It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Montrovant]

Alabama recognizes physicians by their license to practice medicine. High school graduates without such a license are not recognized by Alabama as physicians.

See how this works?

Nope, don't see it. Here is what you said:
How on Earth could the state not know you're married when a requirement for getting married in Alabama includes submitting a contract of marriage for the judge of probate to record?

How on Earth could the state not know you're a brain surgeon when a requirement for being a brain surgeon includes graduating high school? The same answer applies to both... the fact that you have taken a step toward something doesn't mean you've achieved it. The State makes no assumptions for two reasons... 1) They are not a contemplative entity. 2) They're not abject morons.

If the couple is eligible to be married and the marriage contract is in accordance with the law, the state approves of the marriage and accepts the marriage contract.

The State does not have to approve a fundamental constitutional right. The State simply ensures the parameters required for such a contract is met. With a license, they are explicitly giving approval. One is an administrative function, the other is state sanctioning. If you're too stupid to understand this, I am sorry.

Are there any other things which require graduating high school? Are there any other things which require submitting a contract of marriage? See the difference?

 

[bodecea]

Virtually very right has some restrictions and every state has restrictions on marriage. Every state provides marriage licenses, which is tantamount to permission, that doesn't make America communist or Muslim.

But Alabama is NOT going to issue licenses.

Yeah...I love it.....don't give licenses to anyone. Totally equal.

 

[Faun]

That is tantamount to permission which you idiotically described a communism.

You're right, it's not communism it's serfdom.

Licensing IS tantamount to permission or sanction, that is why Alabama is passing the law.

If it is a fundamental constitutional right, Alabama does not need to sanction it, license it, authorize it or sanctify it. They can provide functional administration of contracts and documents and record vital statistics without endorsing or condoning marital relationships.

Licensing marriages is serfdom?

No, requiring authority to give you permission to exercise your rights is. Pay attention.

No, it's not. It's like you have your own special definition for words.

 

[Faun]

Alabama recognizes physicians by their license to practice medicine. High school graduates without such a license are not recognized by Alabama as physicians.

See how this works?

Nope, don't see it. Here is what you said:
How on Earth could the state not know you're married when a requirement for getting married in Alabama includes submitting a contract of marriage for the judge of probate to record?

How on Earth could the state not know you're a brain surgeon when a requirement for being a brain surgeon includes graduating high school? The same answer applies to both... the fact that you have taken a step toward something doesn't mean you've achieved it. The State makes no assumptions for two reasons... 1) They are not a contemplative entity. 2) They're not abject morons.

If the couple is eligible to be married and the marriage contract is in accordance with the law, the state approves of the marriage and accepts the marriage contract.

The State does not have to approve a fundamental constitutional right. The State simply ensures the parameters required for such a contract is met. With a license, they are explicitly giving approval. One is an administrative function, the other is state sanctioning. If you're too stupid to understand this, I am sorry.

Holyfuckingshit!

You are sooo fucking deranged, it's scary.

The state recognizes you're a physician because they have a record of your medical licence on file. The state recognizes your married because they have your marriage contract on file.

This isn't really hard to follow.

As far as rights, of course the state can, and does have the authority to approve certain rights by verifying people actually qualify for such rights. If an individual feels they are wrongfully being denied their rights, they can seek redress from our judicial system. States' authority to verify a couple's right to marry has never been an issue. Making sure adults don't marry children, don't marry animals, until recently, don't marry if they're the same gender, etc... has always been in a constitutional barrier of rights.

 

[Boss]

state..does have the authority to approve certain rights

Then they absolutely are not fundamental rights.

 

[Skylar]

That is tantamount to permission which you idiotically described a communism.

You're right, it's not communism it's serfdom.

Licensing IS tantamount to permission or sanction, that is why Alabama is passing the law.

If it is a fundamental constitutional right, Alabama does not need to sanction it, license it, authorize it or sanctify it. They can provide functional administration of contracts and documents and record vital statistics without endorsing or condoning marital relationships.

Licensing marriages is serfdom?

No, requiring authority to give you permission to exercise your rights is. Pay attention.

No, it's not. It's like you have your own special definition for words.

And that's it exactly. Boss's definitions are completely self invented. He hangs his argument on 'sanctioning' of marriage by the State, which he's defined as 'authorizing'.

Until it was shown that SB377 required that people being married be legally authorized by the State of Alabama to do so.

Then suddenly Boss' definition of sanctioning morphed, completely omitting the word 'authorize'.

Even Boss doesn't believe in Boss' bullshit.

 

[Skylar]

You think that requirement, mandated by law, means that Alabama is "sanctioning" a marriage. I think Alabama would be totally oblivious as to whether a marriage actually occurred.

Of course you think that way....as you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. You've never even read SB377, the very bill you claim to be describing. A fact that an even casual reading of SB377 demonstrates elegantly:

The contract shall be filed in the office of the judge of probate in each county and shall constitute a legal
record of the marriage. A copy of the contract shall be transmitted to the Office of Vital Statistics of the
Department of Public Health and made a part of its record.

Alabama SB377 | 2015 | Regular Session

The State of Alabama would obviously be aware of every marriage conducted by contract as the contracts constitution a legal record of marriage. A record which is transmitted to and recorded by the Office of Vital Statistics.

But per you, Alabama would be oblivious to the fact that a marriage had occured? That has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Remember, you're utterly clueless. You've never read SB377. You have no idea what the bill says says. You don't know the first thing about contract law. And you're actively ignoring any citation of the actual bill.

These handicaps tend to reduce the usefulness of your comments on the topic.

 

[Faun]

state..does have the authority to approve certain rights

Then they absolutely are not fundamental rights.

Rights have restrictions.

According to your deranged idiocy, a 30 year old has the right to marry a 4 year old or marriage isn't a fundamental right.

 

[Boss]

state..does have the authority to approve certain rights

Then they absolutely are not fundamental rights.

Rights have restrictions.

According to your deranged idiocy, a 30 year old has the right to marry a 4 year old or marriage isn't a fundamental right.

If they can overcome the barrier of the 4 year old being of age to give legal consent, they do.

If fundamental rights can have restrictions then we can restrict marriage from same sex couples. Obviously, SCOTUS disagrees with you.

One thing you keep ignoring is the word "fundamental" ...is that because you don't know what it means or how fundamental rights are different from regular rights? Is it just a fancy word you say when you want to sound smart and sophisticated?

The only time fundamental rights can have restriction is when we put it there because the restriction protects a more important and fundamental right. A lot of times, even those restrictions are called into question and challenged in court.

 

[Montrovant]

state..does have the authority to approve certain rights

Then they absolutely are not fundamental rights.

Rights have restrictions.

According to your deranged idiocy, a 30 year old has the right to marry a 4 year old or marriage isn't a fundamental right.

If they can overcome the barrier of the 4 year old being of age to give legal consent, they do.

If fundamental rights can have restrictions then we can restrict marriage from same sex couples. Obviously, SCOTUS disagrees with you.

One thing you keep ignoring is the word "fundamental" ...is that because you don't know what it means or how fundamental rights are different from regular rights? Is it just a fancy word you say when you want to sound smart and sophisticated?

The only time fundamental rights can have restriction is when we put it there because the restriction protects a more important and fundamental right. A lot of times, even those restrictions are called into question and challenged in court.

If age of consent laws allowed for a 4 year old to become part of a romantic/sexual relationship with a 30 year old, and if contract law changed so that a 4 year old were legally able to enter into a contract on their own, then sure, you could argue that a 4 year old and a 30 year old have a fundamental right to marry.

If the state had a compelling interest in preventing same sex marriages, yes, they could be restricted. The SCOTUS decided they did not.

I don't know that your statement about when fundamental rights can have restrictions is legally valid. Fundamental rights must pass strict scrutiny to be restricted, but that is about compelling state interest and narrow scope, I have not read that it requires the involvement of a more important and fundamental right. Not saying you are wrong, simply that I have not come across that particular description for how fundamental rights must be dealt with.

 

[Boss]

state..does have the authority to approve certain rights

Then they absolutely are not fundamental rights.

Rights have restrictions.

According to your deranged idiocy, a 30 year old has the right to marry a 4 year old or marriage isn't a fundamental right.

If they can overcome the barrier of the 4 year old being of age to give legal consent, they do.

If fundamental rights can have restrictions then we can restrict marriage from same sex couples. Obviously, SCOTUS disagrees with you.

One thing you keep ignoring is the word "fundamental" ...is that because you don't know what it means or how fundamental rights are different from regular rights? Is it just a fancy word you say when you want to sound smart and sophisticated?

The only time fundamental rights can have restriction is when we put it there because the restriction protects a more important and fundamental right. A lot of times, even those restrictions are called into question and challenged in court.

If age of consent laws allowed for a 4 year old to become part of a romantic/sexual relationship with a 30 year old, and if contract law changed so that a 4 year old were legally able to enter into a contract on their own, then sure, you could argue that a 4 year old and a 30 year old have a fundamental right to marry.

If the state had a compelling interest in preventing same sex marriages, yes, they could be restricted. The SCOTUS decided they did not.

I don't know that your statement about when fundamental rights can have restrictions is legally valid. Fundamental rights must pass strict scrutiny to be restricted, but that is about compelling state interest and narrow scope, I have not read that it requires the involvement of a more important and fundamental right. Not saying you are wrong, simply that I have not come across that particular description for how fundamental rights must be dealt with.

But that is essentially what "strict scrutiny" is about as well as "compelling state interest." It generally involves a more important right of the collective society.You have a right to drive and a right to drink, but you can't drink and drive because it interferes with my right to life if you run over me. I can't think of an example where we restrict any fundamental right that it's not for the purpose of protecting some other more important right.

The 4 year old and 30 year old is a moot point, we are never going to adopt such a measure in this country... or at least, I hope we have sense enough not to. Faun brings it up because he wants to turn me into an advocate for pedophilia. When you can't debate your opponents, turn them into pedophiles.

I have argued all along and will continue to argue, it is FAR easier to change the parameters of consent than the definition of marriage. It hasn't been so long ago we had 12-year-olds marrying in this country. And they weren't marrying other 12-year olds.

What you don't seem to grasp is, the definition of marriage has been changed by the court. Now, those whom you may not agree with their sexual lifestyles, are going to come out of the woodwork and demand legitimization through their constitutional right to marry. And if we are consistent to the court's ruling in Obergefell under "equal protection" we have to allow it unless there is some compelling state interest to prevent it. Because we think the behavior is reprehensible is not a compelling state interest.

 

[Faun]

state..does have the authority to approve certain rights

Then they absolutely are not fundamental rights.

Rights have restrictions.

According to your deranged idiocy, a 30 year old has the right to marry a 4 year old or marriage isn't a fundamental right.

If they can overcome the barrier of the 4 year old being of age to give legal consent, they do.

If fundamental rights can have restrictions then we can restrict marriage from same sex couples. Obviously, SCOTUS disagrees with you.

One thing you keep ignoring is the word "fundamental" ...is that because you don't know what it means or how fundamental rights are different from regular rights? Is it just a fancy word you say when you want to sound smart and sophisticated?

The only time fundamental rights can have restriction is when we put it there because the restriction protects a more important and fundamental right. A lot of times, even those restrictions are called into question and challenged in court.

Fundamental rights, like any right, can have restrictions.

Now ya know.

 

[Faun]

state..does have the authority to approve certain rights

Then they absolutely are not fundamental rights.

Rights have restrictions.

According to your deranged idiocy, a 30 year old has the right to marry a 4 year old or marriage isn't a fundamental right.

If they can overcome the barrier of the 4 year old being of age to give legal consent, they do.

If fundamental rights can have restrictions then we can restrict marriage from same sex couples. Obviously, SCOTUS disagrees with you.

One thing you keep ignoring is the word "fundamental" ...is that because you don't know what it means or how fundamental rights are different from regular rights? Is it just a fancy word you say when you want to sound smart and sophisticated?

The only time fundamental rights can have restriction is when we put it there because the restriction protects a more important and fundamental right. A lot of times, even those restrictions are called into question and challenged in court.

If age of consent laws allowed for a 4 year old to become part of a romantic/sexual relationship with a 30 year old, and if contract law changed so that a 4 year old were legally able to enter into a contract on their own, then sure, you could argue that a 4 year old and a 30 year old have a fundamental right to marry.

If the state had a compelling interest in preventing same sex marriages, yes, they could be restricted. The SCOTUS decided they did not.

I don't know that your statement about when fundamental rights can have restrictions is legally valid. Fundamental rights must pass strict scrutiny to be restricted, but that is about compelling state interest and narrow scope, I have not read that it requires the involvement of a more important and fundamental right. Not saying you are wrong, simply that I have not come across that particular description for how fundamental rights must be dealt with.

But that is essentially what "strict scrutiny" is about as well as "compelling state interest." It generally involves a more important right of the collective society.You have a right to drive and a right to drink, but you can't drink and drive because it interferes with my right to life if you run over me. I can't think of an example where we restrict any fundamental right that it's not for the purpose of protecting some other more important right.

The 4 year old and 30 year old is a moot point, we are never going to adopt such a measure in this country... or at least, I hope we have sense enough not to. Faun brings it up because he wants to turn me into an advocate for pedophilia. When you can't debate your opponents, turn them into pedophiles.

I have argued all along and will continue to argue, it is FAR easier to change the parameters of consent than the definition of marriage. It hasn't been so long ago we had 12-year-olds marrying in this country. And they weren't marrying other 12-year olds.

What you don't seem to grasp is, the definition of marriage has been changed by the court. Now, those whom you may not agree with their sexual lifestyles, are going to come out of the woodwork and demand legitimization through their constitutional right to marry. And if we are consistent to the court's ruling in Obergefell under "equal protection" we have to allow it unless there is some compelling state interest to prevent it. Because we think the behavior is reprehensible is not a compelling state interest.

You are fucking deranged. Drinking and driving is not a right.

 

[Pop23]

state..does have the authority to approve certain rights

Then they absolutely are not fundamental rights.

Rights have restrictions.

According to your deranged idiocy, a 30 year old has the right to marry a 4 year old or marriage isn't a fundamental right.

If they can overcome the barrier of the 4 year old being of age to give legal consent, they do.

If fundamental rights can have restrictions then we can restrict marriage from same sex couples. Obviously, SCOTUS disagrees with you.

One thing you keep ignoring is the word "fundamental" ...is that because you don't know what it means or how fundamental rights are different from regular rights? Is it just a fancy word you say when you want to sound smart and sophisticated?

The only time fundamental rights can have restriction is when we put it there because the restriction protects a more important and fundamental right. A lot of times, even those restrictions are called into question and challenged in court.

If age of consent laws allowed for a 4 year old to become part of a romantic/sexual relationship with a 30 year old, and if contract law changed so that a 4 year old were legally able to enter into a contract on their own, then sure, you could argue that a 4 year old and a 30 year old have a fundamental right to marry.

If the state had a compelling interest in preventing same sex marriages, yes, they could be restricted. The SCOTUS decided they did not.

I don't know that your statement about when fundamental rights can have restrictions is legally valid. Fundamental rights must pass strict scrutiny to be restricted, but that is about compelling state interest and narrow scope, I have not read that it requires the involvement of a more important and fundamental right. Not saying you are wrong, simply that I have not come across that particular description for how fundamental rights must be dealt with.

But that is essentially what "strict scrutiny" is about as well as "compelling state interest." It generally involves a more important right of the collective society.You have a right to drive and a right to drink, but you can't drink and drive because it interferes with my right to life if you run over me. I can't think of an example where we restrict any fundamental right that it's not for the purpose of protecting some other more important right.

The 4 year old and 30 year old is a moot point, we are never going to adopt such a measure in this country... or at least, I hope we have sense enough not to. Faun brings it up because he wants to turn me into an advocate for pedophilia. When you can't debate your opponents, turn them into pedophiles.

I have argued all along and will continue to argue, it is FAR easier to change the parameters of consent than the definition of marriage. It hasn't been so long ago we had 12-year-olds marrying in this country. And they weren't marrying other 12-year olds.

What you don't seem to grasp is, the definition of marriage has been changed by the court. Now, those whom you may not agree with their sexual lifestyles, are going to come out of the woodwork and demand legitimization through their constitutional right to marry. And if we are consistent to the court's ruling in Obergefell under "equal protection" we have to allow it unless there is some compelling state interest to prevent it. Because we think the behavior is reprehensible is not a compelling state interest.

Your last paragraph appears correct, the courts decision made same sex sibling marriage legal in Iowa.

A few years ago that would have been considered reprehensible, now it's been legal for six years. How do you now take away that right without a State presenting a Compelling interest to deny argument that meets the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment?

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/Incest Statutes 2013.pdf

 

[Faun]

Then they absolutely are not fundamental rights.

Rights have restrictions.

According to your deranged idiocy, a 30 year old has the right to marry a 4 year old or marriage isn't a fundamental right.

If they can overcome the barrier of the 4 year old being of age to give legal consent, they do.

If fundamental rights can have restrictions then we can restrict marriage from same sex couples. Obviously, SCOTUS disagrees with you.

One thing you keep ignoring is the word "fundamental" ...is that because you don't know what it means or how fundamental rights are different from regular rights? Is it just a fancy word you say when you want to sound smart and sophisticated?

The only time fundamental rights can have restriction is when we put it there because the restriction protects a more important and fundamental right. A lot of times, even those restrictions are called into question and challenged in court.

If age of consent laws allowed for a 4 year old to become part of a romantic/sexual relationship with a 30 year old, and if contract law changed so that a 4 year old were legally able to enter into a contract on their own, then sure, you could argue that a 4 year old and a 30 year old have a fundamental right to marry.

If the state had a compelling interest in preventing same sex marriages, yes, they could be restricted. The SCOTUS decided they did not.

I don't know that your statement about when fundamental rights can have restrictions is legally valid. Fundamental rights must pass strict scrutiny to be restricted, but that is about compelling state interest and narrow scope, I have not read that it requires the involvement of a more important and fundamental right. Not saying you are wrong, simply that I have not come across that particular description for how fundamental rights must be dealt with.

But that is essentially what "strict scrutiny" is about as well as "compelling state interest." It generally involves a more important right of the collective society.You have a right to drive and a right to drink, but you can't drink and drive because it interferes with my right to life if you run over me. I can't think of an example where we restrict any fundamental right that it's not for the purpose of protecting some other more important right.

The 4 year old and 30 year old is a moot point, we are never going to adopt such a measure in this country... or at least, I hope we have sense enough not to. Faun brings it up because he wants to turn me into an advocate for pedophilia. When you can't debate your opponents, turn them into pedophiles.

I have argued all along and will continue to argue, it is FAR easier to change the parameters of consent than the definition of marriage. It hasn't been so long ago we had 12-year-olds marrying in this country. And they weren't marrying other 12-year olds.

What you don't seem to grasp is, the definition of marriage has been changed by the court. Now, those whom you may not agree with their sexual lifestyles, are going to come out of the woodwork and demand legitimization through their constitutional right to marry. And if we are consistent to the court's ruling in Obergefell under "equal protection" we have to allow it unless there is some compelling state interest to prevent it. Because we think the behavior is reprehensible is not a compelling state interest.

Your last paragraph appears correct, the courts decision made same sex sibling marriage legal in Iowa.

A few years ago that would have been considered reprehensible, now it's been legal for six years. How do you now take away that right without a State presenting a Compelling interest to deny argument that meets the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment?

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/Incest Statutes 2013.pdf

Who knows why a pervert like you can't stop talking about incest, but regardless of how many times you repeat that drivel, Iowa is still not allowing any immediate family members to marry, regardless of gender.

State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions​

IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!

Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) not closely related by blood or first cousins; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​

 

[Pop23]

Rights have restrictions.

According to your deranged idiocy, a 30 year old has the right to marry a 4 year old or marriage isn't a fundamental right.

If they can overcome the barrier of the 4 year old being of age to give legal consent, they do.

If fundamental rights can have restrictions then we can restrict marriage from same sex couples. Obviously, SCOTUS disagrees with you.

One thing you keep ignoring is the word "fundamental" ...is that because you don't know what it means or how fundamental rights are different from regular rights? Is it just a fancy word you say when you want to sound smart and sophisticated?

The only time fundamental rights can have restriction is when we put it there because the restriction protects a more important and fundamental right. A lot of times, even those restrictions are called into question and challenged in court.

If age of consent laws allowed for a 4 year old to become part of a romantic/sexual relationship with a 30 year old, and if contract law changed so that a 4 year old were legally able to enter into a contract on their own, then sure, you could argue that a 4 year old and a 30 year old have a fundamental right to marry.

If the state had a compelling interest in preventing same sex marriages, yes, they could be restricted. The SCOTUS decided they did not.

I don't know that your statement about when fundamental rights can have restrictions is legally valid. Fundamental rights must pass strict scrutiny to be restricted, but that is about compelling state interest and narrow scope, I have not read that it requires the involvement of a more important and fundamental right. Not saying you are wrong, simply that I have not come across that particular description for how fundamental rights must be dealt with.

But that is essentially what "strict scrutiny" is about as well as "compelling state interest." It generally involves a more important right of the collective society.You have a right to drive and a right to drink, but you can't drink and drive because it interferes with my right to life if you run over me. I can't think of an example where we restrict any fundamental right that it's not for the purpose of protecting some other more important right.

The 4 year old and 30 year old is a moot point, we are never going to adopt such a measure in this country... or at least, I hope we have sense enough not to. Faun brings it up because he wants to turn me into an advocate for pedophilia. When you can't debate your opponents, turn them into pedophiles.

I have argued all along and will continue to argue, it is FAR easier to change the parameters of consent than the definition of marriage. It hasn't been so long ago we had 12-year-olds marrying in this country. And they weren't marrying other 12-year olds.

What you don't seem to grasp is, the definition of marriage has been changed by the court. Now, those whom you may not agree with their sexual lifestyles, are going to come out of the woodwork and demand legitimization through their constitutional right to marry. And if we are consistent to the court's ruling in Obergefell under "equal protection" we have to allow it unless there is some compelling state interest to prevent it. Because we think the behavior is reprehensible is not a compelling state interest.

Your last paragraph appears correct, the courts decision made same sex sibling marriage legal in Iowa.

A few years ago that would have been considered reprehensible, now it's been legal for six years. How do you now take away that right without a State presenting a Compelling interest to deny argument that meets the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment?

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/Incest Statutes 2013.pdf

Who knows why a pervert like you can't stop talking about incest, but regardless of how many times you repeat that drivel, Iowa is still not allowing any immediate family members to marry, regardless of gender.

State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions​

IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!

Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) not closely related by blood or first cousins; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​

Of course it is IOWA that gets to define what is too closely related. And thats defined in Iowa statute 595 as backed up by the link in my previous post and this:

Iowa Annulment and Prohibited Marriage Laws - FindLaw

 

[Seawytch]

The discussion about the Alabama bill is moot. It hasn't passed and it is unlikely to.

 

[Seawytch]

So Pops, when are you filing in Iowa? Come on bloviator, put your money where your mind is...incest.

 

[Faun]

If they can overcome the barrier of the 4 year old being of age to give legal consent, they do.

If fundamental rights can have restrictions then we can restrict marriage from same sex couples. Obviously, SCOTUS disagrees with you.

One thing you keep ignoring is the word "fundamental" ...is that because you don't know what it means or how fundamental rights are different from regular rights? Is it just a fancy word you say when you want to sound smart and sophisticated?

The only time fundamental rights can have restriction is when we put it there because the restriction protects a more important and fundamental right. A lot of times, even those restrictions are called into question and challenged in court.

If age of consent laws allowed for a 4 year old to become part of a romantic/sexual relationship with a 30 year old, and if contract law changed so that a 4 year old were legally able to enter into a contract on their own, then sure, you could argue that a 4 year old and a 30 year old have a fundamental right to marry.

If the state had a compelling interest in preventing same sex marriages, yes, they could be restricted. The SCOTUS decided they did not.

I don't know that your statement about when fundamental rights can have restrictions is legally valid. Fundamental rights must pass strict scrutiny to be restricted, but that is about compelling state interest and narrow scope, I have not read that it requires the involvement of a more important and fundamental right. Not saying you are wrong, simply that I have not come across that particular description for how fundamental rights must be dealt with.

But that is essentially what "strict scrutiny" is about as well as "compelling state interest." It generally involves a more important right of the collective society.You have a right to drive and a right to drink, but you can't drink and drive because it interferes with my right to life if you run over me. I can't think of an example where we restrict any fundamental right that it's not for the purpose of protecting some other more important right.

The 4 year old and 30 year old is a moot point, we are never going to adopt such a measure in this country... or at least, I hope we have sense enough not to. Faun brings it up because he wants to turn me into an advocate for pedophilia. When you can't debate your opponents, turn them into pedophiles.

I have argued all along and will continue to argue, it is FAR easier to change the parameters of consent than the definition of marriage. It hasn't been so long ago we had 12-year-olds marrying in this country. And they weren't marrying other 12-year olds.

What you don't seem to grasp is, the definition of marriage has been changed by the court. Now, those whom you may not agree with their sexual lifestyles, are going to come out of the woodwork and demand legitimization through their constitutional right to marry. And if we are consistent to the court's ruling in Obergefell under "equal protection" we have to allow it unless there is some compelling state interest to prevent it. Because we think the behavior is reprehensible is not a compelling state interest.

Your last paragraph appears correct, the courts decision made same sex sibling marriage legal in Iowa.

A few years ago that would have been considered reprehensible, now it's been legal for six years. How do you now take away that right without a State presenting a Compelling interest to deny argument that meets the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment?

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/Incest Statutes 2013.pdf

Who knows why a pervert like you can't stop talking about incest, but regardless of how many times you repeat that drivel, Iowa is still not allowing any immediate family members to marry, regardless of gender.

State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions​

IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!

Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) not closely related by blood or first cousins; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​

Of course it is IOWA that gets to define what is too closely related. And that defined in Iowa statute 595 as backed up by the link in my previous post and this:

Iowa Annulment and Prohibited Marriage Laws - FindLaw

Who knows why this doesn't sink in to a pervert like you, but again .... no matter how many times you reference that section, Iowa still does not allow any close family members to marry, regardless of gender...

State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions​

IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!

Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) not closely related by blood or first cousins; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​

 

[Pop23]

If age of consent laws allowed for a 4 year old to become part of a romantic/sexual relationship with a 30 year old, and if contract law changed so that a 4 year old were legally able to enter into a contract on their own, then sure, you could argue that a 4 year old and a 30 year old have a fundamental right to marry.

If the state had a compelling interest in preventing same sex marriages, yes, they could be restricted. The SCOTUS decided they did not.

I don't know that your statement about when fundamental rights can have restrictions is legally valid. Fundamental rights must pass strict scrutiny to be restricted, but that is about compelling state interest and narrow scope, I have not read that it requires the involvement of a more important and fundamental right. Not saying you are wrong, simply that I have not come across that particular description for how fundamental rights must be dealt with.

But that is essentially what "strict scrutiny" is about as well as "compelling state interest." It generally involves a more important right of the collective society.You have a right to drive and a right to drink, but you can't drink and drive because it interferes with my right to life if you run over me. I can't think of an example where we restrict any fundamental right that it's not for the purpose of protecting some other more important right.

The 4 year old and 30 year old is a moot point, we are never going to adopt such a measure in this country... or at least, I hope we have sense enough not to. Faun brings it up because he wants to turn me into an advocate for pedophilia. When you can't debate your opponents, turn them into pedophiles.

I have argued all along and will continue to argue, it is FAR easier to change the parameters of consent than the definition of marriage. It hasn't been so long ago we had 12-year-olds marrying in this country. And they weren't marrying other 12-year olds.

What you don't seem to grasp is, the definition of marriage has been changed by the court. Now, those whom you may not agree with their sexual lifestyles, are going to come out of the woodwork and demand legitimization through their constitutional right to marry. And if we are consistent to the court's ruling in Obergefell under "equal protection" we have to allow it unless there is some compelling state interest to prevent it. Because we think the behavior is reprehensible is not a compelling state interest.

Your last paragraph appears correct, the courts decision made same sex sibling marriage legal in Iowa.

A few years ago that would have been considered reprehensible, now it's been legal for six years. How do you now take away that right without a State presenting a Compelling interest to deny argument that meets the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment?

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/Incest Statutes 2013.pdf

Who knows why a pervert like you can't stop talking about incest, but regardless of how many times you repeat that drivel, Iowa is still not allowing any immediate family members to marry, regardless of gender.

State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions​

IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!

Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) not closely related by blood or first cousins; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​

Of course it is IOWA that gets to define what is too closely related. And that defined in Iowa statute 595 as backed up by the link in my previous post and this:

Iowa Annulment and Prohibited Marriage Laws - FindLaw

Who knows why this doesn't sink in to a pervert like you, but again .... no matter how many times you reference that section, Iowa still does not allow any close family members to marry, regardless of gender...

State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions​

IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!

Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) not closely related by blood or first cousins; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract.​

Iowa Annulment and Prohibited Marriage Laws - FindLaw


Apparently iowa doesn't agree with you as a same sex sibling marriage is not considered void.