One of the most popular game of gambling in the world has its origins in the 17th century in France. Roulette played by “lottery-like” machines, such as the one at the left, was first invented by François Louis Douillard.
He was one of the many French inventors to have worked for France’s King, Charles VII. And his games proved popular with both gamblers and regular gamblers throughout the British Empire.
The games are generally played for about 1/10th of a cent.
They are also known as “poker” but most casinos refuse to play that title because they take so much time and money from regular customers.
What time is roulette played?
The Supreme Court was called in to hear oral arguments yesterday in a challenging California Proposition 8 same-sex marriage case, with the case involving California’s ban on gay marriage. The case’s two leading challengers appear to have found success in their legal arguments. One of them is David Boies, a prominent constitutional attorney whom I have known since I went to law school. A former federal prosecutor and top U.S. District Court judge, David Boies has worked on several high profile cases, including the defense in the 1993 trial of the terrorist bombing that left 168 dead on New York City’s subways.
Yesterday’s oral argument provided an opportunity for a wide array of witnesses to bring their cases, which had been limited to arguments about whether the proponents of Prop. 8 stood on solid legal ground in their position, or merely tried to do some legal math in the hope they might win. One of the most interesting of those witnesses was Ed Stetzer. He is CEO and Co-Chairman of Public Citizen’s LGBT rights program, and a well-known gay rights activist as well.
Mr. Stetzer told the Court that the question before the Court was whether the Supreme Court “should declare the California definition of marriage to be invalid” given California’s ban on same-sex married couples’ right to get married. This was not a case seeking a “definitive ruling” on whether Proposition 8 was constitutional on its face, he stated. The question about the law’s constitutionality, he said, “should depend on whether a state’s definition of marriage is inconsistent with the Constitution.”
Stetzer said California’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the constitutional mandate for equal protection of the laws. He noted the Supreme Court’s decision in Griswold