Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311603 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.

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.

:|

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#302775 Jul 1, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Not when it comes to civil rights they do NOT.
Homosexuals DEMAND "tolerance".......ye t, you morons fail to even tolerate other's opinions on a referendum.
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.

Likewise, over 90% of gays support executing defenseless babies in the womb.
Says who?
You're a perverted, demented, baby-killing drug addict. Nothing more.
And you're a whining, pathetic, lying, IMPOTENT little bitch. Nothing more.

<<<grin>> **smoochies**

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#302776 Jul 1, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
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....)
Tjose that tried to stop blacks and whites from marrying involved bigots like yourself who wanted to PREVENT two people that loved each other from marrying. Period.

It has NOTHING to do with the genders, except in some idiots heads.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#302777 Jul 1, 2013
I liked twilight zone, one step beyond, addam's family, etc. I always thought leave it to beaver was weird; I never knew any family remotely like the cleavers.

I really liked sweeney todd, although I missed some of the chorus numbers, especially the intro. But I have the lansbury/hearn stage production on disc for that. Burton is possibly the only director around with the skills to bring that show to film.
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Hah-hah!
Good call!
Was never a big fan of "The Outer Limits," was more of a "Twilight Zone" sorta guy, and even had to have that in small doses. My favorite episodes were starring--guess who?--none other than Captain Kirk himself. Yes, "Nightmare at 20,000 feet," and the one where he and his girlfriend are "trapped" in a diner by a table-top fortune-telling box, are among my favorites.
Agree completely though...movies are shown at an ear-splitting level nowadays.
I was skeptical when I'd heard of Tim Burton's attempt to bring "Sweeny Todd" to the big screen; my father was an opera fanatic in the Eighties, and took me to see one performance at the NYC Opera House. I've never forgotten that experience, and thought it unlikely that Burton and crew would be able to do it justice.
Imagine my surprise when they happened to "exceed" my expectations...
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#302778 Jul 1, 2013
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**
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.

2) Interesting that you're preaching "civil rights" when you promote stripping the rights of those in utero - to death. You deny the right to life of 600,000 baby females/year, then preach civil rights?("feminist" my ass). You're a deathscort hypocrite. Nothing more.
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#302779 Jul 1, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Tjose that tried to stop blacks and whites from marrying involved bigots like yourself who wanted to PREVENT two people that loved each other from marrying. Period.
It has NOTHING to do with the genders, except in some idiots heads.
One more time for the deathscort hypocrite;

The issue of blacks & whites marrying involved one man and one woman.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#302780 Jul 1, 2013
Those are great! My favorite:


No dialog, just bravura acting from an actress who never really got her due.
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
This one is my fave Twilight Zone, and I"m sure it'll come as a GREAT shock!
https://www.youtube.com/watch...
followed by this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch...
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 ^^^

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.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min John Galt 1,417,602
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 6 hr Eagle 12 256,542
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Tue Into The Night 10,059
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Tue Trojan 32,323
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Aug 19 JustStop 201,888
mark moel loan house is here for you to uptain ... (Sep '13) Aug 14 Alex 17
legitimate loan lender (Oct '13) Aug 11 Ceren 9
More from around the web