Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311358 comments on the Newsday story from Jan 22, 2008, titled Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision. In it, Newsday reports that:

Thousands of abortion opponents marched from the National Mall to the Supreme Court on Tuesday in their annual remembrance of the court's Roe v. Wade decision.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#302781 Jul 1, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>That's 'not a playa' to you, boneless.
And civil rights aren't recognized by popular vote.
Try again?
Playa: "civil rights aren't recognized by popular vote."

SCOTUS didn't say marriage is a civil right. So, that happened....
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#302782 Jul 1, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
52% of those that voted (not of Calif voters) didn't have the RIGHT to say "hell no", any more than they had the right back in the day to try to keep blacks and whites from marrying.
<quoted text>
WRONG. The California constitution said YES to it. Judge Walker and the various Supreme Courts (state and federal) agreed that the freaks that tried to stop it HAD NO STANDING.
Funny how you'd be FINE with those that have no standing determining other's civil rights, but when they're PROPERLY slapped down, you've got a problem with it.
I find it even FUNNIER that you keep tying to make the judge that heard one of the first cases being gay mean something when it means NOTHING.
Kind of like YOU mean nothing No Relevance. LOL! You poor, pathetic, impotent little shmuck.
You don't have any idea what you're talking about.

A former bookstore owner who can't follow a legal case.

Fascinating.....
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#302783 Jul 1, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
52% of those that voted (not of Calif voters) didn't have the RIGHT to say "hell no", any more than they had the right back in the day to try to keep blacks and whites from marrying.
<quoted text>
WRONG. The California constitution said YES to it. Judge Walker and the various Supreme Courts (state and federal) agreed that the freaks that tried to stop it HAD NO STANDING.
Funny how you'd be FINE with those that have no standing determining other's civil rights, but when they're PROPERLY slapped down, you've got a problem with it.
I find it even FUNNIER that you keep tying to make the judge that heard one of the first cases being gay mean something when it means NOTHING.
Kind of like YOU mean nothing No Relevance. LOL! You poor, pathetic, impotent little shmuck.
Two gay couples sued the state of California, sending case before GAY district court judge, Vaughn Walker.

If California denied Prop 8, why would your gay ilk file a lawsuit against the state?....you dumbass.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#302784 Jul 1, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Those are great! My favorite:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =dGGiCbizrPUXX
No dialog, just bravura acting from an actress who never really got her due.
<quoted text>
Ah, Agnes Moorehead. I think that one is my favorite, too :)

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#302785 Jul 1, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Foo Flop: "Again for the stupid boy, YOU DO NOT GET TO VOTE ON SOMEONE ELSES CIVIL RIGHTS. Your kind didn't get that right when it came to women's rights"
__________
1) Marriage is not a civil right. Just ask SCOTUS. TIA.
Sure No Relevance. I'll take ANY opportunity to make an ass of you.

Let us see EXACTLY what SCOTUS said about it shall we?

Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.

The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The relevant passages read as follows:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The U.S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), where it struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage. As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority:
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ...

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

While the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on same-sex marriage, it is unlikely that it would overturn the foundational premise that marriage is a civil right. Lower courts, even when relying on disparate state-level constitutional language, have consistently acknowledged the right to marry. Legal arguments for excepting same-sex marriage from the definition of marriage as a civil right have rested, instead, on the argument that the state has a compelling interest in restricting same-sex marriage that justifies limiting the right to marry (an argument that was also used to justify restrictions on interracial marriage), and/or that laws permitting civil unions provide a substantially equivalent standard to marriage that satisfies equal protection standards.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexual...

So we've extablished that marriage IS A CIVIL RIGHT as defined by SCOTUS.

You're wrong AGAIN son. LOL! You make it SO easy.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#302786 Jul 1, 2013
There will always be homophobes; our rights are more important than their happiness. Polls show that there in an increase in SSM support in CA; another prop 8 would not work.

Uuuhhh...you're the only one whining, little boy.
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't make supporters by STRIPPING the voice of those very people. That was a good way to overextend your welcome. Ya know?
All your whiney "Boo-hoo!"...." Inclusiveness"....." Tolerance"...."Kill babies" nonsense will now fall on deaf ears.
You & your gay folk took a dump on the collective heads of Californian voters. Don't expect them to give a rat's ass when you come back around whining like a lil' girl. They know who you are now. "....fool me twice, shame on me."
You lost the voters because you morons have no smarts. Bully for you.
^^^ Emotional Intelligence Level Of Monkeys ^^^
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#302787 Jul 1, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry asswhipe, but its time for YOU to pay attention and get a history lesson. Nickle version.
When the question of SSM first came up, it was in 2001 in San Francisco. In 2004, licenses were granted under the California Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law to all groups. In 2004, after the Massachusetts Supreme Court granted SSM based on the same thing, California began issuing licenses.
Some freaks like yourself decided they wanted a referendum, and got it onto a ballot - WHERE IT SHOULDNT HAVE EVER BEEN TO BEGIN WITH. As the SCOTUS pointed out, those that started that bullshit, HAD NO STANDING. It would have been up to the legislature to bring it up to a vote, and they declined to do so because - effectively - they KNEW its not up to people to vote on others civil rights.
The fact that 52% of people that voted tried to deny others their civil rights is meaningless, since its not something ANYONE gets to vote on.
As someone else pointed out, nobody "stripped" anyone of anything. That 52% had no right to BEGIN WITH to be voting on other's civil rights - AS WAS CLEAR IN THE STATE'S CONSTITUTION.
Now, you're homophobic ass keeps saying "GAY" Judge Vaughn, as if his being gay means ANYTHING.
It doesn't. Black judges sit on cases with black defendants, straight judges preside over cases regarding straight couples, Catholic judges oversee cases with Catholic defendants. His being gay has ZERO to do with ANYTHING .....
.... OTHER than to spotlight your own stupidity and homophobia that is.
Now you can bitch and whine and pout like a pathetic child, but the FACT is that whether YOU like it or not, SSM is there to stay in California, and its coming to EVERY state soon enough - INCLUDING YOURS.
In FACT, in YOUR states case, your kind want to CHANGE their constitution to suit your needs. The odds of THAT happening now is slim and none.
BTW Sparky? In California today, the APPROVAL rating for SSM is at an all time high of 61 percent - and going higher....
http://ivn.us/california/2013/06/28/61-of-ind...
Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Foo Fragmented: "Some freaks like yourself decided they wanted a referendum, and got it onto a ballot - WHERE IT SHOULDNT HAVE EVER BEEN TO BEGIN WITH. As the SCOTUS pointed out, those that started that bullshit, HAD NO STANDING."

SCOTUS did not say that. SCOTUS said that those proponents of Prop 8 had not standing to move case on beyond District Court.(i.e. to the 9th circuit and SCOTUS). It said NOTHING about referendum was not legitimate or appropriate.

Fuzzy Foo: "Now, you're homophobic ass keeps saying "GAY" Judge Vaughn, as if his being gay means ANYTHING."

Over 7 million California voters said HELL NO to SSM in their state. ONE GAY JUDGE (Vaughn Walker) at District Court completely ignored the voice of The People.

You gays FORCED your agenda and lifestyle on society. That will work against you boneheads in the long-run. Once bitten...twice shy. People can now see how y'all like to blow smoke up socity's ass and call it "tolerance".

Game over.

Poor strategy for making friends..... Duh.
feces for jesus

Brooklyn, NY

#302788 Jul 1, 2013
Katie Does Not Read wrote:
<quoted text>
The poster attacked christians along with the others.
Are you so trigger happy waiting to spew your anti-Christian bias that you didn't see it ?
I love when christards try to play victim and whine about being "attacked" ....... With words..... On an anonymous Internet forum.

Oh the humanity!

Go cry to your dead man-god.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#302789 Jul 1, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
2) Interesting that you're preaching "civil rights" when you promote stripping the rights of those in utero -
Maybe you missed the memo. The unborn dont have civil rights. The rights are "with the walking around persons" as Judge Scalia said.

Two for two wrong son. Keep it up.
You're a deathscort hypocrite. Nothing more.
And as I pointed out, you're a whining, lying, pahtetic little bitch and nothing more.

There's NOTHING hypocritical about me son. PARTICULARLY on this issue. But keep trying, its fun to watch you wag your weenie! LOL!

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#302790 Jul 1, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
One more time for the deathscort hypocrite;
The issue of blacks & whites marrying involved one man and one woman.
Actually, one more time for the impotent little pissant: it involved MARRIAGE as one of many civil rights - as I've proven.

It had NOTHING to do with the gender of the blacks and whites.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#302791 Jul 1, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Those are great! My favorite:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =dGGiCbizrPUXX
No dialog, just bravura acting from an actress who never really got her due.
<quoted text>
OMG I LOVE Agnes Moorehead. I haven't thought of her in years!

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#302793 Jul 1, 2013
Is this going somewhere, or did you splurge at a sale at a bargain-word store?
JBH wrote:
Mussolini was well known as the so-called Fascist in the old times.
Going to Iron-curtain arena like China's is worse than being with Mussolini curtain.
Yet they Clinton and Bush went to have a no-save dilemma to be with the iron-curtain. Once they were there in the iron-curtain China, there was no way out (it means it cannot be saved after you are being sedated and sublimed in having the reckless, fanatic thoughts that usually no one can get out of such thoughts that are planted in the head.)
The iron-curtain strategy would use Chinese black magic seduction attempt like witchcraft to get people to be sublimated subconsciously. The use of ancient plant-leaves disguised as tasteful spices and herpes mixed in the food for those to eat is the scheme to turn people into radicalism creed in order to execute the Maoism radicalism concept and ideas. At the same time iron-curtain strategy is more than Mussolini method of corruption, that it would transfer the bamboo-curtain methodology (in which people would work underground for any wages to survive when the economy is good or not.)
As the Bible says nothing about China in the book, there is no-save from extensively entering the iron-curtain a lot of times, even by calling the name of God could be unsavable because Bible says nothing to be with Iron-curtain.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#302794 Jul 1, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Playa: "civil rights aren't recognized by popular vote."
SCOTUS didn't say marriage is a civil right. So, that happened....
Actually it DID, back in 1967 No Relevance - you moron. Loving v. Virginia, Justice Warren CLEARLY made that determination based on the 14th amendment.

Time to suck that shit up and deal with it boy.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#302795 Jul 1, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't have any idea what you're talking about..
Actually I do. And that's what pisses you off LOL!

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#302796 Jul 1, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Two gay couples sued the state of California, sending case before GAY district court judge, Vaughn Walker.


And he made a determination that EVERY court has upheld. That YOU ont like it is YOUR tough shit moment.

His being gay has ZERO to do with it, other than it pisses you off LOL!
If California denied Prop 8, why would your gay ilk file a lawsuit against the state?....you dumbass.
Again for the stupid boy - because in 2004, when they started issuing licenses PERFECTLY LEGALLY AS THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ALLOWS FOR, YOUR kind tried to have that right taken away via a "vote" they had no right to have.

You dumbass.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#302797 Jul 1, 2013
Your god has been busy beating up primarily the conservative states, so that should tell you something. It's not the gay enclaves getting burned out and blown away.

Polls show that the majority in fact support SSM. So you get used to it.
persnickety wrote:
<quoted text>You are wrong Foo. Very wrong. No one in their right mind would ever have thought two women should be husband and wife. The U.S. is never above God and we will pay dearly in more tornadoes and hurricanes, earthquakes. God will let those natural disasters to happen because the Day of Mercy is going to pass and whatever happens , happens . I for one am not afraid. I know Christ is coming back very soon . Today i had to go to the fitness center , everyone was scared of what is going to come with Obama, went to the grocery store everyone was talking about how bad our government and Obama is ans how gay marriage is very wrong. The majority of people do not agree with Obama nor do they support ssm. Get used to it.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#302798 Jul 1, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Once again, sure I do. YOu're just pissy that you can't make YOUR case any more than your bigoted buddies could.

But hey, losers like you have to stick together huh? LOL
Over 7 million California voters said HELL NO to SSM in their state.
What part of YOUR KIND DOESN"T GET A VOTE ON OTHERS CIVIL RIGHTS do you not grasp?

Moron.
ONE GAY JUDGE (Vaughn Walker) at District Court completely ignored the voice of The People.
And rightfully so.

His being gay has ZERO to do with it. But thank you for cementing your bigotry for all to see.
You gays FORCED your agenda and lifestyle on society.
BWAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAA!!

Oh that's funny! Did we use AK-47's when we were FORCING our "agenda and lifestyle" on society you schnook? You DO understand that we've ALWAYS been here, and just because assholes like you would rather keep others in the dark, doesn't mean we're going to stay there to satisfy your ignorance.

LOL!!!
That will work against you boneheads in the long-run. Once bitten...twice shy. People can now see how y'all like to blow smoke up socity's ass and call it "tolerance".
Game over.
Poor strategy for making friends..... Duh.
Yet gay marriage is MORE accepted now than ever. More and more, nobody is giving a shit about your kind's bigoted views and agenda.
Y'all are the kind that keep shooting yourselves in the foot, THEN put that bloody foot in your collective mouths.
LOL Ya dopey, whiney little bitch.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#302799 Jul 1, 2013
persnickety wrote:
<quoted text>You are wrong Foo. Very wrong. No one in their right mind would ever have thought two women should be husband and wife. The U.S. is never above God and we will pay dearly in more tornadoes and hurricanes, earthquakes. God will let those natural disasters to happen because the Day of Mercy is going to pass and whatever happens , happens . I for one am not afraid. I know Christ is coming back very soon . Today i had to go to the fitness center , everyone was scared of what is going to come with Obama, went to the grocery store everyone was talking about how bad our government and Obama is ans how gay marriage is very wrong. The majority of people do not agree with Obama nor do they support ssm. Get used to it.
ROFLMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! Yet he was elected twice AND support for SSM is on the rise.

You're fk'd in the head Knutter.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#302800 Jul 1, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
ROFLMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! Yet he was elected twice AND support for SSM is on the rise.
You're fk'd in the head Knutter.
She seems to think her own small circle of bigoted friends/family represent the U.S.

What can you say, she's an idiot.
gfdsa

Pittsburgh, PA

#302801 Jul 1, 2013
youtube.com/watch... ……………… Get Lucky

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.

Baltimore Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min My New Alias RULES 1,396,161
Review: Around The States Moving & Storage (Apr '15) 4 hr RobertLHill 46
Freddy Gray's neck was a pre existing condition. Mon KKK_KKK 2
DA needs to resign Mon Baltimorean 1
legit Research Chemicals Vendor (Sep '13) Jun 26 Blue eyes boggy bebe 33
Another one found not Guilty Jun 25 bozo 3
News Police Make Attempted Murder Arrest in Northwes... Jun 25 bozo 2

Baltimore Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Baltimore Mortgages