Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Darkwind]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

Marriage is not a right..

However since marriage licenses were born from racism, why do we still have them?

Wrong.

Marriage is in fact a right.

Wrong, it is in fact, not a right.

 

[Skylar]

No, you've made allegations.You haven't backed them up with....anything. Just you claiming it must be so.

And you're the same useless source that insisted no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.

A *wildly* inaccurate claim, as both Howard and Bingham who introduced the amendment to the Senate and House respectively, did exactly that. Proving yourself a uselessly unreliable source.

You insist that my statements are out of context. Well, prove it. You citing yourself proves nothing, as you're uselessly unreliable.

You insisted that HOward was ignored by the Senate. Well, prove that too. You citing yourself proves nothing, as you're laughably unreliable.

You insist that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. Show us, don't tell us. And you 'saying' it must be so is meaningless jibber jabber. Show us the Congressional Record where this is established.

You can't. And you know you can't. Which is why you only quote yourself.

While I've quoted the Congressional Record and the USSC explicitly contradicting you. I have the evidence. You've got jack shit.

All you have done so far is avoid my post, which answers all of your questions. Just in case you so not know how the study of history is conducted, here it is again:

Your entire post is merely assertion....that you have backed with absolutely nothing. That's the Begging the Question fallacy.

Prove your claims are right with evidence. And you citing yourself isn't evidence. As you've already demonstrated with *wildly* inaccurate claims that you are uselessly unreliable.

Show us. Don't tell us.

If you're unclear by what I mean by 'evidence', take a look at the quotes from the Congressional Record that I offered you where Bingham and Howard both affirmed that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. That's evidence.

You citing yourself? That's an excuse.

Avoiding my post only diminished your credibility.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, I preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.

Your post is still you, citing only yourself. And you're uselessly unreliable.

Show us the evidence to back your claims. Not your Begging the Question fallacies.

Oh, and just FYI....preponderant isn't a verb. You can't 'preponderant' something. You're just trying too hard to sound like you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And you still can't back up *any* claim you've made.

Avoiding my posts is not an argument.

Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.

Just you....citing yourself.

Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?

If so, that was easy.

 

[Skylar]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

Marriage is not a right..

However since marriage licenses were born from racism, why do we still have them?

Wrong.

Marriage is in fact a right.

Wrong, it is in fact, not a right.

The Supreme Court says otherwise. Why would I ignore them....and believe you?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

What rational reason do you have for restriction on different species participation in marriage? Why can't a guy marry a horse, or 3 men marry 2 women and a goat. Hey, it's all about love. Let anybody marry anything. Fine with me.

The lack of capacity for consent. Animals can't offer it. People can.

I've answered your question. Now you answer mine:

What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage?

.....or you could just save yourself time and admit what we both already know:

There is no rational reason.

None, all people can marry whoever and as many people as they want. 1 guy can marry 3 women and 2 guys, and those 3 women can marry each other. There should be zero "discrimination" towards any person when it comes to marriage. I used to believe that marriage was a union between a man and a woman, but you have convinced me it is a union between any person with any other person, or any persons with any other persons. Thanks for being so persistent and helping me understand. You're the greatest!

You still haven't answered my question. You're just running from it.

What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage?

You obviously have no rational reason. And you're in excellent company. The Supreme Court couldn't find one either.

Which is exactly my point.

I just conceded that there should be no restriction on any person or persons when it comes to marriage. Anybody can marry whomever they want and as many as they want. There is no rational reason to put any restriction on marriage, because you have shown the definition of marriage is simple a union of people. Again, thanks for your excellent insight.

No, you threw a rhetorical tantrum, bringing in goats and polygamy. I've asked you specifically what the rational justification for restrictions on gender in marriage.

And you have none, as there are none. There's no rational reason to deny same sex couples the right to marry. Given that the right to marry is long recognized by the court, there needs to be a valid justification for withholding that right from same sex couples.

And the Court couldn't find any. Just as you couldn't find any. Which is exactly my point.

Can your read? I am concealing that anybody can marry anybody. Sex, gender, race, number of spouses, it is all under the definition of marriage and I am ok with it. Why are you being such a sore winner? I don't care if you want to be married to 2 guys and a girl, or your mother or father, or if you want to marry your nephew or niece, or your son or daughter, it makes no difference to me. Marry whoever the hell you want to marry.

 

[Skylar]

The lack of capacity for consent. Animals can't offer it. People can.

I've answered your question. Now you answer mine:

What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage?

.....or you could just save yourself time and admit what we both already know:

There is no rational reason.

None, all people can marry whoever and as many people as they want. 1 guy can marry 3 women and 2 guys, and those 3 women can marry each other. There should be zero "discrimination" towards any person when it comes to marriage. I used to believe that marriage was a union between a man and a woman, but you have convinced me it is a union between any person with any other person, or any persons with any other persons. Thanks for being so persistent and helping me understand. You're the greatest!

You still haven't answered my question. You're just running from it.

What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage?

You obviously have no rational reason. And you're in excellent company. The Supreme Court couldn't find one either.

Which is exactly my point.

I just conceded that there should be no restriction on any person or persons when it comes to marriage. Anybody can marry whomever they want and as many as they want. There is no rational reason to put any restriction on marriage, because you have shown the definition of marriage is simple a union of people. Again, thanks for your excellent insight.

No, you threw a rhetorical tantrum, bringing in goats and polygamy. I've asked you specifically what the rational justification for restrictions on gender in marriage.

And you have none, as there are none. There's no rational reason to deny same sex couples the right to marry. Given that the right to marry is long recognized by the court, there needs to be a valid justification for withholding that right from same sex couples.

And the Court couldn't find any. Just as you couldn't find any. Which is exactly my point.

Can your read? I am concealing that anybody can marry anybody. Sex, gender, race, number of spouses, it is all under the definition of marriage and I am ok with it.

Well, bigamy is still a crime. But beyond that, you're right.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

None, all people can marry whoever and as many people as they want. 1 guy can marry 3 women and 2 guys, and those 3 women can marry each other. There should be zero "discrimination" towards any person when it comes to marriage. I used to believe that marriage was a union between a man and a woman, but you have convinced me it is a union between any person with any other person, or any persons with any other persons. Thanks for being so persistent and helping me understand. You're the greatest!

You still haven't answered my question. You're just running from it.

What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage?

You obviously have no rational reason. And you're in excellent company. The Supreme Court couldn't find one either.

Which is exactly my point.

I just conceded that there should be no restriction on any person or persons when it comes to marriage. Anybody can marry whomever they want and as many as they want. There is no rational reason to put any restriction on marriage, because you have shown the definition of marriage is simple a union of people. Again, thanks for your excellent insight.

No, you threw a rhetorical tantrum, bringing in goats and polygamy. I've asked you specifically what the rational justification for restrictions on gender in marriage.

And you have none, as there are none. There's no rational reason to deny same sex couples the right to marry. Given that the right to marry is long recognized by the court, there needs to be a valid justification for withholding that right from same sex couples.

And the Court couldn't find any. Just as you couldn't find any. Which is exactly my point.

Can your read? I am concealing that anybody can marry anybody. Sex, gender, race, number of spouses, it is all under the definition of marriage and I am ok with it.

Well, bigamy is still a crime. But beyond that, you're right.

Well that seems like a rather arbitrary place to draw the line. Why can't you have more than one spouse? I mean history is loaded with that being within the definition of marriage, certainly more so than same sex marriage. Why is it illegal?

 

[Skylar]

You still haven't answered my question. You're just running from it.

What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage?

You obviously have no rational reason. And you're in excellent company. The Supreme Court couldn't find one either.

Which is exactly my point.

I just conceded that there should be no restriction on any person or persons when it comes to marriage. Anybody can marry whomever they want and as many as they want. There is no rational reason to put any restriction on marriage, because you have shown the definition of marriage is simple a union of people. Again, thanks for your excellent insight.

No, you threw a rhetorical tantrum, bringing in goats and polygamy. I've asked you specifically what the rational justification for restrictions on gender in marriage.

And you have none, as there are none. There's no rational reason to deny same sex couples the right to marry. Given that the right to marry is long recognized by the court, there needs to be a valid justification for withholding that right from same sex couples.

And the Court couldn't find any. Just as you couldn't find any. Which is exactly my point.

Can your read? I am concealing that anybody can marry anybody. Sex, gender, race, number of spouses, it is all under the definition of marriage and I am ok with it.

Well, bigamy is still a crime. But beyond that, you're right.

Well that seems like a rather arbitrary place to draw the line. Why can't you have more than one spouse? I mean history is loaded with that being within the definition of marriage, certainly more so than same sex marriage. Why is it illegal?

Most likely because of issues of fraud. Plus its fundamentally incompatible with our caselaw surrounding marriage. Either one of those would likely be enough to keep it illegal.

 

[Tennyson]

All you have done so far is avoid my post, which answers all of your questions. Just in case you so not know how the study of history is conducted, here it is again:

Your entire post is merely assertion....that you have backed with absolutely nothing. That's the Begging the Question fallacy.

Prove your claims are right with evidence. And you citing yourself isn't evidence. As you've already demonstrated with *wildly* inaccurate claims that you are uselessly unreliable.

Show us. Don't tell us.

If you're unclear by what I mean by 'evidence', take a look at the quotes from the Congressional Record that I offered you where Bingham and Howard both affirmed that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. That's evidence.

You citing yourself? That's an excuse.

Avoiding my post only diminished your credibility.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, I preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.

Your post is still you, citing only yourself. And you're uselessly unreliable.

Show us the evidence to back your claims. Not your Begging the Question fallacies.

Oh, and just FYI....preponderant isn't a verb. You can't 'preponderant' something. You're just trying too hard to sound like you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And you still can't back up *any* claim you've made.

Avoiding my posts is not an argument.

Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.

Just you....citing yourself.

Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?

If so, that was easy.

Let us recap what you have avoided so far:

Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completely dismiss the House debates.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.

If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.

If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I just conceded that there should be no restriction on any person or persons when it comes to marriage. Anybody can marry whomever they want and as many as they want. There is no rational reason to put any restriction on marriage, because you have shown the definition of marriage is simple a union of people. Again, thanks for your excellent insight.

No, you threw a rhetorical tantrum, bringing in goats and polygamy. I've asked you specifically what the rational justification for restrictions on gender in marriage.

And you have none, as there are none. There's no rational reason to deny same sex couples the right to marry. Given that the right to marry is long recognized by the court, there needs to be a valid justification for withholding that right from same sex couples.

And the Court couldn't find any. Just as you couldn't find any. Which is exactly my point.

Can your read? I am concealing that anybody can marry anybody. Sex, gender, race, number of spouses, it is all under the definition of marriage and I am ok with it.

Well, bigamy is still a crime. But beyond that, you're right.

Well that seems like a rather arbitrary place to draw the line. Why can't you have more than one spouse? I mean history is loaded with that being within the definition of marriage, certainly more so than same sex marriage. Why is it illegal?

Most likely because of issues of fraud. Plus its fundamentally incompatible with our caselaw surrounding marriage. Either one of those would likely be enough to keep it illegal.

Fraud? Don't really see that as a reason. Case law? Wasn't all the case law prior to same sex marriage that marriage was between opposite sexes. We didn't seem to have an issue changing it now. But you can still marry your mother, father, sister, nephew, or all your cousins, right?

 

[Skylar]

Your entire post is merely assertion....that you have backed with absolutely nothing. That's the Begging the Question fallacy.

Prove your claims are right with evidence. And you citing yourself isn't evidence. As you've already demonstrated with *wildly* inaccurate claims that you are uselessly unreliable.

Show us. Don't tell us.

If you're unclear by what I mean by 'evidence', take a look at the quotes from the Congressional Record that I offered you where Bingham and Howard both affirmed that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. That's evidence.

You citing yourself? That's an excuse.

Avoiding my post only diminished your credibility.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, I preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.

Your post is still you, citing only yourself. And you're uselessly unreliable.

Show us the evidence to back your claims. Not your Begging the Question fallacies.

Oh, and just FYI....preponderant isn't a verb. You can't 'preponderant' something. You're just trying too hard to sound like you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And you still can't back up *any* claim you've made.

Avoiding my posts is not an argument.

Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.

Just you....citing yourself.

Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?

If so, that was easy.

Let us recap what you have avoided so far:

Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completely dismiss the House debates.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.

If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.

If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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.

You just spammed the same exact post twice.

And in neither spamming do you cite anyone or anything....but yourself. You can't seem to tell the difference between you making an accusation...and you proving the accusation.

For example:

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

Prove he was ignored by the Senate.

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship

Prove my quotations were out of context.

You can't. You're done.

 

[Skylar]

No, you threw a rhetorical tantrum, bringing in goats and polygamy. I've asked you specifically what the rational justification for restrictions on gender in marriage.

And you have none, as there are none. There's no rational reason to deny same sex couples the right to marry. Given that the right to marry is long recognized by the court, there needs to be a valid justification for withholding that right from same sex couples.

And the Court couldn't find any. Just as you couldn't find any. Which is exactly my point.

Can your read? I am concealing that anybody can marry anybody. Sex, gender, race, number of spouses, it is all under the definition of marriage and I am ok with it.

Well, bigamy is still a crime. But beyond that, you're right.

Well that seems like a rather arbitrary place to draw the line. Why can't you have more than one spouse? I mean history is loaded with that being within the definition of marriage, certainly more so than same sex marriage. Why is it illegal?

Most likely because of issues of fraud. Plus its fundamentally incompatible with our caselaw surrounding marriage. Either one of those would likely be enough to keep it illegal.

Fraud? Don't really see that as a reason.Case law? Wasn't all the case law prior to same sex marriage that marriage was between opposite sexes. We didn't seem to have an issue changing it now.

Same sex marriage can use the exact same caselaw as opposite sex marriage.

Polygamy can't. For example, lets say that there are three people that are married. And one wants a divorce. Does that mean that the entire union is dissolved or that the person that wants to divorce simply exists, leaving the other two still married?

I have no idea. No one does. As there is zero case law in any state to answer such questions. And there are a dozen just like it that our laws have no answer for.

There's your rational reason.

What would be the rational reason for denying same sex couples access to marriage? You have none. Which is exactly my point.

 

[Tennyson]

Avoiding my post only diminished your credibility.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, I preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.

Your post is still you, citing only yourself. And you're uselessly unreliable.

Show us the evidence to back your claims. Not your Begging the Question fallacies.

Oh, and just FYI....preponderant isn't a verb. You can't 'preponderant' something. You're just trying too hard to sound like you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And you still can't back up *any* claim you've made.

Avoiding my posts is not an argument.

Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.

Just you....citing yourself.

Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?

If so, that was easy.

Let us recap what you have avoided so far:

Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completely dismiss the House debates.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.

If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.

If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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.

You just spammed the same exact post twice.

And in neither spamming do you cite anyone or anything....but yourself. You can't seem to tell the difference between you making an accusation...and you proving the accusation.

For example:

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

Prove he was ignored by the Senate.

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship

Prove my quotations were out of context.

You can't. You're done.

It never came up again. The closest it came to being brought up as the re-writing of the amendment to make sure it did not infringe on federalism and to stay true to the civil rights act.

Your out of context:

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

 

[Skylar]

Your post is still you, citing only yourself. And you're uselessly unreliable.

Show us the evidence to back your claims. Not your Begging the Question fallacies.

Oh, and just FYI....preponderant isn't a verb. You can't 'preponderant' something. You're just trying too hard to sound like you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And you still can't back up *any* claim you've made.

Avoiding my posts is not an argument.

Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.

Just you....citing yourself.

Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?

If so, that was easy.

Let us recap what you have avoided so far:

Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completely dismiss the House debates.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.

If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.

If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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.

You just spammed the same exact post twice.

And in neither spamming do you cite anyone or anything....but yourself. You can't seem to tell the difference between you making an accusation...and you proving the accusation.

For example:

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

Prove he was ignored by the Senate.

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship

Prove my quotations were out of context.

You can't. You're done.

It never came up again. The closest it came to being brought up as the re-writing of the amendment to make sure it did not infringe on federalism and to stay true to the civil rights act.

Prove it.

I've got 3 quotes from the Congressional record affirming that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

You've got you citing yourself. You lose again.

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

Then prove my quotes are out of context with evidence.

You can't. You're done.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Avoiding my post only diminished your credibility.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, I preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.

Your post is still you, citing only yourself. And you're uselessly unreliable.

Show us the evidence to back your claims. Not your Begging the Question fallacies.

Oh, and just FYI....preponderant isn't a verb. You can't 'preponderant' something. You're just trying too hard to sound like you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And you still can't back up *any* claim you've made.

Avoiding my posts is not an argument.

Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.

Just you....citing yourself.

Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?

If so, that was easy.

Let us recap what you have avoided so far:

Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completely dismiss the House debates.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.

If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.

If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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.

You just spammed the same exact post twice.

And in neither spamming do you cite anyone or anything....but yourself. You can't seem to tell the difference between you making an accusation...and you proving the accusation.

For example:

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

Prove he was ignored by the Senate.

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship

Prove my quotations were out of context.

You can't. You're done.

I am so glad I am not a part of this

Avoiding my post only diminished your credibility.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, I preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.

Your post is still you, citing only yourself. And you're uselessly unreliable.

Show us the evidence to back your claims. Not your Begging the Question fallacies.

Oh, and just FYI....preponderant isn't a verb. You can't 'preponderant' something. You're just trying too hard to sound like you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And you still can't back up *any* claim you've made.

Avoiding my posts is not an argument.

Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.

Just you....citing yourself.

Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?

If so, that was easy.

Let us recap what you have avoided so far:

Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completely dismiss the House debates.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.

If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.

If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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.

You just spammed the same exact post twice.

And in neither spamming do you cite anyone or anything....but yourself. You can't seem to tell the difference between you making an accusation...and you proving the accusation.

For example:

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

Prove he was ignored by the Senate.

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship

Prove my quotations were out of context.

You can't. You're done.

I am so glad I am not a part of this argument. You guys are so smart,
nobody else can tell what you're arguing about.

Avoiding my post only diminished your credibility.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, I preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.

Your post is still you, citing only yourself. And you're uselessly unreliable.

Show us the evidence to back your claims. Not your Begging the Question fallacies.

Oh, and just FYI....preponderant isn't a verb. You can't 'preponderant' something. You're just trying too hard to sound like you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And you still can't back up *any* claim you've made.

Avoiding my posts is not an argument.

Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.

Just you....citing yourself.

Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?

If so, that was easy.

Let us recap what you have avoided so far:

Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completely dismiss the House debates.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.

If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.

If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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.

You just spammed the same exact post twice.

And in neither spamming do you cite anyone or anything....but yourself. You can't seem to tell the difference between you making an accusation...and you proving the accusation.

For example:

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

Prove he was ignored by the Senate.

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship

Prove my quotations were out of context.

You can't. You're done.

I am so glad I am not a part of this argument. You guys are so smart,
nobody else can tell what you're arguing about.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Can your read? I am concealing that anybody can marry anybody. Sex, gender, race, number of spouses, it is all under the definition of marriage and I am ok with it.

Well, bigamy is still a crime. But beyond that, you're right.

Well that seems like a rather arbitrary place to draw the line. Why can't you have more than one spouse? I mean history is loaded with that being within the definition of marriage, certainly more so than same sex marriage. Why is it illegal?

Most likely because of issues of fraud. Plus its fundamentally incompatible with our caselaw surrounding marriage. Either one of those would likely be enough to keep it illegal.

Fraud? Don't really see that as a reason.Case law? Wasn't all the case law prior to same sex marriage that marriage was between opposite sexes. We didn't seem to have an issue changing it now.

Same sex marriage can use the exact same caselaw as opposite sex marriage.

Polygamy can't. For example, lets say that there are three people that are married. And one wants a divorce. Does that mean that the entire union is dissolved or that the person that wants to divorce simply exists, leaving the other two still married?

I have no idea. No one does. As there is zero case law in any state to answer such questions. And there are a dozen just like it that our laws have no answer for.

There's your rational reason.

What would be the rational reason for denying same sex couples access to marriage? You have none. Which is exactly my point.

So polygamy is bad and illegal because we don't know how to dissolve it if one of the married people wants a divorce? Hmm....we don't want it to be legal because we don't know how to dissolve it when it doesn't work, is that what you're saying?
It's seems to me, that if a man marries a woman, and then he marries another woman, then the man is married to two woman separately. And if he or one of his wives wants a divorce, why does that divorce have any effective on the man's other wife? Let's assume of course, that the two women are only married to the one man, and not each other. I mean what is wrong with a man having 2 wives, 2 separate families?

 

[Tennyson]

Avoiding my posts is not an argument.

Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.

Just you....citing yourself.

Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?

If so, that was easy.

Let us recap what you have avoided so far:

Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completely dismiss the House debates.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.

If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.

If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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.

You just spammed the same exact post twice.

And in neither spamming do you cite anyone or anything....but yourself. You can't seem to tell the difference between you making an accusation...and you proving the accusation.

For example:

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

Prove he was ignored by the Senate.

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship

Prove my quotations were out of context.

You can't. You're done.

It never came up again. The closest it came to being brought up as the re-writing of the amendment to make sure it did not infringe on federalism and to stay true to the civil rights act.

Prove it.

I've got 3 quotes from the Congressional record affirming that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

You've got you citing yourself. You lose again.

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

Then prove my quotes are out of context with evidence.

You can't. You're done.

You have three out of context quotes. 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.

You keep using the same out of context quotes. I have no idea why you keep posting this quote as Howard’s thoughts on the Bill of Rights. Howard quoted from Corfield vs. Coryell regarding the privileges and immunities in the context of the commerce clause. It has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights, but the privileges and immunity clause of Article IV.

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...

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.

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 great fundamental guarantees.

Why do you not add this statement by Bingham?

Allow me, Mr. Speaker, in passing, to say that this amendment takes from no State any right that ever pertained to it.

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

 

[Skylar]

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 fuck you're talking about.

Why do you not add this statement by Bingham?

Allow me, Mr. Speaker, in passing, to say that this amendment takes from no State any right that ever pertained to it.

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.

 

[Skylar]

Well, bigamy is still a crime. But beyond that, you're right.

Well that seems like a rather arbitrary place to draw the line. Why can't you have more than one spouse? I mean history is loaded with that being within the definition of marriage, certainly more so than same sex marriage. Why is it illegal?

Most likely because of issues of fraud. Plus its fundamentally incompatible with our caselaw surrounding marriage. Either one of those would likely be enough to keep it illegal.

Fraud? Don't really see that as a reason.Case law? Wasn't all the case law prior to same sex marriage that marriage was between opposite sexes. We didn't seem to have an issue changing it now.

Same sex marriage can use the exact same caselaw as opposite sex marriage.

Polygamy can't. For example, lets say that there are three people that are married. And one wants a divorce. Does that mean that the entire union is dissolved or that the person that wants to divorce simply exists, leaving the other two still married?

I have no idea. No one does. As there is zero case law in any state to answer such questions. And there are a dozen just like it that our laws have no answer for.

There's your rational reason.

What would be the rational reason for denying same sex couples access to marriage? You have none. Which is exactly my point.

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.

 

[Skylar]

Your post is still you, citing only yourself. And you're uselessly unreliable.

Show us the evidence to back your claims. Not your Begging the Question fallacies.

Oh, and just FYI....preponderant isn't a verb. You can't 'preponderant' something. You're just trying too hard to sound like you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And you still can't back up *any* claim you've made.

Avoiding my posts is not an argument.

Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.

Just you....citing yourself.

Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?

If so, that was easy.

Let us recap what you have avoided so far:

Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completely dismiss the House debates.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.

If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.

If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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.

You just spammed the same exact post twice.

And in neither spamming do you cite anyone or anything....but yourself. You can't seem to tell the difference between you making an accusation...and you proving the accusation.

For example:

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

Prove he was ignored by the Senate.

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship

Prove my quotations were out of context.

You can't. You're done.

I am so glad I am not a part of this

Your post is still you, citing only yourself. And you're uselessly unreliable.

Show us the evidence to back your claims. Not your Begging the Question fallacies.

Oh, and just FYI....preponderant isn't a verb. You can't 'preponderant' something. You're just trying too hard to sound like you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And you still can't back up *any* claim you've made.

Avoiding my posts is not an argument.

Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.

Just you....citing yourself.

Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?

If so, that was easy.

Let us recap what you have avoided so far:

Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completely dismiss the House debates.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.

If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.

If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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.

You just spammed the same exact post twice.

And in neither spamming do you cite anyone or anything....but yourself. You can't seem to tell the difference between you making an accusation...and you proving the accusation.

For example:

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

Prove he was ignored by the Senate.

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship

Prove my quotations were out of context.

You can't. You're done.

I am so glad I am not a part of this argument. You guys are so smart,
nobody else can tell what you're arguing about.

Your post is still you, citing only yourself. And you're uselessly unreliable.

Show us the evidence to back your claims. Not your Begging the Question fallacies.

Oh, and just FYI....preponderant isn't a verb. You can't 'preponderant' something. You're just trying too hard to sound like you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And you still can't back up *any* claim you've made.

Avoiding my posts is not an argument.

Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.

Just you....citing yourself.

Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?

If so, that was easy.

Let us recap what you have avoided so far:

Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completely dismiss the House debates.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.

If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.

If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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.

You just spammed the same exact post twice.

And in neither spamming do you cite anyone or anything....but yourself. You can't seem to tell the difference between you making an accusation...and you proving the accusation.

For example:

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

Prove he was ignored by the Senate.

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship

Prove my quotations were out of context.

You can't. You're done.

I am so glad I am not a part of this argument. You guys are so smart,
nobody else can tell what you're arguing about.

I've argued that the 14th amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the States. A finding the Supreme Court agrees with and has for the last 120 years, as defined in their 'incorporation doctrine'.

I've also argued that the 14th amendment was meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. As demonstrated by Rep. John Bingham, the primary author of section 1 of the 14th amendment explicitly stating as much when introducing the 14th amendment to the House.

And Senator Jacob Howard saying the same thing when introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate. Both men were members of the joint committee tasked with writing the amendment.

Tenny insists that the Supreme Court is wrong, and that no one in the 39th Congress ever said that the 14th applies the Bill of Rights to the States. This despite me having quoting both Bingham and Howard explicitly stating that the 14th did apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

Tenny insists that my two enormous quotes were taken 'out of context'. But when pressed to prove that claim.....he just says it must be so.

That's pretty much our debate. I can show you the quotes if you'd like. There's no ambiguity.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Well that seems like a rather arbitrary place to draw the line. Why can't you have more than one spouse? I mean history is loaded with that being within the definition of marriage, certainly more so than same sex marriage. Why is it illegal?

Most likely because of issues of fraud. Plus its fundamentally incompatible with our caselaw surrounding marriage. Either one of those would likely be enough to keep it illegal.

Fraud? Don't really see that as a reason.Case law? Wasn't all the case law prior to same sex marriage that marriage was between opposite sexes. We didn't seem to have an issue changing it now.

Same sex marriage can use the exact same caselaw as opposite sex marriage.

Polygamy can't. For example, lets say that there are three people that are married. And one wants a divorce. Does that mean that the entire union is dissolved or that the person that wants to divorce simply exists, leaving the other two still married?

I have no idea. No one does. As there is zero case law in any state to answer such questions. And there are a dozen just like it that our laws have no answer for.

There's your rational reason.

What would be the rational reason for denying same sex couples access to marriage? You have none. Which is exactly my point.

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?