It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Pop23]

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.

Nope, that's your position. You're arguing exactly like those opposed to interracial marriage, right down to the slippery slope fallacy.

Nope, you're arguing that you got yours, screw everyone else.

 

[Pop23]

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!

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.

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

Marriage licenses are public records. Siblings legally marrying would be all over the RW Nut news.

Note, the licenses do not require family relationship. Gonna make that a tough search SeaWytch, but you go for it. K?

 

[Pop23]

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!

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.

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

Marriage licenses are public records. Siblings legally marrying would be all over the RW Nut news.

<<<<<shrugs>>>>>>

People obeying the law is NOT NEWS

But this attorney agrees with me:

CPA at Law: Pass Wealth Tax Free by Marrying a Descendant?

And you got???????

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Nope, that's your position. You're arguing exactly like those opposed to interracial marriage, right down to the slippery slope fallacy.

Nope, you're arguing that you got yours, screw everyone else.

Really? Find that post. I support YOUR voracious support for incest. I want you to stop just supporting it and DO something with your fierce support of incest.

Of course, your bullshit is just more slippery slope fallacies like this:

"It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent."

 

[Boss]

Let's try and be clear. Prior to Obergefell, the USSC had already established marriage as a fundamental right.

They had not established that "marriage" could be redefined to include sexual propensity. They certainly didn't establish racially-pure marriage was a fundamental right. You are all on record here as acknowledging we can restrict fundamental rights but it only seems to apply whenever YOU think it should. Meanwhile, we can deny others their constitutional rights on the basis that... hey, the law says so!

Obergefell established that marriage could be redefined to include sexual propensity, did it? It seems to me that it established that denying same sex couples access to marriage law did not serve a compelling state interest.

Same sex couples didn't have access the same reason siblings don't have access, it's not what marriage is. Before they decided compelling state interest, they decided marriage could include a sexual proclivity it didn't include before.

You seem to think restricting rights should only apply where YOU think it should, or not at all.

No rights were being restricted. The definition of something had to be changed so that a right could be claimed that was supposedly being denied. It would be like, if I wanted to run around nude in public, claiming it was my right to free expression. Well, we have a constitutional right to free expression but it has never included public indecency... so the court alters the definition of "free expression" to include indecent behavior and voila... my rights ARE being restricted!

You have been given reasons to deny various forms of marriage legitimacy over and over. That you choose to dismiss the reasons given to try and make the argument against your silliness seem without merit is your own issue.

And when it comes to having a valid basis for arguments, maybe when you're willing to actually cite the relevant documents or rulings you argue about instead of avoiding doing so as though it's beneath you, you'll have some credibility.

No, I've not been given ANY valid reason. You keep presenting the very same reasons that SCOTUS just shot down in Obergefell. Somehow, those reasons magically become valid again, they just didn't apply to homosexuals.

And here you are again, demanding I show you where the law says it can be challenged and changed! But I don't recall anything in the law before Obergefell that said "marriage is the union of a man and woman but this can all be challenged by homosexuals and changed to include their sexual behavior!" In fact, most of the time, the law does not specifically authorize the SCOTUS to redefine things. So what the fuck do you mean? I can't show you where the law says one day the SCOTUS can overturn it by reinventing what things are!

You could show anywhere in Obergefell where it talks about changing marriage law because of sexual propensity.

You could show where in Obergefell the same arguments I've made about denying various other possible forms of marriage have been 'shot down'.

You could have shown where any claims you made were backed up by SB377 when you went on and on about it.

You could ever cite anything when making claims.

Kind of the way your arguments about 'this is what marriage is' and 'allowing this kind of marriage will lead to.....' have been shown to echo the arguments made about Loving by various posters. You know, when people have given actual quotes?

Oh, I can sit here and show you every detail, do all the research, make it into a college thesis.... you'd still waddle in and find something to take out of context and distort. How do I know? It's all you ever do here. I mean, here you are with your finger run up your nose trying to pretend Obergefell wasn't about homosexuals! Idiotically demanding I show you where SCOTUS said Obergefell can be used in the future as a basis for other rulings. Then, completely doing a 180 and claiming you never said that and admitting they can make rulings based on Obergefell if they feel like it... but... bottom line, it's not the law today and if I can't manage to change your flighty opinions which seem to change with the wind, I should just admit defeat.

Hell, in the debate about SB377, a bill in Alabama that is now dead, I was more than willing to allow you to have your opinion about what it does. I didn't argue with you, if you wanted to believe it didn't change much or mean much, I was fine with that...seemed like we reached agreement we could both live with but that wasn't good enough for you. Nooo.. no way you can be caught dead agreeing with ME! Now you've somehow morphed the SB377 debate into an argument that I lost and you won. Dredging it up like some kind of lame trophy to prove your credibility and disprove mine.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

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

Marriage licenses are public records. Siblings legally marrying would be all over the RW Nut news.

Note, the licenses do not require family relationship. Gonna make that a tough search SeaWytch, but you go for it. K?

Sure Pops. Siblings are marrying in Iowa. Proof? Pops doesn't need proof!

 

[Pop23]

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

Marriage licenses are public records. Siblings legally marrying would be all over the RW Nut news.

Note, the licenses do not require family relationship. Gonna make that a tough search SeaWytch, but you go for it. K?

Sure Pops. Siblings are marrying in Iowa. Proof? Pops doesn't need proof!

I don't need proof they are, I only need to prove its legal.....

Which I have

Now you prove they are not.

Thanks much

 

[Pop23]

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.

Nope, that's your position. You're arguing exactly like those opposed to interracial marriage, right down to the slippery slope fallacy.

Nope, you're arguing that you got yours, screw everyone else.

Really? Find that post. I support YOUR voracious support for incest. I want you to stop just supporting it and DO something with your fierce support of incest.

Of course, your bullshit is just more slippery slope fallacies like this:

"It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent."

I don't support incest, but since you you bring it up in the context of marriage AND since sex is not a requirement of marriage, then you are supporting the illegal activities of incest and marital rape since you imply marriage requires sex to be valid.

Kinda disgusting.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Nope, that's your position. You're arguing exactly like those opposed to interracial marriage, right down to the slippery slope fallacy.

Nope, you're arguing that you got yours, screw everyone else.

Really? Find that post. I support YOUR voracious support for incest. I want you to stop just supporting it and DO something with your fierce support of incest.

Of course, your bullshit is just more slippery slope fallacies like this:

"It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent."

I don't support incest, but since you you bring it up in the context of marriage AND since sex is not a requirement of marriage, then you are supporting the illegal activities of incest and marital rape since you imply marriage requires sex to be valid.

Kinda disgusting.

The casual reader of this thread would disagree with you.


Just like after Loving, marriage remains between non familial consenting adults...despite you and R.. D. McIlwaine III predicting otherwise.

 

[Pop23]

And prior to Loving you would have been extolling the virtues of keeping the races separate.

Nope, that's your position. You're arguing exactly like those opposed to interracial marriage, right down to the slippery slope fallacy.

Nope, you're arguing that you got yours, screw everyone else.

Really? Find that post. I support YOUR voracious support for incest. I want you to stop just supporting it and DO something with your fierce support of incest.

Of course, your bullshit is just more slippery slope fallacies like this:

"It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent."

I don't support incest, but since you you bring it up in the context of marriage AND since sex is not a requirement of marriage, then you are supporting the illegal activities of incest and marital rape since you imply marriage requires sex to be valid.

Kinda disgusting.

The casual reader of this thread would disagree with you.


Just like after Loving, marriage remains between non familial consenting adults...despite you and R.. D. McIlwaine III predicting otherwise.

Except in Iowa and a couple others.

CPA at Law: Pass Wealth Tax Free by Marrying a Descendant?

And after Obergfell we now welcome same sex family member marriage.

Next step? Who knows?

 

[Montrovant]

Let's try and be clear. Prior to Obergefell, the USSC had already established marriage as a fundamental right.

They had not established that "marriage" could be redefined to include sexual propensity. They certainly didn't establish racially-pure marriage was a fundamental right. You are all on record here as acknowledging we can restrict fundamental rights but it only seems to apply whenever YOU think it should. Meanwhile, we can deny others their constitutional rights on the basis that... hey, the law says so!

Obergefell established that marriage could be redefined to include sexual propensity, did it? It seems to me that it established that denying same sex couples access to marriage law did not serve a compelling state interest.

Same sex couples didn't have access the same reason siblings don't have access, it's not what marriage is. Before they decided compelling state interest, they decided marriage could include a sexual proclivity it didn't include before.

You seem to think restricting rights should only apply where YOU think it should, or not at all.

No rights were being restricted. The definition of something had to be changed so that a right could be claimed that was supposedly being denied. It would be like, if I wanted to run around nude in public, claiming it was my right to free expression. Well, we have a constitutional right to free expression but it has never included public indecency... so the court alters the definition of "free expression" to include indecent behavior and voila... my rights ARE being restricted!

You have been given reasons to deny various forms of marriage legitimacy over and over. That you choose to dismiss the reasons given to try and make the argument against your silliness seem without merit is your own issue.

And when it comes to having a valid basis for arguments, maybe when you're willing to actually cite the relevant documents or rulings you argue about instead of avoiding doing so as though it's beneath you, you'll have some credibility.

No, I've not been given ANY valid reason. You keep presenting the very same reasons that SCOTUS just shot down in Obergefell. Somehow, those reasons magically become valid again, they just didn't apply to homosexuals.

And here you are again, demanding I show you where the law says it can be challenged and changed! But I don't recall anything in the law before Obergefell that said "marriage is the union of a man and woman but this can all be challenged by homosexuals and changed to include their sexual behavior!" In fact, most of the time, the law does not specifically authorize the SCOTUS to redefine things. So what the fuck do you mean? I can't show you where the law says one day the SCOTUS can overturn it by reinventing what things are!

You could show anywhere in Obergefell where it talks about changing marriage law because of sexual propensity.

You could show where in Obergefell the same arguments I've made about denying various other possible forms of marriage have been 'shot down'.

You could have shown where any claims you made were backed up by SB377 when you went on and on about it.

You could ever cite anything when making claims.

Kind of the way your arguments about 'this is what marriage is' and 'allowing this kind of marriage will lead to.....' have been shown to echo the arguments made about Loving by various posters. You know, when people have given actual quotes?

Oh, I can sit here and show you every detail, do all the research, make it into a college thesis.... you'd still waddle in and find something to take out of context and distort. How do I know? It's all you ever do here. I mean, here you are with your finger run up your nose trying to pretend Obergefell wasn't about homosexuals! Idiotically demanding I show you where SCOTUS said Obergefell can be used in the future as a basis for other rulings. Then, completely doing a 180 and claiming you never said that and admitting they can make rulings based on Obergefell if they feel like it... but... bottom line, it's not the law today and if I can't manage to change your flighty opinions which seem to change with the wind, I should just admit defeat.

Hell, in the debate about SB377, a bill in Alabama that is now dead, I was more than willing to allow you to have your opinion about what it does. I didn't argue with you, if you wanted to believe it didn't change much or mean much, I was fine with that...seemed like we reached agreement we could both live with but that wasn't good enough for you. Nooo.. no way you can be caught dead agreeing with ME! Now you've somehow morphed the SB377 debate into an argument that I lost and you won. Dredging it up like some kind of lame trophy to prove your credibility and disprove mine.

That's a lot of words to say you won't cite sources for your arguments.

Nice job throwing in a couple of straw men!

 

[Montrovant]

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!

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.

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

It depends in part on the circumstances (would the state attempt to deny marriage to close family members, would the couple be forced to sue to attempt to get their legal marriage, etc.), but if the couple didn't make it news I would imagine that anyone working at the time they applied for a license might consider it worth mentioning to a newspaper or news channel, or someone involved would post on Twitter or Facebook and it would get attention from there.

Same sex couples were newsworthy long before Obergefell. You don't think there were many news stories about same sex marriage prior to the ruling?

 

[Faun]

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

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!

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.

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're fucking nuts.

There are 250 million Americans aged 16 and older, and now you're suggesting not one of them went to Iowa in six years to get married to a close family member to avoid paying inheritance tax where, according to your idiocy, it would have been legal for the first time since the adaption of those anti-close-family marriage laws thanks to a loophole created by Iowa's Supreme Court.

Your adventurous argument grows increasingly ludicrous in your vain attempts to bring that Frankenstein monster of a position back to life.

 

[Faun]

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!

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.

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 putz is clearly prepared to make up anything, no matter how retarded, than to just face the stark reality that Iowa doesn't allow any close family members to marry regardless of gender.

 

[Faun]

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!

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.

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

The news would most certainly report it. Hell, such people getting married would want everyone they know they were getting married only to avoid paying inheritance tax and NOT because they're some kind of freak pervert like you. Those couples would be among the first people bragging to the news how they're taking advantage of a tax loophole. Conservatives taking advantage of such a loophole would be especially loud about boasting how that loophole was created by same-sex marriage.

 

[Pop23]

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!

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.

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're fucking nuts.

There are 250 million Americans aged 16 and older, and now you're suggesting not one of them went to Iowa in six years to get married to a close family member to avoid paying inheritance tax where, according to your idiocy, it would have been legal for the first time since the adaption of those anti-close-family marriage laws thanks to a loophole created by Iowa's Supreme Court.

Your adventurous argument grows increasingly ludicrous in your vain attempts to bring that Frankenstein monster of a position back to life.

Prove none of them did.

Go for it. You got three people looking now, your job is now 3 times easier

Report your finding back. K?

 

[Pop23]

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!

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.

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

The news would most certainly report it. Hell, such people getting married would want everyone they know they were getting married only to avoid paying inheritance tax and NOT because they're some kind of freak pervert like you. Those couples would be among the first people bragging to the news how they're taking advantage of a tax loophole. Conservatives taking advantage of such a loophole would be especially loud about boasting how that loophole was created by same-sex marriage.

The news would have to become aware of it first.

And just who would report it?

 

[Pop23]

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!

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.

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 putz is clearly prepared to make up anything, no matter how retarded, than to just face the stark reality that Iowa doesn't allow any close family members to marry regardless of gender.

Yes they do. The iowa 595.19 says so, as does an attorney touting it as a great way to pass an estate without paying inheritance tax.

You calling an attorney a lier?

 

[Faun]

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!

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.

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

Even more rightardedness....

Yeah... no one heard of same-sex marriages before Obergefell. Up until then, there had never been a single mention of same-sex marriage anywhere in the news.

 

[Pop23]

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!

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.

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

Even more rightardedness....

Yeah... no one heard of same-sex marriages before Obergefell. Up until then, there had never been a single mention of same-sex marriage anywhere in the news.

Because it was illegal and they were denied, hired an attorney and filed suit.

That would make the news.