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

[Pop23]

I haven't looked for one dummy.

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

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

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

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

Big headline according to Faun:

Man caught in the process of not robbing a bank.

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

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

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

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

Kim Davis went to jail for her actions.

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

Your post proves nothing (little dancing dude or not)

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

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

We've all seen you can't.

You lose again.

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

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

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

Projecting again?

I supplied the letter of the law. You've been unable to present any argument that the law is as written.

Of course the reason you can't is because you simply can't face the fact that you're wrong.

It should be easy to provide a link to either the Iowa Supreme Court or the Iowa Statute that makes same sex family marriage illegal.

But you can't? Why?

Because same sex family marriage is legal as noted in the Iowa statute 595.

So



BOOM


You lost again.

 

[Silhouette]

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

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

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

Are you really a mole for the GOP? Do you realize how many votes the democratic party is going to lose when they start parading the "Kim (A Christian or even YOU) went to jail for refusing to enable a gay marriage" footage next October late? Might want to re-check your "sore winner" attitude at the door.. Adolph...

If I wanted landslide victories next Fall as a GOP, I'd invite the Pope and he'd come tell his flock gay marri...oh...wait...that one's already done. OK, well then next I'd mock up a really great set of TV and internet ads showing clips of the Nazi Party on the rise, jailing people for refusing to play along, then showing the angry gay male couple facing off with Kim at her Office...and the next scene I'd show her sitting in a cell. I'd sprikle that ad with scenes from gay pride parades, in front of kids...you know the shots I'm talking about.

I'd end the ad with block letters that really slowly faded out saying "Racial struggles never jailed Christians"...or something like that.

You are literally greasing the skids for your own defeat faun. But then a crazy rainbow dragon eating its own tail always does get to the end of it eventually..

This is the political picture of Faun's glee of a Christian being jailed for the Church of LGBT:

 

[Faun]

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

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

Big headline according to Faun:

Man caught in the process of not robbing a bank.

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

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

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

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

Kim Davis went to jail for her actions.

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

Your post proves nothing (little dancing dude or not)

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

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

We've all seen you can't.

You lose again.

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

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

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

Projecting again?

I supplied the letter of the law. You've been unable to present any argument that the law is as written.

Of course the reason you can't is because you simply can't face the fact that you're wrong.

It should be easy to provide a link to either the Iowa Supreme Court or the Iowa Statute that makes same sex family marriage illegal.

But you can't? Why?

Because same sex family marriage is legal as noted in the Iowa statute 595.

So



BOOM


You lost again.

Repeating that doesn't help you. You don't understand marriage laws regarding gender were affected by Supreme Court rulings. You keep saying the law is still in effect as written, but you can't prove it. Instead, you knocked yourself out by pointing out what happens to clerks who don't follow the law. They go to jail. More evidence you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about since the Polk County clerk did not go to jail.

Thanks again for that, btw.

 

[Pop23]

Big headline according to Faun:

Man caught in the process of not robbing a bank.

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

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

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

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

Kim Davis went to jail for her actions.

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

Your post proves nothing (little dancing dude or not)

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

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

We've all seen you can't.

You lose again.

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

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

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

Projecting again?

I supplied the letter of the law. You've been unable to present any argument that the law is as written.

Of course the reason you can't is because you simply can't face the fact that you're wrong.

It should be easy to provide a link to either the Iowa Supreme Court or the Iowa Statute that makes same sex family marriage illegal.

But you can't? Why?

Because same sex family marriage is legal as noted in the Iowa statute 595.

So



BOOM


You lost again.

Repeating that doesn't help you. You don't understand marriage laws regarding gender were affected by Supreme Court rulings. You keep saying the law is still in effect as written, but you can't prove it. Instead, you knocked yourself out by pointing out what happens to clerks who don't follow the law. They go to jail. More evidence you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about since the Polk County clerk did not go to jail.

Thanks again for that, btw.

Your red herring arguments are amusing.

I supplied the law. You have supplied nothing to support your own position.

Clerks don't go to jail for obeying state law.

Of course, maybe nazi's like you think they should?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

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

There is no gay marriage issue dude.

So 1782 posts wasted discussing a non-issue.


.

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

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

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

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

There is no downside.

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

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

Perfectly executed marketing.

I wish you lots of luck preaching about anything relying on logic and reason to emotion-driven leftists. They're incapable of understanding anything that isn't all about their "feelz", and the idea of legal sanctions to marriage not being all about warm, fuzzy "we WUUUUUV each other!" is going to be a foreign language to them.

Sadly, too many people in this country are infected with this nonsense, which is the main reason so many marriages fall apart.

 

[Pop23]

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

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

There is no gay marriage issue dude.

So 1782 posts wasted discussing a non-issue.


.

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

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

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

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

There is no downside.

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

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

Perfectly executed marketing.

I wish you lots of luck preaching about anything relying on logic and reason to emotion-driven leftists. They're incapable of understanding anything that isn't all about their "feelz", and the idea of legal sanctions to marriage not being all about warm, fuzzy "we WUUUUUV each other!" is going to be a foreign language to them.

Sadly, too many people in this country are infected with this nonsense, which is the main reason so many marriages fall apart.

It's all about how they marketed the whole issue that must now be dealt with:

They said marriage was not about procreation, right?

Well, read the law, what is marriage? Not love, not respects, not faithfullness, all are subjective terms to start with, but nowhere in the law.

Neither is sex.

Their argument is that procreation is not a requirement of marriage so same sex couples should have access to marriage.

Then, if that's a successfull argument, the same is true when stated this way:

Sex is not a requirement so everyone, regardless of family tie, should have access to marriage.

The best part is that they created the argument but simply can't admit it.

Who wins a fight and then fears claiming victory?

 

[Faun]

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

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

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

Kim Davis went to jail for her actions.

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

Your post proves nothing (little dancing dude or not)

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

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

We've all seen you can't.

You lose again.

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

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

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

Projecting again?

I supplied the letter of the law. You've been unable to present any argument that the law is as written.

Of course the reason you can't is because you simply can't face the fact that you're wrong.

It should be easy to provide a link to either the Iowa Supreme Court or the Iowa Statute that makes same sex family marriage illegal.

But you can't? Why?

Because same sex family marriage is legal as noted in the Iowa statute 595.

So



BOOM


You lost again.

Repeating that doesn't help you. You don't understand marriage laws regarding gender were affected by Supreme Court rulings. You keep saying the law is still in effect as written, but you can't prove it. Instead, you knocked yourself out by pointing out what happens to clerks who don't follow the law. They go to jail. More evidence you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about since the Polk County clerk did not go to jail.

Thanks again for that, btw.

Your red herring arguments are amusing.

I supplied the law. You have supplied nothing to support your own position.

Clerks don't go to jail for obeying state law.

Of course, maybe nazi's like you think they should?

No, i think clerks who don't follow the law, like Kim Davis, should go to jail. Meanwhile, no clerks in Iowa have been jailed for not following the law because they are following the law. Yet more evidence you don't have a fucking clue about that of which you speak.

 

[Pop23]

Your post proves nothing (little dancing dude or not)

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

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

We've all seen you can't.

You lose again.

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

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

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

Projecting again?

I supplied the letter of the law. You've been unable to present any argument that the law is as written.

Of course the reason you can't is because you simply can't face the fact that you're wrong.

It should be easy to provide a link to either the Iowa Supreme Court or the Iowa Statute that makes same sex family marriage illegal.

But you can't? Why?

Because same sex family marriage is legal as noted in the Iowa statute 595.

So



BOOM


You lost again.

Repeating that doesn't help you. You don't understand marriage laws regarding gender were affected by Supreme Court rulings. You keep saying the law is still in effect as written, but you can't prove it. Instead, you knocked yourself out by pointing out what happens to clerks who don't follow the law. They go to jail. More evidence you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about since the Polk County clerk did not go to jail.

Thanks again for that, btw.

Your red herring arguments are amusing.

I supplied the law. You have supplied nothing to support your own position.

Clerks don't go to jail for obeying state law.

Of course, maybe nazi's like you think they should?

No, i think clerks who don't follow the law, like Kim Davis, should go to jail. Meanwhile, no clerks in Iowa have been jailed for not following the law because they are following the law. Yet more evidence you don't have a fucking clue about that of which you speak.

Polk county does not control the state.

According to you. County overrules state, then I guess State would overrule Federal.

You come up with the statute or ISC ruling that makes same sex sibling marriage illegal yet?

 

[Faun]

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

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

There is no gay marriage issue dude.

So 1782 posts wasted discussing a non-issue.


.

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

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

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

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

There is no downside.

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

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

Perfectly executed marketing.

I wish you lots of luck preaching about anything relying on logic and reason to emotion-driven leftists. They're incapable of understanding anything that isn't all about their "feelz", and the idea of legal sanctions to marriage not being all about warm, fuzzy "we WUUUUUV each other!" is going to be a foreign language to them.

Sadly, too many people in this country are infected with this nonsense, which is the main reason so many marriages fall apart.

It's all about how they marketed the whole issue that must now be dealt with:

They said marriage was not about procreation, right?

Well, read the law, what is marriage? Not love, not respects, not faithfullness, all are subjective terms to start with, but nowhere in the law.

Neither is sex.

Their argument is that procreation is not a requirement of marriage so same sex couples should have access to marriage.

Then, if that's a successfull argument, the same is true when stated this way:

Sex is not a requirement so everyone, regardless of family tie, should have access to marriage.

The best part is that they created the argument but simply can't admit it.

Who wins a fight and then fears claiming victory?

Look at that ^^^

All this time and you don't even know what the argument is.

 

[Faun]

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

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

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

Projecting again?

I supplied the letter of the law. You've been unable to present any argument that the law is as written.

Of course the reason you can't is because you simply can't face the fact that you're wrong.

It should be easy to provide a link to either the Iowa Supreme Court or the Iowa Statute that makes same sex family marriage illegal.

But you can't? Why?

Because same sex family marriage is legal as noted in the Iowa statute 595.

So



BOOM


You lost again.

Repeating that doesn't help you. You don't understand marriage laws regarding gender were affected by Supreme Court rulings. You keep saying the law is still in effect as written, but you can't prove it. Instead, you knocked yourself out by pointing out what happens to clerks who don't follow the law. They go to jail. More evidence you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about since the Polk County clerk did not go to jail.

Thanks again for that, btw.

Your red herring arguments are amusing.

I supplied the law. You have supplied nothing to support your own position.

Clerks don't go to jail for obeying state law.

Of course, maybe nazi's like you think they should?

No, i think clerks who don't follow the law, like Kim Davis, should go to jail. Meanwhile, no clerks in Iowa have been jailed for not following the law because they are following the law. Yet more evidence you don't have a fucking clue about that of which you speak.

Polk county does not control the state.

According to you. County overrules state, then I guess State would overrule Federal.

You come up with the statute or ISC ruling that makes same sex sibling marriage illegal yet?

Neither does Kim Davis, yet she went to jail for not following the law. Clearly, by denying marriage licenses to family members, Polk County is following the law.

 

[Seawytch]

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

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

There is no gay marriage issue dude.

So 1782 posts wasted discussing a non-issue.


.

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

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

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

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

There is no downside.

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

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

Perfectly executed marketing.

I wish you lots of luck preaching about anything relying on logic and reason to emotion-driven leftists. They're incapable of understanding anything that isn't all about their "feelz", and the idea of legal sanctions to marriage not being all about warm, fuzzy "we WUUUUUV each other!" is going to be a foreign language to them.

Sadly, too many people in this country are infected with this nonsense, which is the main reason so many marriages fall apart.

Still railing about that Loving v Virginia ruling 50 years later. Sad...

 

[Pop23]

Projecting again?

I supplied the letter of the law. You've been unable to present any argument that the law is as written.

Of course the reason you can't is because you simply can't face the fact that you're wrong.

It should be easy to provide a link to either the Iowa Supreme Court or the Iowa Statute that makes same sex family marriage illegal.

But you can't? Why?

Because same sex family marriage is legal as noted in the Iowa statute 595.

So



BOOM


You lost again.

Repeating that doesn't help you. You don't understand marriage laws regarding gender were affected by Supreme Court rulings. You keep saying the law is still in effect as written, but you can't prove it. Instead, you knocked yourself out by pointing out what happens to clerks who don't follow the law. They go to jail. More evidence you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about since the Polk County clerk did not go to jail.

Thanks again for that, btw.

Your red herring arguments are amusing.

I supplied the law. You have supplied nothing to support your own position.

Clerks don't go to jail for obeying state law.

Of course, maybe nazi's like you think they should?

No, i think clerks who don't follow the law, like Kim Davis, should go to jail. Meanwhile, no clerks in Iowa have been jailed for not following the law because they are following the law. Yet more evidence you don't have a fucking clue about that of which you speak.

Polk county does not control the state.

According to you. County overrules state, then I guess State would overrule Federal.

You come up with the statute or ISC ruling that makes same sex sibling marriage illegal yet?

Neither does Kim Davis, yet she went to jail for not following the law. Clearly, by denying marriage licenses to family members, Polk County is following the law.

Of they've not been asked

 

[Cecilie1200]

Your post proves nothing (little dancing dude or not)

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

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

We've all seen you can't.

You lose again.

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

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

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

Projecting again?

I supplied the letter of the law. You've been unable to present any argument that the law is as written.

Of course the reason you can't is because you simply can't face the fact that you're wrong.

It should be easy to provide a link to either the Iowa Supreme Court or the Iowa Statute that makes same sex family marriage illegal.

But you can't? Why?

Because same sex family marriage is legal as noted in the Iowa statute 595.

So



BOOM


You lost again.

Repeating that doesn't help you. You don't understand marriage laws regarding gender were affected by Supreme Court rulings. You keep saying the law is still in effect as written, but you can't prove it. Instead, you knocked yourself out by pointing out what happens to clerks who don't follow the law. They go to jail. More evidence you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about since the Polk County clerk did not go to jail.

Thanks again for that, btw.

Your red herring arguments are amusing.

I supplied the law. You have supplied nothing to support your own position.

Clerks don't go to jail for obeying state law.

Of course, maybe nazi's like you think they should?

No, i think clerks who don't follow the law, like Kim Davis, should go to jail. Meanwhile, no clerks in Iowa have been jailed for not following the law because they are following the law. Yet more evidence you don't have a fucking clue about that of which you speak.

No, you think clerks who don't behave the way you have deemed "moral" should be jailed. I have yet to see you call for the jailing of all the clerks who issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples in violation of the existing laws prior to the Supreme Court's fiat.

 

[Pop23]

Projecting again?

I supplied the letter of the law. You've been unable to present any argument that the law is as written.

Of course the reason you can't is because you simply can't face the fact that you're wrong.

It should be easy to provide a link to either the Iowa Supreme Court or the Iowa Statute that makes same sex family marriage illegal.

But you can't? Why?

Because same sex family marriage is legal as noted in the Iowa statute 595.

So



BOOM


You lost again.

Repeating that doesn't help you. You don't understand marriage laws regarding gender were affected by Supreme Court rulings. You keep saying the law is still in effect as written, but you can't prove it. Instead, you knocked yourself out by pointing out what happens to clerks who don't follow the law. They go to jail. More evidence you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about since the Polk County clerk did not go to jail.

Thanks again for that, btw.

Your red herring arguments are amusing.

I supplied the law. You have supplied nothing to support your own position.

Clerks don't go to jail for obeying state law.

Of course, maybe nazi's like you think they should?

No, i think clerks who don't follow the law, like Kim Davis, should go to jail. Meanwhile, no clerks in Iowa have been jailed for not following the law because they are following the law. Yet more evidence you don't have a fucking clue about that of which you speak.

Polk county does not control the state.

According to you. County overrules state, then I guess State would overrule Federal.

You come up with the statute or ISC ruling that makes same sex sibling marriage illegal yet?

Neither does Kim Davis, yet she went to jail for not following the law. Clearly, by denying marriage licenses to family members, Polk County is following the law.

Hey boob, did you read the second page of the application to Marry.

Might want to check it out. Seems to say that those that are too closely related are listed in Iowa 595.

Hmmmmmm

And this:

Iowa Annulment and Prohibited Marriage Laws - FindLaw

Bye Bye Bi Guy!

 

[bodecea]

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

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

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

Are you really a mole for the GOP? Do you realize how many votes the democratic party is going to lose when they start parading the "Kim (A Christian or even YOU) went to jail for refusing to enable a gay marriage" footage next October late? Might want to re-check your "sore winner" attitude at the door.. Adolph...

If I wanted landslide victories next Fall as a GOP, I'd invite the Pope and he'd come tell his flock gay marri...oh...wait...that one's already done. OK, well then next I'd mock up a really great set of TV and internet ads showing clips of the Nazi Party on the rise, jailing people for refusing to play along, then showing the angry gay male couple facing off with Kim at her Office...and the next scene I'd show her sitting in a cell. I'd sprikle that ad with scenes from gay pride parades, in front of kids...you know the shots I'm talking about.

I'd end the ad with block letters that really slowly faded out saying "Racial struggles never jailed Christians"...or something like that.

You are literally greasing the skids for your own defeat faun. But then a crazy rainbow dragon eating its own tail always does get to the end of it eventually..

This is the political picture of Faun's glee of a Christian being jailed for the Church of LGBT:

Go ahead and do that.....maybe throw in a few photoshops too.

 

[bodecea]

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

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

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

Projecting again?

I supplied the letter of the law. You've been unable to present any argument that the law is as written.

Of course the reason you can't is because you simply can't face the fact that you're wrong.

It should be easy to provide a link to either the Iowa Supreme Court or the Iowa Statute that makes same sex family marriage illegal.

But you can't? Why?

Because same sex family marriage is legal as noted in the Iowa statute 595.

So



BOOM


You lost again.

Repeating that doesn't help you. You don't understand marriage laws regarding gender were affected by Supreme Court rulings. You keep saying the law is still in effect as written, but you can't prove it. Instead, you knocked yourself out by pointing out what happens to clerks who don't follow the law. They go to jail. More evidence you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about since the Polk County clerk did not go to jail.

Thanks again for that, btw.

Your red herring arguments are amusing.

I supplied the law. You have supplied nothing to support your own position.

Clerks don't go to jail for obeying state law.

Of course, maybe nazi's like you think they should?

No, i think clerks who don't follow the law, like Kim Davis, should go to jail. Meanwhile, no clerks in Iowa have been jailed for not following the law because they are following the law. Yet more evidence you don't have a fucking clue about that of which you speak.

No, you think clerks who don't behave the way you have deemed "moral" should be jailed. I have yet to see you call for the jailing of all the clerks who issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples in violation of the existing laws prior to the Supreme Court's fiat.

I guess it's too much to ask duly elected clerks to do their job that they get paid for.

 

[Faun]

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

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

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

Projecting again?

I supplied the letter of the law. You've been unable to present any argument that the law is as written.

Of course the reason you can't is because you simply can't face the fact that you're wrong.

It should be easy to provide a link to either the Iowa Supreme Court or the Iowa Statute that makes same sex family marriage illegal.

But you can't? Why?

Because same sex family marriage is legal as noted in the Iowa statute 595.

So



BOOM


You lost again.

Repeating that doesn't help you. You don't understand marriage laws regarding gender were affected by Supreme Court rulings. You keep saying the law is still in effect as written, but you can't prove it. Instead, you knocked yourself out by pointing out what happens to clerks who don't follow the law. They go to jail. More evidence you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about since the Polk County clerk did not go to jail.

Thanks again for that, btw.

Your red herring arguments are amusing.

I supplied the law. You have supplied nothing to support your own position.

Clerks don't go to jail for obeying state law.

Of course, maybe nazi's like you think they should?

No, i think clerks who don't follow the law, like Kim Davis, should go to jail. Meanwhile, no clerks in Iowa have been jailed for not following the law because they are following the law. Yet more evidence you don't have a fucking clue about that of which you speak.

No, you think clerks who don't behave the way you have deemed "moral" should be jailed. I have yet to see you call for the jailing of all the clerks who issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples in violation of the existing laws prior to the Supreme Court's fiat.

Now you're making shit up. I've never been in favor of any clerk giving out marriage licenses in violation of the law.

 

[Pop23]

Projecting again?

I supplied the letter of the law. You've been unable to present any argument that the law is as written.

Of course the reason you can't is because you simply can't face the fact that you're wrong.

It should be easy to provide a link to either the Iowa Supreme Court or the Iowa Statute that makes same sex family marriage illegal.

But you can't? Why?

Because same sex family marriage is legal as noted in the Iowa statute 595.

So



BOOM


You lost again.

Repeating that doesn't help you. You don't understand marriage laws regarding gender were affected by Supreme Court rulings. You keep saying the law is still in effect as written, but you can't prove it. Instead, you knocked yourself out by pointing out what happens to clerks who don't follow the law. They go to jail. More evidence you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about since the Polk County clerk did not go to jail.

Thanks again for that, btw.

Your red herring arguments are amusing.

I supplied the law. You have supplied nothing to support your own position.

Clerks don't go to jail for obeying state law.

Of course, maybe nazi's like you think they should?

No, i think clerks who don't follow the law, like Kim Davis, should go to jail. Meanwhile, no clerks in Iowa have been jailed for not following the law because they are following the law. Yet more evidence you don't have a fucking clue about that of which you speak.

No, you think clerks who don't behave the way you have deemed "moral" should be jailed. I have yet to see you call for the jailing of all the clerks who issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples in violation of the existing laws prior to the Supreme Court's fiat.

Now you're making shit up. I've never been in favor of any clerk giving out marriage licenses in violation of the law.

They would have to be in violation of the law, which Faun thinks is same sex family marriage in Iowa, which according to the National District Attorney's Association is false.

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

Sorry Faun, you look the fool now. Not that you didn't all along

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

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

There is no gay marriage issue dude.

So 1782 posts wasted discussing a non-issue.


.

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

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

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

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

There is no downside.

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

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

Perfectly executed marketing.

I wish you lots of luck preaching about anything relying on logic and reason to emotion-driven leftists. They're incapable of understanding anything that isn't all about their "feelz", and the idea of legal sanctions to marriage not being all about warm, fuzzy "we WUUUUUV each other!" is going to be a foreign language to them.

Sadly, too many people in this country are infected with this nonsense, which is the main reason so many marriages fall apart.

So for you marriage is not about feeling and emotion? It's a cold business arrangement devoid of all human feelings ? Have you read Obergefell? Kennedy cited "personal choice and intimacy in his opinion. Logic and reason would tell you that we are talking about living, feeling human beings .

If you believe that marriage is just an "arrangement, I feel sorry for you. Sadly, too many people in this country are infected with this nonsense, which is the main reason so many marriages fall apart

 

[Faun]

Repeating that doesn't help you. You don't understand marriage laws regarding gender were affected by Supreme Court rulings. You keep saying the law is still in effect as written, but you can't prove it. Instead, you knocked yourself out by pointing out what happens to clerks who don't follow the law. They go to jail. More evidence you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about since the Polk County clerk did not go to jail.

Thanks again for that, btw.

Your red herring arguments are amusing.

I supplied the law. You have supplied nothing to support your own position.

Clerks don't go to jail for obeying state law.

Of course, maybe nazi's like you think they should?

No, i think clerks who don't follow the law, like Kim Davis, should go to jail. Meanwhile, no clerks in Iowa have been jailed for not following the law because they are following the law. Yet more evidence you don't have a fucking clue about that of which you speak.

Polk county does not control the state.

According to you. County overrules state, then I guess State would overrule Federal.

You come up with the statute or ISC ruling that makes same sex sibling marriage illegal yet?

Neither does Kim Davis, yet she went to jail for not following the law. Clearly, by denying marriage licenses to family members, Polk County is following the law.

Hey boob, did you read the second page of the application to Marry.

Might want to check it out. Seems to say that those that are too closely related are listed in Iowa 595.

Hmmmmmm

And this:

Iowa Annulment and Prohibited Marriage Laws - FindLaw

Bye Bye Bi Guy!

I see no marriage application at that link.

I did find it here, however. ..

http://forms.gmdsolutions.com/recorder/marriage_application.pdf

.... and the only reference to 595 is:

Pursuant to Iowa Code section 595.3A, the laws of this state affirm a party’s right to enter into this marriage and at the same time
to live within the marriage under the full protection of the laws of this state with regard to violence and abuse. Neither party to the marriage is the property of the other. Assault, sexual abuse, and willful injury of a spouse or other family member are violations of the laws of this state and are punishable by the state.

• Applicants’ social security numbers are collected pursuant to Iowa Code section 595.4 and 42 USC 405(c)(2), as amended by Section 1090(b) of Public Law 105-34. The law authorizes the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to use social security numbers for determining Earned Income Tax Credit compliance on income tax returns and to authorize the State Registrar to report the social security number to the Child Support Recovery Unit.​

Why are you misrepresenting the contents of Iowa's marriage application?