Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201822 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

#167884 Nov 13, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
Since same sex marriage can win at the polls, there is no evidence of subjugation or discrimination. They can't be a mascot victim group, win-win. The comparison to race is invalid, since gender differences are so different from racial differences. Let common sense rule; not activist courts rewriting marriage law.
Common sense is ruling, that is why it is passing in more and more states every year.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#167885 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.
I certainly nope so.

Also, Patreus ADMITTED to committing a crime. Adultery IS a criminal offense according to the UCMJ, which congress wrote. And in the past few years, I HAVE read of military people being charged for adultery and convicted of adultery. If one of the highest-ranking generals in the U.S. can pick and choose which criminal laws to obey, and which criminal laws to violate, why should ANYBORY else in the military of a lesser rank obey the UCMJ ?!

And remember that Patreus, and all others in the U.S. military VOLUNTEERED. And they SWORE AN OATH to OBEY the UCMJ in it's ENTIRETY WITHOUT EXCEPTION. If Patreus decided he no longer wanted to follow the UCMJ, he should have quit.

He COULD be court-martialed for this admission, and I hope he is, just to set an example. Why have laws at all if they don't apply equally to everyone, and high officials are free to violate them with impunity ?!
Winston Smith

Bumpass, VA

#167886 Nov 13, 2012
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
and conviction was of course the intent of the impeachment, as it is with any trial, which is why that impeachment failed.
It certainly did not have any results if it didnt convict, other than to waste our time and money.
Removal from office was actually stated in the impeachment, didnt happen ya know.
and we all know why, even if you dont.
It would have been a failure if it never made it out of the House.
As it was the House impeached him. Then it went to trial and he was acquitted. The impeachment, like Andrew Johnson's was a success.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#167887 Nov 13, 2012
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
and conviction was of course the intent of the impeachment, as it is with any trial, which is why that impeachment failed.
It certainly did not have any results if it didnt convict, other than to waste our time and money.
Removal from office was actually stated in the impeachment, didnt happen ya know.
and we all know why, even if you dont.
The impeachment didn't "fail".

Yes I know why he was impeached in the House- partisanship. And I know why he was acquitted in the Senate- partisanship. I don't know what you think the reasons are though. Probably something real dopey!

What a dope!
Big D

Modesto, CA

#167888 Nov 13, 2012
Just as the impeachment was voted for in the house along partisan lines, we all know it was just a partisan show in every respect and a waste of taxpayersí money.

If it has succeeded Clinton would have been removed from office, but it failed in the senate on Feb 12 1999 so he was not removed from office.

nothing but a time and money wasting political show.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#167889 Nov 13, 2012
Big D wrote:
Just as the impeachment was voted for in the house along partisan lines, we all know it was just a partisan show in every respect and a waste of taxpayersí money.
If it has succeeded Clinton would have been removed from office, but it failed in the senate on Feb 12 1999 so he was not removed from office.
nothing but a time and money wasting political show.
It succeeded. If it failed, it wouldn't have gone to the Senate. Did it go to the Senate Big D? Yes, it went to the Senate Mike. So it didn't fail! Big D!

What a dope!

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#167890 Nov 13, 2012
Big D wrote:
Just as the impeachment was voted for in the house along partisan lines, we all know it was just a partisan show in every respect and a waste of taxpayersí money.
If it has succeeded Clinton would have been removed from office, but it failed in the senate on Feb 12 1999 so he was not removed from office.
nothing but a time and money wasting political show.
Fine. whateva u say. How about just for you, we do it ALL OVER AGAIN, just to please you, on The Obamanaic, and THIS TIME, we'll make SURE it succeeds !

OK ?

:)
Winston Smith

Sykesville, MD

#167891 Nov 13, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Fine. whateva u say. How about just for you, we do it ALL OVER AGAIN, just to please you, on The Obamanaic, and THIS TIME, we'll make SURE it succeeds !
OK ?
:)
Yes, we need the House to impeach Obama and the Senate to acquit, again. Yep, we need to waste money and time on crap like this. Have you finished your underground bunker yet? Best git crackin' before the commies take over. Don't forget to stock up on tinfoil too.
sociopathic Liberals

Chico, CA

#167892 Nov 13, 2012
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, youíve 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 isnít looking so good to the United Nations.

In case you havenít heard, our brains are being conditioned to look upon you as the burden you are. And itís time you see yourself that way too:

Thatís right. The UN is promoting we EUTHANIZE our aging parents. If that ad didnít send chills up your spine, 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 itís been going on now for several years as weíve been reporting.

Disguised as environmental stewardship, Agenda 21 is nothing more than repackaged Socialism, and many heavy-hitters with billions of dollars and a worldwide influence are behind it.
http://standupforthetruth.com/2012/11/time-to ...
The fart

Irving, TX

#167893 Nov 13, 2012
i did
Spinxed

Covina, CA

#167894 Nov 13, 2012
Grover Norquist muslim Extremist friends and lovers have call for destruction of Egyptian antiquities.

Whats Grover doing by living in the United States of America, he should be over there with his wife's family members tearing up the Middle East.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#167895 Nov 13, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
It succeeded. If it failed, it wouldn't have gone to the Senate. Did it go to the Senate Big D? Yes, it went to the Senate Mike. So it didn't fail! Big D!
What a dope!
and failed in the sennate feb 12 1999, unfortnuatly, I wish it had not failed, but it did.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#167896 Nov 13, 2012
Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, we need the House to impeach Obama and the Senate to acquit, again. Yep, we need to waste money and time on crap like this. Have you finished your underground bunker yet? Best git crackin' before the commies take over. Don't forget to stock up on tinfoil too.
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!
DumpDonald

Covina, CA

#167897 Nov 13, 2012
Winston Smith

Sykesville, MD

#167898 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!
Not very expensive you say? You wanna hand over the same amount, in cash, to me? It won't be very useful, you know it would be partisan. Not enough "partisan" in the Senate to convict. Why bother? It won't be useful at all.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#167899 Nov 13, 2012
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct, and that indictment failed at trial in the Senate on Feb 12 1999
we can use whatever words you like, outcome is the same
What? The indictment failed? Oh come on. He was acquitted of the charges in the indictment at trial, but the indictment did not fail.... the HOUSE PASSED IT!!!!!!!!!! JESUS!
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#167900 Nov 13, 2012
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
and failed in the sennate feb 12 1999, unfortnuatly, I wish it had not failed, but it did.
The Senate DOES NOT vote on impeachment.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#167901 Nov 13, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>What? The indictment failed? Oh come on. He was acquitted of the charges in the indictment at trial, but the indictment did not fail.... the HOUSE PASSED IT!!!!!!!!!! JESUS!
Yes, you can have an indictment with no evidence whatsoever, just takes a popular vote in the case of an impeachment.

And Indictment has to go through the courts to succeed, and in an impeachments case, it has to be tried in the senate, where it failed on Feb 12 1999

A shame really, I suspect we would have been spared 8 years of one of the worst presidents in American history had it succeeded.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#167902 Nov 13, 2012
Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Not very expensive you say? You wanna hand over the same amount, in cash, to me? It won't be very useful, you know it would be partisan. Not enough "partisan" in the Senate to convict. Why bother? It won't be useful at all.
There are good reasons to go through the expense of an impeachment if it ever becomes necessary.

It can be very useful and necessary. That's why we have it. We can just cut off foreign aid to one of the smaller countries that hates us for a day or two, that will more than cover the expense.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#167903 Nov 13, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>The Senate DOES NOT vote on impeachment.
No a Senate tries an impeachment that is voted on in the house, and in the case of Clinton the impeachment failed Feb 12 1999 in the senate.

Again, I never said once that he was not impeached, I said the impeachment failed, which it did.

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.

Palm Springs Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Plus Size clothes - Draper's & Damon's Jun 28 Tracy 2
Complaint CATHEDRAL CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT (Jan '08) Jun 26 Mr Jon Doe 49
News Statues Of Virgin Mary Beheaded, Jesus Christ D... Jun 26 inewsmaster 1
Touch Of Class Consignment (Cathedral City, Ca. Jun 25 Jgreen 7
News Chinese tourists power-shopping in U.S. (Aug '13) Jun 25 Go Blue Forever 14
need some ideas or direction Jun 23 deserthelp 1
Review: Inter-City Plumbing (Jun '09) Jun 23 Ron T 12
More from around the web

Palm Springs People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Palm Springs Mortgages