Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 317482 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.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#302754 Jul 1, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>I believe it is the Gnostic Gospels, which one leader or another (maybe King James??) had stricken from the books of the Bible, because it outlined and described the MARRIAGE of Jesus to Mary Magdalen....and the fact that he planned to set her at the helm of his new religion after his death. The Disciples weren't very keen on that idea at all.
Yet another indication that men directed the Bible's teachings, rather than God.
My belief in the Divine is nowhere near as contradictory or confounding as Christianity. I think I'll keep what I've got.
As I said I was only answering a,question..That seemed of interest yo a poster.

We believe the bible alone is inspired.

Gnostics,or whoever can make up whatever they want

As for your beliefs ..I don't understand them but you can BELUEVE as you wish:) and enjoy your freedom to do so.

Even my. F s with says I am to spread the word..plant a,seed..But nothing says HIT PEOPLE over the head to BELiEVE me.

I tell the truth in the best way I can as Christian...if anyone wants more please ask.:)
fukkit

United States

#302755 Jul 1, 2013
Dont you. People think this topic has went on long enough? I mean wtf??????
Some of you have lived here for years and years. Baby killers queers and christians. What a screwed up bunch.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#302756 Jul 1, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>I believe it is the Gnostic Gospels, which one leader or another (maybe King James??) had stricken from the books of the Bible, because it outlined and described the MARRIAGE of Jesus to Mary Magdalen....and the fact that he planned to set her at the helm of his new religion after his death. The Disciples weren't very keen on that idea at all.
Yet another indication that men directed the Bible's teachings, rather than God.
My belief in the Divine is nowhere near as contradictory or confounding as Christianity. I think I'll keep what I've got.
It is,only in leaving out the books called the apocrypha..That the Catholic and protestant bible a differ.

These have NITHING to do with Jesus..I believe th e y were nit credited by Jewish scholars as,authentic ...though having to do with the JEWS..

the New Tesatament scripture is the same since the scriptures were put together.

Jesus was not married

Dan Brown's book was fiction.

Mary M is respected as a disciple of Christ.
Who in my opinion was braver at first at the Crucifixion. Than the men..besides John..She and other women and John were at the Cross with His mother.
Spooner

Belzoni, MS

#302757 Jul 1, 2013
fukkit wrote:
Dont you. People think this topic has went on long enough? I mean wtf??????
Some of you have lived here for years and years. Baby killers queers and christians. What a screwed up bunch.
What category are you in ? You're posting on it.
JBH

Richmond, Canada

#302758 Jul 1, 2013
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: Jun 13

Location hidden

#302759 Jul 1, 2013
Spooner wrote:
<quoted text>
What category are you in ? You're posting on it.
M a dame says WHAT a troll.

Like the poster who says hey you are posting too much. Lol ..lurk lurk.

Hey Sir Spooner....don't I look gorgeous today!!!

Madame is always a feast for the eyes !!!
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#302761 Jul 1, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, they DID uphold the California Supreme Courts ruling you idiot. Yes, what you said is partly correct, HOWEVER, you - as typical FOR you - leave out quite a bit.
Pay attention to Justice Walker's comments.
"Roberts characterized the defendants as possessing a "generalized" interest in their fight to uphold Proposition 8 while delivering the majority opinion from the bench.
"Their only interest in having the District Court order reversed was to vindicate the constitutional validity of a generally applicable California Law," Roberts said. "We have repeatedly held that such a generalized grievance, no matter how sincere, is insufficient to confer standing."
The defendants were "free to pursue an ideological commitment" to their definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, Roberts said."
On the civil rights question, Walker wrote of this ruling, "Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs' objective as 'the right to same-sex marriage' would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy -- namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages."
FACT, its now legal in yet ANOTHER state.
FACT, it will be legal in MANY more, including yours before long.
FACT, if you dont like it, you'll be celebrating a brand new THOUGH SHIT moment.
Sucks to be loser you all the time.
Your Justice Roberts quotes only show that I was correct in saying SCOTUS ruled plaintiffs (proponents of H8) did not have legal standing to bring the case to appellate court or SCOTUS.

As for GAY judge, Vaughn Walker, at District court:

YOUR gay friends sued the state. Why? Because after H8 referendum vote resulted in 52% of voters saying HELL NO! to SSM, the California Supreme Court affirmed traditional marriage in state constitution.

Review: Yes, in 2008 California Supreme Court reversed original traditional marriage amendment put in place in 2000......BUT, after referendum they had to put it back in.(then your gay buds sued state and took case before GAY judge Vaughn Walker.....who stripped the > 7 million Californians of their voice...).

Pay attention.
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#302762 Jul 1, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>No one's voice was stripped - you bigots still have the untrammeled right to refuse to get married to a gay person, the unobstructed right to voice your opinion that gay sex is 'icky', and the unvarnished right to refrain from engaging in gay sex.
What you no longer have is a 'special right' to marry - as marriage has now been recognized as 'for everyone'.
When the heteros outlaw divorce, eschew adultery, and give up the ability to marry without having kids, THEN we can talk about how marriage between a man and a woman is the only 'real' marriage.
Until then, shut the fuck up. Your right to marry whom you love is not diminished by extending the recognition of that right to others of whose unions you personally don't happen to approve.
Next.
Playa: "No one's voice was stripped"
_________

52% of California voters said "Hell No!" to #SSM.

One GAY judge (District Court Judge, Vaughn Walker) said yes to Gay marriage.....stripping The People's voice.(Google what a referendum is, bonehead)
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#302763 Jul 1, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Those very people - homophobes and bigots in this case - just like when the question was black and white's marrying - dont GET TO VOTE ON THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF OTHERS.
What part of THAT do YOU not understand.
<quoted text>
See, here's the thing Sparky, NOBODY THAT MATTERS GIVES A SHIT what you think, approve of or welcome.
<quoted text>
Gives the term "TOUGH SHIT" a whole FUN new meaning! <<grin>>
<quoted text>
Well its nice to see that you recognize that your kind HAVE the emotional Intelligence level of monkeys. But I think its more like cockroaches, and you're being stamped OUT. LOL! Works for me!
I love watching whiney little bitches like you take being constant losers so "graciously". LOL!
NR: You don't make supporters by STRIPPING the voice of those very people."

Foo: "Those very people - homophobes and bigots in this case - just like when the question was black and white's marrying - dont GET TO VOTE ON THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF OTHERS."
__________

Citizens have a right to voice their beliefs, sentiments & desires in a referendum. Google "referendum." TIA.

Homosexuals DEMAND "tolerance".......ye t, you morons fail to even tolerate other's opinions on a referendum. Phonies. Hypocrites.

Likewise, over 90% of gays support executing defenseless babies in the womb. Tolerance my ass.

Some lesbians go as far as deathscorting innocents to their executioner.

You're a perverted, demented, baby-killing drug addict. Nothing more.
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#302764 Jul 1, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Those very people - homophobes and bigots in this case - just like when the question was black and white's marrying - dont GET TO VOTE ON THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF OTHERS.
What part of THAT do YOU not understand.
<quoted text>
See, here's the thing Sparky, NOBODY THAT MATTERS GIVES A SHIT what you think, approve of or welcome.
<quoted text>
Gives the term "TOUGH SHIT" a whole FUN new meaning! <<grin>>
<quoted text>
Well its nice to see that you recognize that your kind HAVE the emotional Intelligence level of monkeys. But I think its more like cockroaches, and you're being stamped OUT. LOL! Works for me!
I love watching whiney little bitches like you take being constant losers so "graciously". LOL!
Factless Foo: "Those very people - homophobes and bigots in this case - just like when the question was black and white's marrying - dont GET TO VOTE ON THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF OTHERS."
________

Not even SCOTUS said marriage is a civil right. You're pulling "marriage is a civil right" out of your ignorant azz. If marriage is a "civil right," your liberal justices wouldn't have punted #SSM issue back to the states.

Therefore, you calling 52% of California voters "bigots" for affirming Prop 8 is your intolerance showing. Again.

^^^ More Proof of homosexuals DEMANDING tolerance, but refusing to give tolerance. Hypocrites.^^^

^^^ Over 90% of homosexuals support dismembering, squishing beating hearts, and crushing skulls of defenseless babies in the womb. Tolerance my ass...^^^
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#302765 Jul 1, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Those very people - homophobes and bigots in this case - just like when the question was black and white's marrying - dont GET TO VOTE ON THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF OTHERS.
What part of THAT do YOU not understand.
<quoted text>
See, here's the thing Sparky, NOBODY THAT MATTERS GIVES A SHIT what you think, approve of or welcome.
<quoted text>
Gives the term "TOUGH SHIT" a whole FUN new meaning! <<grin>>
<quoted text>
Well its nice to see that you recognize that your kind HAVE the emotional Intelligence level of monkeys. But I think its more like cockroaches, and you're being stamped OUT. LOL! Works for me!
I love watching whiney little bitches like you take being constant losers so "graciously". LOL!
Factless Foo: "Those very people - homophobes and bigots in this case - just like when the question was black and white's marrying"

Black & whites marrying involved one man and one woman.

Pay attention.

(damn she's dumb....)

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#302766 Jul 1, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Playa: "No one's voice was stripped"
_________
52% of California voters said "Hell No!" to #SSM.
One GAY judge (District Court Judge, Vaughn Walker) said yes to Gay marriage.....stripping The People's voice.(Google what a referendum is, bonehead)
That's 'not a playa' to you, boneless.

And civil rights aren't recognized by popular vote.

Try again?
Katie

Maple Valley, WA

#302767 Jul 1, 2013
Spooner wrote:
<quoted text>
What category are you in ? You're posting on it.
Yeah, that's a good question. I'd guess "(faux)Christian" based on the obvious hypocrisy. Which makes the troll a Xtian, imo. Which narrows it down further.
Katie Does Not Read

New York, NY

#302768 Jul 1, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, that's a good question. I'd guess "(faux)Christian" based on the obvious hypocrisy. Which makes the troll a Xtian, imo. Which narrows it down further.
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 ?
Katie

Maple Valley, WA

#302769 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 ?
Should I wish you Happy Canada day?
grumpy

Huntington Station, NY

#302770 Jul 1, 2013
Madam Kindle wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok not really arguing here playa. As I know,your views,..you know mine...just trying to answer John's,Question..
But sex between two unmarried people as in Jesus And Mary M. Would have been sinful. Yes.
The sex act itself is nit sinful..never said that at all... did say to be fruitful ...
I admitted so did not read the book ..got me a sample to check out.
some books I can get in t o. Some not
I had a ton almost literally a huge box of books that looked good but could not finish..one reason I like kindle is the samples:).
Wrong! In Jewish law of the time the sex act with an unmarried woman was considerred a marriage.
There is no marriage religious marriage rite in the Bible. Jacob bought Leah and Rachel and they were not the only wives Jacob had.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#302771 Jul 1, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, that's a good question. I'd guess "(faux)Christian" based on the obvious hypocrisy. Which makes the troll a Xtian, imo. Which narrows it down further.
A troll..who maybe hates,everyone. Lol who cares..

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#302772 Jul 1, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Your Justice Roberts quotes only show that I was correct in saying SCOTUS ruled plaintiffs (proponents of H8) did not have legal standing to bring the case to appellate court or SCOTUS.
As for GAY judge, Vaughn Walker, at District court:
YOUR gay friends sued the state. Why? Because after H8 referendum vote resulted in 52% of voters saying HELL NO! to SSM, the California Supreme Court affirmed traditional marriage in state constitution.
Review: Yes, in 2008 California Supreme Court reversed original traditional marriage amendment put in place in 2000......BUT, after referendum they had to put it back in.(then your gay buds sued state and took case before GAY judge Vaughn Walker.....who stripped the > 7 million Californians of their voice...).
Pay attention.
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...

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#302773 Jul 1, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Playa: "No one's voice was stripped"
_________
52% of California voters said "Hell No!" to #SSM.
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.
One GAY judge (District Court Judge, Vaughn Walker) said yes to Gay marriage.....stripping The People's voice.(Google what a referendum is, bonehead)
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.
Katie

Maple Valley, WA

#302774 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 ?
Oh, NOT so clever one, I don't have "anti-Christian bias".

I have faux-Christian bias. IOW, Xtian bias.

Like especially those kinds of hypocrites that lump themselves into the same category they attack, forgetting they're no more special than anyone else in the same category.

:|

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.

Wethersfield Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min mdbuilder 1,601,307
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 9 hr Guinness Drunkard 63,972
News Developer Resubmits Plan In Wethersfield (Jun '08) 12 hr ANONYMOUS 45
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 12 hr TheReal411 21,182
News Eastman Chemical cutting up to 300 jobs, reduci... (Mar '09) Sep 18 Caitlyn Jenner 7
Sick Minded Sexual Perversion is an Abomination!! Sep 18 TrueX 2
Cromwell-the most racist town in CT (Jun '10) Sep 14 ANONYMOUS 31

Wethersfield Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Wethersfield Mortgages