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

[Skylar]

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.

Look for the power to determine that to be returned to the states. See the OP for details.

You're quoting the dissenting opinion on the matter. And there's no legal authority in the source you're citing.

You're stating what you want to happen. Not what the evidence strongly suggests will. Your argument is what would classically be described as 'denial'. A stage of loss.

Child deprivation/abuse is no laughing matter...no matter what your cult tries to sell the world "is normal"..

Irrelevant to your argument. As denying same sex marriage doesn't help a single child. While harming 10s of thousands of children.

 

[Pop23]

There is nothing more objective than a gay person saying they are gay.

I don't know. ..self-diagnosis is such a shakey prospect. I knew a gay guy who said he was gay...but it turns out he became compulsively hypersexually attracted to men as a result of being molested at a threshold age by a man, and was thusly imprinted.

I know a lesbian who chased boys and fell madly in love with them all during her youth, but because of an abusive father and continuted disappointment (and being molested by a lesbian friend in high school who chided her for liking boys) of her male partners, she decided (her words) to be a lesbian. She now exclusively sleeps with women. As if that's going to solve her problems. She swapped "the paramount example of physical abuse" (father/males by extension) for "the paramount example of psychological abuse" (females/the lesbian who molested her and verbally abused her for liking boys). She has recently been preying on underaged girls to have sex with, according to rumors.

Yep, I think these diagnoses are best left up to non-APA psychology professionals.

True, we've all run across those.

It is said that eye witness testimony is often unreliable.

Wonder why no one has ever been able to develope a reliable and objective gay test?

 

[Skylar]

As Iowa says, to get a marriage license, you cannot be "closely related by blood or first cousins"

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?

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.

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 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.

The point being?

It is your argument that eithe the ISC or the USSC declared parts of the Iowa marriage code 595 invalid. All I've seen is that the invalidated that marriage include opposite gender couples.

And by 'seen', you mean imagine? Your every legal prediction has been comically inept, never happening. Same sex marriage has never lead to the legalization of polygamy, incest marriage, or any of the other silly nonsense that you claim.

Nor do you have any evidence of any incest marriage in Iowa.

As usual, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And are merely trolling.

 

[Pop23]

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?

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.

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 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.

The point being?

It is your argument that eithe the ISC or the USSC declared parts of the Iowa marriage code 595 invalid. All I've seen is that the invalidated that marriage include opposite gender couples.

And by 'seen', you mean imagine? Your every legal prediction has been comically inept, never happening. Same sex marriage has never lead to the legalization of polygamy, incest marriage, or any of the other silly nonsense that you claim.

Nor do you have any evidence of any incest marriage in Iowa.

As usual, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And are merely trolling.

Incest is an illegal sexual offense.

Marriage does not require sexual contact to be valid.

In Iowa it would appear that same sex family members can already marry.

Prediction came true it would appear.

BOOM

Goes your argument.

 

[Skylar]

I know a lesbian who chased boys and fell madly in love with them all during her youth, but because of an abusive father and continuted disappointment (and being molested by a lesbian friend in high school who chided her for liking boys) of her male partners, she decided (her words) to be a lesbian. She now exclusively sleeps with women. As if that's going to solve her problems. She swapped "the paramount example of physical abuse" (father/males by extension) for "the paramount example of psychological abuse" (females/the lesbian who molested her and verbally abused her for liking boys). She has recently been preying on underaged girls to have sex with, according to rumors.

Yep, I think these diagnoses are best left up to non-APA psychology professionals.

Homosexuality isn't a' diagnosis'. Anymore than heterosexuality is. The idea that no one can know their sexual orientation unless a APA psychology professional tells them is ludicrous.

Worse, you've already insisted that any studies on the effects of same sex parenting by the APA should be ignored and that the APA is unreliable. If they're unreliable......why are insisting that they are the only body that can determine an individual's sexual orientation.

As for your two cases,.show us the evidence. You routinely lie about sources we can verify. Making your claims about sources we can't far more dubious.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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 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.

The point being?

It is your argument that eithe the ISC or the USSC declared parts of the Iowa marriage code 595 invalid. All I've seen is that the invalidated that marriage include opposite gender couples.

And by 'seen', you mean imagine? Your every legal prediction has been comically inept, never happening. Same sex marriage has never lead to the legalization of polygamy, incest marriage, or any of the other silly nonsense that you claim.

Nor do you have any evidence of any incest marriage in Iowa.

As usual, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And are merely trolling.

Incest is an illegal sexual offense.

So was interracial sex. Yet the courts overturned interracial marriage bans decades ago. If the incest marriage is now legal, the prohibitions on incest should be no more relevant that the previous prohibitions on interracial sex were before Loving V. Virginia.

Yet neither incest marriage nor incest are legal in any state. Nor is polygamy.

Nothing you insisted had to happen....did. Your record of failure was predictably perfect. As noted above, you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Marriage does not require sexual contact to be valid.

In Iowa it would appear that same sex family members can already marry.

Then it will be simple for you to show us evidence of such marriages in Iowa. Show us evidence that one has actually occured.

Or you can continue to give us excuses why you can't. Either serves my purpose.

 

[Faun]

As Iowa says, to get a marriage license, you cannot be "closely related by blood or first cousins"

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?

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.

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 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.

The point being?

It is your argument that either the ISC or the USSC declared parts of the Iowa marriage code 595 invalid. All I've seen is that the invalidated that marriage include opposite gender couples.

You are then to prove your nonsense by citing the part of the ruling that does so.....

But your obviously just making shit up or you could.

BOOM

You lose again

Why on Earth does anyone care what you see?

Prove it.

 

[Pop23]

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 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.

The point being?

It is your argument that eithe the ISC or the USSC declared parts of the Iowa marriage code 595 invalid. All I've seen is that the invalidated that marriage include opposite gender couples.

And by 'seen', you mean imagine? Your every legal prediction has been comically inept, never happening. Same sex marriage has never lead to the legalization of polygamy, incest marriage, or any of the other silly nonsense that you claim.

Nor do you have any evidence of any incest marriage in Iowa.

As usual, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And are merely trolling.

Incest is an illegal sexual offense.

So was interracial sex. Yet the courts overturned interracial marriage bans decades ago. If the incest marriage is now legal, the prohibitions on incest should be no more relevant that the previous prohibitions on interracial sex were before Loving V. Virginia.

Yet neither incest marriage nor incest are legal in any state. Nor is polygamy.

Nothing you insisted had to happen....did. Your record of failure was predictably perfect. As noted above, you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Marriage does not require sexual contact to be valid.

In Iowa it would appear that same sex family members can already marry.

Then it will be simple for you to show us evidence of such marriages in Iowa. Show us evidence that one has actually occured.

Or you can continue to give us excuses why you can't. Either serves my purpose.

Except loving never removed the requirement be one man and one woman. I beleive that was the societal safety net Justice Crabby Paddy was referring too, except she ignored Iowa and Maryland existing law.

So

BOOM

Another Skylar fail.

 

[Pop23]

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?

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.

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 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.

The point being?

It is your argument that either the ISC or the USSC declared parts of the Iowa marriage code 595 invalid. All I've seen is that the invalidated that marriage include opposite gender couples.

You are then to prove your nonsense by citing the part of the ruling that does so.....

But your obviously just making shit up or you could.

BOOM

You lose again

Why on Earth does anyone care what you see?

Prove it.

Prove your argument?

Why, it's a lost cause unless you can cite the ISC or USSC ruling changing Iowas code 595 by anything more than the genders of consenting parties.

But obviously you can't.

But you sure can whine!

A championship caliber whiner you are indeed.

 

[Skylar]

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.

The point being?

It is your argument that eithe the ISC or the USSC declared parts of the Iowa marriage code 595 invalid. All I've seen is that the invalidated that marriage include opposite gender couples.

And by 'seen', you mean imagine? Your every legal prediction has been comically inept, never happening. Same sex marriage has never lead to the legalization of polygamy, incest marriage, or any of the other silly nonsense that you claim.

Nor do you have any evidence of any incest marriage in Iowa.

As usual, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And are merely trolling.

Incest is an illegal sexual offense.

So was interracial sex. Yet the courts overturned interracial marriage bans decades ago. If the incest marriage is now legal, the prohibitions on incest should be no more relevant that the previous prohibitions on interracial sex were before Loving V. Virginia.

Yet neither incest marriage nor incest are legal in any state. Nor is polygamy.

Nothing you insisted had to happen....did. Your record of failure was predictably perfect. As noted above, you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Marriage does not require sexual contact to be valid.

In Iowa it would appear that same sex family members can already marry.

Then it will be simple for you to show us evidence of such marriages in Iowa. Show us evidence that one has actually occured.

Or you can continue to give us excuses why you can't. Either serves my purpose.

Except loving never removed the requirement be one man and one woman. I beleive that was the societal safety net Justice Crabby Paddy was referring too, except she ignored Iowa and Maryland existing law.

Nor did I ever claim that loving removed the one man and one woman requirement. You're not following what you're replying to.

I said that despite interracial sex being a felony, the courts overturned interracial marriage bans. Demonstrating that at the very least, your assertions that 'incest is illegal' is irrelevant to the constitutionality of incest marriage per your own reasoning.

Yet incest is still illegal. Incest marriage is still illegal. And polygamy is still illegal. This despite same sex marriage being recognized as a right.

Your record of failure is once again, perfect.

 

[paddymurphy]

There is nothing more objective than a gay person saying they are gay.

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.

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.

Yes, when you make stuff up that indeed makes you a genius in your own mind.

My original question however was. Why is it possible that I can use reliable and objective tests to determine that someone who claims discrimination except gay?

See the difference councilor? Or are you still upset you can't?

Rock on

Not a councilor. And there is no difference. Objective, scientific proof of race or national origin or ethnicity is not required and objective, scientific proof of religion or orientation is not required to prove discrimination.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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.

Yes, when you make stuff up that indeed makes you a genius in your own mind.

My original question however was. Why is it possible that I can use reliable and objective tests to determine that someone who claims discrimination except gay?

See the difference councilor? Or are you still upset you can't?

Rock on

Not a councilor. And there is no difference. Objective, scientific proof of race or national origin or ethnicity is not required and objective, scientific proof of religion or orientation is not required to prove discrimination.

Laughing....I thought the "APA professional' standard as the only way someone could know their own sexual orientation was adorable though.

 

[Pop23]

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.

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.

Yes, when you make stuff up that indeed makes you a genius in your own mind.

My original question however was. Why is it possible that I can use reliable and objective tests to determine that someone who claims discrimination except gay?

See the difference councilor? Or are you still upset you can't?

Rock on

Not a councilor. And there is no difference. Objective, scientific proof of race or national origin or ethnicity is not required and objective, scientific proof of religion or orientation is not required to prove discrimination.

Required for what?

The question was actually pretty simple.

 

[Skylar]

Because the world is full of morons like you.

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.

Yes, when you make stuff up that indeed makes you a genius in your own mind.

My original question however was. Why is it possible that I can use reliable and objective tests to determine that someone who claims discrimination except gay?

See the difference councilor? Or are you still upset you can't?

Rock on

Not a councilor. And there is no difference. Objective, scientific proof of race or national origin or ethnicity is not required and objective, scientific proof of religion or orientation is not required to prove discrimination.

Required for what?

The question was actually pretty simple.

Yet when I asked you what relevance all your 'verifying the gay' babble had with any issue being discussed.......you didn't have a simple answer. You just ran.

As 'gay' isn't a requirement of any kind of marriage.

 

[Pop23]

The point being?

It is your argument that eithe the ISC or the USSC declared parts of the Iowa marriage code 595 invalid. All I've seen is that the invalidated that marriage include opposite gender couples.

And by 'seen', you mean imagine? Your every legal prediction has been comically inept, never happening. Same sex marriage has never lead to the legalization of polygamy, incest marriage, or any of the other silly nonsense that you claim.

Nor do you have any evidence of any incest marriage in Iowa.

As usual, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And are merely trolling.

Incest is an illegal sexual offense.

So was interracial sex. Yet the courts overturned interracial marriage bans decades ago. If the incest marriage is now legal, the prohibitions on incest should be no more relevant that the previous prohibitions on interracial sex were before Loving V. Virginia.

Yet neither incest marriage nor incest are legal in any state. Nor is polygamy.

Nothing you insisted had to happen....did. Your record of failure was predictably perfect. As noted above, you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Marriage does not require sexual contact to be valid.

In Iowa it would appear that same sex family members can already marry.

Then it will be simple for you to show us evidence of such marriages in Iowa. Show us evidence that one has actually occured.

Or you can continue to give us excuses why you can't. Either serves my purpose.

Except loving never removed the requirement be one man and one woman. I beleive that was the societal safety net Justice Crabby Paddy was referring too, except she ignored Iowa and Maryland existing law.

Nor did I ever claim that loving removed the one man and one woman requirement. You're not following what you're replying to.

I said that despite interracial sex being a felony, the courts overturned interracial marriage bans. Demonstrating that at the very least, your assertions that 'incest is illegal' is irrelevant to the constitutionality of incest marriage per your own reasoning.

Yet incest is still illegal. Incest marriage is still illegal. And polygamy is still illegal. This despite same sex marriage being recognized as a right.

Your record of failure is once again, perfect.

Sexual contact is not a requirement of marriage in any of the 50 states. Assuming that a married couple would engage in sexual contact is an assumption you may make, but not a legal argument.

Maybe that's why Iowa allows same sex marriage?

 

[Pop23]

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.

Yes, when you make stuff up that indeed makes you a genius in your own mind.

My original question however was. Why is it possible that I can use reliable and objective tests to determine that someone who claims discrimination except gay?

See the difference councilor? Or are you still upset you can't?

Rock on

Not a councilor. And there is no difference. Objective, scientific proof of race or national origin or ethnicity is not required and objective, scientific proof of religion or orientation is not required to prove discrimination.

Required for what?

The question was actually pretty simple.

Yet when I asked you what relevance all your 'verifying the gay' babble had with any issue being discussed.......you didn't have a simple answer. You just ran.

As 'gay' isn't a requirement of any kind of marriage.

You need to answer a question prior to asking.

 

[Pop23]

Because the world is full of morons like you.

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.

Yes, when you make stuff up that indeed makes you a genius in your own mind.

My original question however was. Why is it possible that I can use reliable and objective tests to determine that someone who claims discrimination except gay?

See the difference councilor? Or are you still upset you can't?

Rock on

Not a councilor. And there is no difference. Objective, scientific proof of race or national origin or ethnicity is not required and objective, scientific proof of religion or orientation is not required to prove discrimination.

Laughing....I thought the "APA professional' standard as the only way someone could know their own sexual orientation was adorable though.

Which appears where exactly in the string?

Voices in your head again?

 

[Skylar]

And by 'seen', you mean imagine? Your every legal prediction has been comically inept, never happening. Same sex marriage has never lead to the legalization of polygamy, incest marriage, or any of the other silly nonsense that you claim.

Nor do you have any evidence of any incest marriage in Iowa.

As usual, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And are merely trolling.

Incest is an illegal sexual offense.

So was interracial sex. Yet the courts overturned interracial marriage bans decades ago. If the incest marriage is now legal, the prohibitions on incest should be no more relevant that the previous prohibitions on interracial sex were before Loving V. Virginia.

Yet neither incest marriage nor incest are legal in any state. Nor is polygamy.

Nothing you insisted had to happen....did. Your record of failure was predictably perfect. As noted above, you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Marriage does not require sexual contact to be valid.

In Iowa it would appear that same sex family members can already marry.

Then it will be simple for you to show us evidence of such marriages in Iowa. Show us evidence that one has actually occured.

Or you can continue to give us excuses why you can't. Either serves my purpose.

Except loving never removed the requirement be one man and one woman. I beleive that was the societal safety net Justice Crabby Paddy was referring too, except she ignored Iowa and Maryland existing law.

Nor did I ever claim that loving removed the one man and one woman requirement. You're not following what you're replying to.

I said that despite interracial sex being a felony, the courts overturned interracial marriage bans. Demonstrating that at the very least, your assertions that 'incest is illegal' is irrelevant to the constitutionality of incest marriage per your own reasoning.

Yet incest is still illegal. Incest marriage is still illegal. And polygamy is still illegal. This despite same sex marriage being recognized as a right.

Your record of failure is once again, perfect.

Sexual contact is not a requirement of marriage in any of the 50 states. Assuming that a married couple would engage in sexual contact is an assumption you may make, but not a legal argument.

Given that I've never made the argument that sex is a requirement of marriage....you're just beating the stuffing out of that strawman.

If same sex marriage 'implies' the legality of incest marriage and polygamy.....why has no state legalized incest marriage or polygamy?

So your record is 0 for 50. Twice. So much for your predictions.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Yes, when you make stuff up that indeed makes you a genius in your own mind.

My original question however was. Why is it possible that I can use reliable and objective tests to determine that someone who claims discrimination except gay?

See the difference councilor? Or are you still upset you can't?

Rock on

Not a councilor. And there is no difference. Objective, scientific proof of race or national origin or ethnicity is not required and objective, scientific proof of religion or orientation is not required to prove discrimination.

Required for what?

The question was actually pretty simple.

Yet when I asked you what relevance all your 'verifying the gay' babble had with any issue being discussed.......you didn't have a simple answer. You just ran.

As 'gay' isn't a requirement of any kind of marriage.

You need to answer a question prior to asking.

Nice deflection. You clearly have no answer for what relevance all your 'verifying the gay' babble has with any thing we're discussing. Which is why you keep running.

So much for 'simple'. Your rout and excuses keep getting more convoluted.

 

[Pop23]

Incest is an illegal sexual offense.

So was interracial sex. Yet the courts overturned interracial marriage bans decades ago. If the incest marriage is now legal, the prohibitions on incest should be no more relevant that the previous prohibitions on interracial sex were before Loving V. Virginia.

Yet neither incest marriage nor incest are legal in any state. Nor is polygamy.

Nothing you insisted had to happen....did. Your record of failure was predictably perfect. As noted above, you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Marriage does not require sexual contact to be valid.

In Iowa it would appear that same sex family members can already marry.

Then it will be simple for you to show us evidence of such marriages in Iowa. Show us evidence that one has actually occured.

Or you can continue to give us excuses why you can't. Either serves my purpose.

Except loving never removed the requirement be one man and one woman. I beleive that was the societal safety net Justice Crabby Paddy was referring too, except she ignored Iowa and Maryland existing law.

Nor did I ever claim that loving removed the one man and one woman requirement. You're not following what you're replying to.

I said that despite interracial sex being a felony, the courts overturned interracial marriage bans. Demonstrating that at the very least, your assertions that 'incest is illegal' is irrelevant to the constitutionality of incest marriage per your own reasoning.

Yet incest is still illegal. Incest marriage is still illegal. And polygamy is still illegal. This despite same sex marriage being recognized as a right.

Your record of failure is once again, perfect.

Sexual contact is not a requirement of marriage in any of the 50 states. Assuming that a married couple would engage in sexual contact is an assumption you may make, but not a legal argument.

Given that I've never made the argument that sex is a requirement of marriage....you're just beating the stuffing out of that strawman.

If same sex marriage 'implies' the legality of incest marriage and polygamy.....why has no state legalized incest marriage or polygamy?

So your record is 0 for 50. Twice. So much for your predictions.

The state can't sanction illegal activity.

Since there is no longer a requirement for marriage to be between one man and one woman, and there is no requirement for sex in a marriage, then no one can legitimately be banned from the licence.

Which was my point at the start of this, and remains sound legal reasoning.

Glad you agree.