Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Tennyson]

So polygamy is bad and illegal because we don't know how to dissolve it if one of the married people wants a divorce?

Polygamy has a rational basis for denial: its complete incompatibility with our existing caselaw regarding marriage.

What is the rational reason for the gender based discrimination in marriage? As same sex couples use marriage law the exact same way that opposite sex couples do.

You've never once been able to answer that question.

I've conceded....for the third time. What case law was there for same sex that doesn't apply to polygamy?

The Oberfegell ruling, for one. There's no mention of polygamy anywhere in it. Nor has there been the slightest application of the Obergefell ruling in defense of polygamy by any court, anywhere.

Jonathan Turley used the Oberfegell ruling for a defense of polygamy in Utah.

Turley isn't the courts. He's a defense attorney. And anyone can argue anything they'd like. Whether or not the court finds their arguments compelling is a completely different story.

The court never cited any applicability of Obergefell in the Brown case. Nor did the court overturn polygamy law. Merely laws recognizing cohabitation *as* polygamy. Bigamy (which is what polygamy legally is) is still quite illegal. With the court explicitly holding such when they ruled.

Turley won using Obergefell.

 

[Skylar]

Polygamy has a rational basis for denial: its complete incompatibility with our existing caselaw regarding marriage.

What is the rational reason for the gender based discrimination in marriage? As same sex couples use marriage law the exact same way that opposite sex couples do.

You've never once been able to answer that question.

I've conceded....for the third time. What case law was there for same sex that doesn't apply to polygamy?

The Oberfegell ruling, for one. There's no mention of polygamy anywhere in it. Nor has there been the slightest application of the Obergefell ruling in defense of polygamy by any court, anywhere.

Jonathan Turley used the Oberfegell ruling for a defense of polygamy in Utah.

Turley isn't the courts. He's a defense attorney. And anyone can argue anything they'd like. Whether or not the court finds their arguments compelling is a completely different story.

The court never cited any applicability of Obergefell in the Brown case. Nor did the court overturn polygamy law. Merely laws recognizing cohabitation *as* polygamy. Bigamy (which is what polygamy legally is) is still quite illegal. With the court explicitly holding such when they ruled.

Turley won using Obergefell.

Show us the court citing Obergefell's applicability in overturning polygamy laws.

You can't. As the court didn't cite Obergefell in their legal justification. Nor did they overturn polygamy bans. Merely cohabitation laws. Bigamy laws still stand. And bigamy is what polygamy legally is.

 

[Tennyson]

You have three out of context quotes.

Begging the Question. Prove they are out of context. You merely saying it must be so is meaningless gibberish.

Show us the evidence. You can't. Which is why you keep running every time I ask.

I probably need to make you aware that there was an entire Senate and and entire House, and the debated did not revolve around you out of context quotes or Bingham and Howard.

Like when you tried to tell us that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the bill of rights to the States?

Bingham and Howard both put your silly load of rhetorical horseshit to bed.

Laughing....dude, you don't know what you're talking about. Which is why I'm asking you for actual quotes from the Congressional Record rather than your ignorant blather about what the record included. As you've demonstrated, unambiguously, that you don't know what the Congressional Record included.

Show us the quotes supporting your argument. Don't tell us about them.

Again, you keep posting this same out of context quote as well, and is from the middle of a statement regarding
the privileges and immunities clause, not the Bill of Rights.

Obvious bullshit. He says right there a sentence or so later, ' to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution'

The first 8 amendments of the Bill of Rights are all enumerated rights in the constitution at that point. These were the fundamental rights that he insisted should be applied to the States.

And yet in defiance of all reason, you insist he wasn't referring to the Bill of Rights?!

Laughing...really?. There's a reason why 120 years of judicial precedent is on one side of this issue and you on the other. Because you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

Why do you not add this statement by Bingham?

And who, pray tell, claims that the 14th takes away a right of the State?

I am not sure what you point is by avoiding my posts and posting out of context quotes by two people.

Prove they're out of context. I'm not sure what the point of your Begging the Question fallacy is. But given your wildly inaccurate claims about the Congressional Record (remember your idiocy that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the bill of rights to the States), surely you understand why you citing yourself is meaningless gibber jabber.

Prove your claims. You can't. You're done.

I am pretty confident that I have sufficiently demonstrated that your quotes are out of context.

Nope. You haven't. As the only citation you've made from the entire congressional record....is one sentence. That doesn't contradict anything I've said.

You've TOLD us what you think the 39th congress said. But as demonstrated by your ludicrously inaccurate claims that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the Bill of Rights to the States......you don't know what the 39th congress said about the 14th amendment.

You'll need to prove, with evidence, that the 14th doesn't apply to the States. That my quotes of Bingham and Howard introducing the 14th amendment were 'out of context', or that Howard was ignored by the Senate.

As always, you citing yourself isn't evidence. Its an excuse for it.

You're not getting around this, Tenny. No one gives a fiddler's **** what you think the Congress said. Only what you can prove the Congress said.

Just in case you are not familiar with what context may be, regarding the Fourteenth Amendment, it would be the very first words spoken to the very last words spoken of the 39th Congress regarding not only the Fourteenth Amendment, but the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The debates started on April 30, 1866 and culminated on July 9, 1868. That is almost a year of debates with the civil rights act and hundreds of pages of debates. Your entire argument rests on a couple of out of context quotes by Bingham and Howard. Not only are the quotes out of context with their full body of statements limiting the Fourteenth Amendment to an enforcement of the privileges and immunity act of Article IV, but are out of context with the totality of the debates. Even if there statements were in context and they did offer them up as debate, which did not happen, there sentiments were ignored and the body of the debates did not revolve around the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Your first fatal flaw, and the fatal flaw of all incorporation apologists, is if the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to incorporate the Bill of Rights, it would have stated that it was incorporating the Bill of Rights. The primary purpose and function would have been to overturn Barron v Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833):

Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.

In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.

Not only did the 39th Congress did not make the amendment overturn Barron, but the amendment did not mention incorporation the Bill of Rights. If you want to know how an amendment or the Bill of Rights would have been amended, then read the Eighteenth Amendment and how it was amended with the Twenty-First Amendment.

Amendment XXI

Section 1.

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2.

The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

The Twenty-First Amendment is how the Fourteenth Amendment would have read if it incorporated the Bill of Rights.

And again, this is why your out of context quotes have no value.

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.

Prove your claims. You can't. You're done.

What a petty little person you are.

I am pretty confident that I have sufficiently demonstrated that your quotes are out of context. Just in case you are not familiar with what context may be, regarding the Fourteenth Amendment, it would be the very first words spoken to the very last words spoken of the 39th Congress regarding not only the Fourteenth Amendment, but the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The debates started on April 30, 1866 and culminated on July 9, 1868. That is almost a year of debates with the civil rights act and hundreds of pages of debates. Your entire argument rests on a couple of out of context quotes by Bingham and Howard. Not only are the quotes out of context with their full body of statements limiting the Fourteenth Amendment to an enforcement of the privileges and immunity act of Article IV, but are out of context with the totality of the debates. Even if there statements were in context and they did offer them up as debate, which did not happen, there sentiments were ignored and the body of the debates did not revolve around the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Your first fatal flaw, and the fatal flaw of all incorporation apologists, is if the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to incorporate the Bill of Rights, it would have stated that it was incorporating the Bill of Rights. The primary purpose and function would have been to overturn Barron v Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833):

Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.

In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.

Not only did the 39th Congress did not make the amendment overturn Barron, but the amendment did not mention incorporation the Bill of Rights. If you want to know how an amendment or the Bill of Rights would have been amended, then read the Eighteenth Amendment and how it was amended with the Twenty-First Amendment.

Amendment XXI

Section 1.

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2.

The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

The Twenty-First Amendment is how the Fourteenth Amendment would have read if it incorporated the Bill of Rights.

And again, this is why your out of context quotes have no value.

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.

Prove your claims. You can't. You're done.

What a petty little person you are.

You're just spamming again.

You citing yourself isn't evidence. Its an excuse for evidence. ANything you 'tell' us about what the Congress argued is meaningless. As you've demonstrated you don't know what you're talking about.

SHOW us with actual citations. As I did when I quoted both Bingham and Howard explicitly arguing that the intent of the 14th amendment was the application of the Bill of Rights on the States.

That's evidence. Now you try.

I am not spamming. I am only highlighting what you are running from. You are as boring as your are uneducated regarding the law and history. You have been running and ducking my posts from the onset. You have a three-pronged strategy: copy and paste out of contest quotes and dismiss the hundreds of other statements in the Senate and the House, avoiding, and petulant little philistine tantrums. All three add up to one who is woefully uneducated and imprisoned by ideology.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

And what did Baker V Nelson decide with regard to same sex?

It was a one sentence denial of writ of certiorari back when the law required that such denials of cert be formal replies.

The court does the same thing hundreds of time a year now with no comment.

Aside from the legal Latin, they said no to same sex?

They refused to hear the case.

Who refused? Which court?

The Supreme Court. Of the United States? You....you get that's who we're talking about, right?

And if you want to know who specifically issued the denial of cert, look it up.

So SCOTUS of 1970's, by refusing to hear the case, essentially declared
There was no conflict of law, the case was not important, the justices were not interested in the case, and there was no lower court disregarding previous Supreme Court rulings. Why else would they not hear the case?

 

[Tennyson]

I've conceded....for the third time. What case law was there for same sex that doesn't apply to polygamy?

The Oberfegell ruling, for one. There's no mention of polygamy anywhere in it. Nor has there been the slightest application of the Obergefell ruling in defense of polygamy by any court, anywhere.

Jonathan Turley used the Oberfegell ruling for a defense of polygamy in Utah.

Turley isn't the courts. He's a defense attorney. And anyone can argue anything they'd like. Whether or not the court finds their arguments compelling is a completely different story.

The court never cited any applicability of Obergefell in the Brown case. Nor did the court overturn polygamy law. Merely laws recognizing cohabitation *as* polygamy. Bigamy (which is what polygamy legally is) is still quite illegal. With the court explicitly holding such when they ruled.

Turley won using Obergefell.

Show us the court citing Obergefell's applicability in overturning polygamy laws.

You can't. As the court didn't cite Obergefell in their legal justification. Nor did they overturn polygamy bans. Merely cohabitation laws. Bigamy laws still stand. And bigamy is what polygamy legally is.

You are a boring waste of time. If you want to know, then find the transcript and briefs of the trial.

 

[Skylar]

Let me show you how evidence works. You've claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.

I disagreed. And offered this quote from Senator Jacob Howard of the 39th Congress introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate explicitly contradicting you:

"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature - to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....

The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "

- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate



Now you try. Quote the Congressional Record backing your claims. As your paraphrases are evidence. They're an excuse for evidence.

 

[Tennyson]

It was a one sentence denial of writ of certiorari back when the law required that such denials of cert be formal replies.

The court does the same thing hundreds of time a year now with no comment.

Aside from the legal Latin, they said no to same sex?

They refused to hear the case.

Who refused? Which court?

The Supreme Court. Of the United States? You....you get that's who we're talking about, right?

And if you want to know who specifically issued the denial of cert, look it up.

So SCOTUS of 1970's, by refusing to hear the case, essentially declared
There was no conflict of law, the case was not important, the justices were not interested in the case, and there was no lower court disregarding previous Supreme Court rulings. Why else would they not hear the case?

Prior to 1988, the Supreme Court knew that denying a case through mandatory appellate review was setting a precedent.

 

[Tennyson]

Let me show you how evidence works. You've claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.

I disagreed. And offered this quote from Senator Jacob Howard of the 39th Congress introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate explicitly contradicting you:

"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature - to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....

The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "

- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate



Now you try. Quote the Congressional Record backing your claims. As your paraphrases are evidence. They're an excuse for evidence.

I have already addressed that. You are becoming more boring by the minute.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Let me show you how evidence works. You've claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.

I disagreed. And offered this quote from Senator Jacob Howard of the 39th Congress introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate explicitly contradicting you:

"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature - to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....

The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "

- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate



Now you try. Quote the Congressional Record backing your claims. As your paraphrases are evidence. They're an excuse for evidence.

I have already addressed that. You are becoming more boring by the minute.

Hey Tennyson- I had the same reaction. It's best to just keep asking questions and then let her type a 4 paragraph response. It's like throwing a ball for a dog, pretty easy to do, and mildly entertaining.

 

[Skylar]

The Oberfegell ruling, for one. There's no mention of polygamy anywhere in it. Nor has there been the slightest application of the Obergefell ruling in defense of polygamy by any court, anywhere.

Jonathan Turley used the Oberfegell ruling for a defense of polygamy in Utah.

Turley isn't the courts. He's a defense attorney. And anyone can argue anything they'd like. Whether or not the court finds their arguments compelling is a completely different story.

The court never cited any applicability of Obergefell in the Brown case. Nor did the court overturn polygamy law. Merely laws recognizing cohabitation *as* polygamy. Bigamy (which is what polygamy legally is) is still quite illegal. With the court explicitly holding such when they ruled.

Turley won using Obergefell.

Show us the court citing Obergefell's applicability in overturning polygamy laws.

You can't. As the court didn't cite Obergefell in their legal justification. Nor did they overturn polygamy bans. Merely cohabitation laws. Bigamy laws still stand. And bigamy is what polygamy legally is.

You are a boring waste of time. If you want to know, then find the transcript and briefs of the trial.

Laughing......and once again, you expect us to take your word for it.

Here's the initial Brown v. Buhman decision

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?211cv0652-78

Show us the Obergefell ruling being used to justify overturning bigamy bans.

Here's the 10th circuit follow up.

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-4117.pdf

Show us the Obergefell ruling being used to justify overturning bigamy bans.

Laughing.....I won't hold my breath.

 

[Tennyson]

Let me show you how evidence works. You've claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.

I disagreed. And offered this quote from Senator Jacob Howard of the 39th Congress introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate explicitly contradicting you:

"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature - to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....

The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "

- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate



Now you try. Quote the Congressional Record backing your claims. As your paraphrases are evidence. They're an excuse for evidence.

I have already addressed that. You are becoming more boring by the minute.

Hey Tennyson- I had the same reaction. It's best to just keep asking questions and then let her type a 4 paragraph response. It's like throwing a ball for a dog, pretty easy to do, and mildly entertaining.

Good advise. I can see why no one would want to engage this character: no education in the law, no education in history or how history works, and no clue what context means. A couple of Google searches, a few out of context quotes that support his worldview, and nothing else matters.

 

[Skylar]

Let me show you how evidence works. You've claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.

I disagreed. And offered this quote from Senator Jacob Howard of the 39th Congress introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate explicitly contradicting you:

"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature - to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....

The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "

- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate



Now you try. Quote the Congressional Record backing your claims. As your paraphrases are evidence. They're an excuse for evidence.

I have already addressed that. You are becoming more boring by the minute.

Hey Tennyson- I had the same reaction. It's best to just keep asking questions and then let her type a 4 paragraph response. It's like throwing a ball for a dog, pretty easy to do, and mildly entertaining.

Don't get butt hurt just because I've done the research you've never bothered to do on the topic.

Or because I have the evidence to back up my arguments.

 

[Tennyson]

Jonathan Turley used the Oberfegell ruling for a defense of polygamy in Utah.

Turley isn't the courts. He's a defense attorney. And anyone can argue anything they'd like. Whether or not the court finds their arguments compelling is a completely different story.

The court never cited any applicability of Obergefell in the Brown case. Nor did the court overturn polygamy law. Merely laws recognizing cohabitation *as* polygamy. Bigamy (which is what polygamy legally is) is still quite illegal. With the court explicitly holding such when they ruled.

Turley won using Obergefell.

Show us the court citing Obergefell's applicability in overturning polygamy laws.

You can't. As the court didn't cite Obergefell in their legal justification. Nor did they overturn polygamy bans. Merely cohabitation laws. Bigamy laws still stand. And bigamy is what polygamy legally is.

You are a boring waste of time. If you want to know, then find the transcript and briefs of the trial.

Laughing......and once again, you expect us to take your word for it.

Here's the initial Brown v. Buhman decision

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?211cv0652-78

Show us the Obergefell ruling being used to justify overturning bigamy bans. .

Here's the 10th circuit follow up.

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-4117.pdf

Show us the Obergefell ruling being used to justify overturning bigamy bans.

Laughing.....I won't hold my breath.

Do you have a point? Why don't you post up the briefs filed by Turley.

 

[Skylar]

Turley isn't the courts. He's a defense attorney. And anyone can argue anything they'd like. Whether or not the court finds their arguments compelling is a completely different story.

The court never cited any applicability of Obergefell in the Brown case. Nor did the court overturn polygamy law. Merely laws recognizing cohabitation *as* polygamy. Bigamy (which is what polygamy legally is) is still quite illegal. With the court explicitly holding such when they ruled.

Turley won using Obergefell.

Show us the court citing Obergefell's applicability in overturning polygamy laws.

You can't. As the court didn't cite Obergefell in their legal justification. Nor did they overturn polygamy bans. Merely cohabitation laws. Bigamy laws still stand. And bigamy is what polygamy legally is.

You are a boring waste of time. If you want to know, then find the transcript and briefs of the trial.

Laughing......and once again, you expect us to take your word for it.

Here's the initial Brown v. Buhman decision

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?211cv0652-78

Show us the Obergefell ruling being used to justify overturning bigamy bans. .

Here's the 10th circuit follow up.

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-4117.pdf

Show us the Obergefell ruling being used to justify overturning bigamy bans.

Laughing.....I won't hold my breath.

Do you have a point? Why don't you post up the briefs filed by Turley.

My point is simple: that Obergfell hasn't been used by any court to overturn any polygamy bans.

Which I just demonstrated....twice. As Obergefell isn't even mentioned in either ruling. Let alone cited to overturn bigamy laws.

But don't let the evidence get in the way of a good rant. You never have before.

 

[Tennyson]

Turley won using Obergefell.

Show us the court citing Obergefell's applicability in overturning polygamy laws.

You can't. As the court didn't cite Obergefell in their legal justification. Nor did they overturn polygamy bans. Merely cohabitation laws. Bigamy laws still stand. And bigamy is what polygamy legally is.

You are a boring waste of time. If you want to know, then find the transcript and briefs of the trial.

Laughing......and once again, you expect us to take your word for it.

Here's the initial Brown v. Buhman decision

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?211cv0652-78

Show us the Obergefell ruling being used to justify overturning bigamy bans. .

Here's the 10th circuit follow up.

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-4117.pdf

Show us the Obergefell ruling being used to justify overturning bigamy bans.

Laughing.....I won't hold my breath.

Do you have a point? Why don't you post up the briefs filed by Turley.

My point is simple: that Obergfell hasn't been used by any court to overturn any polygamy bans.

Which I just demonstrated....twice. As Obergefell isn't even mentioned in either ruling. Let alone cited to overturn bigamy laws.

But don't let the evidence get in the way of a good rant. You never have before.

Obergfell was used by Turley regardless of what you can find on Google or you inadequacy and lack of resources to be able to find the briefs.

 

[Skylar]

Show us the court citing Obergefell's applicability in overturning polygamy laws.

You can't. As the court didn't cite Obergefell in their legal justification. Nor did they overturn polygamy bans. Merely cohabitation laws. Bigamy laws still stand. And bigamy is what polygamy legally is.

You are a boring waste of time. If you want to know, then find the transcript and briefs of the trial.

Laughing......and once again, you expect us to take your word for it.

Here's the initial Brown v. Buhman decision

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?211cv0652-78

Show us the Obergefell ruling being used to justify overturning bigamy bans. .

Here's the 10th circuit follow up.

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-4117.pdf

Show us the Obergefell ruling being used to justify overturning bigamy bans.

Laughing.....I won't hold my breath.

Do you have a point? Why don't you post up the briefs filed by Turley.

My point is simple: that Obergfell hasn't been used by any court to overturn any polygamy bans.

Which I just demonstrated....twice. As Obergefell isn't even mentioned in either ruling. Let alone cited to overturn bigamy laws.

But don't let the evidence get in the way of a good rant. You never have before.

Obergfell was used by Turley regardless of what you can find on Google or you inadequacy and lack of resources to be able to find the briefs.

Laughing.....and the court didn't agree with any of his reasoning, never once citing Obergefell in any of their rulings.

Exactly as I said. And the ban on bigamy stood.

Try to move the goal posts all you like. My point remains gloriously and pristinely unchallenged: That no court has ever used Obergefell to overturn any polygamy law.

And we both know I'm right.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Let me show you how evidence works. You've claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.

I disagreed. And offered this quote from Senator Jacob Howard of the 39th Congress introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate explicitly contradicting you:

"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature - to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....

The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "

- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate



Now you try. Quote the Congressional Record backing your claims. As your paraphrases are evidence. They're an excuse for evidence.

I have already addressed that. You are becoming more boring by the minute.

Hey Tennyson- I had the same reaction. It's best to just keep asking questions and then let her type a 4 paragraph response. It's like throwing a ball for a dog, pretty easy to do, and mildly entertaining.

Good advise. I can see why no one would want to engage this character: no education in the law, no education in history or how history works, and no clue what context means. A couple of Google searches, a few out of context quotes that support his worldview, and nothing else matters.

Wait a second, is Skylar a dude? I assumed she was a woman based on her debate style. Maybe she is a dude who identifies as a woman when she post, not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

[Skylar]

Let me show you how evidence works. You've claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.

I disagreed. And offered this quote from Senator Jacob Howard of the 39th Congress introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate explicitly contradicting you:

"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature - to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....

The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "

- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate



Now you try. Quote the Congressional Record backing your claims. As your paraphrases are evidence. They're an excuse for evidence.

I have already addressed that. You are becoming more boring by the minute.

Hey Tennyson- I had the same reaction. It's best to just keep asking questions and then let her type a 4 paragraph response. It's like throwing a ball for a dog, pretty easy to do, and mildly entertaining.

Good advise. I can see why no one would want to engage this character: no education in the law, no education in history or how history works, and no clue what context means. A couple of Google searches, a few out of context quotes that support his worldview, and nothing else matters.

Wait a second, is Skylar a dude? I assumed she was a woman based on her debate style. Maybe she is a dude who identifies as a woman when she post, not that there is anything wrong with that.

My debate style being to be....factual? And demand the same from those I talk with?

I use evidence. And I research my claims *before* I make them. Which is what separates me from you. Me from Tenny.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Let me show you how evidence works. You've claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.

I disagreed. And offered this quote from Senator Jacob Howard of the 39th Congress introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate explicitly contradicting you:

"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature - to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....

The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "

- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate



Now you try. Quote the Congressional Record backing your claims. As your paraphrases are evidence. They're an excuse for evidence.

I have already addressed that. You are becoming more boring by the minute.

Hey Tennyson- I had the same reaction. It's best to just keep asking questions and then let her type a 4 paragraph response. It's like throwing a ball for a dog, pretty easy to do, and mildly entertaining.

Don't get butt hurt just because I've done the research you've never bothered to do on the topic.

Or because I have the evidence to back up my arguments.

Ok, I have done the research-

In Hughes V Criswell it was decided that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, but the court stipulated in Zimmerman V Horshell that if either a man or a woman decides to have a sex change while married, they must continue to identify as their original sex when married. In other words, if a married woman changes her sex to become a man, she is still responsible for cooking and cleaning.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Let me show you how evidence works. You've claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.

I disagreed. And offered this quote from Senator Jacob Howard of the 39th Congress introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate explicitly contradicting you:

"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature - to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....

The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "

- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate



Now you try. Quote the Congressional Record backing your claims. As your paraphrases are evidence. They're an excuse for evidence.

I have already addressed that. You are becoming more boring by the minute.

Hey Tennyson- I had the same reaction. It's best to just keep asking questions and then let her type a 4 paragraph response. It's like throwing a ball for a dog, pretty easy to do, and mildly entertaining.

Good advise. I can see why no one would want to engage this character: no education in the law, no education in history or how history works, and no clue what context means. A couple of Google searches, a few out of context quotes that support his worldview, and nothing else matters.

Wait a second, is Skylar a dude? I assumed she was a woman based on her debate style. Maybe she is a dude who identifies as a woman when she post, not that there is anything wrong with that.

My debate style being to be....factual? And demand the same from those I talk with?

I use evidence. And I research my claims *before* I make them. Which is what separates me from you. Me from Tenny.

You know you better keep a hanky with you at all times, because with your nose so high in the air a runny nostril can be real embarrassing.