How to reseed ~ this is not Vuze specific but I think it will help
Download the .torrent file from the site, start it in your client and when asked where to save point it in the direction of the video on your computer.
http://forum.gaytorrent.ru/index.php?topic=236.0
Hope this helps,
leatherbear
GT.ru Forum Super Mod
50 Steam Room Videos from You Tube all have some nice Man Flesh in them even if the subject matter is not the best. Some are really fun :cheers:
hXXp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyQYZTiScfU
I want some of the drugs that guy is taking ~ talk about the good shit ~ he is definitely tripping 
Try reading these topics for advice on which torrents are best for new members to download to help insure upload is at least possible. Assuming you still have Download rights.
New Member/Low Ratio Trouble
Getting off on the right foot:
http://forum.gaytorrent.ru/index.php?topic=13101.0
Starters Guide:
http://forum.gaytorrent.ru/index.php?topic=707.0
Ratio Minimums Explained:
http://forum.gaytorrent.ru/index.php?topic=6191.0
Problems with Ratio:
http://forum.gaytorrent.ru/index.php?topic=6036.0
Downloading Rules:
http://tracker.gaytorrent.ru/rules.php#96
You could also upload new content to the tracker for the traffic you need as well as donate to the site for the traffic needed to restore your rights to download.
hXXp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZbThhDHyV0&feature=em-subs_digest
GOP Lawmakers' Gay Marriage Support
Michelangelo Signorile
No longer a member of Congress, Barney Frank is still weighing in with his well-known blunt positions, but "relaxing" while doing so. Responding to Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) last week becoming the third GOP senator to support marriage equality, the recently-retired Massacusetts Democratic congressman dismissed any notion that it represented GOP progress on the issue. In the process Frank also slammed Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who came out for marriage equality three months ago while noting that his son is gay, saying Portman’s evolution doesn’t “count” or get him “a lot of points.” And, in an opinion that will surely anger some LGBT activists, Frank urged President Obama not to sign an executive order barring anti-LGBT discrimination among federal contractors, switching his position of last year in which he urged the president to sign the order.
“Forty-two to 3? No, not yet,” Frank responded in an interview on my SiriusXM radio program when asked if Murkowski’s evolution showed the GOP moving on the issue. “And I don’t count Rob Portman – I mean, being nice to your son, you don’t get a lot of points. There are only two Republicans in the House who support marriage [equality]. It’s sadly still a very partisan issue.” (Listen to the full interview below)
Frank spoke while walking the exhibition hall June 21 at Netroots Nation, the annual progressive activist convention, this year held in San Jose. He described the experience of being at the conference for the first time not as a politician as “very relaxing."
“I don’t have to be monitoring my phone calls to see if there’s a crisis in the district I represented,” he said. “I can be focused on the event. I don’t have to be worried about being called by some federal official about a bank crisis or some other things.”
Regarding the executive order which LGBT activists have been pressuring President Obama to sign which would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity among federal contractors, Frank appeared to have flipped on his position, having signed a letter in April of last year from members of the House urging the president to sign the order.
“I would have him not sign it yet,” Frank said. “There’s a lot of attack on him for exceeding executive power and doing things by executive order. And he’s in a major fight over that about to come now, where he’s about to issue an executive order restricting emissions from power plants. And there’s even a danger that this right-wing [Supreme] Court would overturn that as too far. I would say this: push to take back the House from the right-wing, and if that happens, then we should push for it to be legislated, because if it’s legislated, then it’s for everybody. If we don’t take the House back, then before he goes out of office, he should do it. But I would ask him to – I would want him to hold off now and give us a chance to do this legislatively. But that will depend on the next election.”
for possible LGBT impact
The Supreme Court ruled narrowly today to make it harder for employees to sue their employers for workplace discrimination and retaliation in two cases advocates say could have consequences for LGBT people.
In two 5-4 decisions that divided the justices along ideological lines, the court ruled in Vance v. Ball State University that in order for a person to sue a "supervisor" in a discrimination lawsuit, that supervisor must have the ability to hire and fire in an opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito. Although employees could still sue for an employer's failure to prevent harassment, the narrowing of the definition of supervisor to only those with the power to take "tangible employment action" against a victim makes it more difficult to blame a business for harassment by a co-worker.
In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, stating employees "must establish that his or her protected activity was a but-for cause of the alleged adverse action by the employer."
Leading the liberal wing of the court in their dissents in both cases was Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who criticzed the decisions in a statement delivered in the courtroom.
"Both decisions dilute the strength of Title VII in ways Congress could not have intended," Ginsburg said, referring to the statute of the Civil Rights Act that prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin.
"As anyone with employment experience can easily grasp, in-charge employees authorized to assign and control subordinate employees' daily work are aided in accomplishing their harassment by superintending position in which their employer places them, and for that reason, the employer is properly held responsible for their misconduct," Ginsburg continued. "The Court's disregard for the reality of the workplace means that many victims of workplace harassment will have no effective remedy."
Ginsburg went so far as to call on Congress to right the high court's error with legislation, stating, "Today, the ball again lies in Congress's court to correct this Court’s wayward interpretations of Title VII."
Ginsburg, who equated the two rulings to the court's 2007 ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. that led Congress to pass and President Barack Obama to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009 extending the statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit, was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
The decisions were also criticized by civil rights and labor organizations and, while the two cases did not pertain to sexual orientation or gender identity, they could still impact LGBT people. Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, said the rulings will have immediate consequences for transgender people who file hostile work environment claims under Title VII with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and for complaints filed if and when the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) becomes law.
According to Almeida, the "conservative activists on the Supreme Court" — Justices Alito, Antonin Scalia, Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts — "ignored decades of well-established law and went out of their way to weaken the protections that keep all Americans safe from hostility and harassment on the job."
"Without congressional action, there will be more workplace harassment, more hostility, and less accountability for the unscrupulous employers who turn a blind eye to bullying against their employees. Today's cases negatively impact LGBT victims of workplace discrimination, and have negative implications for an eventual ENDA as well as transgender plaintiffs who bring Title VII cases now under the historic Macy vs. Holder decision by the bipartisan EEOC," Almeida continued. "It's time for congressional leaders to restore what the conservative justices have taken away from the American people."
Human Rights Campaign Vice President Fred Sainz also criticized the decisions, telling Metro Weekly, "Any case that limits the scope of Title VII like the two decisions today will limit the scope of ENDA."
"We are disappointed that the court continues to narrow civil rights employment protections, and by doing so, the court is undermining the principle that employment should be based on ability not bias," Sainz added.
The wait continues for the high court's decisions in the cases surrounding Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and Proposition 8, California's same-sex marriage ban. More opinions are expected to come down at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, June 25.
[Photo: Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Courtesy of the U.S. Supreme Court)]
AOL / Huffpost Report
Supreme Court Rules On Prop 8
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Wednesday left for dead California's same-sex marriage ban, Proposition 8, but the question of gay and lesbian couples' constitutional right to marry remains very much alive.
By a 5-4 vote, the justices held in Hollingsworth v. Perry that the traditional marriage activists who put Proposition 8 on California ballots in 2008 did not have the constitutional authority, or standing, to defend the law in federal courts after the state refused to appeal its loss at trial.
“We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “We decline to do so for the first time here.”
Roberts was joined in his majority opinion by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan. Justice Anthony Kennedy filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor.
The judgement of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was vacated and the case remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. While California will likely begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the decision will not have an impact beyond the state's borders, and other same-sex marriage bans across the country will be left intact.
California voters added the ban to the state's constitution in 2008 through a ballot initiative that reversed the state Supreme Court's recognition of same-sex marriage earlier that year. Two same-sex couples challenged Proposition 8 in federal court, and by the time their suit reached the justices, two lower courts had declared the ban unconstitutional.
Because standing is a threshold question in any federal case, the justices did not reach the plaintiffs' main argument that Proposition 8 violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and deprives same-sex couples of the right to marry.
"_t is not enough that the party invoking the power of the court have a keen interest in the issue," the majority wrote. Because the Court did not find that the Proposition 8 proponents had "concrete and particularized injury," the justices concluded that they "have no authority to decide this case on the merits, and neither did the Ninth Circuit."
Now that the justices have reversed the appeals court's finding and vacated its decision to strike down the ban on constitutional grounds, Judge Vaughn Walker's wide-ranging 2010 judgment against the California government remains the only decision to which both plaintiffs and defendants were properly before a federal court.
In that ruling, Walker wrote, "Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs' objective as 'the right to same-sex marriage' would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy – namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages."
Video @ hXXp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/supreme-court-prop-8_n_3434854.html?1372257363_
Yahoo News report
Supreme Court strikes down DOMA; rules it interferes with states, ‘dignity’ of same-sex marriages
A gay rights activist waves a flag in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building June 24, 2013 in Washington DC. …
The Supreme Court has struck down a federal law barring the recognition of same-sex marriage in a split decision, ruling that the law violates the rights of gays and lesbians and intrudes into states' rights to define and regulate marriage. The court also dismissed a challenge to California's gay marriage ban, ruling that supporters of the ban did not have the legal standing, or right, to appeal a lower court's decision striking down Proposition 8 and clearing the way for gay marriage to again be legal in the nation's most populous state.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's conservative-leaning swing vote with a legal history of supporting gay rights, joined his liberal colleagues in both decisions, which will dramatically expand the rights of married gay couples in the country to access more than 1,000 federal benefits and responsibilities of marriage previously denied them.
"The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States," Kennedy wrote of DOMA. He concluded that states must be allowed by the federal government to confer "dignity" on same-sex couples if they choose to legalize gay marriage.
DOMA "undermines" same-sex marriages in visible ways and "tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition."
The case is Windsor v. United States, a challenge to the federal 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages even in the 12 states and District of Columbia that allow them. DOMA extended to more than 1,000 federal laws and statutes, including immigration, taxes, and Social Security benefits.
Eighty-three-year-old New Yorker Edith Windsor brought the suit after she was made to pay more than $363,000 in estate taxes when her same-sex spouse died. If the federal government had recognized her marriage, Windsor would not have owed the sum. She argued that the government has no rational reason to exclude her marriage of more than four decades from the benefits and obligations other married couples receive.
DOMA was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996.
With this decision, Kennedy furthers his reputation as a champion of gay rights. He authored two of the most important Supreme Court decisions involving, and ultimately affirming, gay rights: Lawrence v. Texas (2003) and Romer v. Evans (1996). In Romer, Kennedy struck down Colorado's constitutional amendment banning localities from passing anti-discrimination laws protecting gays and lesbians. In Lawrence, Kennedy invalidated state anti-sodomy laws, ruling that gay people have a right to engage in sexual behavior in their own homes.
The decisions mark the first time the highest court has waded into the issue of same-sex marriage. Just 40 years ago, the Supreme Court tersely refused to hear a case brought by a gay couple who wanted to get married in Minnesota, writing that that their claim raised no significant legal issue. At the time, legal opinions often treated homosexuality as criminal, sexually deviant behavior rather than involuntary sexual orientation. Since then, public opinion has changed dramatically on gay people and same-sex marriage, with a majority of Americans only just recently saying they support it. Now, 12 states representing about 18 percent of the U.S. population allow same-sex marriage. With California, the percentage of people living in gay marriage states shoots up to 30.
The Supreme Court has refused to wade into the constitutional issues surrounding the California gay marriage case, dismissing the Proposition 8 argument on procedural grounds. The legal dodge means a lower court's ruling making same-sex marriage legal in California will most likely stand, opening the door to marriage to gays and lesbians in the country's most populous state.
California voters passed Proposition 8 to ban same-sex marriage in 2008, after 18,000 same-sex couples had already tied the knot under a state Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage. A same-sex married couple with children, Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, sued the state of California when their six-month-old marriage was invalidated by the ballot initiative. They argued that Proposition 8 discriminated against them and their union based only on their sexual orientation, and that the state had no rational reason for denying them the right to marry. Two lower courts ruled in their favor, and then-California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced he would no longer defend Proposition 8 in court, leaving a coalition of Prop 8 supporters led by a former state legislator to take up its defense.
Same-sex marriage will most likely not be immediately legal in California, since the losing side is given a few weeks to petition the courts.
The Prop 8 case was argued by two high-profile lawyers, Ted Olson and David Boies, who previously faced off against each other in Bush v. Gore. Olson, a conservative and Bush's former solicitor general, and Boies, a liberal, have cast gay marriage as the civil rights issue of our time.
Boies said on the steps of the Supreme Court Wednesday that "Today the United States Supreme Court said as much. They cannot point to anything that harms them because these two love each other”
Olson made the argument that gay marriage should be a conservative cause in a recent interview with NPR. "If you are a conservative, how could you be against a relationship in which people who love one another want to publicly state their vows … and engage in a household in which they are committed to one another and become part of the community and accepted like other people?"
The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), a coalition of mostly Republican House lawmakers, defended DOMA since the Obama administration announced they believed the law was unconstitutional in 2011. (Chief Justice John Roberts criticized the president for this move during oral arguments in the case, saying the president lacked “the courage of his convictions” in continuing to enforce the law but no longer defending it in court.)
Michael,
Great news!
Just minutes ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in Windsor v. Connecticut that struck down Section 3 of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA), which discriminated against legally married same-sex couples. This is fantastic news for families across Maine and around the country.
The court also issued a ruling in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the case about California’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples, Prop 8. The court found that the supporters of Prop 8 lack standing, clearing the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California. This is a victory for California and the nation.
The repeal of DOMA means married same-sex couples in Maine are one step closer to full equality under the law. This ruling ends federal marriage discrimination and means that couples who are married in Maine and other states that honor the freedom to marry will finally be treated fairly by the federal government in everything from taxes to Social Security.
This is an historic day in the march toward full equality for LGBT people in Maine and throughout the United States and it’s been a long time coming. EqualityMaine is incredibly grateful for the work of the brilliant and skilled legal advocates who have worked tirelessly on these cases and related challenges.
The repeal of DOMA wouldn’t impact so many Mainers so directly had we not won the freedom to marry here last year. For that victory – and your support that made it possible – we will be forever grateful.
Thank you for all you do,
Betsy Smith
EqualityMaine Executive Director
Click here for more details on both of these decisions : hXXp://www.scotusblog.com/
Michael,
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court today gutted the Defense of Marriage Act. Now all couples who are legally married must be recognized as such by the federal government, including same-sex couples who have won the right to wed in 12 states and the District of Columbia. And in California, same-sex couples will likely be able to marry again soon.
This outcome was predicted by legal experts, but it’s still a remarkable and hopeful moment. And while the ruling doesn’t extend marriage equality to any other states, it does mean that when we finally win there too, those wins will be even sweeter.
I’m proud that openly LGBT elected officials led fights in states that today recognize our marriages. They’ve been crucial to building the bridges to equality that their straight colleagues cross.
Now we must begin to change the hearts and minds of voters, lawmakers and political leaders in the 38 states that still forbid gays and lesbians to marry. That will take the work of the fantastic coalitions that have seen much success in recent years, and it will require electing more LGBT people to change legislatures from the inside.
Today we owe a hearty thank-you to the legal team that won a huge victory for Edie Windsor and same-sex couples across the country. The American Civil Liberties Union had a lot of help from some of our movement’s most dedicated and impressive legal minds, and all of them have worked hard on cases that brought us to this moment.
Most importantly, we owe much gratitude to Edie Windsor herself, who refused to give up when her government told her she was a second-class citizen. Because of her bravery, we’re a step closer to erasing discrimination against same-sex couples. Please join me in sending Edie your thanks here : hXXp://thankedie.com/?code=victory
Yours in Victory,
Chuck
Chuck Wolfe
President and CEO
I promised MrG to bring it up for Staff discussion nut it appears that it will end as before with no real consideration given to this new category.
IMHO, rather than creating again another category with ethic "discrimination" it would be recommendable to move not hairy chubby content from the "Bears" category to "Chubbies".
I really do not see this as an Ethnic Discrimination issue but a preference in Porn issue. IMHO, one could argue that the Asian Chubby Porn belongs in Asian and not in Chubby at all.
I will start the discussion as you suggested and hope for an active staff involvement and resolution to this ongoing issue
Hi MrG,
I have thought for a long time now that we need 2 Chubbies categories from previous users comments about having to scroll thru vast amounts of Asian Porn to find what they are looking for that suits their interests.
I have never brought this up to Staff because there is and has been so a long To Do list just simply out prioritizes this request by far. Don't get me wrong making a second Category is a fairly easy task and can be accomplished rather quickly, however, this would only affect new posts to the tracker. The older posts would have to be individually viewed for content and edited to the new Category if it needs to be moved. :faint: The Staff would never have the time for such a project as we have quite enough work as it is :faint:
However, I will start this discussion with the Staff for opinions on the 2 Chubbies Categories finally. Along with that discussion I will ask if it is possible to grant limited Staff permissions to you and perhaps some other volunteers to sort the existing Chubbies Category into the 2 New Categories. >:D Be careful what you wish for !! >:D
In the mean time have you tried adding "Bears" to your search criteria? You should find Chubbies there for sure ~ hairy ~ but Chubby at least :cheers:
leatherbear
GT.ru Forum Super Mod
I would add that not all Staff Members have access to IP addresses. That ability is limited to a very few members of the GT.ru Staff.
:thx: