Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Skylar]

Bigamy laws remain untouched, with polygamy still illegal. And the court rejected every argument Turley made regarding Obergefell, not so much as mentioning the case in any of their rulings.

As we both know, not one court has ever used Obergefell to overturn any polygamy law. You can't get around that.

Like your babble about the 14th, it really doesn't matter what you ignore. What is, is.

Turley won. The court did not reject his arguments. The law was overturned using Obergefell. That was one of Turley's arguments.

Nope. Bigamy laws were unambiguously upheld, maintaining polygamy's criminal status. And every argument regarding Obergefell was rejected by every court.

Exactly as I told you. Ignore as you will. It won't matter.

Turley won. His argument was not rejected by the court. Utah will not prosecute polygamy.

Brown sought to have bigamy laws overturned. He failed. He's appealing to the USSC as we speak on the exact same case.

And as we both know, all arguments regarding Obergefell were rejected by the court. As Obergefell was never mentioned in either ruling.

Your argument breaks in the exact same place every time: the courts.

Turley used Obergefell. Turley won.

And the court rejected his argument regarding Obergefell.

 

[Tennyson]

Turley won. The court did not reject his arguments. The law was overturned using Obergefell. That was one of Turley's arguments.

Nope. Bigamy laws were unambiguously upheld, maintaining polygamy's criminal status. And every argument regarding Obergefell was rejected by every court.

Exactly as I told you. Ignore as you will. It won't matter.

Turley won. His argument was not rejected by the court. Utah will not prosecute polygamy.

Brown sought to have bigamy laws overturned. He failed. He's appealing to the USSC as we speak on the exact same case.

And as we both know, all arguments regarding Obergefell were rejected by the court. As Obergefell was never mentioned in either ruling.

Your argument breaks in the exact same place every time: the courts.

Turley used Obergefell. Turley won.

And the court rejected his argument regarding Obergefell.

Turley won. The court did not reject Obergefell. Turley used Obergefell. Utah will not prosecute polygamy.

 

[Skylar]

Nope. Bigamy laws were unambiguously upheld, maintaining polygamy's criminal status. And every argument regarding Obergefell was rejected by every court.

Exactly as I told you. Ignore as you will. It won't matter.

Turley won. His argument was not rejected by the court. Utah will not prosecute polygamy.

Brown sought to have bigamy laws overturned. He failed. He's appealing to the USSC as we speak on the exact same case.

And as we both know, all arguments regarding Obergefell were rejected by the court. As Obergefell was never mentioned in either ruling.

Your argument breaks in the exact same place every time: the courts.

Turley used Obergefell. Turley won.

And the court rejected his argument regarding Obergefell.

Turley won. The court did not reject Obergefell.

The court did reject his every argument regarding Obergefell. No court has every used Obergefell to justify overturning any polygamy law.

Ever.

 

[Tennyson]

Turley won. His argument was not rejected by the court. Utah will not prosecute polygamy.

Brown sought to have bigamy laws overturned. He failed. He's appealing to the USSC as we speak on the exact same case.

And as we both know, all arguments regarding Obergefell were rejected by the court. As Obergefell was never mentioned in either ruling.

Your argument breaks in the exact same place every time: the courts.

Turley used Obergefell. Turley won.

And the court rejected his argument regarding Obergefell.

Turley won. The court did not reject Obergefell.

The court did reject his every argument regarding Obergefell. No court has every used Obergefell to justify overturning any polygamy law.

Ever.

Turley won. The court did not reject Obergefell. Utah will not prosecute polygamy.

 

[Skylar]

Brown sought to have bigamy laws overturned. He failed. He's appealing to the USSC as we speak on the exact same case.

And as we both know, all arguments regarding Obergefell were rejected by the court. As Obergefell was never mentioned in either ruling.

Your argument breaks in the exact same place every time: the courts.

Turley used Obergefell. Turley won.

And the court rejected his argument regarding Obergefell.

Turley won. The court did not reject Obergefell.

The court did reject his every argument regarding Obergefell. No court has every used Obergefell to justify overturning any polygamy law.

Ever.

Turley won. The court did not reject Obergefell. Utah will not prosecute polygamy.

The court did reject Turley's every argument regarding Obergefell. In both rulings, they never so much as mentioned Obergefell.

Bigamy remained illegal. And Brown is appealing to the Supreme Court.

 

[Tennyson]

Turley used Obergefell. Turley won.

And the court rejected his argument regarding Obergefell.

Turley won. The court did not reject Obergefell.

The court did reject his every argument regarding Obergefell. No court has every used Obergefell to justify overturning any polygamy law.

Ever.

Turley won. The court did not reject Obergefell. Utah will not prosecute polygamy.

The court did reject Turley's every argument regarding Obergefell. In both rulings, they never so much as mentioned Obergefell.

Bigamy remained illegal. And Brown is appealing to the Supreme Court.

Turley won. Utah does not prosecute polygamy. The courts did not reject Obergefell. The district did not, and the appellate court would not made a determination on Obergefell.

 

[Skylar]

And the court rejected his argument regarding Obergefell.

Turley won. The court did not reject Obergefell.

The court did reject his every argument regarding Obergefell. No court has every used Obergefell to justify overturning any polygamy law.

Ever.

Turley won. The court did not reject Obergefell. Utah will not prosecute polygamy.

The court did reject Turley's every argument regarding Obergefell. In both rulings, they never so much as mentioned Obergefell.

Bigamy remained illegal. And Brown is appealing to the Supreme Court.

Turley won.

Nope. Bigamy is still criminal. The State doesn't recognize polygamy. And Brown is appealing his case to the Supreme Court.

As the court rejected every Obergfell argument Turley had. Without exception.

No court has every recognized Obergefell as overturning any polygamy law.

 

[Tennyson]

Turley won. The court did not reject Obergefell.

The court did reject his every argument regarding Obergefell. No court has every used Obergefell to justify overturning any polygamy law.

Ever.

Turley won. The court did not reject Obergefell. Utah will not prosecute polygamy.

The court did reject Turley's every argument regarding Obergefell. In both rulings, they never so much as mentioned Obergefell.

Bigamy remained illegal. And Brown is appealing to the Supreme Court.

Turley won.

Nope. Bigamy is still criminal. The State doesn't recognize polygamy. And Brown is appealing his case to the Supreme Court.

As the court rejected every Obergfell argument Turley had. Without exception.

No court has every recognized Obergefell as overturning any polygamy law.

Turley used Obergefell. Turley won. Utah will not prosecute polygamy laws. The appeal to the Supreme Court is not the exact same case that Turley won. Turley won on the merits using Obergefell; the appeal is regarding standing and the state of Utah not prosecuting polygamy.

 

[Skylar]

The court did reject his every argument regarding Obergefell. No court has every used Obergefell to justify overturning any polygamy law.

Ever.

Turley won. The court did not reject Obergefell. Utah will not prosecute polygamy.

The court did reject Turley's every argument regarding Obergefell. In both rulings, they never so much as mentioned Obergefell.

Bigamy remained illegal. And Brown is appealing to the Supreme Court.

Turley won.

Nope. Bigamy is still criminal. The State doesn't recognize polygamy. And Brown is appealing his case to the Supreme Court.

As the court rejected every Obergfell argument Turley had. Without exception.

No court has every recognized Obergefell as overturning any polygamy law.

Turley used Obergefell.

Turley *tried* to use Obergefell. The court rejected his every attempt. So thorough was their rejection of Turley's argument that they never so much as mentioned Obergefell or cited it in any capacity in any of their rulings.

Bigamy is still criminal, despite Turley's best efforts. Turley failed to get polygamy legally recognized. And Brown has appealed to his case to the Supreme Court.

Try again. This time without ignoring the actual Brown v. Buhman rulings.

Turley won. Utah will not prosecute polygamy laws. The appeal to the Supreme Court is not the exact same case that Turley won. Turley won on the merits using Obergefell; the appeal is regarding standing and the state of Utah not prosecuting polygamy.[/QUOTE]

 

[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.

Alas, the Supreme Court has sided with my claims for 120 years. As did Bingham. As did Howard.

Remember, I actually cited the Congressional Record showing that John Bingham and Jacob Howard, both of whom were on the committe writing the 14th amendment, explicited stated that the purpose of the 14th was to extend the Bill of Rights to the States.

You cited yourself....ignored the Supreme Court, ignored Bingham, ignored Howard, and insisting you know better than all of them.

Smiling.....how's that working out for you?

 

[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.

No, you haven't.

You claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the Bill of Rights to the States.

Jacob Howard was in the 39th Congress. He was on the committee writing the 14th amendment. And in his introduction of the 14th amendment to the Senate, he did exactly what you insisted no one did.


"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



How could you possibly have missed this? Easy.....you've never read the congressional record and you have no idea what you're talking about.

But you expect me to accept your paraphrases of a record you've never read as evidence?

Nope. Quote the record backing your claims. Not yourself. As you demonstrated for us, you don't know you're talking about.

 

[Tennyson]

Turley won. The court did not reject Obergefell. Utah will not prosecute polygamy.

The court did reject Turley's every argument regarding Obergefell. In both rulings, they never so much as mentioned Obergefell.

Bigamy remained illegal. And Brown is appealing to the Supreme Court.

Turley won.

Nope. Bigamy is still criminal. The State doesn't recognize polygamy. And Brown is appealing his case to the Supreme Court.

As the court rejected every Obergfell argument Turley had. Without exception.

No court has every recognized Obergefell as overturning any polygamy law.

Turley used Obergefell.

Turley *tried* to use Obergefell. The court rejected his every attempt. So thorough was their rejection of Turley's argument that they never so much as mentioned Obergefell or cited it in any capacity in any of their rulings.

Bigamy is still criminal, despite Turley's best efforts. Turley failed to get polygamy legally recognized. And Brown has appealed to his case to the Supreme Court.

Try again. This time without ignoring the actual Brown v. Buhman rulings.

Turley won. Utah will not prosecute polygamy laws. The appeal to the Supreme Court is not the exact same case that Turley won. Turley won on the merits using Obergefell; the appeal is regarding standing and the state of Utah not prosecuting polygamy.

Turley used Obergefell. Turley won. The court did not reject Turley’s use of Obergefell.

Brown v. Buhman was in the ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges, which is one of the reasons that Turley used it.

The state of Utah does not prosecute polygamy. The appeal to the Supreme Court is regarding standing, not the merits of the case.

 

[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.

No, you haven't.

You claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the Bill of Rights to the States.

Jacob Howard was in the 39th Congress. He was on the committee writing the 14th amendment. And in his introduction of the 14th amendment to the Senate, he did exactly what you insisted no one did.


"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



How could you possibly have missed this? Easy.....you've never read the congressional record and you have no idea what you're talking about.

But you expect me to accept your paraphrases of a record you've never read as evidence?

Nope. Quote the record backing your claims. Not yourself. As you demonstrated for us, you don't know you're talking about.

Since you have avoided each post of mine and continue to post the same out of context quotes, I will just stick to asking you questions that you cannot answer.

Explain why fourty-seven justices over the course of seventy years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and many of them considered some of the greatest in history, ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights.

After you avoid answering this with a legitimate answer, I will produce some of the justices and you can explain how ignorant they were.

 

[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.

Alas, the Supreme Court has sided with my claims for 120 years. As did Bingham. As did Howard.

Remember, I actually cited the Congressional Record showing that John Bingham and Jacob Howard, both of whom were on the committe writing the 14th amendment, explicited stated that the purpose of the 14th was to extend the Bill of Rights to the States.

You cited yourself....ignored the Supreme Court, ignored Bingham, ignored Howard, and insisting you know better than all of them.

Smiling.....how's that working out for you?

You cited a couple of words by two men out of tens of thousand of words by two-hundred and forty-seven members of Congress. I cannot find any evidence that the debates only consisted of Howard and Bingham. That is not how evidence works. Evidence works off the preponderance of evidence, and you avoid the preponderance of evidence.

 

[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.

Alas, the Supreme Court has sided with my claims for 120 years. As did Bingham. As did Howard.

Remember, I actually cited the Congressional Record showing that John Bingham and Jacob Howard, both of whom were on the committe writing the 14th amendment, explicited stated that the purpose of the 14th was to extend the Bill of Rights to the States.

You cited yourself....ignored the Supreme Court, ignored Bingham, ignored Howard, and insisting you know better than all of them.

Smiling.....how's that working out for you?

You cited a couple of words by two men out of tens of thousand of words by two-hundred and forty-seven members of Congress. I cannot find any evidence that the debates only consisted of Howard and Bingham. That is not how evidence works. Evidence works off the preponderance of evidence, and you avoid the preponderance of evidence.

She is really good at that, she also excels at ignoring others arguments which blast her to smithereens. She does like to repeat herself and make snarky remarks however.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Alas, the Supreme Court has sided with my claims for 120 years. As did Bingham. As did Howard.

Remember, I actually cited the Congressional Record showing that John Bingham and Jacob Howard, both of whom were on the committe writing the 14th amendment, explicited stated that the purpose of the 14th was to extend the Bill of Rights to the States.

You cited yourself....ignored the Supreme Court, ignored Bingham, ignored Howard, and insisting you know better than all of them.

Smiling.....how's that working out for you?

You cited a couple of words by two men out of tens of thousand of words by two-hundred and forty-seven members of Congress. I cannot find any evidence that the debates only consisted of Howard and Bingham. That is not how evidence works. Evidence works off the preponderance of evidence, and you avoid the preponderance of evidence.

She is really good at that, she also excels at ignoring others arguments which blast her to smithereens. She does like to repeat herself and make snarky remarks however.

An argument without evidence isn't an argument. And both of you love to make shit up and call it evidence. All while ignoring the actual evidence.....like real court cases, actual citations, and genuine legal precedent.

Which might explain why the actual law is on one side of every issue we've discussed. And both of you are on the other.

 

[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.

Alas, the Supreme Court has sided with my claims for 120 years. As did Bingham. As did Howard.

Remember, I actually cited the Congressional Record showing that John Bingham and Jacob Howard, both of whom were on the committe writing the 14th amendment, explicited stated that the purpose of the 14th was to extend the Bill of Rights to the States.

You cited yourself....ignored the Supreme Court, ignored Bingham, ignored Howard, and insisting you know better than all of them.

Smiling.....how's that working out for you?

You cited a couple of words by two men out of tens of thousand of words by two-hundred and forty-seven members of Congress. I cannot find any evidence that the debates only consisted of Howard and Bingham. That is not how evidence works. Evidence works off the preponderance of evidence, and you avoid the preponderance of evidence.

Then show us the 'preponderance of the evidence'. Back up your argument with evidence. Instead, you *tell* us about 'evidence' you don't actually have. Allude to arguments you can't factually back. All while ignoring the explicit contradiction by Bingham, Howard and 120 years of Supreme Court precedent.

Try again, this time with evidence. Alas, Tenny......you citing yourself isn't evidence. Its an excuse for it. Without the begging the question fallacy, your posts would be little more than punctuation.

 

[Tennyson]

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.

Alas, the Supreme Court has sided with my claims for 120 years. As did Bingham. As did Howard.

Remember, I actually cited the Congressional Record showing that John Bingham and Jacob Howard, both of whom were on the committe writing the 14th amendment, explicited stated that the purpose of the 14th was to extend the Bill of Rights to the States.

You cited yourself....ignored the Supreme Court, ignored Bingham, ignored Howard, and insisting you know better than all of them.

Smiling.....how's that working out for you?

You cited a couple of words by two men out of tens of thousand of words by two-hundred and forty-seven members of Congress. I cannot find any evidence that the debates only consisted of Howard and Bingham. That is not how evidence works. Evidence works off the preponderance of evidence, and you avoid the preponderance of evidence.

Then show us the 'preponderance of the evidence'. Back up your argument with evidence. Instead, you *tell* us about 'evidence' you don't actually have. Allude to arguments you can't factually back. All while ignoring the explicit contradiction by Bingham, Howard and 120 years of Supreme Court precedent.

Try again, this time with evidence. Alas, Tenny......you citing yourself isn't evidence. Its an excuse for it. Without the begging the question fallacy, your posts would be little more than punctuation.

As I predicted, you would not answer the question.

I have already presented the preponderance of evidence.

Now that you avoided the question, here is another for you to not answer.

Why did the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose the Blaine Amendment?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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.

Alas, the Supreme Court has sided with my claims for 120 years. As did Bingham. As did Howard.

Remember, I actually cited the Congressional Record showing that John Bingham and Jacob Howard, both of whom were on the committe writing the 14th amendment, explicited stated that the purpose of the 14th was to extend the Bill of Rights to the States.

You cited yourself....ignored the Supreme Court, ignored Bingham, ignored Howard, and insisting you know better than all of them.

Smiling.....how's that working out for you?

You cited a couple of words by two men out of tens of thousand of words by two-hundred and forty-seven members of Congress. I cannot find any evidence that the debates only consisted of Howard and Bingham. That is not how evidence works. Evidence works off the preponderance of evidence, and you avoid the preponderance of evidence.

She is really good at that, she also excels at ignoring others arguments which blast her to smithereens. She does like to repeat herself and make snarky remarks however.

An argument without evidence isn't an argument. And both of you love to make shit up and call it evidence. All while ignoring the actual evidence.....like real court cases, actual citations, and genuine legal precedent.

Which might explain why the actual law is on one side of every issue we've discussed. And both of you are on the other.

See what I mean!

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.

So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?

Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?

If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.

Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.

So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?

Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?

If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.

Be "hindu"....knock yourself out..... but Christianity does not condone homosexuality as it is offensive to God, the father and His son Jesus Christ.

Got news for you, but Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality. Matter of fact, when He was asked what the greatest commandment is, He said "Love God above all else, and love one another as you love God".

Gender wasn't specified.

And.....................I also challenge you to show me in the Bible where it says that homosexuality is a sin. Got news for you, you can't.

However....................you CAN find a place in the Bible (namely the Old Testament, which is a Jewish not a Christian book), where it states that if one man lies with another it's an abomination. Got news for you, that is from the book that talks about the rules for JEWISH priests, not anything to do with Christianity. Leviticus is actually a manual for those who are Jewish priests, not Christians.

And by the way.................if a man lies with a woman on the same Naval command, she gets pregnant, and they decide to get married, that is also considered an "abomination" to the U.S. Navy, and one of those who are in the union have to be transferred to another command. You can't have a married couple serving in the same command in the Navy.

The fact that Christ never addressed the subject of homosexuality directly is a moot point. Christians believe the entire Bible is the Word of God, not just the red-letter words attributable to Christ. To Christians the words of Peter, John , Paul and others, including the Biblical Patriarchs, are also sacred. There can be no doubt that the Bible (in both the Old and New Testaments) condemns homosexuality.

First of all, here are verses from the Old Testament which clearly state that homosexuality is an abomination and those who engaged in such activities were to be put to death (all verses are from the KJV):

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” (Leviticus 18:22).

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:13).
n.

Leviticus also says that it is a sin to eat shellfish.

So if Leviticus is so sacred- why is eating shrimp practically a requirement in the Evangelical South?

Citing the Old Testament- Leviticus - is hardly a strong point in your argument- since Christians essentially ignore all of Leviticus- except condemning homosexuals.