Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Backtracking?
LOL.
As I said-
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'
Same sex siblings appear legal in iowa, according to:
Iowa Code 595
Great- so you can go to Iowa and marry your same sex sibling now.
Go test that out.
Of course if Iowa thinks that is improper- it can make its marriage laws gender neutral as many other states do.
If Iowa doesn't care to make it illegal for same sex siblings illegal- well then your beef is with Iowa- not Obergefel.
Kim Clark tried that and ended up in the slammer.
Who is 'kim clark'?
You are of course simply being argumentative. I've shown your failed argument and I continue to get responses from you that can be best described as racist, bigotted and homophobic as you make the same losing arguments that bigots before you made.
Marriage equality be damned, right bigot?
Nah, you're merely trolling. And still can't back any of your claims with more than your own ineptly failed record of prediction. Where nothing you've insisted must happen....actually has.
Oops, Kim Davis
Oh, but I have. Same sex siblings are able to legally marry in both Iowa and Maryland.
What does race have to do with sexual behaviors?So you are still upset about Loving v. Virginia?
Race can be proven by reliable testing
Can gay?
What relevance does 'gay' have with who is eligible to be married?
None, gays were always legally able to marry.
Do you have a point. It was "gays" saying they could not
Great- so you can go to Iowa and marry your same sex sibling now.
Go test that out.
Of course if Iowa thinks that is improper- it can make its marriage laws gender neutral as many other states do.
If Iowa doesn't care to make it illegal for same sex siblings illegal- well then your beef is with Iowa- not Obergefel.
Kim Clark tried that and ended up in the slammer.
Who is 'kim clark'?
You are of course simply being argumentative. I've shown your failed argument and I continue to get responses from you that can be best described as racist, bigotted and homophobic as you make the same losing arguments that bigots before you made.
Marriage equality be damned, right bigot?
Nah, you're merely trolling. And still can't back any of your claims with more than your own ineptly failed record of prediction. Where nothing you've insisted must happen....actually has.
Oops, Kim Davis
Oh, but I have. Same sex siblings are able to legally marry in both Iowa and Maryland.
Then it will be remarkably easy for you to show us the evidence that siblings have married in Iowa and Maryland. Proof of any actual marriages of siblings.
And of course, your argument is that SSM recognition would lead to sibling marriage. But the laws you're claiming to quote predate the SSM ruling by years.
You....you realize that cause precedes effect, right? It doesn't follow it by years.
What does race have to do with sexual behaviors?So you are still upset about Loving v. Virginia?
Race can be proven by reliable testing
Can gay?
What relevance does 'gay' have with who is eligible to be married?
None, gays were always legally able to marry.
Do you have a point. It was "gays" saying they could not
If 'gay' is utterly irrelevant to who eligible to be marriage.....then what possible relevance would being able to 'prove' who is gay have with marriage?
It all sounds like another red herring. But then, red herrings are what trolls do.
Why would it have to be 'newsworthy' for you to have evidence? Marriages are a matter of public record.Great- so you can go to Iowa and marry your same sex sibling now.
Go test that out.
Of course if Iowa thinks that is improper- it can make its marriage laws gender neutral as many other states do.
If Iowa doesn't care to make it illegal for same sex siblings illegal- well then your beef is with Iowa- not Obergefel.
Kim Clark tried that and ended up in the slammer.
Who is 'kim clark'?
You are of course simply being argumentative. I've shown your failed argument and I continue to get responses from you that can be best described as racist, bigotted and homophobic as you make the same losing arguments that bigots before you made.
Marriage equality be damned, right bigot?
Nah, you're merely trolling. And still can't back any of your claims with more than your own ineptly failed record of prediction. Where nothing you've insisted must happen....actually has.
Oops, Kim Davis
Oh, but I have. Same sex siblings are able to legally marry in both Iowa and Maryland.
Then it will be remarkably easy for you to show us the evidence that siblings have married in Iowa and Maryland. Proof of any actual marriages of siblings.
And of course, your argument is that SSM recognition would lead to sibling marriage. But the laws you're claiming to quote predate the SSM ruling by years.
You....you realize that cause precedes effect, right? It doesn't follow it by years.
Why would someone doing something legal be newsworthy?
I don't think you get what a strawman is. I'm not attributing any argument to you. I'm pointing out that your 'standard' is irrelevant to the thread.What does race have to do with sexual behaviors?
Race can be proven by reliable testing
Can gay?
What relevance does 'gay' have with who is eligible to be married?
None, gays were always legally able to marry.
Do you have a point. It was "gays" saying they could not
If 'gay' is utterly irrelevant to who eligible to be marriage.....then what possible relevance would being able to 'prove' who is gay have with marriage?
It all sounds like another red herring. But then, red herrings are what trolls do.
Strawman, the idea is proof of discrimination. Blacks can, gays can't.
Strawman, the idea is proof of discrimination. Blacks can, gays can't.
With every comment, you reveal more ignorance. A supreme court decision settles a question of law. As a matter of law, gay marriage is legal. It is illegal (i.e. against the law) for any state to refuse to allow a gay couple that meet the other requirements of the law (i.e. age, not being married to another) to marry.Your personal opinions are not of interest to anyone. What matters is that, as a matter of law and fact, gay couples can be, and are, married. In every state.She hasn't convinced me of anything. Again, there is no malice in my position except toward those who would restrict freedoms over nothing more than hurt feelings, and a hatred of the positions of others.
Restrict freedoms.....like the right to marry, as you insist should still be restricted?
You're confusing powers and rights. They aren't the same thing.
They can marry all they want, just like those nutter mormons do, the real question is of the State recognizing it. To me there is no right to SSM unless you can convince the State in question to change its law.
as a matter of decision, not law. by law its only in the States that passed it legislatively or by proposition. All the other ones are by fiat with no law on the books to back it up.
Just like blacks can drive a car but those with several DUIs can't. One is a race, the other is behavior.
Oh, it is hard not to lump you in with the other faux con law scholars making asses of themselves here. It is hard to tell you clowns apart.Individually? What the fuck are you whining about now?Nothing.What does race have to do with sexual behaviors?
And to the majority of Supreme Court Justices and 75% of the other Federal and States Judges who addressed this issue, there is something in the constitution that requires that states apply their marriage laws equally to gay couples and that requires states not deny to citizens the fundamental right to liberty.It forced onto other States a condition the other States did not want. To me there is nothing in the Constitution that forces the other States to issue SSM licenses, just to recognize ones from other States.
And again, OSM and SSM aren't the same thing unless the laws are changed by the States to recognize it as such, because it is such a notable difference, unlike race.
Screw those judges.
and stop being lazy, and respond to my posts individually.
You replied to sill and me in the same post, i prefer you respond to my opinions only, and not lump me with anyone else.
She hasn't convinced me of anything. Again, there is no malice in my position except toward those who would restrict freedoms over nothing more than hurt feelings, and a hatred of the positions of others.
Restrict freedoms.....like the right to marry, as you insist should still be restricted?
You're confusing powers and rights. They aren't the same thing.
They can marry all they want, just like those nutter mormons do, the real question is of the State recognizing it. To me there is no right to SSM unless you can convince the State in question to change its law.
And I get that 'to you' there is no right to SSM unless the state grants permission. But the rights of federal citizens aren't dependant on the authorization of the state. And 'to you' isn't a legal standard. Its one of meaningless opinion that has no relevance to any law, ruling, or the outcome of any case.
There is no federal right to marriage, but there is one to firearms, so why can't I get a CCW in NYC?
Who says there is no federal 'right to marry'?
Strawman, the idea is proof of discrimination. Blacks can, gays can't.
Just like blacks can drive a car but those with several DUIs can't. One is a race, the other is behavior that doesn't qualify for marriage because of those who "share that road" (children who psychologically need both a mother and father for their best development).
Strawman, the idea is proof of discrimination. Blacks can, gays can't.
Religion is a behavior. Speech is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. And yet each of these is constitutionally protected.
The very premise of your argument is nonsense. And of course, while you insist that no case involving race is relevant, the USSC clearly contradicted you.
Citing Loving not once, but twice in defense of same sex marriage. Once in Windsor. Once in Obergefell.
Restrict freedoms.....like the right to marry, as you insist should still be restricted?
You're confusing powers and rights. They aren't the same thing.
They can marry all they want, just like those nutter mormons do, the real question is of the State recognizing it. To me there is no right to SSM unless you can convince the State in question to change its law.
And I get that 'to you' there is no right to SSM unless the state grants permission. But the rights of federal citizens aren't dependant on the authorization of the state. And 'to you' isn't a legal standard. Its one of meaningless opinion that has no relevance to any law, ruling, or the outcome of any case.
There is no federal right to marriage, but there is one to firearms, so why can't I get a CCW in NYC?
Who says there is no federal 'right to marry'?
I don't see it in the bill of rights, or in the rest of the document.
Can religion? Can ethnicity or national origin? Can perceived disability? These are all classes that are protected by anti-discrimination laws.What does race have to do with sexual behaviors?So you are still upset about Loving v. Virginia?
Race can be proven by reliable testing
Can gay?
So precedent is worthless?
You seem to think it is. You don't have a problem with marriage rights being won by other groups through the courts. You're fine with divorced couples being granted the right to marry by the SCOTUS. You're fine with interracial couples being granted the right to marry by the SCOTUS and you're fine with convicted prisoners winning their right to marry through the courts.
There's only time where the SCOTUS ruling on the right to marry has you screaming "judicial tyranny".
Hmmmmm, what's the difference in the cases? {thoughtful head scratch}
It's because its such a huge change, something that was never considered when the laws creating State marriage contracts were made, that the only proper way to do it is through the legislatures.
On all those other cases, it was still 1 man, 1 woman. In those other cases marriages of those types were allowed on and off for centuries either here or in Europe or other places. SSM however, is a concept only 30-40 years old.
And there you have it. Marriage rights have been won throught the courts. This is a historical fact. That's how they have been secured through history.
Gays though...they have to do it another way because Marty thinks gays are oogie.
Sea, I think are being a bit unfair. Marty has never once expressed, at least to my knowledge, an animus towards gay people. He has stated on numerous occasions that he would be fine with SSMs so long as they went through the referendum or legislative processes and that is the basis for his disapproval of the ruling. I staunchly disagree with him on that point but his rationale is not rooted in some deep-seeded mistrust or hatred, Silhouette on the other hand, fits that description to a tee. lol.
Yeah, actually he has and I'm being completely fair. He tries to argue the libertarian POV, but it's got a religious based anti gay bias.
When you can say all marriage rulings are fine...except Obergefell, because "well those were about men and women", you're operating from an anti gay bias.
Why would it have to be 'newsworthy' for you to have evidence? Marriages are a matter of public record.Kim Clark tried that and ended up in the slammer.
Who is 'kim clark'?
You are of course simply being argumentative. I've shown your failed argument and I continue to get responses from you that can be best described as racist, bigotted and homophobic as you make the same losing arguments that bigots before you made.
Marriage equality be damned, right bigot?
Nah, you're merely trolling. And still can't back any of your claims with more than your own ineptly failed record of prediction. Where nothing you've insisted must happen....actually has.
Oops, Kim Davis
Oh, but I have. Same sex siblings are able to legally marry in both Iowa and Maryland.
Then it will be remarkably easy for you to show us the evidence that siblings have married in Iowa and Maryland. Proof of any actual marriages of siblings.
And of course, your argument is that SSM recognition would lead to sibling marriage. But the laws you're claiming to quote predate the SSM ruling by years.
You....you realize that cause precedes effect, right? It doesn't follow it by years.
Why would someone doing something legal be newsworthy?
If you have no evidence of any sibling marriage in Iowa or Maryland....just admit it.
Marriage belongs to children just as a road actually belongs to pedestrians. They have legal dominance. Even though they actually only have crosswalks and overpasses, if you see one crossing where there aren't any of those, you'd best slow down and give them right away. Anything less is illegal, even though "roads are built for cars". The "cars" here are adults. The "roads" are marriage. Yet the "pedestrians" are children who the cars must yield to always, with no exceptions.
They can marry all they want, just like those nutter mormons do, the real question is of the State recognizing it. To me there is no right to SSM unless you can convince the State in question to change its law.
And I get that 'to you' there is no right to SSM unless the state grants permission. But the rights of federal citizens aren't dependant on the authorization of the state. And 'to you' isn't a legal standard. Its one of meaningless opinion that has no relevance to any law, ruling, or the outcome of any case.
There is no federal right to marriage, but there is one to firearms, so why can't I get a CCW in NYC?
Who says there is no federal 'right to marry'?
I don't see it in the bill of rights, or in the rest of the document.
And as the 9th amendment makes ludicrously clear.....you don't have to for it to be a right.
Though you demonstrate why we have a 9th amendment. Those founders that called for it worried about people just like you. Folks that would assume that the bill of rights and constitution were an exhaustive list of rights.
Which it isn't. Nor was ever meant to be.
Strawman, the idea is proof of discrimination. Blacks can, gays can't.
Just like blacks can drive a car but those with several DUIs can't. One is a race, the other is behavior that doesn't qualify for marriage because of those who "share that road" (children who psychologically need both a mother and father for their best development).
Marriage belongs to children just as a road actually belongs to pedestrians. They have legal dominance.
In fact essentially what the Court has just Said last June is "cars may now mow down pedestrians since we determined roads are solely about cars and pedestrians have to just suck it up to whatever the whims of cars are now"..
