Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201887 comments on the www.cnn.com story from Aug 4, 2010, titled Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. In it, www.cnn.com reports that:

A federal judge in California has knocked down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday that the state's controversial Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cnn.com.

Winston Smith

United States

#167949 Nov 13, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
That's beautiful. Elegant, in fact. Excellent.
Get a room you two!:p

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#167953 Nov 13, 2012
Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, Mike's Law, just a little more fresh than Tick's Law, less edible than Cole's Law. But not by much.:p
Sorry you didn't get the irony. My law is as stupid as ticks law. Get it? wink wink.

What a dope!

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#167954 Nov 13, 2012
Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Get a room you two!:p
You, the "non-psycho Mike Di Rucci" and Woodtick57 took the last one.
NewLawOfLand

Glendora, CA

#167955 Nov 13, 2012
Time to get over it, it's the new law of the land.

The U.S. Supreme Court has pushed back by 10 days the date on which it will consider whether to review the issue of gay marriage in California, according to lawyers in the case
NonPsycho Mike DiRucci

Los Angeles, CA

#167956 Nov 13, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
You, the "non-psycho Mike Di Rucci" and Woodtick57 took the last one.
Ya can't through a party without renting a hall!
NonPsycho Mike DiRucci

Los Angeles, CA

#167957 Nov 13, 2012
NewLawOfLand wrote:
Time to get over it, it's the new law of the land.
The U.S. Supreme Court has pushed back by 10 days the date on which it will consider whether to review the issue of gay marriage in California, according to lawyers in the case
Not worried.

Recent decisions in DOMA have poised Prop 8 to potential review by SCOTUS over the issues of "suspect class" and "heightened scrutiny".

Uh-oh....that doesn't bode well for the anti-marriage equality side....

Besides: It'll all be over by June.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#167958 Nov 13, 2012
KiMare wrote:
Hey, appreciate your concern for the slut lesbian in me. Sorry, but I always cover her one eye when I am with my wife. She is however grateful that she is not stuck with someone who looks like Candy Crowley...
Which begs the question, why does a butch lesbian dress and act like a man to attract another lesbian???
You're just trolling to try and hurt people's feelings.
Do you think your parents should have aborted you?

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#167959 Nov 13, 2012
Jose - in Miami wrote:
<quoted text>
Hard to say but they aren't called Kristian KKonservatives by so many for nothing.
Apparently as long as they pray for the needs of someone’s soul they are absolved from having to care about their body and who is kidding who when they say they are "praying" for the sick, poor, less fortunate.
When you get to know some , you realize they operate on hate, hate is their fuel . The more hate and misery they can spread ,the happier they are.
The south has so many of them but politically they are not stupid and they attempt to win over as many non Christians as possible while laughing behind their backs because they feel non Christians are going to hell.
"Some conservative Christians hate our government and teach others hateful lying conspiracy theories in order to convince the simple and the gullible to support their agenda of hate. All this is contrary to the teachings in the Bible that tells us to obey and submit to government authorities that God places over us.
Some Christian conservatives want to do away with most government social programs that aid the poor. They believe that if government would get out of the picture people would be better off. Some fail to understand that most of the nation is not truly Christian and most in this nation will not take care of the less fortunate and downtrodden. In fact, I doubt if most conservative "Christians" would do very much to help those that are less fortunate than themselves either. "
http://www.thepropheticyears.com/comments/Chr...
Seems Christian conservatives would be into helping the poor, since Jesus was really into helping the poor.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#167960 Nov 13, 2012
luv Sarah Palin wrote:
<quoted text>
Mona and her libtard ilk know nothing about America .
Speaking of impeachment, lying about the events that led to the death of the U.S. ambassador to Libya might finally get Obama impeached.
You folks are just a bunch of desperate vultures trying to make political hay out of a tragedy. Sorry, but it's really a non issue when it comes to Obama's presidency.
NewLawOfLand

Glendora, CA

#167961 Nov 13, 2012
Grab a hold and swing along.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#167962 Nov 13, 2012
Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah yes, in general it is a good thing to really have a big stick to reign in foolishness. Unfortunately that big stick gets wielded along party lines rather than actual justice.
Since when is pointing out reality getting defensive? It doesn't matter if Obama is guilty of something or not, just like it didn't matter if Clinton was guilty or not. Party lines are party lines. Unless there is no avoiding nailing one of them to the wall due to the nature of the crime and undeniability of guilt, a party is probably not going to hang one of their own unless he's really alienated himself tremendously.
With Clinton the proximity of him to the goods (his milk on a dress, dodgy testimony, etc.) was directly linked to him. With Obama there is a bit of separation regarding the four deaths and what was known about danger and when. If they couldn't prove Clinton was fibbing about things what makes you think they can prove a damn thing about this? That peek at Clinton's wedding tackle cost us 40 to 80 mil depending upon what source and what you include. I can see it getting way higher with the complexity of this one. In the end it'll have all the effectiveness of nailing jello to a tree.
We need the ability to impeach the president even if it is expensive (it's not). I am not in favor of reducing our freedom for any reason, certainly not just to save a little money.

If the president, any president, is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, impeach the bastard and make him or her pay for it.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#167963 Nov 13, 2012
luv Sarah Palin wrote:
Has anyone seen the future of our military after the libs are finished?
"Gay Army "Concept"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =CbtqrvKN5NAXX&feature=rel mfu
LOL. "The Onion" all over again. You didn't notice that the video is in the "Entertainment" category? It's basically a SNL skit.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#167964 Nov 13, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Mona Lott said it well: "How can a President be impeached if the impeachment fails?"
Oh a person can be accused of a crime, and then found not guilty, same thing, the case was a failure

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#167965 Nov 13, 2012
NonPsycho Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya can't through a party without renting a hall!
You can't spell and you're a dope.

Now SCRAM troll!
Big D

Modesto, CA

#167966 Nov 13, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
You folks are just a bunch of desperate vultures trying to make political hay out of a tragedy. Sorry, but it's really a non issue when it comes to Obama's presidency.
don’t worry, won’t happen, the GOP is scrambling to look better now, they aren’t about to fail on purpose on another one.

Not going to happen
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#167967 Nov 13, 2012
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
He was impeached by the house, I never said otherwise, and then that impeachment failed in the senate.
like any criminal charge that goes to a trial, the prosecutors decide to press charges ( the impeachment ) it goes to trial ( the senate ) and there the outcome is decided, succeed or fail.
The Senate does not vote on impeachment.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#167968 Nov 13, 2012
sociopathic Liberals wrote:
TIME TO DIE:
U.N. ADS PROMOTE KILLING OFF THE ELDERLY.
Hey all you wrinkly, middle-aged has-beens: Are you ready to move over and let the next generation have your spot on the planet? After all, you’ve lived a good life. And your aging body is going to cost taxpayers a lot more than the salt you think you are worth. In other words, your return-on-investment isn’t looking so good to the United Nations.
In case you haven’t heard, our brains are being conditioned to look upon you as the burden you are. And it’s time you see yourself that way too:
That’s right. The UN is promoting we EUTHANIZE our aging parents. If that ad didn’t send chills up your spine,
Actually, it sent Mountain Dew onto my monitor and keyboard as I laughed.
sociopathic Liberals wrote:
the next one will. These commercials are pointing us to Agenda 21, a global strategy to reduce the population in the years ahead. Yes, it sounds like something out of a zombie movie, but it’s been going on now for several years as we’ve been reporting.
Disguised as environmental stewardship, Agenda 21 is nothing more than repackaged Socialism,
LOL! Hey, they managed to work the word "Socialism" into this. Can you tell me what socialism is, and why you think it's a bad thing?
sociopathic Liberals wrote:
and many heavy-hitters with billions of dollars and a worldwide influence are behind it.
http://standupforthetruth.com/2012/11/time-to ...
LOL. Thanks for the chuckles.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#167969 Nov 13, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
UNTRUE.
Cinton's act of adultery was NOT a crime. His lying underoath to a grand jury, which he admitted to, and was disbarred for, WAS a crime.
Patreus's adultery IS a SPECIFIED CRIME under the UCMJ. The maximum penalty is fordeiture of his pension (a considerable $200,000 a year for life, reduction in rank, forfeiture of all military benefits, and imprisonment for up to one year).
Now if we CANNOT expect one of the highest generals to obey teh laws, rules, and regulations specified in teh UCMJ, HOW can we expect anyone of lesser rank to do so also ?!
The President is the Commander in Cheif;

Adultery in the military is actually prosecuted under Article 134, which is also known as the "General Article." Article 134 simply prohibits conduct which is of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, or conduct which is prejudicial to good order and discipline.

The UCMJ allows the President of the United States to administer the UCMJ by writing an Executive Order, known as the Manual for Court Martial (MCM). The MCM includes the UCMJ, and also supplements the UCMJ by establishing "Elements of Proof," (exactly what the government must *prove* to prosecute an offense), an explanation of offenses, and maximum permissible punishments for each offense (among other things). While the MCM is an Executive Order, enacted by the President, in reality much of the contents are a result of military and federal appeals court decisions.

One of the things that the MCM does is to expand article 134 into various "sub-articles." One of these "sub-articles" covers the offense of adultery (Article 134, paragraph 62).

Adultery, as a military offense, is difficult to prosecute (legally) for several reasons.

There are three "Elements of Proof" for the offense of Adultery in the Military:

(1) That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person;

(2) That, at the time, the accused or the other person was married to someone else; and

(3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
Sunday at 1:21pm · Like

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#167970 Nov 13, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
You're just trolling to try and hurt people's feelings.
Do you think your parents should have aborted you?
Do you look like Candy Crowley?

The truth hurts people's feelings.

Denial hurts people.

Smile.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#167973 Nov 13, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
The Senate does not vote on impeachment.
No the Senate tries an Impeachment.

If the impeachment does not pass the trial in the Senate, then there are no consequences as the impeachment has failed.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Monterey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
where can I find heroin in monterey? (Oct '14) Dec 2 FordEracing123 85
Where can I find legit black in Salinas asap!? Nov 27 Cjay22 8
News A cold case revisited: The night Dolly Evans di... Nov 21 HD vacaville 2
News Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) Nov 16 Helen Banks Curry 1,549
News Marina mayora s race: Incumbent Bruce Delgado v... Nov '16 Seattle Doug 1
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) Oct '16 Agnostic 72,043
News Editorial: Yes on Measure E Oct '16 Kelly Sorenson 1

Monterey Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Monterey Mortgages