Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 307,108
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. Full Story

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#302811 Jul 1, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG I LOVE Agnes Moorehead. I haven't thought of her in years!
How can one possibly forget Endira...a real friend butt such a sharp tongue..But then Madame was never a wallflower..probably why we got along so well!!!
No Relativism

Huntington, IN

#302812 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...
#SSM was illegal in the state of California. The fruit-loop mayor of San Franciso gave the green light for the city to issue #SSM licenses - ignoring state law.

California Supreme Court nullified those fake marriages. Gays sued state, and in May 2008 California Supreme Court overturned state ban on SSM. The Nov 2008 referendum (prop 8)yielded a 52% majority in favor of a state constitutional amendemnt banning SSM.

Gays challenged Prop 8 at the California Supreme Court, but the court upheld the amendment.

Gays then filed lawsuit against the state, and took the matter to the federal court of appeals.....where GAY judge Vaughn Walker was waiting. He obviously (Read: He's gay) ruled in favor of gay marriage....silencing the 7 million voices of California who said HELL NO during the democratic process (referendum).

One GAY judge intervened in democratic process to silence The People.

GAY judge activism. You couldn't get #SSM passed by the people, so you had to have help from your GAY judge.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#302813 Jul 1, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Who said marriage is a civil right?
Justice Earl Warren and SCOTUS.

Ya moron ya.
SCOTUS sure didn't.
Yes they did ya moron ya.
They left it up to the states to decide.
Ya moron ya.
No they didn't ya IMPOTENT moron ya.

LOL!
abc123e4r5t

Denver, CO

#302814 Jul 1, 2013
;liuyjtrga

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#302815 Jul 1, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
You're taking a civil rights case based on race, and morphing the results into support for two women marrying/two men marrying. You're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, and a penis into another man's butt hole.
That particular CASE was about race, HOWEVER it was ALSO about marriage AS A CIVL RIGHT based on the 14th Amenedment as Justice Earl Warren CLEARLY said.

I GUARANTEE if and when it comes to a SCOTUS case, this decision will be based on settled law - Loving vs Virginia.

As Loving herself said:

" Posted at 03:22 PM ET, 06/09/2011 Jun 09, 2011 07:22 PM EDT

TheWashingtonPost Loving v. Virginia gives hope for same-sex marriage
By Jonathan Capehart

Truth be told, the original defense of marriage occurred on June 12, 1967. That’s when the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that two people, no matter their race, should be legally allowed to marry. In a stirring video tribute to the landmark case released by the American Foundation for Equal Rights, Ted Olson and David Boies, the conservative-liberal tag team fighting to overturn California’s Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage in the state constitution, pay homage to Richard and Mildred Loving and use their powerful example — and Mrs. Loving’s own words — to make the case for legalizing same-sex marriage.

As Mildred Loving said on the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision,“I believe all Americans, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry..&#8201;.&#8201; . I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.”

As Earl Warren said : "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."

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#302816 Jul 1, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
The focus was on discrimination based on race. It didn't relate to two human beings w/ vaginas getting married. At all.
It didn't relate to GENDER at all - and was about marriage equality as well as race. Period.

SCOTUS has been shaping a more extensive area of privacy around marriage since the dustbowl in the 20's. SCOTUS, via the Constitituion, guarantees that personal questions — like who will marry (ie forced arranged marriages), whether a couple can/will have children, the use of contraception, abortion - particularly in the first trimester or how to raise & educate kids are left largely inviolable by legislators and government.

FURTHER - Justice Kennedy cited Planned Parenthood v. Casey when SCOTUS overturned Lawrence v. Texas - affirming a "constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education."

So AGAIN we have SCOTUS discussing marriage in regard to CIVIL RIGHTS moron boy.

He went on to say: ""These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State."

Justice Kennedy finished reading his decision by saying, "persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexuals do."

You're wrong as usual No Relevance. Dig out that undropped testicle and deal with it.

Strikes me that its YOU that doesn't know what you're talking about as usual, and is spouting your usual wishful, hatefilled thinking.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#302817 Jul 1, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
That whiney Maddow guy on MSNBC gets on my nerves....
Of course SHE does No Relevance, she's a stronger man and a better Christian than you'll ever be.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#302818 Jul 1, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
"For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." (Genesis 2:24)
__________
It doesn't say "a man shall leave his father and his father - or mother & his mother - and be joined to his gay lover."
No.
No it doesn't.
Next..........
ROFLMAO!!

YOU quoting scripture as if it has ANY meaning is about as impressive and meaningful as your priests that stuck 'a penis into another childs butt hole'.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#302819 Jul 1, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
#SSM was illegal in the state of California. The fruit-loop mayor of San Franciso gave the green light for the city to issue #SSM licenses - ignoring state law.
Not according to the Constitution it wasn't, which is why he was ABLE to issue licenses legally.

GAY judge activism. You couldn't get #SSM passed by the people, so you had to have help from your GAY judge.
Not all the judges that have ruled on this were gay son. ALL courts upheld his decision. Get over your phobia's and jealousy and deal with it already.

His being GAY has NOTHING to do with anything at all. If it did, if it had ANY legal basis, his decision would have been tossed out on THAT basis.

It wasn't. You're wrong. Deal with it already you pathetic shmuck.

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#302820 Jul 1, 2013
Protest all you want abortion will stay legal...And once the older people(over age 50) die off any backward steps made will be done away with.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#302821 Jul 1, 2013
I find it amusing that idiots like Knutbar and No Relevance (among others here) dont want "big government" interfering in their lives, but they're perfectly okay with that SAME government taking away the rights of women and gays & lesbians.

That's the ULTIMATE in hypocracy.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#302822 Jul 1, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
ROFLMAO!!
YOU quoting scripture as if it has ANY meaning is about as impressive and meaningful as your priests that stuck 'a penis into another childs butt hole'.
Hey llllaaaadddddyyyyy. Jerry. Was such a dearie..

Look in your PM..also sent mail yesterday:)

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#302823 Jul 1, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
#SSM was illegal in the state of California. The fruit-loop mayor of San Franciso gave the green light for the city to issue #SSM licenses - ignoring state law.
California Supreme Court nullified those fake marriages. Gays sued state, and in May 2008 California Supreme Court overturned state ban on SSM. The Nov 2008 referendum (prop 8)yielded a 52% majority in favor of a state constitutional amendemnt banning SSM.
You're a moron son.

The wording of Proposition 8 was exactly the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22, which had passed in 2000 and, as an ordinary statute, had been invalidated by the State Supreme Court in 2008.

There was no state law banning SSM. In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757 [76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384], was a California Supreme Court case with the dual holding that "statutes that treat persons differently because of their sexual orientation should be subjected to strict scrutiny" and the existing "California legislative and initiative measures limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the state constitutional rights of same-sex couples and may not be used to preclude same-sex couples from marrying."

Prop 8 sought to overturn that 2000 ruling BY the supreme court. THEY HAD NO STANDING TO DO SO.

On February 7, 2012, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2–1 majority opinion affirming the judgment in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional, saying it violated the Equal Protection Clause. The opinion, written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt and joined by Judge Michael Hawkins, states that Proposition 8 did nothing more than lessen the status and dignity of gays and lesbians, and classify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The court found that the people of California, by using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw the right to marry they once possessed under the California State Constitution, violated the federal Constitution.

YOu want to blame this all on ONE "gay" judge, when in fact, it went through MANY courts and MANY judges, INCLUDING SCOTUS.

Sorry you and your kind are so impotent son.

... okay, not really sorry. I find it pretty funny to watch you waggle your teeny weenie actually! LOL!

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#302824 Jul 1, 2013
Madam Kindle wrote:
<quoted text>
Look in your PM..also sent mail yesterday:)
Send you a PM back. Surgery is in the morning, so I'll be around tomorrow nite hopefully! Looking forward to a few days rest pain free! <<grin>>
Katie

Federal Way, WA

#302826 Jul 1, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
That particular CASE was about race, HOWEVER it was ALSO about marriage AS A CIVL RIGHT based on the 14th Amenedment as Justice Earl Warren CLEARLY said.
I GUARANTEE if and when it comes to a SCOTUS case, this decision will be based on settled law - Loving vs Virginia.
As Loving herself said:
" Posted at 03:22 PM ET, 06/09/2011 Jun 09, 2011 07:22 PM EDT
TheWashingtonPost Loving v. Virginia gives hope for same-sex marriage
By Jonathan Capehart
Truth be told, the original defense of marriage occurred on June 12, 1967. That’s when the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that two people, no matter their race, should be legally allowed to marry. In a stirring video tribute to the landmark case released by the American Foundation for Equal Rights, Ted Olson and David Boies, the conservative-liberal tag team fighting to overturn California’s Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage in the state constitution, pay homage to Richard and Mildred Loving and use their powerful example — and Mrs. Loving’s own words — to make the case for legalizing same-sex marriage.
As Mildred Loving said on the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision,“I believe all Americans, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry..&#8201;.&#8201; . I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.”
As Earl Warren said : "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."
I think, as usual, NR is just spouting the same lies told to him by the Religious Right. As usual, I think NR doesn't want to know what the truth is because he's so set on it being what he *wants* to be, not what it is. SSDD

“GO BLACKHAWKS!!”

Since: Dec 07

Home of Lord Stanley!

#302827 Jul 1, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Send you a PM back. Surgery is in the morning, so I'll be around tomorrow nite hopefully! Looking forward to a few days rest pain free! <<grin>>
Good luck on your surgery, Foo. I'll be praying that all goes well and for a speedy recovery.:o)

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#302828 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>
Good lord, it's Grandma Walton....or is it Endora?

Either way...

:)

Since: Aug 09

Port Jefferson, NY

#302829 Jul 1, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
I find it amusing that idiots like Knutbar and No Relevance (among others here) dont want "big government" interfering in their lives, but they're perfectly okay with that SAME government taking away the rights of women and gays & lesbians.
That's the ULTIMATE in hypocracy.
Good evening Milady!

I've said this more times than I can recall; conservatives are always against governmental intrusion with the exception of passing legislation limiting medical/ reproductive procedures they don't approve of, and legislation that prohibits sexuality that they don't approve of.
What I find interesting, amusing, and dismaying are the way they're reacting towards this whole Edward Snowden debacle. Most are hailing him as a hero, yet if he'd appeared during the previous administration, leaked secrets about the Terrorist Surveillance Operation, the warrantless wiretapping, then went on a globe-trotting tour to Pakistan, Iran, Indonesia, Burma, and sought asylum in say Venezuela, they'd be screaming their heads off about his traitorous antics.
I remember clearly during the previous administration when they explained away the wiretapping by saying; "If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to worry about." Now that they realize Obama's group are doing the same thing, suddenly it's an infringement on their civil rights/ right to privacy.
Height of hypocrisy.

Very best for tomorrow my friend. Losta love!
:)

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#302830 Jul 1, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Send you a PM back. Surgery is in the morning, so I'll be around tomorrow nite hopefully! Looking forward to a few days rest pain free! <<grin>>
Replied lol...Good luck ..my dear Madame sends hugs and prayers

“lightly burnt,but still smokin”

Since: Dec 06

in the corner of your mind,

#302831 Jul 1, 2013
john k is spot on with that post

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Teaman 1,156,196
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 20 min IBdaMann 49,356
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 36 min truth told 19,572
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 38 min Frijoles 71,267
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 10 hr TRD 68,912
Advocating For A Glastonbury Poet Laureate Fri i want that jon 1
Praying That Perez Vigil Was A Bad Dream (Mar '09) Dec 22 John J Thomas 48
Wethersfield Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Wethersfield People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Wethersfield News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Wethersfield

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 6:31 pm PST