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

[Pop23]

Right back at you, skippy.

But I am not ignorant of the constitution and the law. It has been my profession for 25 years. My views are shared by the majority of those who practice law and who serve as judges. Your views are held by uneducated, ignorant dolts who presume to offer opinions on things they know little about.

So you are an attorney?

Yes. What do you do for a living? Has nothing to do with the law.

Not an attorney, did I mention that?

I love the argument about legal agreement. I deal with attorneys quite often. I can't get two in the same room that seem to agree on anything.

Bet they would agree that you are a fucking idiot.

Lol, way to make an argument counselor!

 

[Pop23]

I am still curious about this gay test of Pops. lol. What proof is he willing to accept? Will gays have to make out in front of him? Will there be a fashion component?

Thinking of what those tests might be are a huge turn on to you, isn't it.

Sly devil

You seem to be the one demanding that gay people prove their sexual orientation in your presence. Has that long been a fantasy of yours?

Oh dear, a pissed off an attorney! Never saw that one coming!

I demand nothing, that's what attorneys do. They also test.

Right. In the numerous discrimination cases I have been involved in they always demand DNA testing. You are hopelessly stupid.

Ok counselor. Guess we just take your word for it then. Lol

 

[Pop23]

I am still curious about this gay test of Pops. lol. What proof is he willing to accept? Will gays have to make out in front of him? Will there be a fashion component?

Thinking of what those tests might be are a huge turn on to you, isn't it.

Sly devil

You seem to be the one demanding that gay people prove their sexual orientation in your presence. Has that long been a fantasy of yours?

Oh dear, a pissed off an attorney! Never saw that one coming!

I demand nothing, that's what attorneys do. They also test.

Right. In the numerous discrimination cases I have been involved in they always demand DNA testing. You are hopelessly stupid.

I love how this veered from simply proving you are what you claim you are to court cases.

A black man may claim that he his black, if he is disbelieved for whatever reason that may be, there are objective and reliable tests HE can have done.

 

[Faun]

I am still curious about this gay test of Pops. lol. What proof is he willing to accept? Will gays have to make out in front of him? Will there be a fashion component?

Thinking of what those tests might be are a huge turn on to you, isn't it.

Sly devil

Ok, now I clearly see your MO. You bring up incest and then after awhile start asking other posters why they talk about incest so much. Then you bring up a test for gay.....and after a few days you ask why other posters are so interested in a gay test.

Interesting schtick.

No, yours is the interesting stick

Because I object to incest, but because , using the 14th amendment argument your side won with, can't find how same sex siblings would lose, somehow it's about incest.

I would remind you

Incest is a act

Incest is illegal

Marriage requires no sex acts to be legal.

Iowa appears to allow same sex family members to marry.

Got it now?

Stop lying. Iowa permits no such thing. They've never allowed immediate family members to marry and they still don't. You've been shown that they're working on adjusting the law to accommodate changes regarding same-sex marriage.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Reality to Silhouette ...
You don't get to define shit. No one elected you to an office where your voice matters. No one appointed you to a court where your make believe gavel matters.
Reality check... you're a nobody posting in cyberspace.

Actually registered voters like me DO get to "define shit". Not only that, we registered voters are required by law to report suspected child abuse or neglect. Legally disinfranchising a child from ever having either a mother or father is child abuse.
There, I just reported it.

Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan & Ginsburg are all guilty, therefore, of child abuse.

You are out of your fucking mind. I worked as a child abuse/neglect investigator among other things in in the child welfare field. If we had gotten a call about a child being abused because he/she did not have a mother and a father we would be rolling on the god damned floor. You might wind up being investigated for being mentally incompetent and a danger to yourself and others.

 

[Pop23]

I am still curious about this gay test of Pops. lol. What proof is he willing to accept? Will gays have to make out in front of him? Will there be a fashion component?

Thinking of what those tests might be are a huge turn on to you, isn't it.

Sly devil

Ok, now I clearly see your MO. You bring up incest and then after awhile start asking other posters why they talk about incest so much. Then you bring up a test for gay.....and after a few days you ask why other posters are so interested in a gay test.

Interesting schtick.

No, yours is the interesting stick

Because I object to incest, but because , using the 14th amendment argument your side won with, can't find how same sex siblings would lose, somehow it's about incest.

I would remind you

Incest is a act

Incest is illegal

Marriage requires no sex acts to be legal.

Iowa appears to allow same sex family members to marry.

Got it now?

Stop lying. Iowa permits no such thing. They've never allowed immediate family members to marry and they still don't. You've been shown that they're working on adjusting the law to accommodate changes regarding same-sex marriage.

The law clearly shows that the only exclusions are those that could possibly breed.

Same sex couples are unable.

Because someone PROPOSES a change, don't make it so.

Sucks to be you I guess

But again, since I oppose family marriage, the change would be welcome. Until then, you're simply wrong.

As always

 

[Faun]

Reality to Silhouette ...
You don't get to define shit. No one elected you to an office where your voice matters. No one appointed you to a court where your make believe gavel matters.
Reality check... you're a nobody posting in cyberspace.

Actually registered voters like me DO get to "define shit". Not only that, we registered voters are required by law to report suspected child abuse or neglect.

no, you idiot, you get to vote. Your vote, like you, doesn't define shit. Remember? You're nobody. And a nobody doesn't define anything.

Legally disinfranchising a child from ever having either a mother or father is child abuse.
There, I just reported it.

Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan & Ginsburg are all guilty, therefore, of child abuse.

Thanks, you just proved me right.

Despite your inane charge, none of them are in any way indicted. But you did indict yourself as a batshit crazed loon.

 

[Faun]

I am still curious about this gay test of Pops. lol. What proof is he willing to accept? Will gays have to make out in front of him? Will there be a fashion component?

Thinking of what those tests might be are a huge turn on to you, isn't it.

Sly devil

Ok, now I clearly see your MO. You bring up incest and then after awhile start asking other posters why they talk about incest so much. Then you bring up a test for gay.....and after a few days you ask why other posters are so interested in a gay test.

Interesting schtick.

No, yours is the interesting stick

Because I object to incest, but because , using the 14th amendment argument your side won with, can't find how same sex siblings would lose, somehow it's about incest.

I would remind you

Incest is a act

Incest is illegal

Marriage requires no sex acts to be legal.

Iowa appears to allow same sex family members to marry.

Got it now?

Stop lying. Iowa permits no such thing. They've never allowed immediate family members to marry and they still don't. You've been shown that they're working on adjusting the law to accommodate changes regarding same-sex marriage.

The law clearly shows that the only exclusions are those that could possibly breed.

Same sex couples are unable.

Because someone PROPOSES a change, don't make it so.

Sucks to be you I guess

But again, since I oppose family marriage, the change would be welcome. Until then, you're simply wrong.

As always

So? The law you cite also says marriage is between a man and a woman. That's why it's being amended to be in accordance with Supreme Court rulings.

The state still doesn't allow same-sex immediate family marriages.

You want more proof? You can't cite a single such marriage because they are not allowed.

 

[Pop23]

Thinking of what those tests might be are a huge turn on to you, isn't it.

Sly devil

Ok, now I clearly see your MO. You bring up incest and then after awhile start asking other posters why they talk about incest so much. Then you bring up a test for gay.....and after a few days you ask why other posters are so interested in a gay test.

Interesting schtick.

No, yours is the interesting stick

Because I object to incest, but because , using the 14th amendment argument your side won with, can't find how same sex siblings would lose, somehow it's about incest.

I would remind you

Incest is a act

Incest is illegal

Marriage requires no sex acts to be legal.

Iowa appears to allow same sex family members to marry.

Got it now?

Stop lying. Iowa permits no such thing. They've never allowed immediate family members to marry and they still don't. You've been shown that they're working on adjusting the law to accommodate changes regarding same-sex marriage.

The law clearly shows that the only exclusions are those that could possibly breed.

Same sex couples are unable.

Because someone PROPOSES a change, don't make it so.

Sucks to be you I guess

But again, since I oppose family marriage, the change would be welcome. Until then, you're simply wrong.

As always

So? The law you cite also says marriage is between a man and a woman. That's why it's being amended to be in accordance with Supreme Court rulings.

The state still doesn't allow same-sex immediate family marriages.

You want more proof? You can't cite a single such marriage because they are not allowed.

I proved the legality.

You imply that because the USSC struck down the man/woman section of the law that some how magically it could pick and choose the rest.

Cite the section of Obergfell that does that.

Proposing a change, and getting it through commitee, two chambers of the legislature and signed by Governor (and constitutional review of Attorney General)........

Are two completely different things.

Iowa has had same sex marriage since 2009.

In case you haven't noticed, it 2015. They've had six years to fix this and have not.

Cite Obergfell. It could save you're failed argument. If you can't. You lose........

Again

 

[Faun]

Ok, now I clearly see your MO. You bring up incest and then after awhile start asking other posters why they talk about incest so much. Then you bring up a test for gay.....and after a few days you ask why other posters are so interested in a gay test.

Interesting schtick.

No, yours is the interesting stick

Because I object to incest, but because , using the 14th amendment argument your side won with, can't find how same sex siblings would lose, somehow it's about incest.

I would remind you

Incest is a act

Incest is illegal

Marriage requires no sex acts to be legal.

Iowa appears to allow same sex family members to marry.

Got it now?

Stop lying. Iowa permits no such thing. They've never allowed immediate family members to marry and they still don't. You've been shown that they're working on adjusting the law to accommodate changes regarding same-sex marriage.

The law clearly shows that the only exclusions are those that could possibly breed.

Same sex couples are unable.

Because someone PROPOSES a change, don't make it so.

Sucks to be you I guess

But again, since I oppose family marriage, the change would be welcome. Until then, you're simply wrong.

As always

So? The law you cite also says marriage is between a man and a woman. That's why it's being amended to be in accordance with Supreme Court rulings.

The state still doesn't allow same-sex immediate family marriages.

You want more proof? You can't cite a single such marriage because they are not allowed.

I proved the legality.

You imply that because the USSC struck down the man/woman section of the law that some how magically it could pick and choose the rest.

Cite the section of Obergfell that does that.

Proposing a change, and getting it through commitee, two chambers of the legislature and signed by Governor (and constitutional review of Attorney General)........

Are two completely different things.

Iowa has had same sex marriage since 2009.

In case you haven't noticed, it 2015. They've had six years to fix this and have not.

Cite Obergfell. It could save you're failed argument. If you can't. You lose........

Again

Because family marriage is not legal despite changes caused by their Supreme Court ruling. Again, because you're hard of reading, the law still reads marriage is between a man and a woman. According to your idiocy, same-sex marriage is not allowed in Iowa because the wording in their marriage laws have not yet been updated.

But rest assured, they are working on adjusting their laws to account for Supreme Court rulings, in large part, to sick pervs like you who are insisting two brothers can marry each other.

And good luck getting a marriage license in Iowa to marry your brother....

MARRIAGE LICENSES

If you want to get married, you’ll need a marriage license.

1. Marriages in Iowa are between 2 people who are (1) 18 years of age and older; (2) not already or still legally married to someone else or each other; (3) not closely related by blood or first cousins; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.

 

[Faun]

Ok, now I clearly see your MO. You bring up incest and then after awhile start asking other posters why they talk about incest so much. Then you bring up a test for gay.....and after a few days you ask why other posters are so interested in a gay test.

Interesting schtick.

No, yours is the interesting stick

Because I object to incest, but because , using the 14th amendment argument your side won with, can't find how same sex siblings would lose, somehow it's about incest.

I would remind you

Incest is a act

Incest is illegal

Marriage requires no sex acts to be legal.

Iowa appears to allow same sex family members to marry.

Got it now?

Stop lying. Iowa permits no such thing. They've never allowed immediate family members to marry and they still don't. You've been shown that they're working on adjusting the law to accommodate changes regarding same-sex marriage.

The law clearly shows that the only exclusions are those that could possibly breed.

Same sex couples are unable.

Because someone PROPOSES a change, don't make it so.

Sucks to be you I guess

But again, since I oppose family marriage, the change would be welcome. Until then, you're simply wrong.

As always

So? The law you cite also says marriage is between a man and a woman. That's why it's being amended to be in accordance with Supreme Court rulings.

The state still doesn't allow same-sex immediate family marriages.

You want more proof? You can't cite a single such marriage because they are not allowed.

I proved the legality.

You imply that because the USSC struck down the man/woman section of the law that some how magically it could pick and choose the rest.

Cite the section of Obergfell that does that.

Proposing a change, and getting it through commitee, two chambers of the legislature and signed by Governor (and constitutional review of Attorney General)........

Are two completely different things.

Iowa has had same sex marriage since 2009.

In case you haven't noticed, it 2015. They've had six years to fix this and have not.

Cite Obergfell. It could save you're failed argument. If you can't. You lose........

Again

Why would I cite Obergefell in this case? Why would you? Obergefell has nothing to do with it. As you pointed out, same-sex marriage has been legal in Iowa for 6 years now and you can't find a single married couple who are closely related by blood.

 

[Pop23]

No, yours is the interesting stick

Because I object to incest, but because , using the 14th amendment argument your side won with, can't find how same sex siblings would lose, somehow it's about incest.

I would remind you

Incest is a act

Incest is illegal

Marriage requires no sex acts to be legal.

Iowa appears to allow same sex family members to marry.

Got it now?

Stop lying. Iowa permits no such thing. They've never allowed immediate family members to marry and they still don't. You've been shown that they're working on adjusting the law to accommodate changes regarding same-sex marriage.

The law clearly shows that the only exclusions are those that could possibly breed.

Same sex couples are unable.

Because someone PROPOSES a change, don't make it so.

Sucks to be you I guess

But again, since I oppose family marriage, the change would be welcome. Until then, you're simply wrong.

As always

So? The law you cite also says marriage is between a man and a woman. That's why it's being amended to be in accordance with Supreme Court rulings.

The state still doesn't allow same-sex immediate family marriages.

You want more proof? You can't cite a single such marriage because they are not allowed.

I proved the legality.

You imply that because the USSC struck down the man/woman section of the law that some how magically it could pick and choose the rest.

Cite the section of Obergfell that does that.

Proposing a change, and getting it through commitee, two chambers of the legislature and signed by Governor (and constitutional review of Attorney General)........

Are two completely different things.

Iowa has had same sex marriage since 2009.

In case you haven't noticed, it 2015. They've had six years to fix this and have not.

Cite Obergfell. It could save you're failed argument. If you can't. You lose........

Again

Why would I cite Obergefell in this case? Why would you? Obergefell has nothing to do with it. As you pointed out, same-sex marriage has been legal in Iowa for 6 years now and you can't find a single married couple who are closely related by blood.

Six years. Six years and no change to the law in six years. The courts only ordered the removal of the qualification of male/female.

The denied couples are contained in the list in iowa 595.

Link below.

Iowa Code 595


Those are the couples that cannot be too closely related.

They had six years to redline the list, they did not. They SPECIFIACALLY explain which pairs can't be too closely related.

Try again. This is standing law. All the courts overturned was male/female exclusivity to marry

 

[Pop23]

No, yours is the interesting stick

Because I object to incest, but because , using the 14th amendment argument your side won with, can't find how same sex siblings would lose, somehow it's about incest.

I would remind you

Incest is a act

Incest is illegal

Marriage requires no sex acts to be legal.

Iowa appears to allow same sex family members to marry.

Got it now?

Stop lying. Iowa permits no such thing. They've never allowed immediate family members to marry and they still don't. You've been shown that they're working on adjusting the law to accommodate changes regarding same-sex marriage.

The law clearly shows that the only exclusions are those that could possibly breed.

Same sex couples are unable.

Because someone PROPOSES a change, don't make it so.

Sucks to be you I guess

But again, since I oppose family marriage, the change would be welcome. Until then, you're simply wrong.

As always

So? The law you cite also says marriage is between a man and a woman. That's why it's being amended to be in accordance with Supreme Court rulings.

The state still doesn't allow same-sex immediate family marriages.

You want more proof? You can't cite a single such marriage because they are not allowed.

I proved the legality.

You imply that because the USSC struck down the man/woman section of the law that some how magically it could pick and choose the rest.

Cite the section of Obergfell that does that.

Proposing a change, and getting it through commitee, two chambers of the legislature and signed by Governor (and constitutional review of Attorney General)........

Are two completely different things.

Iowa has had same sex marriage since 2009.

In case you haven't noticed, it 2015. They've had six years to fix this and have not.

Cite Obergfell. It could save you're failed argument. If you can't. You lose........

Again

Why would I cite Obergefell in this case? Why would you? Obergefell has nothing to do with it. As you pointed out, same-sex marriage has been legal in Iowa for 6 years now and you can't find a single married couple who are closely related by blood.

I don't have to. I cite the specific law.

Dealing with loss is hard I know.

Dealing with your whining is harder.

 

[Faun]

Stop lying. Iowa permits no such thing. They've never allowed immediate family members to marry and they still don't. You've been shown that they're working on adjusting the law to accommodate changes regarding same-sex marriage.

The law clearly shows that the only exclusions are those that could possibly breed.

Same sex couples are unable.

Because someone PROPOSES a change, don't make it so.

Sucks to be you I guess

But again, since I oppose family marriage, the change would be welcome. Until then, you're simply wrong.

As always

So? The law you cite also says marriage is between a man and a woman. That's why it's being amended to be in accordance with Supreme Court rulings.

The state still doesn't allow same-sex immediate family marriages.

You want more proof? You can't cite a single such marriage because they are not allowed.

I proved the legality.

You imply that because the USSC struck down the man/woman section of the law that some how magically it could pick and choose the rest.

Cite the section of Obergfell that does that.

Proposing a change, and getting it through commitee, two chambers of the legislature and signed by Governor (and constitutional review of Attorney General)........

Are two completely different things.

Iowa has had same sex marriage since 2009.

In case you haven't noticed, it 2015. They've had six years to fix this and have not.

Cite Obergfell. It could save you're failed argument. If you can't. You lose........

Again

Why would I cite Obergefell in this case? Why would you? Obergefell has nothing to do with it. As you pointed out, same-sex marriage has been legal in Iowa for 6 years now and you can't find a single married couple who are closely related by blood.

Six years. Six years and no change to the law in six years. The courts only ordered the removal of the qualification of male/female.

The denied couples are contained in the list in iowa 595.

Link below.

Iowa Code 595


Those are the couples that cannot be too closely related.

They had six years to redline the list, they did not. They SPECIFIACALLY explain which pairs can't be too closely related.

Try again. This is standing law. All the courts overturned was male/female exclusivity to marry

The male/female restriction was lifted in Iowa 6 years ago. Yet no same-sex family marriages. Obergefell doesn't change that.

 

[Pop23]

No, yours is the interesting stick

Because I object to incest, but because , using the 14th amendment argument your side won with, can't find how same sex siblings would lose, somehow it's about incest.

I would remind you

Incest is a act

Incest is illegal

Marriage requires no sex acts to be legal.

Iowa appears to allow same sex family members to marry.

Got it now?

Stop lying. Iowa permits no such thing. They've never allowed immediate family members to marry and they still don't. You've been shown that they're working on adjusting the law to accommodate changes regarding same-sex marriage.

The law clearly shows that the only exclusions are those that could possibly breed.

Same sex couples are unable.

Because someone PROPOSES a change, don't make it so.

Sucks to be you I guess

But again, since I oppose family marriage, the change would be welcome. Until then, you're simply wrong.

As always

So? The law you cite also says marriage is between a man and a woman. That's why it's being amended to be in accordance with Supreme Court rulings.

The state still doesn't allow same-sex immediate family marriages.

You want more proof? You can't cite a single such marriage because they are not allowed.

I proved the legality.

You imply that because the USSC struck down the man/woman section of the law that some how magically it could pick and choose the rest.

Cite the section of Obergfell that does that.

Proposing a change, and getting it through commitee, two chambers of the legislature and signed by Governor (and constitutional review of Attorney General)........

Are two completely different things.

Iowa has had same sex marriage since 2009.

In case you haven't noticed, it 2015. They've had six years to fix this and have not.

Cite Obergfell. It could save you're failed argument. If you can't. You lose........

Again

Because family marriage is not legal despite changes caused by their Supreme Court ruling. Again, because you're hard of reading, the law still reads marriage is between a man and a woman. According to your idiocy, same-sex marriage is not allowed in Iowa because the wording in their marriage laws have not yet been updated.

But rest assured, they are working on adjusting their laws to account for Supreme Court rulings, in large part, to sick pervs like you who are insisting two brothers can marry each other.

And good luck getting a marriage license in Iowa to marry your brother....

MARRIAGE LICENSES

If you want to get married, you’ll need a marriage license.

1. Marriages in Iowa are between 2 people who are (1) 18 years of age and older; (2) not already or still legally married to someone else or each other; (3) not closely related by blood or first cousins; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.

Funny, you actually contradict yourself. If the above had merit, why would they be proposing the law, that you also posted.

Good God, have some pride, you're just grasping straws now.

 

[Pop23]

The law clearly shows that the only exclusions are those that could possibly breed.

Same sex couples are unable.

Because someone PROPOSES a change, don't make it so.

Sucks to be you I guess

But again, since I oppose family marriage, the change would be welcome. Until then, you're simply wrong.

As always

So? The law you cite also says marriage is between a man and a woman. That's why it's being amended to be in accordance with Supreme Court rulings.

The state still doesn't allow same-sex immediate family marriages.

You want more proof? You can't cite a single such marriage because they are not allowed.

I proved the legality.

You imply that because the USSC struck down the man/woman section of the law that some how magically it could pick and choose the rest.

Cite the section of Obergfell that does that.

Proposing a change, and getting it through commitee, two chambers of the legislature and signed by Governor (and constitutional review of Attorney General)........

Are two completely different things.

Iowa has had same sex marriage since 2009.

In case you haven't noticed, it 2015. They've had six years to fix this and have not.

Cite Obergfell. It could save you're failed argument. If you can't. You lose........

Again

Why would I cite Obergefell in this case? Why would you? Obergefell has nothing to do with it. As you pointed out, same-sex marriage has been legal in Iowa for 6 years now and you can't find a single married couple who are closely related by blood.

Six years. Six years and no change to the law in six years. The courts only ordered the removal of the qualification of male/female.

The denied couples are contained in the list in iowa 595.

Link below.

Iowa Code 595


Those are the couples that cannot be too closely related.

They had six years to redline the list, they did not. They SPECIFIACALLY explain which pairs can't be too closely related.

Try again. This is standing law. All the courts overturned was male/female exclusivity to marry

The male/female restriction was lifted in Iowa 6 years ago. Yet no same-sex family marriages. Obergefell doesn't change that.

Does it make you feel better that you proved your own dumbfuckery?

Post one thing that you say proved same sex siblings can't marry in Iowa after posting a proposed law that would make marrying a same sex sibling illegal (so it must be legal)

God you are lame

You are providing proof your own argument is false

And that's best described as desperate dumbfuckery.

 

[Faun]

Stop lying. Iowa permits no such thing. They've never allowed immediate family members to marry and they still don't. You've been shown that they're working on adjusting the law to accommodate changes regarding same-sex marriage.

The law clearly shows that the only exclusions are those that could possibly breed.

Same sex couples are unable.

Because someone PROPOSES a change, don't make it so.

Sucks to be you I guess

But again, since I oppose family marriage, the change would be welcome. Until then, you're simply wrong.

As always

So? The law you cite also says marriage is between a man and a woman. That's why it's being amended to be in accordance with Supreme Court rulings.

The state still doesn't allow same-sex immediate family marriages.

You want more proof? You can't cite a single such marriage because they are not allowed.

I proved the legality.

You imply that because the USSC struck down the man/woman section of the law that some how magically it could pick and choose the rest.

Cite the section of Obergfell that does that.

Proposing a change, and getting it through commitee, two chambers of the legislature and signed by Governor (and constitutional review of Attorney General)........

Are two completely different things.

Iowa has had same sex marriage since 2009.

In case you haven't noticed, it 2015. They've had six years to fix this and have not.

Cite Obergfell. It could save you're failed argument. If you can't. You lose........

Again

Why would I cite Obergefell in this case? Why would you? Obergefell has nothing to do with it. As you pointed out, same-sex marriage has been legal in Iowa for 6 years now and you can't find a single married couple who are closely related by blood.

I don't have to. I cite the specific law.

Dealing with loss is hard I know.

Dealing with your whining is harder.

What does Obergefell have to do with same-sex marriage bans being ruled unconstitutional in Iowa 6 years ago?

And again, in six years, you can't find a single close family marriage between same-sex couples.

Not one.

Strange, don'tcha think? If Iowa has been the only state in the country allowing such marriages, one would expect such couples would be flocking to Iowa to acquire a marriage license.

... yet you can't find one couple.

 

[Faun]

Stop lying. Iowa permits no such thing. They've never allowed immediate family members to marry and they still don't. You've been shown that they're working on adjusting the law to accommodate changes regarding same-sex marriage.

The law clearly shows that the only exclusions are those that could possibly breed.

Same sex couples are unable.

Because someone PROPOSES a change, don't make it so.

Sucks to be you I guess

But again, since I oppose family marriage, the change would be welcome. Until then, you're simply wrong.

As always

So? The law you cite also says marriage is between a man and a woman. That's why it's being amended to be in accordance with Supreme Court rulings.

The state still doesn't allow same-sex immediate family marriages.

You want more proof? You can't cite a single such marriage because they are not allowed.

I proved the legality.

You imply that because the USSC struck down the man/woman section of the law that some how magically it could pick and choose the rest.

Cite the section of Obergfell that does that.

Proposing a change, and getting it through commitee, two chambers of the legislature and signed by Governor (and constitutional review of Attorney General)........

Are two completely different things.

Iowa has had same sex marriage since 2009.

In case you haven't noticed, it 2015. They've had six years to fix this and have not.

Cite Obergfell. It could save you're failed argument. If you can't. You lose........

Again

Because family marriage is not legal despite changes caused by their Supreme Court ruling. Again, because you're hard of reading, the law still reads marriage is between a man and a woman. According to your idiocy, same-sex marriage is not allowed in Iowa because the wording in their marriage laws have not yet been updated.

But rest assured, they are working on adjusting their laws to account for Supreme Court rulings, in large part, to sick pervs like you who are insisting two brothers can marry each other.

And good luck getting a marriage license in Iowa to marry your brother....

MARRIAGE LICENSES

If you want to get married, you’ll need a marriage license.

1. Marriages in Iowa are between 2 people who are (1) 18 years of age and older; (2) not already or still legally married to someone else or each other; (3) not closely related by blood or first cousins; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.

Funny, you actually contradict yourself. If the above had merit, why would they be proposing the law, that you also posted.

Good God, have some pride, you're just grasping straws now.

Already answered ... to clarify the law because of sick demented pervs like you who are pushing for brothers to be allowed to marry each other.

 

[Pop23]

The law clearly shows that the only exclusions are those that could possibly breed.

Same sex couples are unable.

Because someone PROPOSES a change, don't make it so.

Sucks to be you I guess

But again, since I oppose family marriage, the change would be welcome. Until then, you're simply wrong.

As always

So? The law you cite also says marriage is between a man and a woman. That's why it's being amended to be in accordance with Supreme Court rulings.

The state still doesn't allow same-sex immediate family marriages.

You want more proof? You can't cite a single such marriage because they are not allowed.

I proved the legality.

You imply that because the USSC struck down the man/woman section of the law that some how magically it could pick and choose the rest.

Cite the section of Obergfell that does that.

Proposing a change, and getting it through commitee, two chambers of the legislature and signed by Governor (and constitutional review of Attorney General)........

Are two completely different things.

Iowa has had same sex marriage since 2009.

In case you haven't noticed, it 2015. They've had six years to fix this and have not.

Cite Obergfell. It could save you're failed argument. If you can't. You lose........

Again

Why would I cite Obergefell in this case? Why would you? Obergefell has nothing to do with it. As you pointed out, same-sex marriage has been legal in Iowa for 6 years now and you can't find a single married couple who are closely related by blood.

I don't have to. I cite the specific law.

Dealing with loss is hard I know.

Dealing with your whining is harder.

What does Obergefell have to do with same-sex marriage bans being ruled unconstitutional in Iowa 6 years ago?

And again, in six years, you can't find a single close family marriage between same-sex couples.

Not one.

Strange, don'tcha think? If Iowa has been the only state in the country allowing such marriages, one would expect such couples would be flocking to Iowa to acquire a marriage license.

... yet you can't find one couple.

Which is it dumbass:

They can't per one of your posts, or they can per your other post?

God you are a total idiot.

This is the law that includes a complete list of excluded pairs, none are same sex, are they numbnuts?


Iowa Code 595

 

[Pop23]

The law clearly shows that the only exclusions are those that could possibly breed.

Same sex couples are unable.

Because someone PROPOSES a change, don't make it so.

Sucks to be you I guess

But again, since I oppose family marriage, the change would be welcome. Until then, you're simply wrong.

As always

So? The law you cite also says marriage is between a man and a woman. That's why it's being amended to be in accordance with Supreme Court rulings.

The state still doesn't allow same-sex immediate family marriages.

You want more proof? You can't cite a single such marriage because they are not allowed.

I proved the legality.

You imply that because the USSC struck down the man/woman section of the law that some how magically it could pick and choose the rest.

Cite the section of Obergfell that does that.

Proposing a change, and getting it through commitee, two chambers of the legislature and signed by Governor (and constitutional review of Attorney General)........

Are two completely different things.

Iowa has had same sex marriage since 2009.

In case you haven't noticed, it 2015. They've had six years to fix this and have not.

Cite Obergfell. It could save you're failed argument. If you can't. You lose........

Again

Because family marriage is not legal despite changes caused by their Supreme Court ruling. Again, because you're hard of reading, the law still reads marriage is between a man and a woman. According to your idiocy, same-sex marriage is not allowed in Iowa because the wording in their marriage laws have not yet been updated.

But rest assured, they are working on adjusting their laws to account for Supreme Court rulings, in large part, to sick pervs like you who are insisting two brothers can marry each other.

And good luck getting a marriage license in Iowa to marry your brother....

MARRIAGE LICENSES

If you want to get married, you’ll need a marriage license.

1. Marriages in Iowa are between 2 people who are (1) 18 years of age and older; (2) not already or still legally married to someone else or each other; (3) not closely related by blood or first cousins; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.

Funny, you actually contradict yourself. If the above had merit, why would they be proposing the law, that you also posted.

Good God, have some pride, you're just grasping straws now.

Already answered ... to clarify the law because of sick demented pervs like you who are pushing for brothers to be allowed to marry each other.

You answered that it is both legal and illegal. Dumbass