Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 20 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

Boyds, MD

#167925 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.
Let us try putting it to you this way...

For argument's sake let's say I was accused of a crime. A grand jury hands down an indictment finding reason to go to criminal court with the charges. I go to criminal court and have a jury trial. The jury finds me innocent. Did the grand jury fail with the indictment?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#167926 Nov 13, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Danth's Law.
I'm starting Tick's Law. those tat invoke danth's law have no argument watsoever...

i guess we can make up any rule we want and call it a law...
Brown Hole

Laguna Beach, CA

#167927 Nov 13, 2012
Why do the queers need to make a big deal out of butt fucking and tuna licking...it's beyond belief!!

Men want to eat the crap out of their partners ass and suck and swallow the smega from their partners
diseased penis; and the women want to lick and suck the yeast infecion and blood from their partners tuna lips..OOOOKAYY...I guess they get off making their lifestyle choices public.
NonPsycho Mike DiRucci

Alhambra, CA

#167928 Nov 13, 2012
Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
There is good reason to not go through needless expenses when you know you're going to lose.
So true---Can someone tell that to the GOP as they waste money on defending DOMA?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#167929 Nov 13, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not very expensive. We pay congress anyway, may as well get some useful work out of them!
The 2012 campaigns cost $4 billion dollars. That's expensive!
Yes, BILLIONS spent on the campaigns, and we have the SAME POTUS, the SAME diviion in the Senate, and the SAME division in the House. What does that tell you ?
NonPsycho Mike DiRucci

Alhambra, CA

#167930 Nov 13, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, BILLIONS spent on the campaigns, and we have the SAME POTUS, the SAME diviion in the Senate, and the SAME division in the House. What does that tell you ?
Apparantly corporate money CAN'T buy an election...

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#167934 Nov 13, 2012
NonPsycho Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparantly corporate money CAN'T buy an election...
That's certainly NOT what the liberals claim !

And didn't The Obamanaic take in MORE corporate money than Romney ???
Niargia falls

Covina, CA

#167938 Nov 13, 2012
More GOP, Republican and Tea Party Nation members will be holding the bag if the financial stability of the USA goes over the cliff.

It's a safe bet they will not be able to hide from this one.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/...

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#167940 Nov 13, 2012
Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
There is good reason to not go through needless expenses when you know you're going to lose. I've got a fair bit of time dedicated to court cases as an expert witness for the prosecution. We've picked our battles carefully, and save for a foul up by a DA we've had a 100% conviction rate with the team I've worked with over the last decade.
You noted the partisan nature of the Clinton trial. Correctly I might add. That is the way it would go down with Obama whether it is this Congress or the one just elected. The Senate is dominated by Democrats and they're not apt to hang one of their own.
I wasn't referring specifically to Obama. We need the ability to impeach the president. That's all.

No need to get all defensive for Obama! He'll do fine even if impeached, like you say.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#167942 Nov 13, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>I'm starting Tick's Law. those tat invoke danth's law have no argument watsoever...
i guess we can make up any rule we want and call it a law...
Danth's Law has been a widely accepted law for a long time.

Tick's Law is just some stupid sh!t you just made up.

Mike's Law: Woodtick57 is a barely literate dope.
Niargia falls

Covina, CA

#167943 Nov 13, 2012
No worries, the GOP is guilty as charged.

The gallows are being set up as we speak.
Winston Smith

Boyds, MD

#167946 Nov 13, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't referring specifically to Obama. We need the ability to impeach the president. That's all.
No need to get all defensive for Obama! He'll do fine even if impeached, like you say.
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.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#167947 Nov 13, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Like Bill Clinton....Adultery is a crime....He got away it, too....
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 ?!
Winston Smith

Boyds, MD

#167948 Nov 13, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Danth's Law has been a widely accepted law for a long time.
Tick's Law is just some stupid sh!t you just made up.
Mike's Law: Woodtick57 is a barely literate dope.
Ah, Mike's Law, just a little more fresh than Tick's Law, less edible than Cole's Law. But not by much.:p
Winston Smith

Boyds, MD

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

“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!

“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

Covina, 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

Alhambra, 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

Alhambra, 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.

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
News Seaside street name could honor Obama (Feb '10) Fri Apathy 99
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) Apr 19 rabbee yehoshooah... 71,942
where can I find heroin in monterey? (Oct '14) Apr 18 BrocSD 8
News Four suspects still at large in Monterey Penins... Apr 15 M JC 29 1
News Jewish-Christian charity helps Ukrainians move ... Apr 3 Azat 1
News Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) Apr '15 svorpion 1,531
News Homicide suspect Victor Cabrera has long histor... (Oct '08) Mar '15 mando 12
More from around the web

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]