OK, I'm coming out of cryogenic storage to tell you to shut up. You opened this subthread with *bizarrely ignorant claptrap*, and should have shut up when the first reply called you out on your lies. But now you're doubling down.

Lincoln could not be the "trigger that started the Civil War" when he was elected *after the war started*, after the majority of the Confederate states had already seceded, the last 4 were already proceeding with secession, and the Confederacy had already started shooting at the Union. Which should have been enough facts to shut you up, but I suppose you enjoy the kind of BS sometimes known as "from the South's perspective": any lie to deny the truth, however bizarrely ignorant.

Lincoln wasn't a "two-bit" lawyer prior to his political career, he was an extremely well accomplished lawyer. And he didn't have "zero experience", he had represented Illinois prominently in the US House of Representatives, and served in the Illinois House of Representatives for 8 years prior to that.

Lincoln was of course recognized as a good leader while destroying the Confederacy, being reelected to do so. That is the very definition of "recognized as good leader": reelected wartime Commander in Chief of the USA. Yes, the US press and many factions are always highly critical of any president; "universally recognized as a good leader" doesn't even belong to FDR.

Oh, how about your BS about Lincoln's "razor close" first election? Lincoln: 1,866,452; Douglas: 1,376,957; Breckinridge: 849,781; Bell: 588,789. That 489,495 margin over #2 was a *landslide* 10.4%, . What the hell are you talking about? You also said something deranged like "but if the South had been voting in the second election". What about "but if the South had freed its slaves instead of seceding"? Because they're equally nonsensical hypotheticals. And your Electoral College split 4 ways because *there were 4 candidates*, no reflection on Lincoln's leadership. But Lincoln's 180 EVs to the combined total of the other 3 at 123 EVs was an even bigger landslide than the popular vote. The words "razor close" don't describe any aspect of Lincoln's *landslide victory* over a full field, representing a new party in a large war-divided country.

And how does maintaining his commitment to Emancipation, even in face of a resigning Cabinet member (showing Lincoln's commitment to including even those who disagreed in his Cabinet, more committed than they were to staying), show anything but deeply effective leadership - as the government didn't suffer, but instead the nation was kept together even despite the war?

Your spin on all that crazy talk is that Lincoln turned out to be a leader who rose to the occasion, despite no reason to expect it. But in fact Lincoln gave all indications of being an exemplary leader from start to finish of his presidency.

Were you perhaps educated about Lincoln out of some "ex" Confederate state textbook? In any case, who taught you that when you're totally wrong you should ignore being proven wrong and double down with even more wrong?

You're incorrect. Wow, that was easy.

Oh, I noticed every word in your post. Saying that not all Americans are part of a tyrannical mob doesn't preclude the bigotry I pointed out. You conveniently ignore the other countries' mobs, singling out Americans as if it they're especially tyrannical, as I said. Somehow in your undeserved condescesion you missed all those words in my post, its only point.

And pointing out your fallacy and your bigotry it comes from isn't an "attack", it's the mildest reprimand of something I don't like (because it's dislikable). Then there's how you say one person criticizing the logic and spirit of your post is "tyrannical". You should look that word up. Probably look up most of them. Don't bother getting back to me until you can speak English, or some other language Google translates adequately.

No, I get joy out of exposing people who are full of shit, and those who are bigots (mostly the same thing). I'm not interested in your backwards "tolerance" fallacy. I'm not tolerant of bigots, and that's not "ironic".

I didn't call you homosexual as an insult. I called you bigot, which is actually an insult, though I meant it as the plain truth - and you didn't seem to be insulted by it. You're the one who says "homosexual" is an insult, though of course you'll now deny that.

I also note you said "what if I was [homosexual]", not "what if I were". A shrink would ask why you're referring to your past homosexuality as definite, not conditional. But what gave you away already was that homophobes like you typically are repressed homosexuals, and repressed homosexuals typically try to keep homosexuals repressed. Too much temptation to bear it seems. Oh, and your choice of insult to me, "asshole", would also keep your shrink busy. You should try one. Or try some homosexuality. If you're not gay, what's the harm? If you are gay, it'll save your life (and the lives of other you help oppress).

The rulings protecting gay marriage in California are precisely on Constitutional grounds.

The courts are the ultimate umpire of whether a law or an act is protected or prohibited by the Constitution, the judiciary's role in chain after the specifier of government action (legislative) and its executor (executive) have played their role.

You are a fool, a bigot and an America hater. Shut up already, Osama.

The Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution says "[...] nor deny to any person within [any state's] jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.". Those are the words in the Constitution to the effect that all people are equal. Sadly, it took an Amendment, a bloody Civil War, and nearly a century of constituted "liberty" before we got it in there. But we did, nearly a century and a half ago.

Sadly, we're still far from practicing it. But we're closer than ever before, and I think our approach is accelerating. I just hope it's not asymptotic.

No, the only logic you cited was the procreative limits of human sexuality. They argued against that.

The Constitution also creates many powers of government, not just limits them.

Except there are people with XXX or with XXY chromosomes.

And even if there weren't, just because there's a binary pair of genetic conditions doesn't force us to treat people in a binary way, just to suit your anxiety at ambiguity.

Because marriage offers many protections, some legal and others social, as well as conventions guiding the behavior of parties within the marriage according to mutually recognized expectations.

Your ignorance of the many benefits of marriage, despite the penalties for violating it, obligates you to look into it more before talking like an authority on it.

You're arguing semantics. These people aren't "gender changers", they're "gender identity changers", going to more or less extreme effort to change gender identity cues.

They certainly can pick their gender identity. Many of them do on the basis of an involuntary compulsion that defines their every moment just as much as a person without the compulsion is defined by their own identity - and its voluntary cues. That is who they are, which is different from others.

As long as they're not doing anything to you, why should you care? Why should you even care if someone has surgery to look like a different species, if that's how they feel?

That's right: involuntarily identifying completely as the opposite gender is just like thinking you're a different species. And people who cross-gender identify are exactly like people of the opposite gender. That's not a salami, that's a sack of fallacies.

And gender has been redefined the more we've learned about it.

We don't have "a universal checkbox" that says "male" or "female", except in your mind. People don't have to pick anything just to avoid reminding you that you're gay.

All Americans are free to marry only members of their own race. Freedom!

You're a bigot. Probably homosexual, hiding behind incomplete logic, afraid to have compassion. Get over it.

The Constitution nipped that kind of "democracy" in the bud by giving us representatives and a Constitution each more powerful than the democracy that creates them. I don't know whether we agree, but I know that "the end of democracy in America" that Card mourns was executed by 1789.

He's talking about "the end of majority tyranny in Utah". Good riddance.