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

[Faun]

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.

Because Iowa doesn't allow such marriages. They never have. The spirit of the law doesn't change because parts of their law are ruled unconstitutional.

And again, I point out you can't find a single close-family marriage. Strange, huh?

 

[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.

No Perv, read the law, sex is not a requirement. Your implying that the only thing family members want to do is hump.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Because Iowa doesn't allow such marriages. They never have. The spirit of the law doesn't change because parts of their law are ruled unconstitutional.

And again, I point out you can't find a single close-family marriage. Strange, huh?

Spirit of the law? Yeah, try that in a 14th amendment case. Remember the argument about the spirit of that law?

Or are you both deaf and stupid.

 

[Faun]

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

I never said they could. Again, from the law you post....

1. Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid.​

According to you, same-sex marriage is illegal in Iowa because the law is still on the books.

 

[Faun]

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

Nope. It's not my fault you're fucking deranged.

 

[Faun]

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.

No Perv, read the law, sex is not a requirement. Your implying that the only thing family members want to do is hump.

Look at that. I point out you're a perv and again, you project that back.

Dayam, you're nothing if not predictable,

 

[Silhouette]

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.

A child of a single parent has the possibility of having a step mother or step father at some point. The possibility exists. And the situation is inferior to both a mother and father in any event; which is why we don't extend marriage benefits to monosexuals. States wish to entice a mother and father (both) in a home for a child's best shot at normal development. That's why tax benefits are given to marrieds instead of singles.

Homosexual "marriage" systematically guarantees that a child will NEVER have a mother or father. That is the abuse.

 

[Faun]

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.

Because Iowa doesn't allow such marriages. They never have. The spirit of the law doesn't change because parts of their law are ruled unconstitutional.

And again, I point out you can't find a single close-family marriage. Strange, huh?

Spirit of the law? Yeah, try that in a 14th amendment case. Remember the argument about the spirit of that law?

Or are you both deaf and stupid.

Spits the idiot who thinks same-sex family marriage is legal in Iowa but can't find a single such couple to get hitched there in 6 years.

 

[Pop23]

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

I never said they could. Again, from the law you post....

1. Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid.​

According to you, same-sex marriage is illegal in Iowa because the law is still on the books.

Nope, that was declared unconstitutional due to the 14th amendments equal protection clause.

The rest remained.

 

[Pop23]

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.

No Perv, read the law, sex is not a requirement. Your implying that the only thing family members want to do is hump.

Look at that. I point out you're a perv and again, you project that back.

Dayam, you're nothing if not predictable,

Read the law, nope, no sex requirement. You insert that from your perverted lil warped mind.

 

[Pop23]

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

Nope. It's not my fault you're fucking deranged.

Look who's calling someone deranged. The dumbass that provided the evidence it's own argument is wrong.

You can't make this shit up folks.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Because Iowa doesn't allow such marriages. They never have. The spirit of the law doesn't change because parts of their law are ruled unconstitutional.

And again, I point out you can't find a single close-family marriage. Strange, huh?

Spirit of the law? Yeah, try that in a 14th amendment case. Remember the argument about the spirit of that law?

Or are you both deaf and stupid.

Spits the idiot who thinks same-sex family marriage is legal in Iowa but can't find a single such couple to get hitched there in 6 years.

Ok dumbfuck. Find a single marriage of two people over 9 feet tall

Guess that means people over 9 feet tall can't marry in Iowa, right?

Your logic is as warped as I've ever seen.

Of course you defeated your own argument earlier, so...........

You lose again.

 

[Faun]

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

I never said they could. Again, from the law you post....

1. Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid.​

According to you, same-sex marriage is illegal in Iowa because the law is still on the books.

Nope, that was declared unconstitutional due to the 14th amendments equal protection clause.

The rest remained.

No, the rest did not remain. Any laws pertaining to gender and marriage are affected. Iowa law never allowed close family marriage. The spirit of their law doesn't change in that regard because you imagine some "loophole" was created by their Supreme Court.

And again, I point out (even though everyone here has already witnessed this) -- you can't find a single married same-sex close-family couple. How's that possible if you were right?

 

[Faun]

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.

Because Iowa doesn't allow such marriages. They never have. The spirit of the law doesn't change because parts of their law are ruled unconstitutional.

And again, I point out you can't find a single close-family marriage. Strange, huh?

Spirit of the law? Yeah, try that in a 14th amendment case. Remember the argument about the spirit of that law?

Or are you both deaf and stupid.

Spits the idiot who thinks same-sex family marriage is legal in Iowa but can't find a single such couple to get hitched there in 6 years.

Ok dumbfuck. Find a single marriage of two people over 9 feet tall

Guess that means people over 9 feet tall can't marry in Iowa, right?

Your logic is as warped as I've ever seen.

Of course you defeated your own argument earlier, so...........

You lose again.

Get this, I don't lose because you're a flaming imbecile. I never claimed there was a possibility of two 9-feet tall people getting married in Iowa. You're claiming it's possible for a same-sex close-family couple to get married in Iowa.

Yet you can't find a single such couple to get married in the last 6 years.

 

[Faun]

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.

No Perv, read the law, sex is not a requirement. Your implying that the only thing family members want to do is hump.

Look at that. I point out you're a perv and again, you project that back.

Dayam, you're nothing if not predictable,

Read the law, nope, no sex requirement. You insert that from your perverted lil warped mind.

The same law that says marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

[Cecilie1200]

...the left decided to pre-empt the will of the people?

The left preempted your marriage? Are you sure it wasn't the World Series?

"Gosh, I'm so clever with my ability to totally misunderstand English!"

 

[mdk]

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.

A child of a single parent has the possibility of having a step mother or step father at some point. The possibility exists. And the situation is inferior to both a mother and father in any event; which is why we don't extend marriage benefits to monosexuals. States wish to entice a mother and father (both) in a home for a child's best shot at normal development. That's why tax benefits are given to marrieds instead of singles.

Homosexual "marriage" systematically guarantees that a child will NEVER have a mother or father. That is the abuse.

Only in your imagination is it child abuse and your imagination is delightfully irrelevant to the law. Remember, other than whining on the internet, there is anything you can do about gays marrying and raising children.

 

[Faun]

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.

A child of a single parent has the possibility of having a step mother or step father at some point. The possibility exists. And the situation is inferior to both a mother and father in any event; which is why we don't extend marriage benefits to monosexuals. States wish to entice a mother and father (both) in a home for a child's best shot at normal development. That's why tax benefits are given to marrieds instead of singles.

Homosexual "marriage" systematically guarantees that a child will NEVER have a mother or father. That is the abuse.

And now, gay couples can marry, have kids, and receive those same benefits.

 

[Pop23]

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

I never said they could. Again, from the law you post....

1. Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid.​

According to you, same-sex marriage is illegal in Iowa because the law is still on the books.

Nope, that was declared unconstitutional due to the 14th amendments equal protection clause.

The rest remained.

No, the rest did not remain. Any laws pertaining to gender and marriage are affected. Iowa law never allowed close family marriage. The spirit of their law doesn't change in that regard because you imagine some "loophole" was created by their Supreme Court.

And again, I point out (even though everyone here has already witnessed this) -- you can't find a single married same-sex close-family couple. How's that possible if you were right?

Dude, you posted a proposed law that would make same sex family marriage illegal.

You already defeated your own argument.

If it was already illegal there would be no need for the additional law.

I'm worried about you having a stroke or something.

Take your meds dude.

 

[Pop23]

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.

No Perv, read the law, sex is not a requirement. Your implying that the only thing family members want to do is hump.

Look at that. I point out you're a perv and again, you project that back.

Dayam, you're nothing if not predictable,

Read the law, nope, no sex requirement. You insert that from your perverted lil warped mind.

The same law that says marriage is between a man and a woman.

Dude, one more time. You posted proposed legislation that makes same sex family marriage illegal, therefore it is legal now.

Or the other possibility is you can't handle even your own reality. That's a sure sign of a deranged individual.