It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Faun]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions​

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

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

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

Iowa Annulment and Prohibited Marriage Laws - FindLaw

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

State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions​

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

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

Iowa Annulment and Prohibited Marriage Laws - FindLaw


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

Iowa doesn't agree with me? I'm posting Iowa's own marriage application instructions. You're so fucked in your perverted head, you're not claiming Iowa doesn't agree with me; you're actually claiming Iowa doesn't agree with themselces. Iowa is the one saying they don't allow any close family members to marry, regardless of gender. If anything, I agree with them.

State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions​

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

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

Meanwhile, you keep referencing an antiquated law which was altered due to Supreme Court rulings, which is obviously not yet updated to reflect the changes because of those rulings. You've even been shown the replacement bill which is currently on the docket.

And of course Iowa doesn't allow any close family marriages. Even more evidence of that is that there hasn't been a single such marriage in the six years since their Supreme Court nullified bans on same-sex marriage.

 

[Pop23]

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

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

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

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

State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions​

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

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

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

Iowa Annulment and Prohibited Marriage Laws - FindLaw

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

State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions​

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

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

Iowa Annulment and Prohibited Marriage Laws - FindLaw


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

Iowa doesn't agree with me? I'm posting Iowa's own marriage application instructions. You're so fucked in your perverted head, you're not claiming Iowa doesn't agree with me; you're actually claiming Iowa doesn't agree with themselces. Iowa is the one saying they don't allow any close family members to marry, regardless of gender. If anything, I agree with them.

State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions​

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

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

Meanwhile, you keep referencing an antiquated law which was altered due to Supreme Court rulings, which is obviously not yet updated to reflect the changes because of those rulings. You've even been shown the replacement bill which is currently on the docket.

And of course Iowa doesn't allow any close family marriages. Even more evidence of that is that there hasn't been a single such marriage in the six years since their Supreme Court nullified bans on same-sex marriage.

Yes you are wrong. And no, the State of Iowa does not agree with you.

You can cite the Polk County registrars all you want. The state of Iowa is the controlling law in the state, and from the state law:

595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
a. Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
b. Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
c. Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.

See any same sex? Does this contain anything that says same sex couples are prohibited whether family or not?

They don't? Then unless you can cite the IOWA SUPREME COURT removing the above, your bluff was called and you lost......AGAIN!

Then of course the prestigious National Association of District attorney's back that up:

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

See page 23 - 24 Void Marriage


But then maybe you don't know what "Void Marriage" is?

From Wikipedia:

1. 
   A void marriage is a marriage which is unlawful or invalid under the laws of the jurisdiction where it is entered. A void marriage is "one that is void and invalid from its beginning. It is as though the marriage never existed and it requires no formality to terminate.

Looks like you got some work to do Sparky

 

[Boss]

Then they absolutely are not fundamental rights.

Rights have restrictions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, riddle me this...

What about 15 years from now, a gay man comes forth with his dilemma... He is gay married to his gay lover but he has recently grown to discover he is at least partially heterosexual because he is in love with a heterosexual woman now. She is in love with him as well, but they can't get married because he is already gay married. He doesn't want to get a divorce from his gay partner, they still love each other... he just wants to have a traditional marriage as well... why should we discriminate against him because he is gay?

 

[Montrovant]

Rights have restrictions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, riddle me this...

What about 15 years from now, a gay man comes forth with his dilemma... He is gay married to his gay lover but he has recently grown to discover he is at least partially heterosexual because he is in love with a heterosexual woman now. She is in love with him as well, but they can't get married because he is already gay married. He doesn't want to get a divorce from his gay partner, they still love each other... he just wants to have a traditional marriage as well... why should we discriminate against him because he is gay?

That was pretty childish.

One cannot get married to someone while already married to someone else. That was true before the legalization of same sex marriage and remains true. Your post only makes sense if same sex marriage is considered entirely different than opposite sex marriage, instead of both being marriage.

What I wonder is whether you understand this and created that hypothetical as a tongue-in-cheek sort of thing, or if you really can't see that both same and opposite marriages are legally still marriages.

 

[Faun]

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

State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions​

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

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

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

Iowa Annulment and Prohibited Marriage Laws - FindLaw

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

State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions​

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

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

Iowa Annulment and Prohibited Marriage Laws - FindLaw


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

Iowa doesn't agree with me? I'm posting Iowa's own marriage application instructions. You're so fucked in your perverted head, you're not claiming Iowa doesn't agree with me; you're actually claiming Iowa doesn't agree with themselces. Iowa is the one saying they don't allow any close family members to marry, regardless of gender. If anything, I agree with them.

State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions​

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

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

Meanwhile, you keep referencing an antiquated law which was altered due to Supreme Court rulings, which is obviously not yet updated to reflect the changes because of those rulings. You've even been shown the replacement bill which is currently on the docket.

And of course Iowa doesn't allow any close family marriages. Even more evidence of that is that there hasn't been a single such marriage in the six years since their Supreme Court nullified bans on same-sex marriage.

Yes you are wrong. And no, the State of Iowa does not agree with you.

You can cite the Polk County registrars all you want. The state of Iowa is the controlling law in the state, and from the state law:

595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
a. Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
b. Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
c. Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.

See any same sex? Does this contain anything that says same sex couples are prohibited whether family or not?

They don't? Then unless you can cite the IOWA SUPREME COURT removing the above, your bluff was called and you lost......AGAIN!

Then off course the prestigious National Association of District attorney's back that up:

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

See page 23 - 24 Void Marriage


But then maybe you don't know what "Void Marriage" is?

From Wikipedia:

1. 
   A void marriage is a marriage which is unlawful or invalid under the laws of the jurisdiction where it is entered. A void marriage is "one that is void and invalid from its beginning. It is as though the marriage never existed and it requires no formality to terminate.

Looks like you got some work to do Sparky

Holyfuckingshit!

Can ya be any more retarded?

Why would you think that's Polk County? Can you not read the first line of their marriage application instructions??

STATE OF IOWA​

What about this line...

IOWA LAW provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are .... not closely related by blood or first cousins​

Nope, nothing about Polk County in there either. Nowhere in the state can close family members marry.

And again... it really doesn't matter how many times you repeat that section, as you've been shown... Iowa doesn't let any close members marry regardless of gender.

That's why not single such marriage in 6 years.

Oh... and...

 

[Boss]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, riddle me this...

What about 15 years from now, a gay man comes forth with his dilemma... He is gay married to his gay lover but he has recently grown to discover he is at least partially heterosexual because he is in love with a heterosexual woman now. She is in love with him as well, but they can't get married because he is already gay married. He doesn't want to get a divorce from his gay partner, they still love each other... he just wants to have a traditional marriage as well... why should we discriminate against him because he is gay?

That was pretty childish.

One cannot get married to someone while already married to someone else. That was true before the legalization of same sex marriage and remains true. Your post only makes sense if same sex marriage is considered entirely different than opposite sex marriage, instead of both being marriage.

What I wonder is whether you understand this and created that hypothetical as a tongue-in-cheek sort of thing, or if you really can't see that both same and opposite marriages are legally still marriages.

One cannot get married to someone while already married to someone else.

Why not? Because you don't like it? Because it disrupts your sense of tradition? What is your reasoning for not allowing multi-partner marriages? Especially in the scenario I laid out, where the man is married but not traditionally married? Why should he be denied a traditional marriage just because he has a gay marriage? Does it harm your marriage for him to have both?

 

[Pop23]

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

Iowa Annulment and Prohibited Marriage Laws - FindLaw

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

State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions​

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

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

Iowa Annulment and Prohibited Marriage Laws - FindLaw


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

Iowa doesn't agree with me? I'm posting Iowa's own marriage application instructions. You're so fucked in your perverted head, you're not claiming Iowa doesn't agree with me; you're actually claiming Iowa doesn't agree with themselces. Iowa is the one saying they don't allow any close family members to marry, regardless of gender. If anything, I agree with them.

State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions​

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

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

Meanwhile, you keep referencing an antiquated law which was altered due to Supreme Court rulings, which is obviously not yet updated to reflect the changes because of those rulings. You've even been shown the replacement bill which is currently on the docket.

And of course Iowa doesn't allow any close family marriages. Even more evidence of that is that there hasn't been a single such marriage in the six years since their Supreme Court nullified bans on same-sex marriage.

Yes you are wrong. And no, the State of Iowa does not agree with you.

You can cite the Polk County registrars all you want. The state of Iowa is the controlling law in the state, and from the state law:

595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
a. Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
b. Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
c. Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.

See any same sex? Does this contain anything that says same sex couples are prohibited whether family or not?

They don't? Then unless you can cite the IOWA SUPREME COURT removing the above, your bluff was called and you lost......AGAIN!

Then off course the prestigious National Association of District attorney's back that up:

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

See page 23 - 24 Void Marriage


But then maybe you don't know what "Void Marriage" is?

From Wikipedia:

1. 
   A void marriage is a marriage which is unlawful or invalid under the laws of the jurisdiction where it is entered. A void marriage is "one that is void and invalid from its beginning. It is as though the marriage never existed and it requires no formality to terminate.

Looks like you got some work to do Sparky

Holyfuckingshit!

Can ya be any more retarded?

Why would you think that's Polk County? Can you not read the first line of their marriage application instructions??

STATE OF IOWA​

What about this line...

IOWA LAW provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are .... not closely related by blood or first cousins​

Nope, nothing about Polk County in there either. Nowhere in the state can close family members marry.

And again... it really doesn't matter how many times you repeat that section, as you've been shown... Iowa doesn't let any close members marry regardless of gender.

That's why not single such marriage in 6 years.

Oh... and...

Because you're a dishonest fuck, I will post Iowa 595.19. The controlling legislation:

595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
a. Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
b. Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
c. Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.

This is the first line again:

1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:

Then a very long list of THE FOLLOWING none of which are closely relate same sex. Hmmmmm

And then we have the National Association of District Attorney's that seem to say I am right.

Sucks to be you, all alone in your dishonesty.

WOW, imagine that, I proved you wrong again.

Getting to be a habit watching you lose so often.

 

[Pop23]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, riddle me this...

What about 15 years from now, a gay man comes forth with his dilemma... He is gay married to his gay lover but he has recently grown to discover he is at least partially heterosexual because he is in love with a heterosexual woman now. She is in love with him as well, but they can't get married because he is already gay married. He doesn't want to get a divorce from his gay partner, they still love each other... he just wants to have a traditional marriage as well... why should we discriminate against him because he is gay?

That was pretty childish.

One cannot get married to someone while already married to someone else. That was true before the legalization of same sex marriage and remains true. Your post only makes sense if same sex marriage is considered entirely different than opposite sex marriage, instead of both being marriage.

What I wonder is whether you understand this and created that hypothetical as a tongue-in-cheek sort of thing, or if you really can't see that both same and opposite marriages are legally still marriages.

One cannot get married to someone while already married to someone else.

Why not? Because you don't like it? Because it disrupts your sense of tradition? What is your reasoning for not allowing multi-partner marriages? Especially in the scenario I laid out, where the man is married but not traditionally married? Why should he be denied a traditional marriage just because he has a gay marriage? Does it harm your marriage for him to have both?

Didn't one of the Justices ask this, and I paraphrase:

If steve loves Jill and Steve loves Jim, why is it Steve can Marry Jill but not Jim?

So, why can't he Marry both? If it was the Justices question afterall

Are your opponents in this actually calling the person who cast the deciding vote........

Childish?

 

[Montrovant]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, riddle me this...

What about 15 years from now, a gay man comes forth with his dilemma... He is gay married to his gay lover but he has recently grown to discover he is at least partially heterosexual because he is in love with a heterosexual woman now. She is in love with him as well, but they can't get married because he is already gay married. He doesn't want to get a divorce from his gay partner, they still love each other... he just wants to have a traditional marriage as well... why should we discriminate against him because he is gay?

That was pretty childish.

One cannot get married to someone while already married to someone else. That was true before the legalization of same sex marriage and remains true. Your post only makes sense if same sex marriage is considered entirely different than opposite sex marriage, instead of both being marriage.

What I wonder is whether you understand this and created that hypothetical as a tongue-in-cheek sort of thing, or if you really can't see that both same and opposite marriages are legally still marriages.

One cannot get married to someone while already married to someone else.

Why not? Because you don't like it? Because it disrupts your sense of tradition? What is your reasoning for not allowing multi-partner marriages? Especially in the scenario I laid out, where the man is married but not traditionally married? Why should he be denied a traditional marriage just because he has a gay marriage? Does it harm your marriage for him to have both?

Whether the participants are same sex or opposite sex it is still legally marriage. As of this moment a person cannot get married to someone while married to someone else. Why not? That's the law.

If someone wants to get the law changed, fine. I was answering your silly hypothetical which tries to treat same sex marriage as somehow legally different from opposite sex marriage, as though one should be permitted to have both a same sex and opposite sex marriage simultaneously. Clearly that is not the way the law works.

I don't have a problem with polygamy. It is not current marriage law, however, and does not fit with current marriage law.

In your scenario, the man is married. You may want to call it not traditionally married, but that is not a legal distinction. He is being denied a second marriage simultaneous with his current marriage, the same as any other married persons.

 

[Faun]

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

State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions​

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

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

Iowa Annulment and Prohibited Marriage Laws - FindLaw


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

Iowa doesn't agree with me? I'm posting Iowa's own marriage application instructions. You're so fucked in your perverted head, you're not claiming Iowa doesn't agree with me; you're actually claiming Iowa doesn't agree with themselces. Iowa is the one saying they don't allow any close family members to marry, regardless of gender. If anything, I agree with them.

State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions​

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

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

Meanwhile, you keep referencing an antiquated law which was altered due to Supreme Court rulings, which is obviously not yet updated to reflect the changes because of those rulings. You've even been shown the replacement bill which is currently on the docket.

And of course Iowa doesn't allow any close family marriages. Even more evidence of that is that there hasn't been a single such marriage in the six years since their Supreme Court nullified bans on same-sex marriage.

Yes you are wrong. And no, the State of Iowa does not agree with you.

You can cite the Polk County registrars all you want. The state of Iowa is the controlling law in the state, and from the state law:

595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
a. Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
b. Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
c. Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.

See any same sex? Does this contain anything that says same sex couples are prohibited whether family or not?

They don't? Then unless you can cite the IOWA SUPREME COURT removing the above, your bluff was called and you lost......AGAIN!

Then off course the prestigious National Association of District attorney's back that up:

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

See page 23 - 24 Void Marriage


But then maybe you don't know what "Void Marriage" is?

From Wikipedia:

1. 
   A void marriage is a marriage which is unlawful or invalid under the laws of the jurisdiction where it is entered. A void marriage is "one that is void and invalid from its beginning. It is as though the marriage never existed and it requires no formality to terminate.

Looks like you got some work to do Sparky

Holyfuckingshit!

Can ya be any more retarded?

Why would you think that's Polk County? Can you not read the first line of their marriage application instructions??

STATE OF IOWA​

What about this line...

IOWA LAW provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are .... not closely related by blood or first cousins​

Nope, nothing about Polk County in there either. Nowhere in the state can close family members marry.

And again... it really doesn't matter how many times you repeat that section, as you've been shown... Iowa doesn't let any close members marry regardless of gender.

That's why not single such marriage in 6 years.

Oh... and...

Because you're a dishonest fuck, I will post Iowa 595.19. The controlling legislation:

595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
a. Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
b. Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
c. Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.

This is the first line again:

1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:

Then a very long list of THE FOLLOWING none of which are closely relate same sex. Hmmmmm

And then we have the National Association of District Attorney's that seem to say I am right.

Sucks to be you, all alone in your dishonesty.

WOW, imagine that, I proved you wrong again.

Getting to be a habit watching you lose so often.

Oh, nooo's, pops is gettin' all uppity. lol

Is this your way of admitting what I posted was about the entire state of Iowa and not just Polk County?

You can post it all you want... Iowa still doesn't let any close-family members marry each other regardless of gender...

State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions​

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

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

And the NDAA doesn't even help you. You're referencing a list of incestuous statutes. Says so on the link you posted. You just can't stop fantasizing about incest, can you, perv23?

Oh, I'm still waiting for you to find even one single close-family marriage that took place in Iowa in the last 6 years.... you can't because Iowa doesn't allow such marriages.

 

[Boss]

Whether the participants are same sex or opposite sex it is still legally marriage. As of this moment a person cannot get married to someone while married to someone else. Why not? That's the law.

Well we're not talking about "as of this moment" or what the law currently is, are we?

I am asking you a direct question and you're not answering me directly.
Why should he be denied a traditional marriage just because he has a gay marriage? Does it harm your marriage for him to have both?

 

[Boss]

You can post it all you want... Iowa still doesn't let any close-family members marry each other regardless of gender...

Why not? It's not harming you or your marriage is it? Why do you want to deny people their fundamental rights to marriage?

 

[Montrovant]

Whether the participants are same sex or opposite sex it is still legally marriage. As of this moment a person cannot get married to someone while married to someone else. Why not? That's the law.

Well we're not talking about "as of this moment" or what the law currently is, are we?

I am asking you a direct question and you're not answering me directly.
Why should he be denied a traditional marriage just because he has a gay marriage? Does it harm your marriage for him to have both?

Because current marriage law doesn't work with polygamy. If new law is written which covers polygamous relationships I have no problem with it. As I already said.

 

[Boss]

In your scenario, the man is married. You may want to call it not traditionally married, but that is not a legal distinction. He is being denied a second marriage simultaneous with his current marriage, the same as any other married persons.

But clearly you can understand that a traditional marriage is not the same as a gay marriage. Why should he be deprived of the benefits of a traditional marital relationship with the person he loves heterosexually, just because he has a homosexual-based marriage with a same-sex partner? Are we discriminating against him for being gay? Are we going to forbid him from being heterosexual?

And what is your basis for this? Your moral judgement of right and wrong? Traditions? The way things have always been before?

 

[Montrovant]

Whether the participants are same sex or opposite sex it is still legally marriage. As of this moment a person cannot get married to someone while married to someone else. Why not? That's the law.

Well we're not talking about "as of this moment" or what the law currently is, are we?

I am asking you a direct question and you're not answering me directly.
Why should he be denied a traditional marriage just because he has a gay marriage? Does it harm your marriage for him to have both?

Oh, unlike you, I don't look at it as being denied a traditional marriage because he has a gay marriage. I consider it being denied a second marriage while he is still in a first marriage. That is also the way the law sees it.

 

[Boss]

Because current marriage law doesn't work with polygamy.

Explain.

 

[skye]

it's hard to condemn a homo when you have a loved one who is a homo...you know....somewhere on this planet...on some country out there...and you love him

Bloody hell ...me doesn't like it...but me has to be good ..me does not want to hurt him and all that shit...see.... I don't want to hurt him.....



what a life this is

 

[Montrovant]

In your scenario, the man is married. You may want to call it not traditionally married, but that is not a legal distinction. He is being denied a second marriage simultaneous with his current marriage, the same as any other married persons.

But clearly you can understand that a traditional marriage is not the same as a gay marriage. Why should he be deprived of the benefits of a traditional marital relationship with the person he loves heterosexually, just because he has a homosexual-based marriage with a same-sex partner? Are we discriminating against him for being gay? Are we going to forbid him from being heterosexual?

And what is your basis for this? Your moral judgement of right and wrong? Traditions? The way things have always been before?

They are both marriages.

He is not denied the benefits of a traditional marital relationship. He is being denied the ability to have two marriages simultaneously.

 

[Montrovant]

Because current marriage law doesn't work with polygamy.

Explain.

Child custody, power of attorney, inheritance, tax filing, there are any number of ways in which current marriage law does not cover polygamous marriage.

 

[skye]

because

me could hurt him so much...so easily ...so much

omg

what a life this is