Four Supreme Court Justices Summarize How June's Gay-Marriage Decision Was Improper/Illegal

[Syriusly]

Why should we repeat ourselves- since you refuse to accept what anyone says other than yourself?

You have asked- and been answered.

You just don't like the answers.

You failed to present a answer that would hold water. But you go on repeating yourself and thinking you have anything to offer

I quoted a judge- who stated very clearly the reasons she found bans on incest and polygamy different than the bans on same gender marriage.

You reject what judges say- you reject what anyone else here has said- you have brought up the same issue in thread after thread

By the evidence we do have- you are not likely to ever accept anything other than what you already believe.

And I requested what the societal safety net she spoke of was.

You had no answer, you just got emotional and went off on one of your famous tangents.

Now, care to explain what that societal safety net is when the Obergfell decision was based on the 14th amendments equal protection clause that guarentees due process.

How this "safety net" can exist with a law that creates a partnership that does not require sexual contact at all?

I expect further deflection from you, but hey, you might surprise everyone.

Well feel free to ask her what that societal safety net is.

I have provided her answer- you don't accept it.

Nor do you accept any answer that is different from your own conviction.

You provided a quote about a societal safety net, which excluded what that net was.

So your answer was, cuz she said so? Even though you have no clue what it means?

It did mean that family members would not be able to marry, but because Obergfell took the qualification of One Male to One a Woman, we know that now:

Iowa, previously did not allow family marriage entirely, now looks as though same sex relatives can, and

Maryland, allows same sex male relatives open to marriage.

The ruling created a mess with these states as well as the many states that allow first cousin marriage. Straight first cousins MUST reach a certain age or prove infertility, while same sex cousins could easily make the case that the requirement is frivolous.

Meanwhile- in the real world- you continue to reject any opinion other than your own.
Can't find a single example of your opinion being correct.
And in 12 years of Massachusetts marriage equality- not single incestuious marriage happening.

But as I keep saying- you are welcome to 'pursue' justice- you can file suit demanding what you believe is your legal right to marry your sibling.

Go for it.

 

[Syriusly]

Now it isn't. Might want to look at the OP with puzzlement on your face.

Maybe, yet I'm still seeking how to keep family members from marriage since the law itself seems to apply arbitrary standards.

Tell you what Pops.....do this:

Take your mother down to the court house and tell them that you and she want to get a marriage license because, now that gays can marry, you two can also. One of two things will happen...

1. They issue a marriage license in which case you can post it here and we will say,...gee pops, YOU were right.

2. They hold you and/or your mom for psychiatric observation in which case you will just shut the fuck up with your inane horseshit.

Deal??

How bout this, have the Supreme Court do their job and fix the mess they created.

Oh, my mother is dead, let's try to keep family members out of this. So, no one is claiming you can marry the dead.

And you bringing mental illness into this is strictly deflection. I will not be pulled into your nonsense.

What mess has the Supreme Court created?

Iowa law seems to allow same sex family members to marry

Maryland law seems to allow male family members to marry

Wisconsin and several other states allow first cousins to marry if:

1. They have reached a certain age where procreation would be unlikely, or

2. They can prove infertility.

Now, it would be an undo burdon to make same sex cousins wait or prove infertility (duh) so it would appear they are free to do so at will.
.

An undue burden according to who?
Any state that believes that siblings should not marry, can of course change their laws to prevent same sex siblings from marrying if their current language is not gender blind. IF states choose not to do so- well apparently the states don't care.

Meanwhile- siblings are prevented marrying regardless of fertility in every state in the United States.

But First Cousins in many states are allowed to marry only if they can establish that they cannot procreate together.

Clearly procreation is not the basis for denying siblings from marrying.

And never was.

And Obergefel doesn't change any of that.

Either States had a valid reason before- and still do- or they didn't have a valid reason before- and still don't.

Meanwhile- you can go demand your day in court- for 'justice'

 

[OKTexas]

Do you lack the ability to read how they defined a qualified judge in the law?

Let us clarify. You wish to state for the record that a U.S. Supreme Court Justice cannot legally marry anyone in the state of Maryland?

Not in accordance with how they define a judge in the statute. Feel free to point out where the statute includes a supreme court justice, I don't see it.

So...your definitive answer is that a Justice of the Supreme Court is not allowed to perform marriages in the state of Maryland. I've got that right?

Asked and answered, you have yet to provide evidence otherwise.

(a) Authorized officials.-

(1) In this subsection, "judge" means:

(i) a judge of the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

(ii) a judge approved under Article IV, § 3A of the Maryland Constitution and § 1-302 of the Courts Article for recall and assignment to the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

(iii) a judge of a United States District Court, a United States Court of Appeals, or the United States Tax Court; or

(iv) a judge of a state court if the judge is active or retired but eligible for recall.

(2) A marriage ceremony may be performed in this State by:

(i) any official of a religious order or body authorized by the rules and customs of that order or body to perform a marriage ceremony;

(ii) any clerk;

(iii) any deputy clerk designated by the county administrative judge of the circuit court for the county; or

(iv) a judge.

Are you saying a Supreme Court Justice is not a judge?


Let's just let the absurdity of that one hang in the air for a bit.

Well lets take their definition one by one shall we.

Does she qualify for this one?
(i) a judge of the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

Since they are all State level courts the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(ii) a judge approved under Article IV, § 3A of the Maryland Constitution and § 1-302 of the Courts Article for recall and assignment to the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

Once again, State level courts so the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(iii) a judge of a United States District Court, a United States Court of Appeals, or the United States Tax Court; or

Well at least these are federal courts, however the supreme court doesn't fall within any of the 3 mentioned, so once again the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(iv) a judge of a state court if the judge is active or retired but eligible for recall.

Once again these are State level judges, so the answer is NO.

Your challenge grasshopper is show me where I got it wrong and because you say so, ain't cut'n it.

 

[Faun]

Maybe, yet I'm still seeking how to keep family members from marriage since the law itself seems to apply arbitrary standards.

Tell you what Pops.....do this:

Take your mother down to the court house and tell them that you and she want to get a marriage license because, now that gays can marry, you two can also. One of two things will happen...

1. They issue a marriage license in which case you can post it here and we will say,...gee pops, YOU were right.

2. They hold you and/or your mom for psychiatric observation in which case you will just shut the fuck up with your inane horseshit.

Deal??

How bout this, have the Supreme Court do their job and fix the mess they created.

Oh, my mother is dead, let's try to keep family members out of this. So, no one is claiming you can marry the dead.

And you bringing mental illness into this is strictly deflection. I will not be pulled into your nonsense.

What mess has the Supreme Court created?

The mess in his head. For some reason, he blames the Supreme Court for that.

Interesting content, really it is.

So what is the societal safety net that remained after the Supreme Court ruled in Obergfell?

You can do something no one else has been able to do.......

You say that as if your argument hasn't been thoroughly and utterly destroyed.

 

[bodecea]

Let us clarify. You wish to state for the record that a U.S. Supreme Court Justice cannot legally marry anyone in the state of Maryland?

Not in accordance with how they define a judge in the statute. Feel free to point out where the statute includes a supreme court justice, I don't see it.

So...your definitive answer is that a Justice of the Supreme Court is not allowed to perform marriages in the state of Maryland. I've got that right?

Asked and answered, you have yet to provide evidence otherwise.

(a) Authorized officials.-

(1) In this subsection, "judge" means:

(i) a judge of the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

(ii) a judge approved under Article IV, § 3A of the Maryland Constitution and § 1-302 of the Courts Article for recall and assignment to the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

(iii) a judge of a United States District Court, a United States Court of Appeals, or the United States Tax Court; or

(iv) a judge of a state court if the judge is active or retired but eligible for recall.

(2) A marriage ceremony may be performed in this State by:

(i) any official of a religious order or body authorized by the rules and customs of that order or body to perform a marriage ceremony;

(ii) any clerk;

(iii) any deputy clerk designated by the county administrative judge of the circuit court for the county; or

(iv) a judge.

Are you saying a Supreme Court Justice is not a judge?


Let's just let the absurdity of that one hang in the air for a bit.

Well lets take their definition one by one shall we.

Does she qualify for this one?
(i) a judge of the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

Since they are all State level courts the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(ii) a judge approved under Article IV, § 3A of the Maryland Constitution and § 1-302 of the Courts Article for recall and assignment to the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

Once again, State level courts so the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(iii) a judge of a United States District Court, a United States Court of Appeals, or the United States Tax Court; or

Well at least these are federal courts, however the supreme court doesn't fall within any of the 3 mentioned, so once again the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(iv) a judge of a state court if the judge is active or retired but eligible for recall.

Once again these are State level judges, so the answer is NO.

Your challenge grasshopper is show me where I got it wrong and because you say so, ain't cut'n it.

Tell us more about how a Supreme Court Justice isn't a judge.

 

[Pop23]

You failed to present a answer that would hold water. But you go on repeating yourself and thinking you have anything to offer

I quoted a judge- who stated very clearly the reasons she found bans on incest and polygamy different than the bans on same gender marriage.

You reject what judges say- you reject what anyone else here has said- you have brought up the same issue in thread after thread

By the evidence we do have- you are not likely to ever accept anything other than what you already believe.

And I requested what the societal safety net she spoke of was.

You had no answer, you just got emotional and went off on one of your famous tangents.

Now, care to explain what that societal safety net is when the Obergfell decision was based on the 14th amendments equal protection clause that guarentees due process.

How this "safety net" can exist with a law that creates a partnership that does not require sexual contact at all?

I expect further deflection from you, but hey, you might surprise everyone.

Well feel free to ask her what that societal safety net is.

I have provided her answer- you don't accept it.

Nor do you accept any answer that is different from your own conviction.

You provided a quote about a societal safety net, which excluded what that net was.

So your answer was, cuz she said so? Even though you have no clue what it means?

It did mean that family members would not be able to marry, but because Obergfell took the qualification of One Male to One a Woman, we know that now:

Iowa, previously did not allow family marriage entirely, now looks as though same sex relatives can, and

Maryland, allows same sex male relatives open to marriage.

The ruling created a mess with these states as well as the many states that allow first cousin marriage. Straight first cousins MUST reach a certain age or prove infertility, while same sex cousins could easily make the case that the requirement is frivolous.

Meanwhile- in the real world- you continue to reject any opinion other than your own.
Can't find a single example of your opinion being correct.
And in 12 years of Massachusetts marriage equality- not single incestuious marriage happening.

But as I keep saying- you are welcome to 'pursue' justice- you can file suit demanding what you believe is your legal right to marry your sibling.

Go for it.

Obviously you forgot again to include what that safety net was and to include the quote with your claim that I want to deny interracial couples the ability to Marry.

2 fails in a single post.

Keep up the good work.

 

[Pop23]

Tell you what Pops.....do this:

Take your mother down to the court house and tell them that you and she want to get a marriage license because, now that gays can marry, you two can also. One of two things will happen...

1. They issue a marriage license in which case you can post it here and we will say,...gee pops, YOU were right.

2. They hold you and/or your mom for psychiatric observation in which case you will just shut the fuck up with your inane horseshit.

Deal??

How bout this, have the Supreme Court do their job and fix the mess they created.

Oh, my mother is dead, let's try to keep family members out of this. So, no one is claiming you can marry the dead.

And you bringing mental illness into this is strictly deflection. I will not be pulled into your nonsense.

What mess has the Supreme Court created?

The mess in his head. For some reason, he blames the Supreme Court for that.

Interesting content, really it is.

So what is the societal safety net that remained after the Supreme Court ruled in Obergfell?

You can do something no one else has been able to do.......

You say that as if your argument hasn't been thoroughly and utterly destroyed.

It hasn't, and it appears you don't have the ability to do so.

But good luck with that

 

[Syriusly]

Let us clarify. You wish to state for the record that a U.S. Supreme Court Justice cannot legally marry anyone in the state of Maryland?

Not in accordance with how they define a judge in the statute. Feel free to point out where the statute includes a supreme court justice, I don't see it.

So...your definitive answer is that a Justice of the Supreme Court is not allowed to perform marriages in the state of Maryland. I've got that right?

Asked and answered, you have yet to provide evidence otherwise.

(a) Authorized officials.-

(1) In this subsection, "judge" means:

(i) a judge of the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

(ii) a judge approved under Article IV, § 3A of the Maryland Constitution and § 1-302 of the Courts Article for recall and assignment to the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

(iii) a judge of a United States District Court, a United States Court of Appeals, or the United States Tax Court; or

(iv) a judge of a state court if the judge is active or retired but eligible for recall.

(2) A marriage ceremony may be performed in this State by:

(i) any official of a religious order or body authorized by the rules and customs of that order or body to perform a marriage ceremony;

(ii) any clerk;

(iii) any deputy clerk designated by the county administrative judge of the circuit court for the county; or

(iv) a judge.

Are you saying a Supreme Court Justice is not a judge?


Let's just let the absurdity of that one hang in the air for a bit.

Well lets take their definition one by one shall we.

Does she qualify for this one?
(i) a judge of the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

Since they are all State level courts the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(ii) a judge approved under Article IV, § 3A of the Maryland Constitution and § 1-302 of the Courts Article for recall and assignment to the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

Once again, State level courts so the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(iii) a judge of a United States District Court, a United States Court of Appeals, or the United States Tax Court; or

Well at least these are federal courts, however the supreme court doesn't fall within any of the 3 mentioned, so once again the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(iv) a judge of a state court if the judge is active or retired but eligible for recall.

Once again these are State level judges, so the answer is NO.

Your challenge grasshopper is show me where I got it wrong and because you say so, ain't cut'n it.

Well perhaps the challenge then is to see what capacity whichever judge you think erred- did officiate a wedding.

Because in Maryland- any individual can be authorized by a religious order to perform marriages

(i) any official of a religious order or body authorized by the rules and customs of that order or body to perform a marriage ceremony;

How to Become an Ordained Minister in Maryland
If you haven't already, you should get ordained online with the Universal Life Church. Ordination is free and can be completed in just a matter of minutes. Thousands of legally valid marriages are performed by ULC ministers around the world every year. Begin the process by clicking the big blue button below!

Maryland Marriage Laws - Universal Life Church


So now you just have to prove that whoever did the wedding- was not legally eligible to perform the wedding.

First step- find out how the justice signed the marriage certificate.

But right now- just your idle speculation.

 

[Syriusly]

I quoted a judge- who stated very clearly the reasons she found bans on incest and polygamy different than the bans on same gender marriage.

You reject what judges say- you reject what anyone else here has said- you have brought up the same issue in thread after thread

By the evidence we do have- you are not likely to ever accept anything other than what you already believe.

And I requested what the societal safety net she spoke of was.

You had no answer, you just got emotional and went off on one of your famous tangents.

Now, care to explain what that societal safety net is when the Obergfell decision was based on the 14th amendments equal protection clause that guarentees due process.

How this "safety net" can exist with a law that creates a partnership that does not require sexual contact at all?

I expect further deflection from you, but hey, you might surprise everyone.

Well feel free to ask her what that societal safety net is.

I have provided her answer- you don't accept it.

Nor do you accept any answer that is different from your own conviction.

You provided a quote about a societal safety net, which excluded what that net was.

So your answer was, cuz she said so? Even though you have no clue what it means?

It did mean that family members would not be able to marry, but because Obergfell took the qualification of One Male to One a Woman, we know that now:

Iowa, previously did not allow family marriage entirely, now looks as though same sex relatives can, and

Maryland, allows same sex male relatives open to marriage.

The ruling created a mess with these states as well as the many states that allow first cousin marriage. Straight first cousins MUST reach a certain age or prove infertility, while same sex cousins could easily make the case that the requirement is frivolous.

Meanwhile- in the real world- you continue to reject any opinion other than your own.
Can't find a single example of your opinion being correct.
And in 12 years of Massachusetts marriage equality- not single incestuious marriage happening.

But as I keep saying- you are welcome to 'pursue' justice- you can file suit demanding what you believe is your legal right to marry your sibling.

Go for it.

Obviously you forgot again to include what that safety net was and to include the quote with your claim that I want to deny interracial couples the ability to Marry.

2 fails in a single post.

Keep up the good work.

Why exactly do you want to exclude gay couples and mixed race couples from legal marriage?

 

[Pop23]

Maybe, yet I'm still seeking how to keep family members from marriage since the law itself seems to apply arbitrary standards.

Tell you what Pops.....do this:

Take your mother down to the court house and tell them that you and she want to get a marriage license because, now that gays can marry, you two can also. One of two things will happen...

1. They issue a marriage license in which case you can post it here and we will say,...gee pops, YOU were right.

2. They hold you and/or your mom for psychiatric observation in which case you will just shut the fuck up with your inane horseshit.

Deal??

How bout this, have the Supreme Court do their job and fix the mess they created.

Oh, my mother is dead, let's try to keep family members out of this. So, no one is claiming you can marry the dead.

And you bringing mental illness into this is strictly deflection. I will not be pulled into your nonsense.

What mess has the Supreme Court created?

Iowa law seems to allow same sex family members to marry

Maryland law seems to allow male family members to marry

Wisconsin and several other states allow first cousins to marry if:

1. They have reached a certain age where procreation would be unlikely, or

2. They can prove infertility.

Now, it would be an undo burdon to make same sex cousins wait or prove infertility (duh) so it would appear they are free to do so at will.
.

An undue burden according to who?
Any state that believes that siblings should not marry, can of course change their laws to prevent same sex siblings from marrying if their current language is not gender blind. IF states choose not to do so- well apparently the states don't care.

Meanwhile- siblings are prevented marrying regardless of fertility in every state in the United States.

But First Cousins in many states are allowed to marry only if they can establish that they cannot procreate together.

Clearly procreation is not the basis for denying siblings from marrying.

And never was.

And Obergefel doesn't change any of that.

Either States had a valid reason before- and still do- or they didn't have a valid reason before- and still don't.

Meanwhile- you can go demand your day in court- for 'justice'

Iowa law restricts only opposite sex family members from marriage

Iowa Code 595

Maryland only restricts those that vaginally penetrate.

Of course prior to Obergfell, neither state allowed any. It was due to Obergfell.

 

[Pop23]

And I requested what the societal safety net she spoke of was.

You had no answer, you just got emotional and went off on one of your famous tangents.

Now, care to explain what that societal safety net is when the Obergfell decision was based on the 14th amendments equal protection clause that guarentees due process.

How this "safety net" can exist with a law that creates a partnership that does not require sexual contact at all?

I expect further deflection from you, but hey, you might surprise everyone.

Well feel free to ask her what that societal safety net is.

I have provided her answer- you don't accept it.

Nor do you accept any answer that is different from your own conviction.

You provided a quote about a societal safety net, which excluded what that net was.

So your answer was, cuz she said so? Even though you have no clue what it means?

It did mean that family members would not be able to marry, but because Obergfell took the qualification of One Male to One a Woman, we know that now:

Iowa, previously did not allow family marriage entirely, now looks as though same sex relatives can, and

Maryland, allows same sex male relatives open to marriage.

The ruling created a mess with these states as well as the many states that allow first cousin marriage. Straight first cousins MUST reach a certain age or prove infertility, while same sex cousins could easily make the case that the requirement is frivolous.

Meanwhile- in the real world- you continue to reject any opinion other than your own.
Can't find a single example of your opinion being correct.
And in 12 years of Massachusetts marriage equality- not single incestuious marriage happening.

But as I keep saying- you are welcome to 'pursue' justice- you can file suit demanding what you believe is your legal right to marry your sibling.

Go for it.

Obviously you forgot again to include what that safety net was and to include the quote with your claim that I want to deny interracial couples the ability to Marry.

2 fails in a single post.

Keep up the good work.

Why exactly do you want to exclude gay couples and mixed race couples from legal marriage?

Quote the post or youre simply being argumentative

 

[OKTexas]

Not in accordance with how they define a judge in the statute. Feel free to point out where the statute includes a supreme court justice, I don't see it.

So...your definitive answer is that a Justice of the Supreme Court is not allowed to perform marriages in the state of Maryland. I've got that right?

Asked and answered, you have yet to provide evidence otherwise.

(a) Authorized officials.-

(1) In this subsection, "judge" means:

(i) a judge of the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

(ii) a judge approved under Article IV, § 3A of the Maryland Constitution and § 1-302 of the Courts Article for recall and assignment to the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

(iii) a judge of a United States District Court, a United States Court of Appeals, or the United States Tax Court; or

(iv) a judge of a state court if the judge is active or retired but eligible for recall.

(2) A marriage ceremony may be performed in this State by:

(i) any official of a religious order or body authorized by the rules and customs of that order or body to perform a marriage ceremony;

(ii) any clerk;

(iii) any deputy clerk designated by the county administrative judge of the circuit court for the county; or

(iv) a judge.

Are you saying a Supreme Court Justice is not a judge?


Let's just let the absurdity of that one hang in the air for a bit.

Well lets take their definition one by one shall we.

Does she qualify for this one?
(i) a judge of the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

Since they are all State level courts the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(ii) a judge approved under Article IV, § 3A of the Maryland Constitution and § 1-302 of the Courts Article for recall and assignment to the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

Once again, State level courts so the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(iii) a judge of a United States District Court, a United States Court of Appeals, or the United States Tax Court; or

Well at least these are federal courts, however the supreme court doesn't fall within any of the 3 mentioned, so once again the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(iv) a judge of a state court if the judge is active or retired but eligible for recall.

Once again these are State level judges, so the answer is NO.

Your challenge grasshopper is show me where I got it wrong and because you say so, ain't cut'n it.

Tell us more about how a Supreme Court Justice isn't a judge.

Once again you demonstrate your total lack of honesty. I never said a supreme court justice wasn't a judge, I said they DO NOT QUALIFY UNDER THE MD DEFINITION OF A JUDGE WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO PERFORM MARRIAGES. And you have yet to prove otherwise. Either do so, or bug off.

 

[bodecea]

So...your definitive answer is that a Justice of the Supreme Court is not allowed to perform marriages in the state of Maryland. I've got that right?

Asked and answered, you have yet to provide evidence otherwise.

(a) Authorized officials.-

(1) In this subsection, "judge" means:

(i) a judge of the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

(ii) a judge approved under Article IV, § 3A of the Maryland Constitution and § 1-302 of the Courts Article for recall and assignment to the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

(iii) a judge of a United States District Court, a United States Court of Appeals, or the United States Tax Court; or

(iv) a judge of a state court if the judge is active or retired but eligible for recall.

(2) A marriage ceremony may be performed in this State by:

(i) any official of a religious order or body authorized by the rules and customs of that order or body to perform a marriage ceremony;

(ii) any clerk;

(iii) any deputy clerk designated by the county administrative judge of the circuit court for the county; or

(iv) a judge.

Are you saying a Supreme Court Justice is not a judge?


Let's just let the absurdity of that one hang in the air for a bit.

Well lets take their definition one by one shall we.

Does she qualify for this one?
(i) a judge of the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

Since they are all State level courts the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(ii) a judge approved under Article IV, § 3A of the Maryland Constitution and § 1-302 of the Courts Article for recall and assignment to the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

Once again, State level courts so the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(iii) a judge of a United States District Court, a United States Court of Appeals, or the United States Tax Court; or

Well at least these are federal courts, however the supreme court doesn't fall within any of the 3 mentioned, so once again the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(iv) a judge of a state court if the judge is active or retired but eligible for recall.

Once again these are State level judges, so the answer is NO.

Your challenge grasshopper is show me where I got it wrong and because you say so, ain't cut'n it.

Tell us more about how a Supreme Court Justice isn't a judge.

Once again you demonstrate your total lack of honesty. I never said a supreme court justice wasn't a judge, I said they DO NOT QUALIFY UNDER THE MD DEFINITION OF A JUDGE WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO PERFORM MARRIAGES. And you have yet to prove otherwise. Either do so, or bug off.

Look at the last line of my quote...."a judge". Now tell us again how a Supreme Court Justice doesn't qualify as a judge.

 

[Syriusly]

Tell you what Pops.....do this:

Take your mother down to the court house and tell them that you and she want to get a marriage license because, now that gays can marry, you two can also. One of two things will happen...

1. They issue a marriage license in which case you can post it here and we will say,...gee pops, YOU were right.

2. They hold you and/or your mom for psychiatric observation in which case you will just shut the fuck up with your inane horseshit.

Deal??

How bout this, have the Supreme Court do their job and fix the mess they created.

Oh, my mother is dead, let's try to keep family members out of this. So, no one is claiming you can marry the dead.

And you bringing mental illness into this is strictly deflection. I will not be pulled into your nonsense.

What mess has the Supreme Court created?

Iowa law seems to allow same sex family members to marry

Maryland law seems to allow male family members to marry

Wisconsin and several other states allow first cousins to marry if:

1. They have reached a certain age where procreation would be unlikely, or

2. They can prove infertility.

Now, it would be an undo burdon to make same sex cousins wait or prove infertility (duh) so it would appear they are free to do so at will.
.

An undue burden according to who?
Any state that believes that siblings should not marry, can of course change their laws to prevent same sex siblings from marrying if their current language is not gender blind. IF states choose not to do so- well apparently the states don't care.

Meanwhile- siblings are prevented marrying regardless of fertility in every state in the United States.

But First Cousins in many states are allowed to marry only if they can establish that they cannot procreate together.

Clearly procreation is not the basis for denying siblings from marrying.

And never was.

And Obergefel doesn't change any of that.

Either States had a valid reason before- and still do- or they didn't have a valid reason before- and still don't.

Meanwhile- you can go demand your day in court- for 'justice'

Iowa law restricts only opposite sex family members from marriage

Maryland only restricts those that vaginally penetrate.

Of course prior to Obergfell, neither state allowed any. It was due to Obergfell.

And if Iowa cares about siblings marrying- Iowa can change Iowa's law.

I don't even know what the hell you mean about Marylands law but you seem obsessed with sex...

Meanwhile- siblings are prevented marrying regardless of fertility in every state in the United States.

But First Cousins in many states are allowed to marry only if they can establish that they cannot procreate together.

Clearly procreation is not the basis for denying siblings from marrying.

And never was.

And Obergefel doesn't change any of that.

Either States had a valid reason before- and still do- or they didn't have a valid reason before- and still don't.

Meanwhile- you can go demand your day in court- for 'justice'

 

[OKTexas]

Not in accordance with how they define a judge in the statute. Feel free to point out where the statute includes a supreme court justice, I don't see it.

So...your definitive answer is that a Justice of the Supreme Court is not allowed to perform marriages in the state of Maryland. I've got that right?

Asked and answered, you have yet to provide evidence otherwise.

(a) Authorized officials.-

(1) In this subsection, "judge" means:

(i) a judge of the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

(ii) a judge approved under Article IV, § 3A of the Maryland Constitution and § 1-302 of the Courts Article for recall and assignment to the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

(iii) a judge of a United States District Court, a United States Court of Appeals, or the United States Tax Court; or

(iv) a judge of a state court if the judge is active or retired but eligible for recall.

(2) A marriage ceremony may be performed in this State by:

(i) any official of a religious order or body authorized by the rules and customs of that order or body to perform a marriage ceremony;

(ii) any clerk;

(iii) any deputy clerk designated by the county administrative judge of the circuit court for the county; or

(iv) a judge.

Are you saying a Supreme Court Justice is not a judge?


Let's just let the absurdity of that one hang in the air for a bit.

Well lets take their definition one by one shall we.

Does she qualify for this one?
(i) a judge of the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

Since they are all State level courts the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(ii) a judge approved under Article IV, § 3A of the Maryland Constitution and § 1-302 of the Courts Article for recall and assignment to the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

Once again, State level courts so the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(iii) a judge of a United States District Court, a United States Court of Appeals, or the United States Tax Court; or

Well at least these are federal courts, however the supreme court doesn't fall within any of the 3 mentioned, so once again the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(iv) a judge of a state court if the judge is active or retired but eligible for recall.

Once again these are State level judges, so the answer is NO.

Your challenge grasshopper is show me where I got it wrong and because you say so, ain't cut'n it.

Well perhaps the challenge then is to see what capacity whichever judge you think erred- did officiate a wedding.

Because in Maryland- any individual can be authorized by a religious order to perform marriages

(i) any official of a religious order or body authorized by the rules and customs of that order or body to perform a marriage ceremony;

How to Become an Ordained Minister in Maryland
If you haven't already, you should get ordained online with the Universal Life Church. Ordination is free and can be completed in just a matter of minutes. Thousands of legally valid marriages are performed by ULC ministers around the world every year. Begin the process by clicking the big blue button below!

Maryland Marriage Laws - Universal Life Church


So now you just have to prove that whoever did the wedding- was not legally eligible to perform the wedding.

First step- find out how the justice signed the marriage certificate.

But right now- just your idle speculation.

Stay on the topic of the string, that would be judges as defined in MD law who are eligible to perform marriages.

 

[Syriusly]

So...your definitive answer is that a Justice of the Supreme Court is not allowed to perform marriages in the state of Maryland. I've got that right?

Asked and answered, you have yet to provide evidence otherwise.

(a) Authorized officials.-

(1) In this subsection, "judge" means:

(i) a judge of the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

(ii) a judge approved under Article IV, § 3A of the Maryland Constitution and § 1-302 of the Courts Article for recall and assignment to the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

(iii) a judge of a United States District Court, a United States Court of Appeals, or the United States Tax Court; or

(iv) a judge of a state court if the judge is active or retired but eligible for recall.

(2) A marriage ceremony may be performed in this State by:

(i) any official of a religious order or body authorized by the rules and customs of that order or body to perform a marriage ceremony;

(ii) any clerk;

(iii) any deputy clerk designated by the county administrative judge of the circuit court for the county; or

(iv) a judge.

Are you saying a Supreme Court Justice is not a judge?


Let's just let the absurdity of that one hang in the air for a bit.

Well lets take their definition one by one shall we.

Does she qualify for this one?
(i) a judge of the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

Since they are all State level courts the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(ii) a judge approved under Article IV, § 3A of the Maryland Constitution and § 1-302 of the Courts Article for recall and assignment to the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

Once again, State level courts so the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(iii) a judge of a United States District Court, a United States Court of Appeals, or the United States Tax Court; or

Well at least these are federal courts, however the supreme court doesn't fall within any of the 3 mentioned, so once again the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(iv) a judge of a state court if the judge is active or retired but eligible for recall.

Once again these are State level judges, so the answer is NO.

Your challenge grasshopper is show me where I got it wrong and because you say so, ain't cut'n it.

Tell us more about how a Supreme Court Justice isn't a judge.

Once again you demonstrate your total lack of honesty. I never said a supreme court justice wasn't a judge, I said they DO NOT QUALIFY UNDER THE MD DEFINITION OF A JUDGE WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO PERFORM MARRIAGES. And you have yet to prove otherwise. Either do so, or bug off.

Nor have you proven that the justice in question- was not legally eligible to officiate. You have speculated- but until you show us what capacity she officiated as- it is nothing more than your speculation.

 

[Syriusly]

So...your definitive answer is that a Justice of the Supreme Court is not allowed to perform marriages in the state of Maryland. I've got that right?

Asked and answered, you have yet to provide evidence otherwise.

(a) Authorized officials.-

(1) In this subsection, "judge" means:

(i) a judge of the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

(ii) a judge approved under Article IV, § 3A of the Maryland Constitution and § 1-302 of the Courts Article for recall and assignment to the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

(iii) a judge of a United States District Court, a United States Court of Appeals, or the United States Tax Court; or

(iv) a judge of a state court if the judge is active or retired but eligible for recall.

(2) A marriage ceremony may be performed in this State by:

(i) any official of a religious order or body authorized by the rules and customs of that order or body to perform a marriage ceremony;

(ii) any clerk;

(iii) any deputy clerk designated by the county administrative judge of the circuit court for the county; or

(iv) a judge.

Are you saying a Supreme Court Justice is not a judge?


Let's just let the absurdity of that one hang in the air for a bit.

Well lets take their definition one by one shall we.

Does she qualify for this one?
(i) a judge of the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

Since they are all State level courts the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(ii) a judge approved under Article IV, § 3A of the Maryland Constitution and § 1-302 of the Courts Article for recall and assignment to the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

Once again, State level courts so the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(iii) a judge of a United States District Court, a United States Court of Appeals, or the United States Tax Court; or

Well at least these are federal courts, however the supreme court doesn't fall within any of the 3 mentioned, so once again the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(iv) a judge of a state court if the judge is active or retired but eligible for recall.

Once again these are State level judges, so the answer is NO.

Your challenge grasshopper is show me where I got it wrong and because you say so, ain't cut'n it.

Well perhaps the challenge then is to see what capacity whichever judge you think erred- did officiate a wedding.

Because in Maryland- any individual can be authorized by a religious order to perform marriages

(i) any official of a religious order or body authorized by the rules and customs of that order or body to perform a marriage ceremony;

How to Become an Ordained Minister in Maryland
If you haven't already, you should get ordained online with the Universal Life Church. Ordination is free and can be completed in just a matter of minutes. Thousands of legally valid marriages are performed by ULC ministers around the world every year. Begin the process by clicking the big blue button below!

Maryland Marriage Laws - Universal Life Church


So now you just have to prove that whoever did the wedding- was not legally eligible to perform the wedding.

First step- find out how the justice signed the marriage certificate.

But right now- just your idle speculation.

Stay on the topic of the string, that would be judges as defined in MD law who are eligible to perform marriages.

And you know she performed the marriage as a 'judge' exactly how?

Remember you are the one speculating she couldn't do so legally. I have shown you that she could have.

Sorry if that upsets your meme.

Well not really sorry....its rather amusing.

 

[OKTexas]

Asked and answered, you have yet to provide evidence otherwise.

(a) Authorized officials.-

(1) In this subsection, "judge" means:

(i) a judge of the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

(ii) a judge approved under Article IV, § 3A of the Maryland Constitution and § 1-302 of the Courts Article for recall and assignment to the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

(iii) a judge of a United States District Court, a United States Court of Appeals, or the United States Tax Court; or

(iv) a judge of a state court if the judge is active or retired but eligible for recall.

(2) A marriage ceremony may be performed in this State by:

(i) any official of a religious order or body authorized by the rules and customs of that order or body to perform a marriage ceremony;

(ii) any clerk;

(iii) any deputy clerk designated by the county administrative judge of the circuit court for the county; or

(iv) a judge.

Are you saying a Supreme Court Justice is not a judge?


Let's just let the absurdity of that one hang in the air for a bit.

Well lets take their definition one by one shall we.

Does she qualify for this one?
(i) a judge of the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

Since they are all State level courts the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(ii) a judge approved under Article IV, § 3A of the Maryland Constitution and § 1-302 of the Courts Article for recall and assignment to the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

Once again, State level courts so the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(iii) a judge of a United States District Court, a United States Court of Appeals, or the United States Tax Court; or

Well at least these are federal courts, however the supreme court doesn't fall within any of the 3 mentioned, so once again the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(iv) a judge of a state court if the judge is active or retired but eligible for recall.

Once again these are State level judges, so the answer is NO.

Your challenge grasshopper is show me where I got it wrong and because you say so, ain't cut'n it.

Tell us more about how a Supreme Court Justice isn't a judge.

Once again you demonstrate your total lack of honesty. I never said a supreme court justice wasn't a judge, I said they DO NOT QUALIFY UNDER THE MD DEFINITION OF A JUDGE WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO PERFORM MARRIAGES. And you have yet to prove otherwise. Either do so, or bug off.

Nor have you proven that the justice in question- was not legally eligible to officiate. You have speculated- but until you show us what capacity she officiated as- it is nothing more than your speculation.

Read the qualifications for yourself, they are posted in this string. There is NO SPECULATION, period end of story.
I'm really sorry you ignorant regressives can't read, but that's not my problem.

 

[Pop23]

How bout this, have the Supreme Court do their job and fix the mess they created.

Oh, my mother is dead, let's try to keep family members out of this. So, no one is claiming you can marry the dead.

And you bringing mental illness into this is strictly deflection. I will not be pulled into your nonsense.

What mess has the Supreme Court created?

Iowa law seems to allow same sex family members to marry

Maryland law seems to allow male family members to marry

Wisconsin and several other states allow first cousins to marry if:

1. They have reached a certain age where procreation would be unlikely, or

2. They can prove infertility.

Now, it would be an undo burdon to make same sex cousins wait or prove infertility (duh) so it would appear they are free to do so at will.
.

An undue burden according to who?
Any state that believes that siblings should not marry, can of course change their laws to prevent same sex siblings from marrying if their current language is not gender blind. IF states choose not to do so- well apparently the states don't care.

Meanwhile- siblings are prevented marrying regardless of fertility in every state in the United States.

But First Cousins in many states are allowed to marry only if they can establish that they cannot procreate together.

Clearly procreation is not the basis for denying siblings from marrying.

And never was.

And Obergefel doesn't change any of that.

Either States had a valid reason before- and still do- or they didn't have a valid reason before- and still don't.

Meanwhile- you can go demand your day in court- for 'justice'

Iowa law restricts only opposite sex family members from marriage

Maryland only restricts those that vaginally penetrate.

Of course prior to Obergfell, neither state allowed any. It was due to Obergfell.

And if Iowa cares about siblings marrying- Iowa can change Iowa's law.

I don't even know what the hell you mean about Marylands law but you seem obsessed with sex...

Meanwhile- siblings are prevented marrying regardless of fertility in every state in the United States.

But First Cousins in many states are allowed to marry only if they can establish that they cannot procreate together.

Clearly procreation is not the basis for denying siblings from marrying.

And never was.

And Obergefel doesn't change any of that.

Either States had a valid reason before- and still do- or they didn't have a valid reason before- and still don't.

Meanwhile- you can go demand your day in court- for 'justice'

Clearly you're backtracking.

Previously you said "why haven't these laws changed" faster then those for same sex marriage.

Iowa Code 595

Clearly they changed much faster, actually simultaneously with the legalization of same sex marriage

Another of your fails.

Interesting, these marriages would have to be recognized in all 50 states

 

[bodecea]

Are you saying a Supreme Court Justice is not a judge?


Let's just let the absurdity of that one hang in the air for a bit.

Well lets take their definition one by one shall we.

Does she qualify for this one?
(i) a judge of the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

Since they are all State level courts the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(ii) a judge approved under Article IV, § 3A of the Maryland Constitution and § 1-302 of the Courts Article for recall and assignment to the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;

Once again, State level courts so the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(iii) a judge of a United States District Court, a United States Court of Appeals, or the United States Tax Court; or

Well at least these are federal courts, however the supreme court doesn't fall within any of the 3 mentioned, so once again the answer is NO.

Does she qualify for this one?
(iv) a judge of a state court if the judge is active or retired but eligible for recall.

Once again these are State level judges, so the answer is NO.

Your challenge grasshopper is show me where I got it wrong and because you say so, ain't cut'n it.

Tell us more about how a Supreme Court Justice isn't a judge.

Once again you demonstrate your total lack of honesty. I never said a supreme court justice wasn't a judge, I said they DO NOT QUALIFY UNDER THE MD DEFINITION OF A JUDGE WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO PERFORM MARRIAGES. And you have yet to prove otherwise. Either do so, or bug off.

Nor have you proven that the justice in question- was not legally eligible to officiate. You have speculated- but until you show us what capacity she officiated as- it is nothing more than your speculation.

Read the qualifications for yourself, they are posted in this string. There is NO SPECULATION, period end of story.
I'm really sorry you ignorant regressives can't read, but that's not my problem.

A judge....you want us to believe that a U.S. District Court judge counts...a U.S. Court of Appeals Judge counts...but not a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Ok.....denial is not just a river in Egypt I guess.

Hey folks anyone who was lucky (unlucky) enough to ever have a Supreme Court Justice do your ceremony in Maryland ...guess what? You're not really married.