T1B

mvscal wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:As for Lincoln's wife, Baker believes she knew nothing of her husband's purported relationships with men.

Of course she didn't because there weren't any.

"I think that his homosexuality was not noticed by either his wife, or many of his friends

Oh, OK. So some hack 150 years later pretends to know the man better than the people who actually knew him best. Well who gives a fuck about facts as long as it advances the fag agenda, right?

LTS TRN 2 wrote: It's always the same neocon auto-smear garbage.

LTS TRN 2 wrote: I'll curb stomp you on any subject or theme.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:So you pretend to know more than a scholar who has researched the matter?

mvscal wrote:There is absolutely nothing other than vague innuendo to support the case that Lincoln was a homo. On the other side, there is the positive and undeniable evidence that he was married, fathered four childern and there is substantial documentary proof that he courted several other women before he married Mary Todd.

mvscal wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:So you pretend to know more than a scholar who has researched the matter?

Oh, I'm not pretending. I'm stating it definitively and in no uncertain terms. There is absolutely nothing other than vague innuendo to support the case that Lincoln was a homo. On the other side, there is the positive and undeniable evidence that he was married, fathered four childern and there is substantial documentary proof that he courted several other women before he married Mary Todd.

You and the pathetic cretins you support are lying through your teeth. Why is that? Why is it so import to you to smear Abraham Lincoln as a queer?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:The result of Abe's closeting was a war of heinous slaughter

R-Jack wrote:Pluth he would nevah wear that top hat wifth those shoes

Papa Willie wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:You don't get it. You've got nothing. There's nothing of you to pound like the proverbial abalone. Avi at least pretends to to pretend.

You've had a really bad week this week. I mean - you normally suck, but this week, you have seemed to be sucking more than you've ever sucked.

mvscal wrote:The real question is whether or not government should be involved in subsidizing or incentivizing marriage at all. One can make an argument that heterosexual marriage should be incentivized because it produces more little taxpayers and that stable families promote social stability.

Abraham Lincoln wrote:Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Jsc810 wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:I'm not even sure which rights they claim to not have.

Marriage?

I'm hetero, and I can't marry a man, either... sounds like we're equal in the eyes of the law.

Those folks also said there was equality in the law. Black people could marry blacks, and whites could marry whites, everyone could get married.

Despite such logic, the SCOTUS didn't have much trouble striking down the laws that prohibited interracial marriage.



And they won't have much trouble striking down the prohibition of same sex marriage either. As a matter of constitutional law, it is not a close issue.

The SCOTUS has considered three cases on marriage. In all three, a state placed a restriction on marriage, and in all three, the Court struck the law down as unconstitutional. Marriage is a fundamental right for all citizens.

The first case was Loving vs Virginia (1967). Virginia prohibited interracial marriage and made it a crime. The SCOTUS stated:

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

The next case was Zablocki v Redhail (1978). Wisconsin required noncustodial parents to obtain a court order before receiving a marriage license. To get that court order, the noncustodial parent could not be in deliquent in paying child support, and the court had to believe that the children would not become dependent on the State. The SCOTUS stated:

Since our past decisions make clear that the right to marry is of fundamental importance, and since the classification at issue here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right, we believe that "critical examination" of the state interests advanced in support of the classification is required. ..... When a statutory classification significantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right, it cannot be upheld unless it is supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests. ..... Appellant asserts that two interests are served by the challenged statute: the permission-to-marry proceeding furnishes an opportunity to counsel the applicant as to the necessity of fulfilling his prior support obligations; and the welfare of the out-of-custody children is protected. We may accept for present purposes that these are legitimate and substantial interests, but, since the means selected by the State for achieving these interests unnecessarily impinge on the right to marry, the statute cannot be sustained.

The third case is Turner v Safley (1987). Missouri authorized inmates to marry only with the prison superintendent's permission, which was given only when there was a "compelling reason" to do so; in practice, only pregnancy or the birth of an illegitimate child was considered compelling. The SCOTUS stated:

In support of the marriage regulation, petitioners first suggest that the rule does not deprive prisoners of a constitutionally protected right. They concede that the decision to marry is a fundamental right under Zablocki v. Redhail and Loving v. Virginia, but they imply that a different rule should obtain "in . . . a prison forum." Petitioners then argue that even if the regulation burdens inmates' constitutional rights, the restriction should be tested under a reasonableness standard. They urge that the restriction is reasonably related to legitimate security and rehabilitation concerns.

We disagree with petitioners that Zablocki does not apply to prison inmates. It is settled that a prison inmate "retains those [constitutional] rights that are not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system." The right to marry, like many other rights, is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration. Many important attributes of marriage remain, however, after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life. First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment. These elements are an important and significant aspect of the marital relationship. In addition, many religions recognize marriage as having spiritual significance; for some inmates and their spouses, therefore, the commitment of marriage may be an exercise of religious faith as well as an expression of personal dedication. Third, most inmates eventually will be released by parole or commutation, and therefore most inmate marriages are formed in the expectation that they ultimately will be fully consummated. Finally, marital status often is a precondition to the receipt of government benefits (e. g., Social Security benefits), property rights (e. g., tenancy by the entirety, inheritance rights), and other, less tangible benefits (e. g., legitimation of children born out of wedlock). These incidents of marriage, like the religious and personal aspects of the marriage commitment, are unaffected by the fact of confinement or the pursuit of legitimate corrections goals. (citations omitted)

Those three cases are just the marriage cases. There are many other related cases, such as Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003), that the SCOTUS will be citing when it does consider the issue of same sex marriage.

And all of them lead to the same conclusion.

Jsc wrote:homosexual

jiminphilly wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:

She probably thought she was safe from beatings by going with a white guy but that blockhead looks like asphyxiates her nightly.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:You don't get it. You've got nothing .

Another win for fags

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

jiminphilly wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:

She probably thought she was safe from beatings by going with a white guy but that blockhead looks like asphyxiates her nightly.

Just so's ya know, Richard and Mildred Loving were involved in a very serious motor vehicle accident in 1975, eight years after the Supreme Court handed down its decision. Richard Loving died from the injuries he sustained in the accident, he was only 42 years old at the time. Mildred Loving survived, but suffered serious injuries that continued to plague her for the rest of her life. She died in 2008 at the age of 71.

R-Jack wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:You don't get it. You've got nothing .

Aren't you the one who just said he orchastrated the Civil War just because he was a closet queer? Or are you still not smearing anyone here?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:It's always the same neocon auto-smear garbage.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:For example, do you suppose that sharing one's bed with another man for four years, as Lincoln is known to have done, is not indicative of some homosexual leanings?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Oh sure, the snippy parrot hiding behind a picture of a very drunk general and president says...what? Oh...nothing? Typical.

The chief evidence, if such it be, of Lincoln's homosexual inclination is his relationship with Joshua Speed, a handsome 22-year-old shopkeeper when the two men met in 1837. Abe, then a 28-year-old lawyer with bright prospects but poor cash flow, arrived in Springfield, Illinois, and asked about the price of bedding at Speed's general store. Learning that Lincoln was nearly broke, Speed invited him to share his bed upstairs. "The traveler inspected the bed and, looking into the merchant's sparkling blue eyes, agreed on the spot," Carol Lloyd wrote in Salon in 1999. "For the next four years the two men shared that bed along with their most private fears and desires."

It's no big deal. Why should this simple fact put you in a stressed out hissing mode? Oh, that's right, it's just your normal disposition.

The Seer wrote:The loony left makes it's bones on unconscienable name calling and hysterical accusations - racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, etc. etc. etc....

BSmack wrote:

The Seer wrote:The loony left makes it's bones on unconscienable name calling and hysterical accusations - racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, etc. etc. etc....

Nice to see that in your quest to fight name calling you are resorting to name calling.

mvscal wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Oh sure, the snippy parrot hiding behind a picture of a very drunk general and president says...what? Oh...nothing? Typical.

The chief evidence, if such it be, of Lincoln's homosexual inclination is his relationship with Joshua Speed, a handsome 22-year-old shopkeeper when the two men met in 1837. Abe, then a 28-year-old lawyer with bright prospects but poor cash flow, arrived in Springfield, Illinois, and asked about the price of bedding at Speed's general store. Learning that Lincoln was nearly broke, Speed invited him to share his bed upstairs. "The traveler inspected the bed and, looking into the merchant's sparkling blue eyes, agreed on the spot," Carol Lloyd wrote in Salon in 1999. "For the next four years the two men shared that bed along with their most private fears and desires."

It's no big deal. Why should this simple fact put you in a stressed out hissing mode? Oh, that's right, it's just your normal disposition.

That was quite common in the 19th century. There was nothing queer about it. Nor was Lincoln and Speed the only two who shared that room. William Herndon also stayed there. Bottom line is that you are full of shit.

Why are you so desperate to believe Lincoln was gay? Why is this so important to you, Felchie?

The Seer wrote:

BSmack wrote:

The Seer wrote:The loony left makes it's bones on unconscienable name calling and hysterical accusations - racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, etc. etc. etc....

Nice to see that in your quest to fight name calling you are resorting to name calling.

Nice of you to step up and prove my point - :doh:

You can't tell the difference between indicating a group's behaviorial tactics with actually labeling someone with those insults?? Really?

The Seer wrote:

mvscal wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Oh sure, the snippy parrot hiding behind a picture of a very drunk general and president says...what? Oh...nothing? Typical.

The chief evidence, if such it be, of Lincoln's homosexual inclination is his relationship with Joshua Speed, a handsome 22-year-old shopkeeper when the two men met in 1837. Abe, then a 28-year-old lawyer with bright prospects but poor cash flow, arrived in Springfield, Illinois, and asked about the price of bedding at Speed's general store. Learning that Lincoln was nearly broke, Speed invited him to share his bed upstairs. "The traveler inspected the bed and, looking into the merchant's sparkling blue eyes, agreed on the spot," Carol Lloyd wrote in Salon in 1999. "For the next four years the two men shared that bed along with their most private fears and desires."

It's no big deal. Why should this simple fact put you in a stressed out hissing mode? Oh, that's right, it's just your normal disposition.

That was quite common in the 19th century. There was nothing queer about it. Nor was Lincoln and Speed the only two who shared that room. William Herndon also stayed there. Bottom line is that you are full of shit.

Why are you so desperate to believe Lincoln was gay? Why is this so important to you, Felchie?

Because any perceived opportunity to denigrate the good that this country stands for is a dereliction of a lefty's duty.