best of public health knowledge with the expertise that the web owners bring to make sure those environments can do their best for prevention.”

www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/09/hookup-apps_n_6439162.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay+Voices

PHOTOS: Hot Jocks Drop Trou For The Ali Forney Center

PHOTOS: Hot Jocks Drop Trou For The Ali Forney Center

Credit Marco Ovando6

Boxers Bar, America’s Gay Sports Bar teamed up with Matinee USA to put out a sexy new calendar featuring 12 sexy models and four centerfolds with guys in the in their boxers.  The models were photographed by acclaimed photographer Marco Ovando and sponsored by Stoli Vodka. The calendars, available at both Boxers locations in NYC and the new Boxers PHL, retail for $20 and 100 percent of the proceeds will go to The Ali Forney Center. Jake Resnicow, the promoter of Maintee USA stated “it’s important to give back to our community and those who need it.” The Ali Forney Center helps homeless LGBT youth by rescuing them from the streets and placing them in safe, homelike environments.

Images by Marco Ovando

Credit Marco Ovando5 Credit Marco Ovando4 Credit Marco Ovando3 Credit Marco Ovando2 Credit Marco Ovando1Credit Marco Ovando7

 

jjkeyes

feedproxy.google.com/~r/queerty2/~3/BNWUCk-Wrwk/photos-hot-jocks-drop-trou-for-the-ali-forney-center-20150109

LGBT BLOG




You must be 18 years old or older to chat