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

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

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.

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.

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.

but that doesn't make it A law. the laws stay on the books until re-written by the legislature. More progressive "I think it is, therefore it is"

You have no idea what you are talking about. Court decisions carry the force of law. Therefore it is law. No legislation is forthcoming or necessary. The laws previously passed by the states prohibiting same sex marriage are in the recycle bin. Plain and simple. Even if technically "on the books" they are unenforceable.

 

[Pop23]

Its faith and belief that defines religion. Not association. Visiting a mosque doesn't make you a Muslim.

And by your own standard, you can't objectively verify that faith and belief that defines religion.

How then can you discriminate against religion....if you can't prove the person is, in fact, religious?

Show us that DNA test for Kim Davis......or wipe your own ass with your own standard. As you always do.

But joining the Mosque is proof!

And BOOM, another Skylar fail

Now please, the proof of gay please.

Is not joining the mosque proof that you are not a Muslim? If I am Jewish by birth, but consider myself to be an aetheist and someone fires me or refuses to hire me because they don't like Jews, do I have to prove that I am a devout Jew. How about if I am Catholic but divorced and therefore do not attend mass. Am I, in the eyes of the law, not a Catholic and can be discriminated against? Can you prove ethnicity by DNA? Assume I am 100 percent Irish but was adopted at birth by an Italian family and raised as an Italian with a very Italian name. If someone refuses to hire me because he hates Italians, can I claim discrimination? COuld he defeat my claim by proving through DNA that I am not Italian?

Nope, on the Muslim question. But that was one single test. I could give more, but you first. A reliable test to prove gay.

The only thing that would be needed in a court in a case where it is alleged that the discrimination is based on the plaintiff's sexual orientation would be for the plaintiff to state, under oath, that they were gay.

It doesn't matter if someone is gay or not...if they are discriminated against because someone thought they were gay, that is enough. Gay bashing crime isn't only presecuted if the bashed person is really gay.

Agreed

 

[Pop23]

Can't prove the faith, just the association, which is incredibly easy.

Its faith and belief that defines religion. Not association. Visiting a mosque doesn't make you a Muslim.

And by your own standard, you can't objectively verify that faith and belief that defines religion.

How then can you discriminate against religion....if you can't prove the person is, in fact, religious?

Show us that DNA test for Kim Davis......or wipe your own ass with your own standard. As you always do.

But joining the Mosque is proof!

And BOOM, another Skylar fail

Now please, the proof of gay please.

Is not joining the mosque proof that you are not a Muslim? If I am Jewish by birth, but consider myself to be an aetheist and someone fires me or refuses to hire me because they don't like Jews, do I have to prove that I am a devout Jew. How about if I am Catholic but divorced and therefore do not attend mass. Am I, in the eyes of the law, not a Catholic and can be discriminated against? Can you prove ethnicity by DNA? Assume I am 100 percent Irish but was adopted at birth by an Italian family and raised as an Italian with a very Italian name. If someone refuses to hire me because he hates Italians, can I claim discrimination? COuld he defeat my claim by proving through DNA that I am not Italian?

Nope, on the Muslim question. But that was one single test. I could give more, but you first. A reliable test to prove gay.

The only thing that would be needed in a court in a case where it is alleged that the discrimination is based on the plaintiff's sexual orientation would be for the plaintiff to state, under oath, that they were gay.

Not the question although you are correct

 

[Pop23]

Race can be proven by reliable testing

Can gay?

Can religion? Can ethnicity or national origin? Can perceived disability? These are all classes that are protected by anti-discrimination laws.

Religion is association, not behavior.

Actually DNA testing is quite reliable in deteiming national origin (as are birth certificates - lineage) same with ethnicity

"perceived disability". Not sure where you're going with that, but in the disability hearings I've been in, yes the courts do require proof.

Really?

So you think that DNA would be able to identify whether I am American or Australian?

Tell me more again about the DNA test which would tell you whether someone is Caucasian or African American or Asian.

And the DNA test for identifying someone's religion.

That's nationality, not ethnicity. For nationality all one needs is a birth certificate search or a passport search. Reliable indeed.

Religion is not association. You can be a Jew and never set foot ina synagogue. Or a Catholic or a Buddhist or a Muslim and not be devout and still be protected from discrimination. The point is that all you need to do is assert that you are of a particular faith and prove that you were discriminated against based on that. And DNA cannot prove your ethnicity. If a hundred years ago my great grandfather left France with his wife and settled in Ireland where she gave birth to my grandfather who was raised there and then emigrated here, my DNA would say I am French but I might very well consider myself Irish. And if you have never heard the term perceived disability, you know very Little about discrimination law. The ADA bans discrimination based on a real or perceived disability. Thus, if you fire me because you think I have Aids, that is actionable even if I don't.

Yet the discrimination at all is the illegal part, perceived or not.

You were being fired because one though you were disabled is enough. The law on ethnicity or national origin is simply you can't discriminate against ANY. And yes I can prove your ethnicity through DNA, birth records, school records and alike.

And I can test for disability.

 

[paddymurphy]

Its faith and belief that defines religion. Not association. Visiting a mosque doesn't make you a Muslim.

And by your own standard, you can't objectively verify that faith and belief that defines religion.

How then can you discriminate against religion....if you can't prove the person is, in fact, religious?

Show us that DNA test for Kim Davis......or wipe your own ass with your own standard. As you always do.

But joining the Mosque is proof!

And BOOM, another Skylar fail

Now please, the proof of gay please.

Is not joining the mosque proof that you are not a Muslim? If I am Jewish by birth, but consider myself to be an aetheist and someone fires me or refuses to hire me because they don't like Jews, do I have to prove that I am a devout Jew. How about if I am Catholic but divorced and therefore do not attend mass. Am I, in the eyes of the law, not a Catholic and can be discriminated against? Can you prove ethnicity by DNA? Assume I am 100 percent Irish but was adopted at birth by an Italian family and raised as an Italian with a very Italian name. If someone refuses to hire me because he hates Italians, can I claim discrimination? COuld he defeat my claim by proving through DNA that I am not Italian?

Nope, on the Muslim question. But that was one single test. I could give more, but you first. A reliable test to prove gay.

The only thing that would be needed in a court in a case where it is alleged that the discrimination is based on the plaintiff's sexual orientation would be for the plaintiff to state, under oath, that they were gay.

Not the question although you are correct

The only reliable test is the word of the person.

 

[paddymurphy]

Can religion? Can ethnicity or national origin? Can perceived disability? These are all classes that are protected by anti-discrimination laws.

Religion is association, not behavior.

Actually DNA testing is quite reliable in deteiming national origin (as are birth certificates - lineage) same with ethnicity

"perceived disability". Not sure where you're going with that, but in the disability hearings I've been in, yes the courts do require proof.

Really?

So you think that DNA would be able to identify whether I am American or Australian?

Tell me more again about the DNA test which would tell you whether someone is Caucasian or African American or Asian.

And the DNA test for identifying someone's religion.

That's nationality, not ethnicity. For nationality all one needs is a birth certificate search or a passport search. Reliable indeed.

Religion is not association. You can be a Jew and never set foot ina synagogue. Or a Catholic or a Buddhist or a Muslim and not be devout and still be protected from discrimination. The point is that all you need to do is assert that you are of a particular faith and prove that you were discriminated against based on that. And DNA cannot prove your ethnicity. If a hundred years ago my great grandfather left France with his wife and settled in Ireland where she gave birth to my grandfather who was raised there and then emigrated here, my DNA would say I am French but I might very well consider myself Irish. And if you have never heard the term perceived disability, you know very Little about discrimination law. The ADA bans discrimination based on a real or perceived disability. Thus, if you fire me because you think I have Aids, that is actionable even if I don't.

Yet the discrimination at all is the illegal part, perceived or not.

You were being fired because one though you were disabled is enough. The law on ethnicity or national origin is simply you can't discriminate against ANY. And yes I can prove your ethnicity through DNA, birth records, school records and alike.

And I can test for disability.

You can prove ethnicity by DNA but you cannot defend a discrimination claim by proving that a persons DNA proves that they are not of the ethnicity you intended to discriminate against.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You all MUST see this.......

One of the more bizarre things that we’ve ever come across in our daily monitoring is this video, posted yesterday on Dave Daubenmire’s News with Views YouTube page, featuring a song called “Courts Cannot Make Law” written by Christian Reconstructionist and Maryland Republican politician Michael Peroutka superimposed on a scene from Lars von Trier’s 2000 film “ Dancer in the Dark,” staring Bjork. - See more at: Enjoy This Catchy Jingle On Judicial Power, Starring Bjork

 

[guno]

From this link: http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/25...nst-supreme-courts-huge-gay-marriage-decision

Chief Justice John Roberts
Roberts’s argument centered around the need to preserve states’ rights rather than follow the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said, “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”

Justice Antonin Scalia
According to Scalia, the majority ruling represents a “judicial Putsch.”
Scalia wrote that while he has no personal opinions on whether the law should allow same-sex marriage, he feels very strongly that it is not the place of the Supreme Court to decide.
“Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best,” Scalia wrote. “But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.”

Justice Clarence Thomas
Thomas, echoing a grievance expressed by many conservative politicians, also lamented that the Supreme Court’s decision is enshrining a definition of marriage into the Constitution in a way that puts it “beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire nation.”

Justice Samuel Alito
Alito also reaffirmed his position that there is no way to confirm what the outcome of gay marriage may be on the institution of traditional marriage, and therefore the Court is and should not be in a position to take on the topic...“At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment,” Alito wrote. Alito said that traditional marriage has existed between a man and woman for one key reason: children.

And as to that last point by Justice Alito: Should Kids Have Had Representation at the Marriage-Contract Revision Hearing? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now, I'm not a super powerful lawyer but it seems to me there may be simple contract case law that says if a contract is up for radical revision, the parties who are tacitly signed on to that contract, like children or the states that look after them as future citizens, must have representation at the revision-table.

Not only did that not happen for children and the states' interest in protecting them and their own fiscal future directly impacted by what happens to them growing up, but when adult children raised in gay homes submitted amicus briefs to that revision tribunal, the tribunal (The Fascist-Five) flatly ignored their pleas that they longed for both a mother and father in their home; and that longing damaged them.

Not one word that I know of in June's Opinion addressed these contract parties' concerns. Nor were there attorneys present at the hearing as guardians ad litem for childrens' voices at the table. The most important parties to the marriage contract were systematically barred from the table discussing its radical revision. Not only would contract case law come into play here, but also federal child endangerment statutes. Neglecting to allow a child's voice to cry out in protest is still neglect.

Thomas writes further:

“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well,” Thomas wrote. “Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”

And what do you know? Several cases are on their way back to the Court in less than 6 months time on that precise loggerhead of Law. The crap will really hit the fan when Chuck & Dave go to suing a catholic adoption agency for refusing to adopt little boys to them.

And that is how the SC works, majority decision and dissenting opinion, and there are no do overs , that how the SC works

 

[Seawytch]

Can religion? Can ethnicity or national origin? Can perceived disability? These are all classes that are protected by anti-discrimination laws.

Religion is association, not behavior.

Actually DNA testing is quite reliable in deteiming national origin (as are birth certificates - lineage) same with ethnicity

"perceived disability". Not sure where you're going with that, but in the disability hearings I've been in, yes the courts do require proof.

Really?

So you think that DNA would be able to identify whether I am American or Australian?

Tell me more again about the DNA test which would tell you whether someone is Caucasian or African American or Asian.

And the DNA test for identifying someone's religion.

That's nationality, not ethnicity. For nationality all one needs is a birth certificate search or a passport search. Reliable indeed.

Religion is not association. You can be a Jew and never set foot ina synagogue. Or a Catholic or a Buddhist or a Muslim and not be devout and still be protected from discrimination. The point is that all you need to do is assert that you are of a particular faith and prove that you were discriminated against based on that. And DNA cannot prove your ethnicity. If a hundred years ago my great grandfather left France with his wife and settled in Ireland where she gave birth to my grandfather who was raised there and then emigrated here, my DNA would say I am French but I might very well consider myself Irish. And if you have never heard the term perceived disability, you know very Little about discrimination law. The ADA bans discrimination based on a real or perceived disability. Thus, if you fire me because you think I have Aids, that is actionable even if I don't.

Yet the discrimination at all is the illegal part, perceived or not.

You were being fired because one though you were disabled is enough. The law on ethnicity or national origin is simply you can't discriminate against ANY. And yes I can prove your ethnicity through DNA, birth records, school records and alike.

And I can test for disability.

Religion has already destroyed your argument.

 

[Pop23]

But joining the Mosque is proof!

And BOOM, another Skylar fail

Now please, the proof of gay please.

Is not joining the mosque proof that you are not a Muslim? If I am Jewish by birth, but consider myself to be an aetheist and someone fires me or refuses to hire me because they don't like Jews, do I have to prove that I am a devout Jew. How about if I am Catholic but divorced and therefore do not attend mass. Am I, in the eyes of the law, not a Catholic and can be discriminated against? Can you prove ethnicity by DNA? Assume I am 100 percent Irish but was adopted at birth by an Italian family and raised as an Italian with a very Italian name. If someone refuses to hire me because he hates Italians, can I claim discrimination? COuld he defeat my claim by proving through DNA that I am not Italian?

Nope, on the Muslim question. But that was one single test. I could give more, but you first. A reliable test to prove gay.

The only thing that would be needed in a court in a case where it is alleged that the discrimination is based on the plaintiff's sexual orientation would be for the plaintiff to state, under oath, that they were gay.

Not the question although you are correct

The only reliable test is the word of the person.

Nope, in most cases an independent reliable test for verification is best

 

[Pop23]

Religion is association, not behavior.

Actually DNA testing is quite reliable in deteiming national origin (as are birth certificates - lineage) same with ethnicity

"perceived disability". Not sure where you're going with that, but in the disability hearings I've been in, yes the courts do require proof.

Really?

So you think that DNA would be able to identify whether I am American or Australian?

Tell me more again about the DNA test which would tell you whether someone is Caucasian or African American or Asian.

And the DNA test for identifying someone's religion.

That's nationality, not ethnicity. For nationality all one needs is a birth certificate search or a passport search. Reliable indeed.

Religion is not association. You can be a Jew and never set foot ina synagogue. Or a Catholic or a Buddhist or a Muslim and not be devout and still be protected from discrimination. The point is that all you need to do is assert that you are of a particular faith and prove that you were discriminated against based on that. And DNA cannot prove your ethnicity. If a hundred years ago my great grandfather left France with his wife and settled in Ireland where she gave birth to my grandfather who was raised there and then emigrated here, my DNA would say I am French but I might very well consider myself Irish. And if you have never heard the term perceived disability, you know very Little about discrimination law. The ADA bans discrimination based on a real or perceived disability. Thus, if you fire me because you think I have Aids, that is actionable even if I don't.

Yet the discrimination at all is the illegal part, perceived or not.

You were being fired because one though you were disabled is enough. The law on ethnicity or national origin is simply you can't discriminate against ANY. And yes I can prove your ethnicity through DNA, birth records, school records and alike.

And I can test for disability.

Religion has already destroyed your argument.

Except that, unlike most other rights we speak of, it is enumerated in the constitution.

 

[Pop23]

Religion is association, not behavior.

Actually DNA testing is quite reliable in deteiming national origin (as are birth certificates - lineage) same with ethnicity

"perceived disability". Not sure where you're going with that, but in the disability hearings I've been in, yes the courts do require proof.

Really?

So you think that DNA would be able to identify whether I am American or Australian?

Tell me more again about the DNA test which would tell you whether someone is Caucasian or African American or Asian.

And the DNA test for identifying someone's religion.

That's nationality, not ethnicity. For nationality all one needs is a birth certificate search or a passport search. Reliable indeed.

Religion is not association. You can be a Jew and never set foot ina synagogue. Or a Catholic or a Buddhist or a Muslim and not be devout and still be protected from discrimination. The point is that all you need to do is assert that you are of a particular faith and prove that you were discriminated against based on that. And DNA cannot prove your ethnicity. If a hundred years ago my great grandfather left France with his wife and settled in Ireland where she gave birth to my grandfather who was raised there and then emigrated here, my DNA would say I am French but I might very well consider myself Irish. And if you have never heard the term perceived disability, you know very Little about discrimination law. The ADA bans discrimination based on a real or perceived disability. Thus, if you fire me because you think I have Aids, that is actionable even if I don't.

Yet the discrimination at all is the illegal part, perceived or not.

You were being fired because one though you were disabled is enough. The law on ethnicity or national origin is simply you can't discriminate against ANY. And yes I can prove your ethnicity through DNA, birth records, school records and alike.

And I can test for disability.

You can prove ethnicity by DNA but you cannot defend a discrimination claim by proving that a persons DNA proves that they are not of the ethnicity you intended to discriminate against.

That wouldn't be the point. You can not discriminate based on ethnicity. And the point is not WHAT ethnicity, simply that you are ethnic.

If you claim you were discriminated because of a specific ethnicity, then yes you may have to provide the evidence that you are that

 

[Faun]

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

Sure, perv ... keep telling yourself that.

Iowa Code 595

Wanna deal with reality. The link is just that.

Nope, nothing in there saves you.

You still can't explain why a brother and sister couldn't marry before Obergefell if there was no chance of procreation; so you can't prove two same-sex siblings would be allowed to marry now because of Obergefell.



See that ... ? it's all that remains of your dead argument...

 

[Cecilie1200]

So much Butt hurt by Conservatives in this thread.

They still fear that someone will force them to marry a gay person.

No what we fear is a tyrannical government forcing the acceptance of a dirty disgusting life style.

except when it tells people what to do with their bodies and who to love.

what a bunch of BS.

Yes, because "we don't recognize it" is the same as "you can't do it". I guess that's sort of like "we won't pay for it" is the same as "you can't do it" in abortions, right? If people aren't applauding and throwing money, leftists think they're being "prevented" from doing things.

 

[Pop23]

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

Sure, perv ... keep telling yourself that.

Iowa Code 595

Wanna deal with reality. The link is just that.

Nope, nothing in there saves you.

You still can't explain why a brother and sister couldn't marry before Obergefell if there was no chance of procreation; so you can't prove two same-sex siblings would be allowed to marry now because of Obergefell.



See that ... ? it's all that remains of your dead argument...

Except marriage was only between a man and a woman.....

So there's that

 

[Faun]

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

Sure, perv ... keep telling yourself that.

Iowa Code 595

Wanna deal with reality. The link is just that.

Nope, nothing in there saves you.

You still can't explain why a brother and sister couldn't marry before Obergefell if there was no chance of procreation; so you can't prove two same-sex siblings would be allowed to marry now because of Obergefell.



See that ... ? it's all that remains of your dead argument...

Except marriage was only between a man and a woman.....

So there's that

So there's nothing. Even between a man and a woman, brother and sister could not marry, even though sex is not a requirement of marriage and even in cases where procreation was not a possibility.

That didn't change.

They still can't marry; and for the same reason, neither can two brothers or two sisters.

 

[Pop23]

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

But good luck with that

Sure, perv ... keep telling yourself that.

Iowa Code 595

Wanna deal with reality. The link is just that.

Nope, nothing in there saves you.

You still can't explain why a brother and sister couldn't marry before Obergefell if there was no chance of procreation; so you can't prove two same-sex siblings would be allowed to marry now because of Obergefell.



See that ... ? it's all that remains of your dead argument...

Except marriage was only between a man and a woman.....

So there's that

So there's nothing. Even between a man and a woman, brother and sister could not marry, even though sex is not a requirement of marriage and even in cases where procreation was not a possibility.

That didn't change.

They still can't marry; and for the same reason, neither can two brothers or two sisters.

Check the law Sally

It was illegal

So there's that....

 

[Faun]

Sure, perv ... keep telling yourself that.

Iowa Code 595

Wanna deal with reality. The link is just that.

Nope, nothing in there saves you.

You still can't explain why a brother and sister couldn't marry before Obergefell if there was no chance of procreation; so you can't prove two same-sex siblings would be allowed to marry now because of Obergefell.



See that ... ? it's all that remains of your dead argument...

Except marriage was only between a man and a woman.....

So there's that

So there's nothing. Even between a man and a woman, brother and sister could not marry, even though sex is not a requirement of marriage and even in cases where procreation was not a possibility.

That didn't change.

They still can't marry; and for the same reason, neither can two brothers or two sisters.

Check the law Sally

It was illegal

So there's that....

And it's still illegal. That hasn't changed.

Who knows why you think it has just because of Obergefell?

Two siblings are still not allowed to marry.

 

[Faun]

Who is 'kim clark'?

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?

Why would it have to be 'newsworthy' for you to have evidence? Marriages are a matter of public record.

If you have no evidence of any sibling marriage in Iowa or Maryland....just admit it.

Go search the records, I don't care how you waste your time. All I had to do is prove its legality.

Iowa Code 595

AND BOOM! I just did troll

Poor, demented, perv.

So your proof that same-sex siblings can marry rests upon a state whose marriage laws have been invalidated by Obergefell because they haven't updated their marriage laws yet?

Imbecile, that law did not specifically list same-sex marriages which would be void because no marriage was allowed between two people of the same gender. So it wasn't necessary for the law to invalidate a marriage between two brothers or two sisters, for example, since section 1 didn't allow them to marry regardless of what their relationship was.

But here's the best part .... the law is being rewritten which will accommodate the Supreme Court ruling. Here's one bill already submitted...

HF253

An Act relating to eligible parties to a valid marriage.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:

Section 1. Section 595.2, Code 2015, is amended to read as follows:
595.2 Gender == age Eligible parties to a marriage == age.
Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid
A party who otherwise meets the requirements of this chapter for a valid marriage is eligible to marry any other such party regardless of gender.

[...]

595.19 Void marriages.
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by blood are void:
a. Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister, daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's daughter, or sister's daughter.
b. Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or sister's son.
a. Between a party and the party's aunt or uncle, child, grandchild, sibling, niece, or nephew.
c. b. Between first cousins.
​

 

[Pop23]

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?

Why would it have to be 'newsworthy' for you to have evidence? Marriages are a matter of public record.

If you have no evidence of any sibling marriage in Iowa or Maryland....just admit it.

Go search the records, I don't care how you waste your time. All I had to do is prove its legality.

Iowa Code 595

AND BOOM! I just did troll

Poor, demented, perv.

So your proof that same-sex siblings can marry rests upon a state whose marriage laws have been invalidated by Obergefell because they haven't updated their marriage laws yet?

Imbecile, that law did not specifically list same-sex marriages which would be void because no marriage was allowed between two people of the same gender. So it wasn't necessary for the law to invalidate a marriage between two brothers or two sisters, for example, since section 1 didn't allow them to marry regardless of what their relationship was.

But here's the best part .... the law is being rewritten which will accommodate the Supreme Court ruling. Here's one bill already submitted...

HF253

An Act relating to eligible parties to a valid marriage.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:

Section 1. Section 595.2, Code 2015, is amended to read as follows:
595.2 Gender == age Eligible parties to a marriage == age.
Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid
A party who otherwise meets the requirements of this chapter for a valid marriage is eligible to marry any other such party regardless of gender.

[...]

595.19 Void marriages.
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by blood are void:
a. Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister, daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's daughter, or sister's daughter.
b. Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or sister's son.
a. Between a party and the party's aunt or uncle, child, grandchild, sibling, niece, or nephew.
c. b. Between first cousins.
​

The marriage law is invalid in iowa?

Damn, you got a whole lotta pissed of brides then, cuz they thought they had s valid license!

I'll let you handle them!

Has it passed? Iowa has had same sex marriage since 2009. Obergfell was in 2015

What compelling state interest will the state use to deny same sex siblings their constitutionally protected rights that were in place for six years.

Wake me up when it does.