Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201808 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.

Big D

Modesto, CA

#171601 Dec 18, 2012
Skunk holler bill wrote:
I was in the bay in a 21 foot fishing boat. I have never smoked dope or been in trouble. I decided to join the USAF and stayed 21 yrs. It was cold on the bay tho and I ended up flying in Vietnam 190 missions and three very romantic tours. A life changing experience for me. Now all I want to do is ride my motorcycle to the next stop. Wherever that may be??? I am very happy now.
We had an ex Nam chopper pilot on the BI

He told the most hilarious stories about being shot down.

He had been downed 3 times ( hard for me to imagine )

He said the first time you are shot down, you are screaming your head off into the mic, scared shitless.

The second time you know the drill and are more calm and relaxed as you give your coordinates for them to come get you, problem is when you are relaxed they take their time picking you up because it doesnít sound serious.

The third time you are back screaming into the mic "My wife is rich! my wife is rich.. we are all going to die!" even if you are on the friendly side and an easy pick up
MagicJack

West Covina, CA

#171602 Dec 18, 2012
Be a self starter and post in another towns topic arena.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#171603 Dec 18, 2012
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
We had an ex Nam chopper pilot on the BI
He told the most hilarious stories about being shot down.
He had been downed 3 times ( hard for me to imagine )
He said the first time you are shot down, you are screaming your head off into the mic, scared shitless.
The second time you know the drill and are more calm and relaxed as you give your coordinates for them to come get you, problem is when you are relaxed they take their time picking you up because it doesnít sound serious.
The third time you are back screaming into the mic "My wife is rich! my wife is rich.. we are all going to die!" even if you are on the friendly side and an easy pick up
I never met a pilot who had just ejected into Indian country who was relaxed! Even if they'd done it before. Most hadn't. The adrenalin was pumping. They gave us a good snort of brandy back on board.

I couldn't wait to get out when I was in, Now days I'd give my left nut to do it again. But knowing I was coming back alive would take most of the fun out of it!
BuildAbribe

West Covina, CA

#171604 Dec 18, 2012
Many Americans feel this was the same style of operations that Wal-Mart used to get so many stores built in the USA.. Will Wal-Mart be forever known as a stores a bribe can build?

So far Wal-Mart officials have refused to take ploygraph exams. The question is, did Wal-Mart use bribes to build USA stores?

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. says internal investigation into its Mexico subsidiary paid bribes to get stores built continues in Mexico.

The New York Times reports, 19 store sites across Mexico were the target of Wal-Mart bribes.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#171605 Dec 18, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
I never met a pilot who had just ejected into Indian country who was relaxed! Even if they'd done it before. Most hadn't. The adrenalin was pumping. They gave us a good snort of brandy back on board.
I couldn't wait to get out when I was in, Now days I'd give my left nut to do it again. But knowing I was coming back alive would take most of the fun out of it!
it is like that isnít it, it is more fun to remember than it was at the time.

It is a shame, I have stood in a place where every direction you looked was north, I have also stood in a place where every direction you looked was south.

I spent 3 months without ever seeing night, the sun would just circle the sky, dipping below the horizon briefly to come up again 10 min later.

I donít think I appreciated it at the time as much as I do remembering it.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#171606 Dec 18, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
I never met a pilot who had just ejected into Indian country who was relaxed! Even if they'd done it before. Most hadn't. The adrenalin was pumping. They gave us a good snort of brandy back on board.
I couldn't wait to get out when I was in, Now days I'd give my left nut to do it again. But knowing I was coming back alive would take most of the fun out of it!
Oh he didnít eject, these were choppers, they were going down, but semi controlled.

Engine or hydraulics hits I assume, I donít know

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#171607 Dec 18, 2012
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I never did any of that kind of stuff myself, my second 3 years were spent on Yerba Buena Island which most people mistake and call Treasure island, it is the natural island on the bay bridge to San Francisco.
I was a firefighter, but scheduled on boat watch crews on duty days, usually pulled jumpers out of the water under the GG bridge. You could call it SAR, but they were always already dead, and we have to knock the sharks off of them before pulling them on board.
Most interesting story there was an inspection on a large sailboat. It was obviously overladen and the crew looked pretty scummy, so we took our longest hair and laid back looking guardsman, he pulled the shirt tails out of his pants and tried to look like he didnít give a crap and boarded them for a safety inspection.
He check thier life preservers and other small crap, gave them a certificate of passage and left.. he told us the boat was just packed to the gills with bales of what was obviously Marijuana, he said it was all over the deck.
The sailboat headed into Oakland and we informed the police and then backed them up with a 50 footer, I donít know if you have seen a Coast guard 50 footer but it will scare the pants off anything smaller, and some things quite a bit larger. A 50 footer will really move, they are designed to catch fast boats.
I wasnít on the 50, but was told there was a firefight on the docks with the Oakland police when they showed up, the cut loose ( just into the water ) with the twin 50 caliber machine guns behind the sailboat and they surrendered to the police.
The police told the boat captain that they would have surrendered too after hearing that.
I've spent time on Yerba Buena Island with it's spectacular SF city views but as a government geologist, not a squid.

Although I did pass through the T.I. brig for a few intense days in 1969! F**^%!@# Jarheads! "maggot this and maggot that". What jackasses!
Bribos

West Covina, CA

#171608 Dec 18, 2012
How many bribes does it tke to keep a foolish city council?

Just ask those in Glendora, California.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#171610 Dec 18, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
But, silly, I haven't claimed to be a muslim. Have you wondered why Gardnerian is my style, yet ? Have you figured out why I chose THAT particular discipline ? NO, you haven't......
Wow, you are dumb. I was making a hypothetical statement when I said, "It's like your claiming to be a Muslim, then saying in every other post that Muhammad was just another dude."

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#171612 Dec 18, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Now, in order to help you understand the big old world in which you live, let me explain that the question of marriage is not about a civil right at all.
Sorry, bigfoot, that's all it's about.
R Hudson wrote:
It is about the nature of reality and interpretations of reality that precede the law. Those who now argue that same-sex couples should be included, as a matter of civil right, within the legal definition of marriage are appealing to the constitutional principles of equal protection and equal treatment. But this is entirely inappropriate for making the case for same-sex "marriage." To argue that the Constitution guarantees equal treatment to all citizens, both men and women, does not say anything about what constitutes marriage, or a family, or a business enterprise, or a university, or a friendship.
WTF?
R Hudson wrote:
An appeal for equal treatment would certainly not lead a court to require that a small business enterprise be called a marriage just because two business partners prefer to think of their business that way.
So, were you sitting around thinking, "Hey, I can come up with something even stupider!" until you came up with that?
R Hudson wrote:
Nor would equal treatment of citizens before the law require a court to conclude that those of us who pray before the start of auto races should be allowed to redefine our auto clubs as churches.
And then you came up with that!
R Hudson wrote:
The simple fact is that the civil right of equal treatment cannot constitute social reality by declaration. Civil rights protections function simply to assure every citizen equal treatment under the law depending on what the material dispute in law is all about. Law that is just must begin by properly recognizing and distinguishing identities and differences in reality in order to be able to give each its legal due.
If someone wants to argue that two people who have not in the past been recognized as marriage partners should now be recognized as marriage partners, one must demonstrate that marriage law (not civil rights law) has overlooked or misidentified something that it should not have overlooked or misidentified. For thousands of years, marriage law has concerned itself with a particular kind of enduring bond between a man and a woman that includes sexual intercourseóthe kind of act that can (but does not always) lead to the woman's pregnancy. A homosexual relationship, regardless of how enduring it is as a bond of loving commitment, does not and cannot include sexual intercourse leading to pregnancy. Thus it is not marriage.
Those who choose to live together in life-long homosexual relationships; or brothers and sisters who live together and take care of one another; or two friends of the same sex who are not sexually involved but share life together in the same homeóall of these may be free to live as they do, and they suffer no civil rights discrimination by not being identified as marriages.
There is no civil rights discrimination against an eight-year-old youngster who is denied the right to enter into marriage. There is no civil rights discrimination being practiced against a youngster who is not allowed the identity of a college student because she is not qualified to enter college. There is no civil-rights discrimination involved when the law refuses to recognize my auto club as a church. A marriage and a homosexual relationship are two different kinds of relationships and it is a misuse of civil rights law to use that law to try to blot out the difference between two different kinds of things.
Zzzzz...
Oh, um, yeah...
Legally, marriage is a contract. Men and women should have equal rights when it comes to entering that contract.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#171613 Dec 18, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
If this happens, we will need to pay close attention to the consequences. Judges and public officials will then be required to recognize as a marriage any sexually Intimate bond between two people who want to call themselves married. Which means that there will no longer be any basis for distinguishing legally between a heterosexual union and a homosexual relationship. Which means henceforth that there will be no legal basis for restrictions against a homosexual couple obtaining children in any way they choose, for such restrictions would constitute discrimination...
Rose's Law: Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"

Hate to break it to you, gay couples can already "obtain children" in any way they choose. Marriage is a separate issue.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#171614 Dec 18, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage.
And now SCOTUS will hear the case. How can they come to any other conclusion than Prop8 is discriminatory?
Since prop H8 is clearly discriminatory, seems their only way out would be to say it's not a Federal issue, or some such.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#171615 Dec 18, 2012
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh he didnít eject, these were choppers, they were going down, but semi controlled.
Engine or hydraulics hits I assume, I donít know
I've autorotated down in a Huey. Nothing to it. The pilot actually dives and picks up airspeed when close to the ground then uses that to set it down nice and soft. Gives you confidence in the future you're not going to fall out of the sky if you lose power. I'd actually prefer to land without power in a helo than a fixed wing.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#171616 Dec 18, 2012
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>

I think the real question is, will they came back with the narrow division that will overturn it in California, or the broad decision that will have consequences nation wide
I give it 60/40 with a 60% Chance for the narrow result, and 40% for the broader one.
I would prefer the broader decision but will not be disappointed for the narrow.
This is why your opinion doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

If the court wanted to keep this decision solely effecting California they wouldn't have taken the case, there was no need to as that is exactly what the 9th Circuit did.

There are only two possible outcomes. The SCOTUS overturns the 9th and ultimately Walkers decision or they make this a national issue. The real question is are they really ready for another Roe v Wade?

And, will the court contradict itself? Let's not forget they are also hearing the DOMA decision, which clearly states that the Federal Government has NO say in marriage laws, that it is an issue left to the States. In order to uphold the Prop 8 and the DOMA ruling they truly create a contradiction. On one hand you have the Federal Government regulating marriage through the federal court system, on the other you have them saying the federal government lack the power to regulate it?

Interesting situation the court has put itself in.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#171617 Dec 18, 2012
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I never did any of that kind of stuff myself, my second 3 years were spent on Yerba Buena Island which most people mistake and call Treasure island, it is the natural island on the bay bridge to San Francisco.
I was a firefighter, but scheduled on boat watch crews on duty days, usually pulled jumpers out of the water under the GG bridge. You could call it SAR, but they were always already dead, and we have to knock the sharks off of them before pulling them on board.
Most interesting story there was an inspection on a large sailboat. It was obviously overladen and the crew looked pretty scummy, so we took our longest hair and laid back looking guardsman, he pulled the shirt tails out of his pants and tried to look like he didnít give a crap and boarded them for a safety inspection.
He check thier life preservers and other small crap, gave them a certificate of passage and left.. he told us the boat was just packed to the gills with bales of what was obviously Marijuana, he said it was all over the deck.
The sailboat headed into Oakland and we informed the police and then backed them up with a 50 footer, I donít know if you have seen a Coast guard 50 footer but it will scare the pants off anything smaller, and some things quite a bit larger. A 50 footer will really move, they are designed to catch fast boats.
I wasnít on the 50, but was told there was a firefight on the docks with the Oakland police when they showed up, the cut loose ( just into the water ) with the twin 50 caliber machine guns behind the sailboat and they surrendered to the police.
The police told the boat captain that they would have surrendered too after hearing that.
You Coasties are heroes and you do a great job and save lives and protect our country and waterways and all that good sh!t but lets face it, you're f*&%ing narcs!

I know. You don't make the rules or the policies just do or die like we did.

Did you ever commandeer a little of the evidence, you know, leakage.:)

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#171619 Dec 18, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
This is why your opinion doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
If the court wanted to keep this decision solely effecting California they wouldn't have taken the case, there was no need to as that is exactly what the 9th Circuit did.
There are only two possible outcomes. The SCOTUS overturns the 9th and ultimately Walkers decision or they make this a national issue. The real question is are they really ready for another Roe v Wade?
And, will the court contradict itself? Let's not forget they are also hearing the DOMA decision, which clearly states that the Federal Government has NO say in marriage laws, that it is an issue left to the States. In order to uphold the Prop 8 and the DOMA ruling they truly create a contradiction. On one hand you have the Federal Government regulating marriage through the federal court system, on the other you have them saying the federal government lack the power to regulate it?
Interesting situation the court has put itself in.
California is unique in that rights were already granted and then taken away.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#171620 Dec 18, 2012
Pig Mania wrote:
I hope $3 Bill shares some of his war stories with us, I heard he was really good at mopping the deck and polishing the brass.
Cumon Bill, can I get a 'SHUT YOUR PIE HOLE'?
Some guys I talked to down at the Livermore VFW who were on the ship with Bill said he was the Captain's favorite and he gave Bill extra privileges. The Captain said that was because he was always swabbing the poop deck and polishing the brass knobs and balls and such real good.

Then Bill came in and told them to "Shut your pieholes!"

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#171621 Dec 18, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Rose's Law: Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"
Hate to break it to you, gay couples can already "obtain children" in any way they choose. Marriage is a separate issue.
Hate to break it to you (not really!) but you can't make up "laws" name them after yourself and expect anyone to give a sh!t.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#171622 Dec 18, 2012
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh he didnít eject, these were choppers, they were going down, but semi controlled.
Engine or hydraulics hits I assume, I donít know
Do you notice your war stories get good judge-its and my war stories get bad judge-its?

I guess you're a hero! Congratulations coastie!
Hrdy

West Covina, CA

#171623 Dec 18, 2012
A simple dust of will do.

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 Letters: Charter application superior (Jan '11) 5 hr Yin Simons 13
News Taking extraordinary measures to wear an extrao... May 18 outtogether 2
News Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) May 14 Jokeabel 1,532
News Police: Armed robbery at Santa Cruz sandwich sh... May 11 bump 1
News Business on hold for P.G. pot club (Mar '10) May 9 Mike 8
News Looking Back at Monterey County: Fire on Canner... May 5 Joe 1
News Seaside street name could honor Obama (Feb '10) May 1 Apathy 99
More from around the web

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]