Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday

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.
Comments
284,141 - 284,160 of 305,181 Comments Last updated 4 hrs ago

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#302803
Jul 1, 2013
 
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't badmouth idiots like that!
:-D

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#302805
Jul 1, 2013
 
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Th e y had betrothed..bride prices ..Jacob had his wives maids as concubine..another type of bride

But an unmarried woman who slept with a man could be stoned in that society.
They tried stoning one w Oman in His presence for sleeping with a man not her husband..

He told them basically to throw the stones only if they had no sins of their own

Jesus did Not sleep with Magdalene.

He did not Sin..

He became full of our Sin as He was dying on the Cross.

Thus is what we as Christians believe ..which is what was asked.

I'm. Not trying to change anyone's belief ..just explaining ours.
No Relativism

Wakarusa, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#302806
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Not when it comes to civil rights they do NOT.
<quoted text>
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, you didn't get that right when it came to blacks and whites marrying, and you dont get it now. Dont like it? Fk off and move to Iran.
<quoted text>
Says who?
<quoted text>
And you're a whining, pathetic, lying, IMPOTENT little bitch. Nothing more.
<<<grin>> **smoochies**
Who said marriage is a civil right?

SCOTUS sure didn't. They left it up to the states to decide.

Ya moron ya.
No Relativism

Wakarusa, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#302807
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
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.
No Relativism

Wakarusa, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#302808
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The focus was on discrimination based on race. It didn't relate to two human beings w/ vaginas getting married. At all.
No Relativism

Wakarusa, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#302809
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.
That whiney Maddow guy on MSNBC gets on my nerves....
No Relativism

Wakarusa, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#302810
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

"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..........

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Wakarusa, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#302812
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Littleton, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#302814
Jul 1, 2013
 
;liuyjtrga

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#302818
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#302820
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#302821
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

Other Recent Wethersfield Discussions

Search the Wethersfield Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 10 min THE DEVIL 1,083,731
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 3 hr truth-facts 45,892
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 5 hr TRD 68,057
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 5 hr SamBee 68,439
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 7 hr Abdullah OBrian 18,591
The Trial of Heather Specyalski (Mar '13) 23 hr Cassie 22
Cher Calvin (Nov '08) Tue Ron Wells 19
•••
•••
•••
•••

Wethersfield Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

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 ]
•••