Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
As Iowa says, to get a marriage license, you cannot be "closely related by blood or first cousins"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...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.Nope, that was declared unconstitutional due to the 14th amendments equal protection clause.
The rest remained.
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.
MARRIAGE LICENSES
If you want to get married, you’ll need a marriage license.
- 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.
There is nothing more objective than a gay person saying they are gay.Fair enough. By identifying the body most religious affiliation can be discovered by that persons joining of an established religious organization, most times that is done with a document.
You don't have to join an established religious organization to be a member of that faith.
If you believe that Jesus is the son of God and your Lord and savior, that is what is required to be a Christian.
Same applies with any other religion.
>>>>
But, most do.
So most could use a test to determine this.
I will ask again for the test that determines sexuality that is not simply the individuals word. Reliable and objective.
Your posts get dumber and dumber. The 14 th incorporated all of the bill of rights so that states were now subject to them. And what the fuck does a dead body have to do with this?No, you cannot. You cannot prove what religion someone is. You cannot prove a specific ethnicity. And a gay person can Prove they are gay.I am not your friend. God forbid I would actually know you. And I did not lead the argument in a different direction. Your arguments about dNA tests to prove race or ethnicity in a discrimination case are beyond stupid. They make no sense. And your inability to understand that a persons sting they are gay is proof that they is beyond understanding. It is in you thought this argument is a brilliant gotcha, when it is beyond moronic. There is no word that adequately captures how stupid this argument you are making us.I know attorneys well my friend, and one thing I know best is, when you defeat their argument they try to lead you in a different direction.
I've had more than my share of time sitting in a conversation with them over the years. If you get my drift.
Except that it wasn't my argument. So there's that
My argument remains.
I can prove every person is who they claim to be that claims a right under the 14th amendment since its passage in the 1860s except "gay"
All can be tested in reliable and objective ways, except one. That one is gay.
Oh, and the friend comment, sarcasm on my part. You would not last 10 minutes in my crowd councilor
The 14th amendment came into being in the 1860s. The protection for freedom of religion was well before that. You knew that, right? It's an enumerated right.
If a dead person is found in a car. I can through objective and reliable tests indeed determine sex, ethnicity and many other factors. Objective and reliable test as to its sexuality........
Not so much.
That doesn't help you since the law you cite still reads marriage is between a man and a woman. Clearly, the law is not as it reads since the Supreme Courts rulings.No, it's not legal now. That's why they will not allow marriages between any closely related family members, regardless of gender.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...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.
MARRIAGE LICENSES
If you want to get married, you’ll need a marriage license.
- 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.
Cite either the Iowa Supreme Court or the USSC then.
Oops
No, but you also don't express appreciation for me showing how retarded you are for not being able to comprehend the law no longer exists as written. Parts were nullified by Supreme Court rulings. Sadly, understanding that is above your pay grade.As Iowa says, to get a marriage license, you cannot be "closely related by blood or first cousins"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...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.
MARRIAGE LICENSES
If you want to get married, you’ll need a marriage license.
- 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.
As outlined in the list previously provided. All opposite sex couples
Of course you already proved me right by posting a proposed law to make same sex family marriage illegal cuz currently is not
Did I properly thank you for proving my point by doing that?
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.
This is just another example of how the right, in this case four right wing judges, are out of step with the majority. I understand their disappointment, but that's how our constitution works. Whining about the loss won't change a thing.
No, but you also don't express appreciation for me showing how retarded you are for not being able to comprehend the law no longer exists as written. Parts were nullified by Supreme Court rulings. Sadly, understanding that is above your pay grade.As Iowa says, to get a marriage license, you cannot be "closely related by blood or first cousins"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...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.
MARRIAGE LICENSES
If you want to get married, you’ll need a marriage license.
- 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.
As outlined in the list previously provided. All opposite sex couples
Of course you already proved me right by posting a proposed law to make same sex family marriage illegal cuz currently is not
Did I properly thank you for proving my point by doing that?
Because the world is full of morons like you.There is nothing more objective than a gay person saying they are gay.Fair enough. By identifying the body most religious affiliation can be discovered by that persons joining of an established religious organization, most times that is done with a document.
You don't have to join an established religious organization to be a member of that faith.
If you believe that Jesus is the son of God and your Lord and savior, that is what is required to be a Christian.
Same applies with any other religion.
>>>>
But, most do.
So most could use a test to determine this.
I will ask again for the test that determines sexuality that is not simply the individuals word. Reliable and objective.
Sure, and a bank robber saying he's innocent.
Why again do we need attorneys again?
Because the world is full of morons like you.There is nothing more objective than a gay person saying they are gay.Fair enough. By identifying the body most religious affiliation can be discovered by that persons joining of an established religious organization, most times that is done with a document.
You don't have to join an established religious organization to be a member of that faith.
If you believe that Jesus is the son of God and your Lord and savior, that is what is required to be a Christian.
Same applies with any other religion.
>>>>
But, most do.
So most could use a test to determine this.
I will ask again for the test that determines sexuality that is not simply the individuals word. Reliable and objective.
Sure, and a bank robber saying he's innocent.
Why again do we need attorneys again?
No. I was thinking about the litany of post of unprecedented stupidity that appear here under your name. You are, literally, the only person who has ever thought about having people who claim discrimination having to prove that they are in the group being discriminated against through DNA testing. You would deny the two men who tried for weeks to obtain a marriage license any relief in court because, according to you, they really cannot prove they are gay. And you sincerely have no idea how fucking stupid that is.Because the world is full of morons like you.There is nothing more objective than a gay person saying they are gay.You don't have to join an established religious organization to be a member of that faith.
If you believe that Jesus is the son of God and your Lord and savior, that is what is required to be a Christian.
Same applies with any other religion.
>>>>
But, most do.
So most could use a test to determine this.
I will ask again for the test that determines sexuality that is not simply the individuals word. Reliable and objective.
Sure, and a bank robber saying he's innocent.
Why again do we need attorneys again?
You were looking in the mirror when you said that. Right?
No. I was thinking about the litany of post of unprecedented stupidity that appear here under your name. You are, literally, the only person who has ever thought about having people who claim discrimination having to prove that they are in the group being discriminated against through DNA testing. You would deny the two men who tried for weeks to obtain a marriage license any relief in court because, according to you, they really cannot prove they are gay. And you sincerely have no idea how fucking stupid that is.Because the world is full of morons like you.There is nothing more objective than a gay person saying they are gay.But, most do.
So most could use a test to determine this.
I will ask again for the test that determines sexuality that is not simply the individuals word. Reliable and objective.
Sure, and a bank robber saying he's innocent.
Why again do we need attorneys again?
You were looking in the mirror when you said that. Right?
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.
Just a wonderful post. Brilliant!
If I lost, you wouldn't feel the need to keep declaring yourself a winner.No, but you also don't express appreciation for me showing how retarded you are for not being able to comprehend the law no longer exists as written. Parts were nullified by Supreme Court rulings. Sadly, understanding that is above your pay grade.As Iowa says, to get a marriage license, you cannot be "closely related by blood or first cousins"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.
- 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.
As outlined in the list previously provided. All opposite sex couples
Of course you already proved me right by posting a proposed law to make same sex family marriage illegal cuz currently is not
Did I properly thank you for proving my point by doing that?
Cite the part if the ISC or USSC ruling stating such.
You posted the answer. The proposed legislation making same sex family marriage illegal.
If it's already illegal then there would be no need now, would there.
Boom
You lose on the same point yet again.
Look for the power to determine that to be returned to the states. See the OP for details.If I lost, you wouldn't feel the need to keep declaring yourself a winner.
If the law was still valid as written, men would not be allowed to marry men. Women wouldn't be allowed to marry women.
There is nothing more objective than a gay person saying they are gay.
Rest assured, I won't be holding my breath.Look for the power to determine that to be returned to the states. See the OP for details.If I lost, you wouldn't feel the need to keep declaring yourself a winner.
If the law was still valid as written, men would not be allowed to marry men. Women wouldn't be allowed to marry women.
Child abuse is abhorrent. How fortunate for gay couples, that has nothing to do with gay marriage, huh?Child deprivation/abuse is no laughing matter...no matter what your cult tries to sell the world "is normal"..
If I lost, you wouldn't feel the need to keep declaring yourself a winner.No, but you also don't express appreciation for me showing how retarded you are for not being able to comprehend the law no longer exists as written. Parts were nullified by Supreme Court rulings. Sadly, understanding that is above your pay grade.As Iowa says, to get a marriage license, you cannot be "closely related by blood or first cousins"And those they exclude as too closely related are listed. All male/female.
As outlined in the list previously provided. All opposite sex couples
Of course you already proved me right by posting a proposed law to make same sex family marriage illegal cuz currently is not
Did I properly thank you for proving my point by doing that?
Cite the part if the ISC or USSC ruling stating such.
You posted the answer. The proposed legislation making same sex family marriage illegal.
If it's already illegal then there would be no need now, would there.
Boom
You lose on the same point yet again.
If the law was still valid as written, men would not be allowed to marry men. Women wouldn't be allowed to marry women.
