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
284,081 - 284,100 of 305,396 Comments Last updated 3 hrs ago
Free at last

Phillipsburg, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#302746
Jun 30, 2013
 
Yes. Out time is now!

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#302747
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
:Sigh:
California's Supreme Court struck down the state's 2000 #SSM ban in 2008.
SSM opponents proactively sought a referendum to correct the '08 California's pro-SSM California Supreme Court decision. After referendum came back 52% opposed to #SSM, CA's Supreme Court affirmed it to state Constitution.
THAT is when gays filed a lawsuit and had their GAY judge (Vaughn Walker) at District Court say h8 was unconstitutional.
Since the state of California did not contest Gay Judge Walker's ruling (because they are libturds), citizen proponents of H8 moved case to Appeals Court...then SCOTUS.
However, SCOTUS found proponents of H8 did not have legal standing....so court DID NOT ANY rulings or make offer any opinions on the California situation. None. Zip. Nada.
Foo: "SCOTUS agreed 100% by upholding the previous rulings."
SCOTUS didn't "uphold" anything. They said we can't rule on this case b/c propenents had no legal merit to bring it to them.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
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.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#302748
Jun 30, 2013
 
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't make supporters by STRIPPING the voice of those very people.^^^
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.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#302749
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't make supporters by STRIPPING the voice of those very people.
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.
That was a good way to overextend your welcome. Ya know?
See, here's the thing Sparky, NOBODY THAT MATTERS GIVES A SHIT what you think, approve of or welcome.
You & your gay folk took a dump on the collective heads of Californian voters.
Gives the term "TOUGH SHIT" a whole FUN new meaning! <<grin>>

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 ^^^
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!

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#302750
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.
That's part of what has him so on edge hon - nobody's ever marrying HIM, male OR female. He's just pissy because HE will never have the rights a married couple would, because NOBODY would have him. Other than his mommy that is..... LOL

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#302751
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.
Also, I find it hysterical that a 40ish virgin (he admitted that once years ago), is SO interested in preventing womens civil right to make their own medical decisions - as well as trying to prevent two poeple that DO love each other (something he knows he'll never have) from marrying, and more than a bit disturbing that he has these frequent delusions/fantasies about "chidren" that never existed, pretending and going so far as to name them....

poor lil fella, a teeny tiny part of me feels sorry for him. The BIGGER part of course thinks hes an ass. LOL
JBH

Richmond, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#302752
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Where do you think you live, as this is a new globe?

Back in the old days, Hitler Nazis and SS soldiers stormed all over and crushed London and almost demolished it. Hitler won a lot in the first few years during WWII. If they were not the Russians nailing down the Nazis hiding in fox holes, Europe could be as one Hitler Europe.

When Hitler is no longer there, many Neo-Nazis are still out there everywhere and they will do whatever to follow the Nazi or Hitler doctrine. Only Russians can do the job facing Neo-Nazis as they had done it to do about Nazis, but not Britain. If Russians could crush Nazis, they could also burn Britain. Because British were no match to Nazis in the first place, how could they face Russians, also in the Olympics? Germans are no match to Russians in the Olympics either.

Russians are having lots of billionaires. When Russians have money for the most expensive Olympic ever, Russians have lots of money to enhance vital military, with new types of submarines and fast cruise and fighter jets. Russian regiments, marines and infantry are upbeat in the training, coupled with the construction of systems of cruise missile and anti-missiles juncture.
Russia has the backing and support from China, North Korea and Japan. Then Nordic, Baltic, including even Balkan counties, might still be interested in closer relationships with Russians. This will lead to the uncertainty of Germany in the middle as what to do.

Russia has new technology and is well-prepared for cyber work functions and advancing cyber-attack modes if being hacked. The biggest Muslim population country Indonesia is spending huge sums to build its military for preparedness. Then, what do you think Muslims are, with no military and how would they affect the world?

You are no longer facing the old world like what used to be, at the current time after people seeing the disasters of Iraq war. That is concerning breaking world policy of running down the universal law as an outlaw. When the African young people are hoping to embark and intrude to this new world to show their faces and cultures, they still do not know that Triple-K (KKK) are waiting for them to do about, until they become adulthood. Give some hopes of looking forward to seeing Black Africans and watch out the KKK and neo-Nazis. No Africans can do fine with no economies because people just stare at them. Since they slaughtered lots of Blacks before Civil War, who do you think that can do a better job for all diversities of all kinds of people on earth?

People need to figure out what they want, the liberty value, rights standard, jurisdictions, rules of law, in addition to many things else.

What do you think the world is now like, if you can just eat some more sausages, what kind-Russian, by the way?

You are no longer just you any more because you will see lots of new faces of different languages and cultures when facing global migration.

It is your turn to do whatever how you think accordingly.
Forum

Carlsbad, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#302753
Jun 30, 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 not 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:).
It gets easier when you start escaping from the filth.
40 years that they were stuck in the desert trying
to get out of Egypt.
They were enslaved just like we are.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dallas, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Terry, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

West Lafayette, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#302761
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

3

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

West Lafayette, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#302762
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

West Lafayette, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#302763
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

4

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

West Lafayette, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#302764
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

3

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

West Lafayette, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#302765
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

3

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#302766
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Other Recent NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min John Galt 1,096,546
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 43 min anonymous 26,977
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr CunningLinguist 225,710
I got my loan from stephenloanhelp@hotmail.com (May '13) Aug 19 RICK SERVICE 28
loan needed (Dec '13) Aug 12 Simon 5
loan offer (Jun '13) Aug 10 Tram 81
Na Aug 9 rrg cgr 1

Search the NCAA Basketball Forum:
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••