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

[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?

Do your own legwork Einstein.

While your at it, find those 9 footers that your logic says can't be married cuz you can't find them.

 

[Faun]

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.

Spits the idiot quoting a law which still reads marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

[Faun]

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?

Do your own legwork Einstein.

While your at it, find those 9 footers that your logic says can't be married cuz you can't find them.

There's no leg work I need to do. You're the one claiming those marriages are legal but can't show where a single such couple got married. And then there's your hurdle of acquiring a marriage license 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.

 

[paddymurphy]

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!

Blessed are the brief.

 

[paddymurphy]

Have them arrested. I am sure the police in your imagination are barging down their doors as we speak. lol

So are you saying you are FOR legally disenfranchising a child from a mother or father for life?

Legally disenfranchising has another name: adoption. That is what happens when straight parents decide they can't be bothered raising their biological children or when society decides they are not fit to do so or when the parent themselves decide they cannot raise the child. You would prefer they stay in institutional care?

 

[paddymurphy]

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

Better mine than yours. There has never been a case, in any court, where a DNA test was used to determine the race or ethnicity of a plaintiff in a discrimination case.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

We were talking about discrimination cases when you introduced the absolutely idiotic argument about proof one is gay.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The law shouldn't even consider that there's a god. The question should be is it unconstitutional? Unlikely.

 

[Seawytch]

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

Jesus fucking christ on a raft...Loving v Virginia was 50 years ago. Get over it already. So what if the SCOTUS totally ran roughshod over the will of the people? So what if only 20% of the country supported interracial marriage at the time? It was still the right thing to do. Seriously, move on!!!

 

[Silhouette]

Have them arrested. I am sure the police in your imagination are barging down their doors as we speak. lol

So are you saying you are FOR legally disenfranchising a child from a mother or father for life?

Legally disenfranchising has another name: adoption. That is what happens when straight parents decide they can't be bothered raising their biological children or when society decides they are not fit to do so or when the parent themselves decide they cannot raise the child. You would prefer they stay in institutional care?

Straight parents adopt out to other straight parents. They recognize they can't be the best parents so they attempt to find new ones.

Your comparison doesn't even remotely fit what I said so I'll repeat the key point you left out when it comes to so-called "gay marriage"... It PERMANENTLY removes a child's hopes of EVER having either a mother or father in their life.

And I would absolutely prefer a child remains in an institution rather than be adopted out to a damaging situation to them. That is an emphatic 'YES'! There are plenty of childless normal couples who are looking to adopt. We don't need to let all the little boys go out to Chuck and Dave just because we haven't found normal homes for them yet. A queer home is not an acceptable substitute for a normal one. Imagine being an adoption agent and letting a little boy go to the home of that guy in the photo in my signature? No, they should stay put until people qualify. That's why they have adoption applications instead of a revolving door. We assume the applications are to protect a child from entering a damaging situation...

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

Jesus fucking christ on a raft...Loving v Virginia was 50 years ago. Get over it already. So what if the SCOTUS totally ran roughshod over the will of the people? So what if only 20% of the country supported interracial marriage at the time? It was still the right thing to do. Seriously, move on!!!

What does race have to do with just some deviant sex behaviors? Loving didn't institutionalize removing children from either a father or a mother.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Do your own legwork Einstein.

While your at it, find those 9 footers that your logic says can't be married cuz you can't find them.

There's no leg work I need to do. You're the one claiming those marriages are legal but can't show where a single such couple got married. And then there's your hurdle of acquiring a marriage license 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.

And those they exclude as too closely related are listed. All male/female.

 

[Pop23]

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!

Blessed are the brief.

4 words. You will be headed straight to heaven.

 

[Pop23]

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.

We were talking about discrimination cases when you introduced the absolutely idiotic argument about proof one is gay.

Present the test that gives us all confidence of this societal discrimination then. I can for race, ethnicity, national origin and gender. All objective. All reliable.

 

[Pop23]

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

Better mine than yours. There has never been a case, in any court, where a DNA test was used to determine the race or ethnicity of a plaintiff in a discrimination case.

Not the question however. Tests exist for both that are objective and reliable.

 

[mdk]

Have them arrested. I am sure the police in your imagination are barging down their doors as we speak. lol

So are you saying you are FOR legally disenfranchising a child from a mother or father for life?

Legally disenfranchising has another name: adoption. That is what happens when straight parents decide they can't be bothered raising their biological children or when society decides they are not fit to do so or when the parent themselves decide they cannot raise the child. You would prefer they stay in institutional care?

Straight parents adopt out to other straight parents. They recognize they can't be the best parents so they attempt to find new ones.

Your comparison doesn't even remotely fit what I said so I'll repeat the key point you left out when it comes to so-called "gay marriage"... It PERMANENTLY removes a child's hopes of EVER having either a mother or father in their life.

And I would absolutely prefer a child remains in an institution rather than be adopted out to a damaging situation to them. That is an emphatic 'YES'! There are plenty of childless normal couples who are looking to adopt. We don't need to let all the little boys go out to Chuck and Dave just because we haven't found normal homes for them yet. A queer home is not an acceptable substitute for a normal one.

And yet gay people continue to adopt and raise their biological children despite all your whining. You're known liar and you'll will use any trick in the book to smear gay people so your idea of 'normal home' is highly suspect.

 

[Silhouette]

So are you saying you are FOR legally disenfranchising a child from a mother or father for life?

Legally disenfranchising has another name: adoption. That is what happens when straight parents decide they can't be bothered raising their biological children or when society decides they are not fit to do so or when the parent themselves decide they cannot raise the child. You would prefer they stay in institutional care?

Straight parents adopt out to other straight parents. They recognize they can't be the best parents so they attempt to find new ones.

Your comparison doesn't even remotely fit what I said so I'll repeat the key point you left out when it comes to so-called "gay marriage"... It PERMANENTLY removes a child's hopes of EVER having either a mother or father in their life.

And I would absolutely prefer a child remains in an institution rather than be adopted out to a damaging situation to them. That is an emphatic 'YES'! There are plenty of childless normal couples who are looking to adopt. We don't need to let all the little boys go out to Chuck and Dave just because we haven't found normal homes for them yet. A queer home is not an acceptable substitute for a normal one. Imagine being an adoption agent and letting a little boy go to the home of that guy in the photo in my signature? No, they should stay put until people qualify. That's why they have adoption applications instead of a revolving door. We assume the applications are to protect a child from entering a damaging situation...

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

Jesus fucking christ on a raft...Loving v Virginia was 50 years ago. Get over it already. So what if the SCOTUS totally ran roughshod over the will of the people? So what if only 20% of the country supported interracial marriage at the time? It was still the right thing to do. Seriously, move on!!!

What does race have to do with just some deviant sex behaviors? Loving didn't institutionalize removing children from either a father or a mother.

The law shouldn't even consider that there's a god. The question should be is it unconstitutional? Unlikely.

We have the Law in the 1st Amendment. So now there's a direct conflict. And this conflict was mentioned by one of the dissenting Justices in the OP.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Do your own legwork Einstein.

While your at it, find those 9 footers that your logic says can't be married cuz you can't find them.

There's no leg work I need to do. You're the one claiming those marriages are legal but can't show where a single such couple got married. And then there's your hurdle of acquiring a marriage license 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.

Dumbass destroyed its own argument by posting a proposed law to be introduced into the iowa legislature that makes same sex family marriage illegal. Therefore an admission it is legal now.

 

[mdk]

So are you saying you are FOR legally disenfranchising a child from a mother or father for life?

Legally disenfranchising has another name: adoption. That is what happens when straight parents decide they can't be bothered raising their biological children or when society decides they are not fit to do so or when the parent themselves decide they cannot raise the child. You would prefer they stay in institutional care?

Straight parents adopt out to other straight parents. They recognize they can't be the best parents so they attempt to find new ones.
Your comparison doesn't even remotely fit what I said so I'll repeat the key point you left out when it comes to so-called "gay marriage"... It PERMANENTLY removes a child's hopes of EVER having either a mother or father in their life.
And I would absolutely prefer a child remains in an institution rather than be adopted out to a damaging situation to them. That is an emphatic 'YES'! There are plenty of childless normal couples who are looking to adopt. We don't need to let all the little boys go out to Chuck and Dave just because we haven't found normal homes for them yet. A queer home is not an acceptable substitute for a normal one. Imagine being an adoption agent and letting a little boy go to the home of that guy in the photo in my signature? No, they should stay put until people qualify. That's why they have adoption applications instead of a revolving door. We assume the applications are to protect a child from entering a damaging situation...

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

Jesus fucking christ on a raft...Loving v Virginia was 50 years ago. Get over it already. So what if the SCOTUS totally ran roughshod over the will of the people? So what if only 20% of the country supported interracial marriage at the time? It was still the right thing to do. Seriously, move on!!!

What does race have to do with just some deviant sex behaviors? Loving didn't institutionalize removing children from either a father or a mother.

The law shouldn't even consider that there's a god. The question should be is it unconstitutional? Unlikely.

You spamming the exact same sentences over and over again still doesn't make your ballshit anymore coherent.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

don't know what you mean; this is the supreme law of the land: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Why does the right insist on wasting the (other) Peoples' tax monies on frivolous litigation?

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

We were talking about discrimination cases when you introduced the absolutely idiotic argument about proof one is gay.

Present the test that gives us all confidence of this societal discrimination then. I can for race, ethnicity, national origin and gender. All objective. All reliable.

You cannot test for ethnicity or race. More importantly, it does not matter. If a person claims they were fired for being gay they have to prove it. They have to prove that the employer had animus towards gay people and believed the plaintiff to be gay. If a plaintiff claims they were gay and the defendant claims either that they weren't or that they were unaware the employee was gay, then both sides present evidence and a jury decides. You have beaten this idiotic claim to death five times over. There is no requirement in the law for proof to a scientific certainty. Only proof by a preponderance of the evidence.