Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Have a little looksie in the mirror, bigots...
"Extend the rule to the width asked for by the defendant, and we might have in Tennessee the father living with his daughter, the son with the mother, the brother with the sister, in lawful wedlock, because they had formed such relations in a State or country where they were not prohibited. The Turk or Mohammedan, with his numerous wives, may establish his harem at the doors of the capitol, and we are without remedy. Yet none of these are more revolting, more to be avoided, or more unnatural than the case before us."
That's from?
Link
Obviously you think sex is a requirement of marriage?
Link to that law as well
That's from a slippery slope bigot that was as certain of interracial marriage leading to incest and polygamy as you are that gay marriage will.
Have another look in that mirror, Pops.
Incest is a crime.
I don't advocate for incest.
What is the compelling state interest to deny either multiple partner marriage or same sex siblings the fundimental right to marry, since marriage law does not require sex?
Seems you provided a quote that fits your argument to a tee
The guy that made the above statement didn't advocate for incest or polygamy either...but he was as sure that interracial marriage would lead to them as you are gay marriage will.
Take a loooooonnnnngggg look in that mirror.
Have a little looksie in the mirror, bigots...
"Extend the rule to the width asked for by the defendant, and we might have in Tennessee the father living with his daughter, the son with the mother, the brother with the sister, in lawful wedlock, because they had formed such relations in a State or country where they were not prohibited. The Turk or Mohammedan, with his numerous wives, may establish his harem at the doors of the capitol, and we are without remedy. Yet none of these are more revolting, more to be avoided, or more unnatural than the case before us."
That's from?
Link
Obviously you think sex is a requirement of marriage?
Link to that law as well
That's from a slippery slope bigot that was as certain of interracial marriage leading to incest and polygamy as you are that gay marriage will.
Have another look in that mirror, Pops.
Incest is a crime.
I don't advocate for incest.
What is the compelling state interest to deny either multiple partner marriage or same sex siblings the fundimental right to marry, since marriage law does not require sex?
Seems you provided a quote that fits your argument to a tee
The guy that made the above statement didn't advocate for incest or polygamy either...but he was as sure that interracial marriage would lead to them as you are gay marriage will.
Take a loooooonnnnngggg look in that mirror.
My argument is, and always will be, that I oppose both, but since the State is REQUIRED to prove A COMPELLING STATE INTETEST IN DENYING THE INDIVIDUAL SUCH RIGHT, I fail to see how denial of each could be legal. Remember SEX IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF A VALID MARRIAGE LICENSE.
I am presenting this as a freedom issue, arguing for justice for all regardless if you think what they want is icky or not
What you're portraying as a "pamphlet" is in fact, Iowa's instructions for filling out an application to marry in their state. You can try to minimize it all you want -- but Iowa still doesn't let any close-family members marry regardless of gender.I am. My rules dictate the news doesn't report on common occurrences. Such a family being denied a marriage license would be a common occurrence in that such couples are always denied a marriage license. Not newsworthy. On the flip side, had such couples been granted a marriage license, that's not common at all and would have been a huge headline.I can't because such a couple being denied a marriage license is not newsworthy. Your claim, however, is that either such couples got married but didn't make the news or not a single family filed for a license to avoid paying taxes. Either of which is completely ludicrous.You can recite that section all you want, I will still show you that Iowa doesn't issue marriage licenses to immediate family members regardless of gender.
Of course you can show a single same sex couple that are family members denied a marriage license since same sex marriage became legal in Iowa in 2009?
If you can't, by your own standards you lose again.
I've lost count of how many times I've shown your a dishonest Shmuck SuperPervFaun
You are delusional. That denial would be highly newsworthy. Some one filing and recieving one, unless they wanted the publicity (as did a large number of gays), would not.
You set up the rules of this game, now follow through, name the same sex family members that were denied a marriage license since same sex marriage was legalized in Iowa in 2009, or admit you lost the argument.
Those were your rules, now back em up FraudFaun
You can find none because there were none.
There were none because, as you were shown, Iowa doesn't issue marriage licenses to close-family members regardless of gender.
You're proving your delusions.
I've proven its legal. An attorney is advising people it's legal and a great way to avoid inheritance tax. And you?
A pamphlet showing marriage is denied those blood related, yet to understand "who is denied license by being closely related" I supplied the ACTUAL STATE LAW which does not exclude same sex family members from marriage.
Then you set a rule THAT YOU REQUIRE AS PROOF POSITIVE, AND YOU CAN'T SUPPLY THE PROOF YOU DEMAND!
God you are a lightweight
Your argument has already been blown to pieces since a brother couldn't marry his sister even before Obergefell. Sex is no more or less of a requirement of marriage before or since Obergefell.Have a little looksie in the mirror, bigots...
"Extend the rule to the width asked for by the defendant, and we might have in Tennessee the father living with his daughter, the son with the mother, the brother with the sister, in lawful wedlock, because they had formed such relations in a State or country where they were not prohibited. The Turk or Mohammedan, with his numerous wives, may establish his harem at the doors of the capitol, and we are without remedy. Yet none of these are more revolting, more to be avoided, or more unnatural than the case before us."
That's from?
Link
Obviously you think sex is a requirement of marriage?
Link to that law as well
That's from a slippery slope bigot that was as certain of interracial marriage leading to incest and polygamy as you are that gay marriage will.
Have another look in that mirror, Pops.
Incest is a crime.
I don't advocate for incest.
What is the compelling state interest to deny either multiple partner marriage or same sex siblings the fundimental right to marry, since marriage law does not require sex?
Seems you provided a quote that fits your argument to a tee
The guy that made the above statement didn't advocate for incest or polygamy either...but he was as sure that interracial marriage would lead to them as you are gay marriage will.
Take a loooooonnnnngggg look in that mirror.
My argument is, and always will be, that I oppose both, but since the State is REQUIRED to prove A COMPELLING STATE INTETEST IN DENYING THE INDIVIDUAL SUCH RIGHT, I fail to see how denial of each could be legal. Remember SEX IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF A VALID MARRIAGE LICENSE.
I am presenting this as a freedom issue, arguing for justice for all regardless if you think what they want is icky or not
What you're portraying as a "pamphlet" is in fact, Iowa's instructions for filling out an application to marry in their state. You can try to minimize it all you want -- but Iowa still doesn't let any close-family members marry regardless of gender.I am. My rules dictate the news doesn't report on common occurrences. Such a family being denied a marriage license would be a common occurrence in that such couples are always denied a marriage license. Not newsworthy. On the flip side, had such couples been granted a marriage license, that's not common at all and would have been a huge headline.I can't because such a couple being denied a marriage license is not newsworthy. Your claim, however, is that either such couples got married but didn't make the news or not a single family filed for a license to avoid paying taxes. Either of which is completely ludicrous.Of course you can show a single same sex couple that are family members denied a marriage license since same sex marriage became legal in Iowa in 2009?
If you can't, by your own standards you lose again.
I've lost count of how many times I've shown your a dishonest Shmuck SuperPervFaun
You are delusional. That denial would be highly newsworthy. Some one filing and recieving one, unless they wanted the publicity (as did a large number of gays), would not.
You set up the rules of this game, now follow through, name the same sex family members that were denied a marriage license since same sex marriage was legalized in Iowa in 2009, or admit you lost the argument.
Those were your rules, now back em up FraudFaun
You can find none because there were none.
There were none because, as you were shown, Iowa doesn't issue marriage licenses to close-family members regardless of gender.
You're proving your delusions.
I've proven its legal. An attorney is advising people it's legal and a great way to avoid inheritance tax. And you?
A pamphlet showing marriage is denied those blood related, yet to understand "who is denied license by being closely related" I supplied the ACTUAL STATE LAW which does not exclude same sex family members from marriage.
Then you set a rule THAT YOU REQUIRE AS PROOF POSITIVE, AND YOU CAN'T SUPPLY THE PROOF YOU DEMAND!
God you are a lightweight
And you can't find a single such marriage that was allowed in six years.
That's from?
Link
Obviously you think sex is a requirement of marriage?
Link to that law as well
That's from a slippery slope bigot that was as certain of interracial marriage leading to incest and polygamy as you are that gay marriage will.
Have another look in that mirror, Pops.
Incest is a crime.
I don't advocate for incest.
What is the compelling state interest to deny either multiple partner marriage or same sex siblings the fundimental right to marry, since marriage law does not require sex?
Seems you provided a quote that fits your argument to a tee
The guy that made the above statement didn't advocate for incest or polygamy either...but he was as sure that interracial marriage would lead to them as you are gay marriage will.
Take a loooooonnnnngggg look in that mirror.
My argument is, and always will be, that I oppose both, but since the State is REQUIRED to prove A COMPELLING STATE INTETEST IN DENYING THE INDIVIDUAL SUCH RIGHT, I fail to see how denial of each could be legal. Remember SEX IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF A VALID MARRIAGE LICENSE.
I am presenting this as a freedom issue, arguing for justice for all regardless if you think what they want is icky or not
Yes Pops...we know you're as certain as the guy I quoted...I just don't get why you think you're going to be any more right than he was, you're more strident?
Marriage remains non familial consenting adults...despite your screeching.
What you're portraying as a "pamphlet" is in fact, Iowa's instructions for filling out an application to marry in their state. You can try to minimize it all you want -- but Iowa still doesn't let any close-family members marry regardless of gender.I am. My rules dictate the news doesn't report on common occurrences. Such a family being denied a marriage license would be a common occurrence in that such couples are always denied a marriage license. Not newsworthy. On the flip side, had such couples been granted a marriage license, that's not common at all and would have been a huge headline.I can't because such a couple being denied a marriage license is not newsworthy. Your claim, however, is that either such couples got married but didn't make the news or not a single family filed for a license to avoid paying taxes. Either of which is completely ludicrous.Of course you can show a single same sex couple that are family members denied a marriage license since same sex marriage became legal in Iowa in 2009?
If you can't, by your own standards you lose again.
I've lost count of how many times I've shown your a dishonest Shmuck SuperPervFaun
You are delusional. That denial would be highly newsworthy. Some one filing and recieving one, unless they wanted the publicity (as did a large number of gays), would not.
You set up the rules of this game, now follow through, name the same sex family members that were denied a marriage license since same sex marriage was legalized in Iowa in 2009, or admit you lost the argument.
Those were your rules, now back em up FraudFaun
You can find none because there were none.
There were none because, as you were shown, Iowa doesn't issue marriage licenses to close-family members regardless of gender.
You're proving your delusions.
I've proven its legal. An attorney is advising people it's legal and a great way to avoid inheritance tax. And you?
A pamphlet showing marriage is denied those blood related, yet to understand "who is denied license by being closely related" I supplied the ACTUAL STATE LAW which does not exclude same sex family members from marriage.
Then you set a rule THAT YOU REQUIRE AS PROOF POSITIVE, AND YOU CAN'T SUPPLY THE PROOF YOU DEMAND!
God you are a lightweight
And you can't find a single such marriage that was allowed in six years.
Your argument has already been blown to pieces since a brother couldn't marry his sister even before Obergefell. Sex is no more or less of a requirement of marriage before or since Obergefell.That's from?
Link
Obviously you think sex is a requirement of marriage?
Link to that law as well
That's from a slippery slope bigot that was as certain of interracial marriage leading to incest and polygamy as you are that gay marriage will.
Have another look in that mirror, Pops.
Incest is a crime.
I don't advocate for incest.
What is the compelling state interest to deny either multiple partner marriage or same sex siblings the fundimental right to marry, since marriage law does not require sex?
Seems you provided a quote that fits your argument to a tee
The guy that made the above statement didn't advocate for incest or polygamy either...but he was as sure that interracial marriage would lead to them as you are gay marriage will.
Take a loooooonnnnngggg look in that mirror.
My argument is, and always will be, that I oppose both, but since the State is REQUIRED to prove A COMPELLING STATE INTETEST IN DENYING THE INDIVIDUAL SUCH RIGHT, I fail to see how denial of each could be legal. Remember SEX IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF A VALID MARRIAGE LICENSE.
I am presenting this as a freedom issue, arguing for justice for all regardless if you think what they want is icky or not
...included within, to qualify for marriage, the couple cannot be closely related by blood or first cousins.What you're portraying as a "pamphlet" is in fact, Iowa's instructions for filling out an application to marry in their state. You can try to minimize it all you want -- but Iowa still doesn't let any close-family members marry regardless of gender.I am. My rules dictate the news doesn't report on common occurrences. Such a family being denied a marriage license would be a common occurrence in that such couples are always denied a marriage license. Not newsworthy. On the flip side, had such couples been granted a marriage license, that's not common at all and would have been a huge headline.I can't because such a couple being denied a marriage license is not newsworthy. Your claim, however, is that either such couples got married but didn't make the news or not a single family filed for a license to avoid paying taxes. Either of which is completely ludicrous.
You are delusional. That denial would be highly newsworthy. Some one filing and recieving one, unless they wanted the publicity (as did a large number of gays), would not.
You set up the rules of this game, now follow through, name the same sex family members that were denied a marriage license since same sex marriage was legalized in Iowa in 2009, or admit you lost the argument.
Those were your rules, now back em up FraudFaun
You can find none because there were none.
There were none because, as you were shown, Iowa doesn't issue marriage licenses to close-family members regardless of gender.
You're proving your delusions.
I've proven its legal. An attorney is advising people it's legal and a great way to avoid inheritance tax. And you?
A pamphlet showing marriage is denied those blood related, yet to understand "who is denied license by being closely related" I supplied the ACTUAL STATE LAW which does not exclude same sex family members from marriage.
Then you set a rule THAT YOU REQUIRE AS PROOF POSITIVE, AND YOU CAN'T SUPPLY THE PROOF YOU DEMAND!
God you are a lightweight
And you can't find a single such marriage that was allowed in six years.
OK, your pamphlet is the instructions for filling out a form and not the actual law then....
<<<<shrugs at the obvious stupidity>>>>
Until you can show why two same siblings can marry after Obergefell when two opposite siblings couldn't before, your dead argument remains without a pulse.Your argument has already been blown to pieces since a brother couldn't marry his sister even before Obergefell. Sex is no more or less of a requirement of marriage before or since Obergefell.That's from a slippery slope bigot that was as certain of interracial marriage leading to incest and polygamy as you are that gay marriage will.
Have another look in that mirror, Pops.
Incest is a crime.
I don't advocate for incest.
What is the compelling state interest to deny either multiple partner marriage or same sex siblings the fundimental right to marry, since marriage law does not require sex?
Seems you provided a quote that fits your argument to a tee
The guy that made the above statement didn't advocate for incest or polygamy either...but he was as sure that interracial marriage would lead to them as you are gay marriage will.
Take a loooooonnnnngggg look in that mirror.
My argument is, and always will be, that I oppose both, but since the State is REQUIRED to prove A COMPELLING STATE INTETEST IN DENYING THE INDIVIDUAL SUCH RIGHT, I fail to see how denial of each could be legal. Remember SEX IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF A VALID MARRIAGE LICENSE.
I am presenting this as a freedom issue, arguing for justice for all regardless if you think what they want is icky or not
Good, now can I frame your argument Cuz you suck at framing mine.
What you're portraying as a "pamphlet" is in fact, Iowa's instructions for filling out an application to marry in their state. You can try to minimize it all you want -- but Iowa still doesn't let any close-family members marry regardless of gender.I am. My rules dictate the news doesn't report on common occurrences. Such a family being denied a marriage license would be a common occurrence in that such couples are always denied a marriage license. Not newsworthy. On the flip side, had such couples been granted a marriage license, that's not common at all and would have been a huge headline.I can't because such a couple being denied a marriage license is not newsworthy. Your claim, however, is that either such couples got married but didn't make the news or not a single family filed for a license to avoid paying taxes. Either of which is completely ludicrous.
You are delusional. That denial would be highly newsworthy. Some one filing and recieving one, unless they wanted the publicity (as did a large number of gays), would not.
You set up the rules of this game, now follow through, name the same sex family members that were denied a marriage license since same sex marriage was legalized in Iowa in 2009, or admit you lost the argument.
Those were your rules, now back em up FraudFaun
You can find none because there were none.
There were none because, as you were shown, Iowa doesn't issue marriage licenses to close-family members regardless of gender.
You're proving your delusions.
I've proven its legal. An attorney is advising people it's legal and a great way to avoid inheritance tax. And you?
A pamphlet showing marriage is denied those blood related, yet to understand "who is denied license by being closely related" I supplied the ACTUAL STATE LAW which does not exclude same sex family members from marriage.
Then you set a rule THAT YOU REQUIRE AS PROOF POSITIVE, AND YOU CAN'T SUPPLY THE PROOF YOU DEMAND!
God you are a lightweight
And you can't find a single such marriage that was allowed in six years.
Nope. He can't find one. Once again, Pop makes elaborate predictions based on his pseudo-legal gibberish. And once again, nothing he's predicted actually happened.
Until you can show why two same siblings can marry after Obergefell when two opposite siblings couldn't before, your dead argument remains without a pulse.Your argument has already been blown to pieces since a brother couldn't marry his sister even before Obergefell. Sex is no more or less of a requirement of marriage before or since Obergefell.Incest is a crime.
I don't advocate for incest.
What is the compelling state interest to deny either multiple partner marriage or same sex siblings the fundimental right to marry, since marriage law does not require sex?
Seems you provided a quote that fits your argument to a tee
The guy that made the above statement didn't advocate for incest or polygamy either...but he was as sure that interracial marriage would lead to them as you are gay marriage will.
Take a loooooonnnnngggg look in that mirror.
My argument is, and always will be, that I oppose both, but since the State is REQUIRED to prove A COMPELLING STATE INTETEST IN DENYING THE INDIVIDUAL SUCH RIGHT, I fail to see how denial of each could be legal. Remember SEX IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF A VALID MARRIAGE LICENSE.
I am presenting this as a freedom issue, arguing for justice for all regardless if you think what they want is icky or not
Good, now can I frame your argument Cuz you suck at framing mine.
Who says any were denied? Could be none even applied since Iowa doesn't issue marriage licenses to close-family family members regardless of gender.What you're portraying as a "pamphlet" is in fact, Iowa's instructions for filling out an application to marry in their state. You can try to minimize it all you want -- but Iowa still doesn't let any close-family members marry regardless of gender.I am. My rules dictate the news doesn't report on common occurrences. Such a family being denied a marriage license would be a common occurrence in that such couples are always denied a marriage license. Not newsworthy. On the flip side, had such couples been granted a marriage license, that's not common at all and would have been a huge headline.You are delusional. That denial would be highly newsworthy. Some one filing and recieving one, unless they wanted the publicity (as did a large number of gays), would not.
You set up the rules of this game, now follow through, name the same sex family members that were denied a marriage license since same sex marriage was legalized in Iowa in 2009, or admit you lost the argument.
Those were your rules, now back em up FraudFaun
You can find none because there were none.
There were none because, as you were shown, Iowa doesn't issue marriage licenses to close-family members regardless of gender.
You're proving your delusions.
I've proven its legal. An attorney is advising people it's legal and a great way to avoid inheritance tax. And you?
A pamphlet showing marriage is denied those blood related, yet to understand "who is denied license by being closely related" I supplied the ACTUAL STATE LAW which does not exclude same sex family members from marriage.
Then you set a rule THAT YOU REQUIRE AS PROOF POSITIVE, AND YOU CAN'T SUPPLY THE PROOF YOU DEMAND!
God you are a lightweight
And you can't find a single such marriage that was allowed in six years.
Nope. He can't find one. Once again, Pop makes elaborate predictions based on his pseudo-legal gibberish. And once again, nothing he's predicted actually happened.
Now now Skylar, Faun gets to make up the rules and this is how the idiots requires proof. If you can't find "x" then it is proof it's ______
With two of you working on this, then it will be a breeze to find a same sex family couple that was denied a marriage licence. If you can't then it's legal.
And then there's this attorney that agrees with me .....
CPA at Law: Pass Wealth Tax Free by Marrying a Descendant?
But, hey, you have an instruction pamphlet on your side!
That's the state of your argument.Until you can show why two same siblings can marry after Obergefell when two opposite siblings couldn't before, your dead argument remains without a pulse.Your argument has already been blown to pieces since a brother couldn't marry his sister even before Obergefell. Sex is no more or less of a requirement of marriage before or since Obergefell.The guy that made the above statement didn't advocate for incest or polygamy either...but he was as sure that interracial marriage would lead to them as you are gay marriage will.
Take a loooooonnnnngggg look in that mirror.
My argument is, and always will be, that I oppose both, but since the State is REQUIRED to prove A COMPELLING STATE INTETEST IN DENYING THE INDIVIDUAL SUCH RIGHT, I fail to see how denial of each could be legal. Remember SEX IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF A VALID MARRIAGE LICENSE.
I am presenting this as a freedom issue, arguing for justice for all regardless if you think what they want is icky or not
Good, now can I frame your argument Cuz you suck at framing mine.
Living without a pulse is your gig, not mine
Who says any were denied? Could be none even applied since Iowa doesn't issue marriage licenses to close-family family members regardless of gender.What you're portraying as a "pamphlet" is in fact, Iowa's instructions for filling out an application to marry in their state. You can try to minimize it all you want -- but Iowa still doesn't let any close-family members marry regardless of gender.I am. My rules dictate the news doesn't report on common occurrences. Such a family being denied a marriage license would be a common occurrence in that such couples are always denied a marriage license. Not newsworthy. On the flip side, had such couples been granted a marriage license, that's not common at all and would have been a huge headline.
You can find none because there were none.
There were none because, as you were shown, Iowa doesn't issue marriage licenses to close-family members regardless of gender.
You're proving your delusions.
I've proven its legal. An attorney is advising people it's legal and a great way to avoid inheritance tax. And you?
A pamphlet showing marriage is denied those blood related, yet to understand "who is denied license by being closely related" I supplied the ACTUAL STATE LAW which does not exclude same sex family members from marriage.
Then you set a rule THAT YOU REQUIRE AS PROOF POSITIVE, AND YOU CAN'T SUPPLY THE PROOF YOU DEMAND!
God you are a lightweight
And you can't find a single such marriage that was allowed in six years.
Nope. He can't find one. Once again, Pop makes elaborate predictions based on his pseudo-legal gibberish. And once again, nothing he's predicted actually happened.
Now now Skylar, Faun gets to make up the rules and this is how the idiots requires proof. If you can't find "x" then it is proof it's ______
With two of you working on this, then it will be a breeze to find a same sex family couple that was denied a marriage licence. If you can't then it's legal.
And then there's this attorney that agrees with me .....
CPA at Law: Pass Wealth Tax Free by Marrying a Descendant?
But, hey, you have an instruction pamphlet on your side!
That's the state of your argument.Until you can show why two same siblings can marry after Obergefell when two opposite siblings couldn't before, your dead argument remains without a pulse.Your argument has already been blown to pieces since a brother couldn't marry his sister even before Obergefell. Sex is no more or less of a requirement of marriage before or since Obergefell.My argument is, and always will be, that I oppose both, but since the State is REQUIRED to prove A COMPELLING STATE INTETEST IN DENYING THE INDIVIDUAL SUCH RIGHT, I fail to see how denial of each could be legal. Remember SEX IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF A VALID MARRIAGE LICENSE.
I am presenting this as a freedom issue, arguing for justice for all regardless if you think what they want is icky or not
Good, now can I frame your argument Cuz you suck at framing mine.
Living without a pulse is your gig, not mine
DOA
Who says any were denied? Could be none even applied since Iowa doesn't issue marriage licenses to close-family family members regardless of gender.What you're portraying as a "pamphlet" is in fact, Iowa's instructions for filling out an application to marry in their state. You can try to minimize it all you want -- but Iowa still doesn't let any close-family members marry regardless of gender.You're proving your delusions.
I've proven its legal. An attorney is advising people it's legal and a great way to avoid inheritance tax. And you?
A pamphlet showing marriage is denied those blood related, yet to understand "who is denied license by being closely related" I supplied the ACTUAL STATE LAW which does not exclude same sex family members from marriage.
Then you set a rule THAT YOU REQUIRE AS PROOF POSITIVE, AND YOU CAN'T SUPPLY THE PROOF YOU DEMAND!
God you are a lightweight
And you can't find a single such marriage that was allowed in six years.
Nope. He can't find one. Once again, Pop makes elaborate predictions based on his pseudo-legal gibberish. And once again, nothing he's predicted actually happened.
Now now Skylar, Faun gets to make up the rules and this is how the idiots requires proof. If you can't find "x" then it is proof it's ______
With two of you working on this, then it will be a breeze to find a same sex family couple that was denied a marriage licence. If you can't then it's legal.
And then there's this attorney that agrees with me .....
CPA at Law: Pass Wealth Tax Free by Marrying a Descendant?
But, hey, you have an instruction pamphlet on your side!
Or maybe none were, since it's legal who would give a flying fuck?
But in your world the papers are 40 ft thick everyday full of reports on laws not being broken......
And instruction pamphlets.
Who says any were denied? Could be none even applied since Iowa doesn't issue marriage licenses to close-family family members regardless of gender.What you're portraying as a "pamphlet" is in fact, Iowa's instructions for filling out an application to marry in their state. You can try to minimize it all you want -- but Iowa still doesn't let any close-family members marry regardless of gender.
And you can't find a single such marriage that was allowed in six years.
Nope. He can't find one. Once again, Pop makes elaborate predictions based on his pseudo-legal gibberish. And once again, nothing he's predicted actually happened.
Now now Skylar, Faun gets to make up the rules and this is how the idiots requires proof. If you can't find "x" then it is proof it's ______
With two of you working on this, then it will be a breeze to find a same sex family couple that was denied a marriage licence. If you can't then it's legal.
And then there's this attorney that agrees with me .....
CPA at Law: Pass Wealth Tax Free by Marrying a Descendant?
But, hey, you have an instruction pamphlet on your side!
Or maybe none were, since it's legal who would give a flying fuck?
But in your world the papers are 40 ft thick everyday full of reports on laws not being broken......
And instruction pamphlets.
You don't think closely related family marrying in Iowa would be considered newsworthy?
That's from a slippery slope bigot that was as certain of interracial marriage leading to incest and polygamy as you are that gay marriage will.
Have another look in that mirror, Pops.
Incest is a crime.
I don't advocate for incest.
What is the compelling state interest to deny either multiple partner marriage or same sex siblings the fundimental right to marry, since marriage law does not require sex?
Seems you provided a quote that fits your argument to a tee
The guy that made the above statement didn't advocate for incest or polygamy either...but he was as sure that interracial marriage would lead to them as you are gay marriage will.
Take a loooooonnnnngggg look in that mirror.
My argument is, and always will be, that I oppose both, but since the State is REQUIRED to prove A COMPELLING STATE INTETEST IN DENYING THE INDIVIDUAL SUCH RIGHT, I fail to see how denial of each could be legal. Remember SEX IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF A VALID MARRIAGE LICENSE.
I am presenting this as a freedom issue, arguing for justice for all regardless if you think what they want is icky or not
Yes Pops...we know you're as certain as the guy I quoted...I just don't get why you think you're going to be any more right than he was, you're more strident?
Marriage remains non familial consenting adults...despite your screeching.
And prior to Loving you would have been extolling the virtues of keeping the races separate.
Who says any were denied? Could be none even applied since Iowa doesn't issue marriage licenses to close-family family members regardless of gender.Nope. He can't find one. Once again, Pop makes elaborate predictions based on his pseudo-legal gibberish. And once again, nothing he's predicted actually happened.
Now now Skylar, Faun gets to make up the rules and this is how the idiots requires proof. If you can't find "x" then it is proof it's ______
With two of you working on this, then it will be a breeze to find a same sex family couple that was denied a marriage licence. If you can't then it's legal.
And then there's this attorney that agrees with me .....
CPA at Law: Pass Wealth Tax Free by Marrying a Descendant?
But, hey, you have an instruction pamphlet on your side!
Or maybe none were, since it's legal who would give a flying fuck?
But in your world the papers are 40 ft thick everyday full of reports on laws not being broken......
And instruction pamphlets.
You don't think closely related family marrying in Iowa would be considered newsworthy?
Who would report it? Those entrusted with citizens privacy?
The only reason same sex couples were newsworthy was because of Obergfell
Now it yawn
Suppose a same sex family couple would want noteriety? I doubt they would call the press sweetheart
