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

[Contumacious]

Unbelievable, the federal government has USURPED powers via, amongst others, the "Patriot" and CISA Acts.

But the narcotizized want to dwell on the gay-marriage issue. UNfuckingbelievable.

 

[Faun]

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.

No, moron. Prove what you "see" is reality.

You can't; which is why you keep declaring victory instead of proving you're right.

Got that cite from the ISC or USSC yet?

Nope, you don't.

Call me when you can backup what you said existed.

Until then

BOOM

You lose again.

Show us evidence of a single incest marriage in Iowa.

I mean, if its been happening since 2009...it should be child's play for you to verify one for us. But instead, we get nothing but sniveling excuses why you can't.

Why is that?

Even worse for pops is that American families from all over the U.S. would have flocked to Iowa to get married to avoid inheritance taxes if he had a clue to what he was talking about. Yet in 6 years, not a single such marriage occurred.

Perhaps because Iowa doesn't issue marriage licenses to any close family members regardless of gender...?

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.​

 

[Pop23]

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.

No, moron. Prove what you "see" is reality.

You can't; which is why you keep declaring victory instead of proving you're right.

Got that cite from the ISC or USSC yet?

Nope, you don't.

Call me when you can backup what you said existed.

Until then

BOOM

You lose again.

Show us evidence of a single incest marriage in Iowa.

I mean, if its been happening since 2009...it should be child's play for you to verify one for us. But instead, we get nothing but sniveling excuses why you can't.

Why is that?

Even worse for pops is that American families from all over the U.S. would have flocked to Iowa to get married to avoid inheritance taxes if he had a clue to what he was talking about. Yet in 6 years, not a single such marriage occurred.

Perhaps because Iowa doesn't issue marriage licenses to any close family members regardless of gender...?

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 as I've pointed out, that iowa 596 clarifies the subjective terminology of "not closely related" by listing those that the State feels fall into that. And all are male/female groups.

What possible compelling state Interest would iowa have in denying a "fundamental" constitutional right to same sex siblings, while at the same time allowing them to enter into all other legal partnerships that the State allows?

Get over yourself Nancy. You won the war and you will not be the only groups afforded constitutional protection.

 

[Pop23]

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.

No, moron. Prove what you "see" is reality.

You can't; which is why you keep declaring victory instead of proving you're right.

Got that cite from the ISC or USSC yet?

Nope, you don't.

Call me when you can backup what you said existed.

Until then

BOOM

You lose again.

Show us evidence of a single incest marriage in Iowa.

I mean, if its been happening since 2009...it should be child's play for you to verify one for us. But instead, we get nothing but sniveling excuses why you can't.

Why is that?

You show me evidence of any couple over 9 ft tall marrying. Your logic is that iowa makes that marriage illegal as well.

 

[Pop23]

Unbelievable, the federal government has USURPED powers via, amongst others, the "Patriot" and CISA Acts.

But the narcotizized want to dwell on the gay-marriage issue. UNfuckingbelievable.

There is no gay marriage issue dude.

 

[Faun]

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.

No, moron. Prove what you "see" is reality.

You can't; which is why you keep declaring victory instead of proving you're right.

Got that cite from the ISC or USSC yet?

Nope, you don't.

Call me when you can backup what you said existed.

Until then

BOOM

You lose again.

Show us evidence of a single incest marriage in Iowa.

I mean, if its been happening since 2009...it should be child's play for you to verify one for us. But instead, we get nothing but sniveling excuses why you can't.

Why is that?

Even worse for pops is that American families from all over the U.S. would have flocked to Iowa to get married to avoid inheritance taxes if he had a clue to what he was talking about. Yet in 6 years, not a single such marriage occurred.

Perhaps because Iowa doesn't issue marriage licenses to any close family members regardless of gender...?

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 as I've pointed out, that iowa 596 clarifies the subjective terminology of "not closely related" by listing those that the State feels fall into that. And all are male/female groups.

What possible compelling state Interest would iowa have in denying a "fundamental" constitutional right to same sex siblings, while at the same time allowing them to enter into all other legal partnerships that the State allows?

Get over yourself Nancy. You won the war and you will not be the only groups afforded constitutional protection.

You remain an idiot.

Again, the part you wish to avoid .... if you were right that Iowa allowed same-sex marriages among immediate family members, millions of people would have poured into Iowa to marry family members to avoid paying inheritance tax.

Not one did.

You never tire of being a piñata, do ya?

 

[Faun]

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.

No, moron. Prove what you "see" is reality.

You can't; which is why you keep declaring victory instead of proving you're right.

Got that cite from the ISC or USSC yet?

Nope, you don't.

Call me when you can backup what you said existed.

Until then

BOOM

You lose again.

Show us evidence of a single incest marriage in Iowa.

I mean, if its been happening since 2009...it should be child's play for you to verify one for us. But instead, we get nothing but sniveling excuses why you can't.

Why is that?

You show me evidence of any couple over 9 ft tall marrying. Your logic is that iowa makes that marriage illegal as well.

Too idiotic. Don't you first have to find someone claiming it's even possible for two 9+ feet people to marry before creating such a moronic strawman?

Meanwhile, you claim same-sex immediate-family marriage is allowed but can't find a single such couple who have taken the plunge?

If for no other reason than for tax puposes, many folks would have done that.

You can't find one.

So how do you resolve this dilemma? By avoiding it entirely and challenging others to find a couple who can't get married and offer that as an excuse for why you can't find any marriages of those you claim can marry. They just haven't.

 

[bodecea]

Is Pop still going on about Legalizing Incest?

 

[Contumacious]

Unbelievable, the federal government has USURPED powers via, amongst others, the "Patriot" and CISA Acts.

But the narcotizized want to dwell on the gay-marriage issue. UNfuckingbelievable.

There is no gay marriage issue dude.

So 1782 posts wasted discussing a non-issue.


.

 

[Seawytch]

Is Pop still going on about Legalizing Incest?

That's his bag, baby!

 

[Pop23]

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.

No, moron. Prove what you "see" is reality.

You can't; which is why you keep declaring victory instead of proving you're right.

Got that cite from the ISC or USSC yet?

Nope, you don't.

Call me when you can backup what you said existed.

Until then

BOOM

You lose again.

Show us evidence of a single incest marriage in Iowa.

I mean, if its been happening since 2009...it should be child's play for you to verify one for us. But instead, we get nothing but sniveling excuses why you can't.

Why is that?

You show me evidence of any couple over 9 ft tall marrying. Your logic is that iowa makes that marriage illegal as well.

Too idiotic. Don't you first have to find someone claiming it's even possible for two 9+ feet people to marry before creating such a moronic strawman?

Meanwhile, you claim same-sex immediate-family marriage is allowed but can't find a single such couple who have taken the plunge?

If for no other reason than for tax puposes, many folks would have done that.

You can't find one.

So how do you resolve this dilemma? By avoiding it entirely and challenging others to find a couple who can't get married and offer that as an excuse for why you can't find any marriages of those you claim can marry. They just haven't.

I haven't looked for one dummy.

Iowa code 595 allows them. The proof required by you is the ISC or the USSC ruling making anything beyond the qualification that marriage be between a male and a female illegal.

While your at it, post a link to your "marriage license" law you posted earlier. Not a county, but the state. You do realize Polk county is not the controlling arbiter of state law, right?

 

[Pop23]

Unbelievable, the federal government has USURPED powers via, amongst others, the "Patriot" and CISA Acts.

But the narcotizized want to dwell on the gay-marriage issue. UNfuckingbelievable.

There is no gay marriage issue dude.

So 1782 posts wasted discussing a non-issue.


.

Maybe. Find a statute that created gay marriage. There are none. What the Supreme Court ruled as legal is Same Sex Marriage, which is quite different in scope.

Marriage law does not include Love, sex or much other for these contracts to be valid.

The implication is massive. Get a 35 dollar license and lessen your tax load, pay no inheritance tax, less health insurance cost, survivors SSI and pension coverage. The economic damage could be severe, to tax roles, insurance companies and unioun and private pension plans.

And, since there are no real qualifications, the two parties, no matter sequality, can keep dating members of the opposite sex (who might also be married).

There is no downside.

By marketing this as "gay" marriage, they got the media and courts looking the other way.

Object and you were a homophobic bigot. And no media type or Judge wants that.

Perfectly executed marketing.

 

[Pop23]

Is Pop still going on about Legalizing Incest?

That's his bag, baby!

Incest is illegal. Within or outside of marriage.

Sex is no more a requirement of marriage than it is of any other partnership contract.

So only a complete pervert would read the law and imply that partners in any/all of these contracts would enter one for the purpose of illegal sexual activity.

Making you both, perverts.

But if it gets you hot thinking about sibling sex........

Maybe some counseling might be in order?

 

[Faun]

No, moron. Prove what you "see" is reality.

You can't; which is why you keep declaring victory instead of proving you're right.

Got that cite from the ISC or USSC yet?

Nope, you don't.

Call me when you can backup what you said existed.

Until then

BOOM

You lose again.

Show us evidence of a single incest marriage in Iowa.

I mean, if its been happening since 2009...it should be child's play for you to verify one for us. But instead, we get nothing but sniveling excuses why you can't.

Why is that?

You show me evidence of any couple over 9 ft tall marrying. Your logic is that iowa makes that marriage illegal as well.

Too idiotic. Don't you first have to find someone claiming it's even possible for two 9+ feet people to marry before creating such a moronic strawman?

Meanwhile, you claim same-sex immediate-family marriage is allowed but can't find a single such couple who have taken the plunge?

If for no other reason than for tax puposes, many folks would have done that.

You can't find one.

So how do you resolve this dilemma? By avoiding it entirely and challenging others to find a couple who can't get married and offer that as an excuse for why you can't find any marriages of those you claim can marry. They just haven't.

I haven't looked for one dummy.

Iowa code 595 allows them. The proof required by you is the ISC or the USSC ruling making anything beyond the qualification that marriage be between a male and a female illegal.

While your at it, post a link to your "marriage license" law you posted earlier. Not a county, but the state. You do realize Polk county is not the controlling arbiter of state law, right?

Polk County wouldn't be able to deny marriage licenses to immediate family members if that violated the law. Families from all over the country would have flocked to Iowa, if their was such a loophole caused by Iowa's Supreme Court ruling, to marry each other. You may not have looked buy I have and I couldn't find one. That would have been a pretty big headline.

Good thing you're not a lawyer, you couldn't win a case.

 

[Seawytch]

Is Pop still going on about Legalizing Incest?

That's his bag, baby!

Incest is illegal. Within or outside of marriage.

Sex is no more a requirement of marriage than it is of any other partnership contract.

So only a complete pervert would read the law and imply that partners in any/all of these contracts would enter one for the purpose of illegal sexual activity.

Making you both, perverts.

But if it gets you hot thinking about sibling sex........

Maybe some counseling might be in order?

Classic projection. Hey Pops...there's another thread about gays and nobody has mentioned incest or polygamy yet. Better get over there quick!

The projection is yours my dear.

I noticed you made no attempt to dispute the post you answered.

So you admit your perversion.

That's a statement, not a question by the way.

Yes Pops, completely ignoring your ridiculousness must mean whatever it is you claim it means.

Now hurry along, there's still no mention of incest in this thread and we know that's what you do.

 

[Pop23]

Got that cite from the ISC or USSC yet?

Nope, you don't.

Call me when you can backup what you said existed.

Until then

BOOM

You lose again.

Show us evidence of a single incest marriage in Iowa.

I mean, if its been happening since 2009...it should be child's play for you to verify one for us. But instead, we get nothing but sniveling excuses why you can't.

Why is that?

You show me evidence of any couple over 9 ft tall marrying. Your logic is that iowa makes that marriage illegal as well.

Too idiotic. Don't you first have to find someone claiming it's even possible for two 9+ feet people to marry before creating such a moronic strawman?

Meanwhile, you claim same-sex immediate-family marriage is allowed but can't find a single such couple who have taken the plunge?

If for no other reason than for tax puposes, many folks would have done that.

You can't find one.

So how do you resolve this dilemma? By avoiding it entirely and challenging others to find a couple who can't get married and offer that as an excuse for why you can't find any marriages of those you claim can marry. They just haven't.

I haven't looked for one dummy.

Iowa code 595 allows them. The proof required by you is the ISC or the USSC ruling making anything beyond the qualification that marriage be between a male and a female illegal.

While your at it, post a link to your "marriage license" law you posted earlier. Not a county, but the state. You do realize Polk county is not the controlling arbiter of state law, right?

Polk County wouldn't be able to deny marriage licenses to immediate family members if that violated the law. Families from all over the country would have flocked to Iowa, if their was such a loophole caused by Iowa's Supreme Court ruling, to marry each other. You may not have looked buy I have and I couldn't find one. That would have been a pretty big headline.

Good thing you're not a lawyer, you couldn't win a case.

Big headline according to Faun:

Man caught in the process of not robbing a bank.

Kim Davis did the same thing in Kentucky that Polk County is doing in Iowa. Your Point?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Let me get this straight, how can an inanimate object like a stone inscribed with the ten commandments, or a bible sitting in a glass case in a court house be some how construed as government endorsement of a religion, yet a supreme court justice officiating a SSM not be construed as an endorsement of SSM ?

I don't believe a bible sitting in a glass case or stone inscribed with the ten commandments is a government endorsement of religion. Be that as it may, you cannot demonstrate a bias existed considering both marriages occurred in locations that would have been unaffected by the ruling. If they officiated a SSMs in Texas or Ohio, I would completely would agree with that constitutes a bias; however, they didn't.

Right, except the courts are ordering these things be removed from the public square citing the mythical constitutional separation of church and state.

Or the very real establishment clause. You know, whichever.

Well I guess the supreme court is guilty of establishing a religion also, the ten commandments are inscribed on the stone walls of the court.

So I'm guessing you're not claiming the establishment clause is mythical?

There has never been an establishment of religion in this country, there has been so much misuse surrounding the words establishment and seperation of church and state.

 

[Faun]

Show us evidence of a single incest marriage in Iowa.

I mean, if its been happening since 2009...it should be child's play for you to verify one for us. But instead, we get nothing but sniveling excuses why you can't.

Why is that?

You show me evidence of any couple over 9 ft tall marrying. Your logic is that iowa makes that marriage illegal as well.

Too idiotic. Don't you first have to find someone claiming it's even possible for two 9+ feet people to marry before creating such a moronic strawman?

Meanwhile, you claim same-sex immediate-family marriage is allowed but can't find a single such couple who have taken the plunge?

If for no other reason than for tax puposes, many folks would have done that.

You can't find one.

So how do you resolve this dilemma? By avoiding it entirely and challenging others to find a couple who can't get married and offer that as an excuse for why you can't find any marriages of those you claim can marry. They just haven't.

I haven't looked for one dummy.

Iowa code 595 allows them. The proof required by you is the ISC or the USSC ruling making anything beyond the qualification that marriage be between a male and a female illegal.

While your at it, post a link to your "marriage license" law you posted earlier. Not a county, but the state. You do realize Polk county is not the controlling arbiter of state law, right?

Polk County wouldn't be able to deny marriage licenses to immediate family members if that violated the law. Families from all over the country would have flocked to Iowa, if their was such a loophole caused by Iowa's Supreme Court ruling, to marry each other. You may not have looked buy I have and I couldn't find one. That would have been a pretty big headline.

Good thing you're not a lawyer, you couldn't win a case.

Big headline according to Faun:

Man caught in the process of not robbing a bank.

You're the one claiming a loophole was created in the law in Iowa. One that could save families from having to pay inheritance tax, yet in six years, not a single family did.

Pretty much shows the law isn't what you think it is.

Kim Davis did the same thing in Kentucky that Polk County is doing in Iowa. Your Point?

You just made my point better than I did, thanks!

Kim Davis went to jail for her actions.

Whom in Polk County went to jail for denying marriage licenses to same-sex family members if such marriages were legal, as you insist they are?

 

[Pop23]

You show me evidence of any couple over 9 ft tall marrying. Your logic is that iowa makes that marriage illegal as well.

Too idiotic. Don't you first have to find someone claiming it's even possible for two 9+ feet people to marry before creating such a moronic strawman?

Meanwhile, you claim same-sex immediate-family marriage is allowed but can't find a single such couple who have taken the plunge?

If for no other reason than for tax puposes, many folks would have done that.

You can't find one.

So how do you resolve this dilemma? By avoiding it entirely and challenging others to find a couple who can't get married and offer that as an excuse for why you can't find any marriages of those you claim can marry. They just haven't.

I haven't looked for one dummy.

Iowa code 595 allows them. The proof required by you is the ISC or the USSC ruling making anything beyond the qualification that marriage be between a male and a female illegal.

While your at it, post a link to your "marriage license" law you posted earlier. Not a county, but the state. You do realize Polk county is not the controlling arbiter of state law, right?

Polk County wouldn't be able to deny marriage licenses to immediate family members if that violated the law. Families from all over the country would have flocked to Iowa, if their was such a loophole caused by Iowa's Supreme Court ruling, to marry each other. You may not have looked buy I have and I couldn't find one. That would have been a pretty big headline.

Good thing you're not a lawyer, you couldn't win a case.

Big headline according to Faun:

Man caught in the process of not robbing a bank.

You're the one claiming a loophole was created in the law in Iowa. One that could save families from having to pay inheritance tax, yet in six years, not a single family did.

Pretty much shows the law isn't what you think it is.

Kim Davis did the same thing in Kentucky that Polk County is doing in Iowa. Your Point?

You just made my point better than I did, thanks!

Kim Davis went to jail for her actions.

Whom in Polk County went to jail for denying marriage licenses to same-sex family members if such marriages were legal, as you insist they are?

Your post proves nothing (little dancing dude or not)

I supplied the law making same sex family marriage legal. You run like rabbit demanding more than that. Yet you can't prove the law has changed.

As I've pointed out before, all you have to do is find the supporting judicial ruling or legislative change to support your absurd claim.

We've all seen you can't.

You lose again.

 

[Faun]

Too idiotic. Don't you first have to find someone claiming it's even possible for two 9+ feet people to marry before creating such a moronic strawman?

Meanwhile, you claim same-sex immediate-family marriage is allowed but can't find a single such couple who have taken the plunge?

If for no other reason than for tax puposes, many folks would have done that.

You can't find one.

So how do you resolve this dilemma? By avoiding it entirely and challenging others to find a couple who can't get married and offer that as an excuse for why you can't find any marriages of those you claim can marry. They just haven't.

I haven't looked for one dummy.

Iowa code 595 allows them. The proof required by you is the ISC or the USSC ruling making anything beyond the qualification that marriage be between a male and a female illegal.

While your at it, post a link to your "marriage license" law you posted earlier. Not a county, but the state. You do realize Polk county is not the controlling arbiter of state law, right?

Polk County wouldn't be able to deny marriage licenses to immediate family members if that violated the law. Families from all over the country would have flocked to Iowa, if their was such a loophole caused by Iowa's Supreme Court ruling, to marry each other. You may not have looked buy I have and I couldn't find one. That would have been a pretty big headline.

Good thing you're not a lawyer, you couldn't win a case.

Big headline according to Faun:

Man caught in the process of not robbing a bank.

You're the one claiming a loophole was created in the law in Iowa. One that could save families from having to pay inheritance tax, yet in six years, not a single family did.

Pretty much shows the law isn't what you think it is.

Kim Davis did the same thing in Kentucky that Polk County is doing in Iowa. Your Point?

You just made my point better than I did, thanks!

Kim Davis went to jail for her actions.

Whom in Polk County went to jail for denying marriage licenses to same-sex family members if such marriages were legal, as you insist they are?

Your post proves nothing (little dancing dude or not)

I supplied the law making same sex family marriage legal. You run like rabbit demanding more than that. Yet you can't prove the law has changed.

As I've pointed out before, all you have to do is find the supporting judicial ruling or legislative change to support your absurd claim.

We've all seen you can't.

You lose again.

No, you supplied your interpretation of a law. An interpretation you've been unable to prove is in effect as you claim.

And that dude is dancing on the grave of your argument after you yourself drove yet another nail into it coffin by comparing Kim Davis, who was jailed for not following the law; with Polk County, whose clerk has not been jailed for what you claim, is in violation of the law.

Obviously, the law is not what you think it is.