It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[bodecea]

You wouldn't care if laws were pushed to restrict your civil rights?

Nope, cuz I think we have a majority of states to back us.

So....you rely on being in the majority at all times. What if that were to change in some way?

The population would go to zero and then......

What the hells your point.

Male/female coupling is a species necessity. Female/Female? Not so much.

What if you became the minority in something besides sexuality? For example, what if you are left-handed and the MAJORITY decided to take away some civil right of left-handed people? That wouldn't bother you? Or you are blue-eyed and the MAJORITY decided to take away some civil right of blue-eyed people? That wouldn't bother you?


(Oh, why would the population go to zero? Explain)

Gays do what gays do

That is your answer to my simple question? Ok, since you really don't want to be serious and hold a serious discussion............just trolling then?

 

[Pop23]

Nope, cuz I think we have a majority of states to back us.

So....you rely on being in the majority at all times. What if that were to change in some way?

The population would go to zero and then......

What the hells your point.

Male/female coupling is a species necessity. Female/Female? Not so much.

What if you became the minority in something besides sexuality? For example, what if you are left-handed and the MAJORITY decided to take away some civil right of left-handed people? That wouldn't bother you? Or you are blue-eyed and the MAJORITY decided to take away some civil right of blue-eyed people? That wouldn't bother you?


(Oh, why would the population go to zero? Explain)

Gays do what gays do

That is your answer to my simple question? Ok, since you really don't want to be serious and hold a serious discussion............just trolling then?

Nope, just telling it like it is.

 

[Faun]

There are numerous Iowa counties found in this link. I did not find a relevant state law to link, only some individual counties.

state of iowa marriage license instructions at DuckDuckGo

Why waste your time, here is the actual law:

Iowa Code 595

If it's been modified by the legislature or court order, please link to those. All counties can do is reference questions back to the State Authority.

Wait, you are saying that all of those various counties using the same wording for what Iowa says are the qualifications for marriage are really just sending questions to the state?

Counties can synopsis the law anyway they wish, the State is the Controlling Authority and it is the State that created marriage law, including who is disqualified fro entering into the contract.

The IOWA SUPREME COURT ordered that the State allow same gender couples be allowed to marry, nothing more, nothing less.

Link to the court order that does different.

Counties do not put out state documents that do not pertain to the entire state. Seriously, perv23, what the fuck is wrong with you?

Oh I see, but print shops is Spencer Iowa do?

Got it.

If approved by the state, yes.

 

[Faun]

So claims the pervert who can't find a single family marriage in 6 years, despite his delusion that it's legal.

Check the law again and find a mention of sex being a requirement of a marriage contract.

If you can't, you just admitted that you are the pervert.

As has been pointed out to you, SC rulings nullified marriage laws regarding gender.

You're the one who can't stop talking about incest, perv.

Then you ought to be able to provide the link to the wording......,

But you've been beaten and reduced to a troll.

Damn, you were a challenge once, now just a bug on the bottom of my shoe.

I'll scrape you off later, but for now I'm just enjoying walking all over your mangled remains

Already provided. Here it again...

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.​

So claims the pervert who can't find a single family marriage in 6 years, despite his delusion that it's legal.

Check the law again and find a mention of sex being a requirement of a marriage contract.

If you can't, you just admitted that you are the pervert.

As has been pointed out to you, SC rulings nullified marriage laws regarding gender.

You're the one who can't stop talking about incest, perv.

Then you ought to be able to provide the link to the wording......,

But you've been beaten and reduced to a troll.

Damn, you were a challenge once, now just a bug on the bottom of my shoe.

I'll scrape you off later, but for now I'm just enjoying walking all over your mangled remains

Already provided. Here it again...

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.​

Poor dipshit Faun. To lazy to check the ruling: here it is:

http://www.iowacourts.gov/wfData/files/Varnum/07-1499(1).pdf

Last page is all you need. It forces a change in Iowa code 595.2 only.

But because I am always helpful:

The district court properly granted summary judgment to plaintiffs. Iowa Code section 595.2 violates the equal protection provision of the Iowa Constitution. Our decision becomes effective upon issuance of procedendo.33

AFFIRMED.

All justices concur.

Gee, no other changes to existing law???

Too bad the couples excluded are contained elsewhere.

Fauns dumbfuckery is now revealed completely

And still, the state of Iowa laughs at your ignorance, Perv23...

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.​

 

[Faun]

That law's been altered. It even still reads that marriage is between a man and a woman. According to you, same-sex marriage is still banned in Iowa.

According to Iowa, same-sex marriage is allowed but marrying close family members is not.

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.​

Poor fool, takes the word of a printing company over the Iowa State Legislature.

Oh look... Now the form pervert thinks that marriage applications aren't valid because they're printed up by printing companies.

Your desperation is noted, perv.

It is the controlling law behind the forms that are important bug.

Youre smashed again.

Nope. If it were, marriage would be limited to a man and a woman since that is what the law reads.

Not according to the IOWA SUPREME COURT.

But then again, by your explanation, no marriages have been performed in
Iowa since 2009.

I guess you could clear this up by supplying a link to the ISC ruling changing those included in the prohibited list

Now you're lying, perv. I never inferred no marriages have occurred in Iowa since 2009. And I could even prove many have.

Unlike you, claiming same-sex close-family marriage has been legal there since 2009 only you can't find even one such marriage.

Because there are none.

Because Iowa doesn't allow it.

 

[Pop23]

Check the law again and find a mention of sex being a requirement of a marriage contract.

If you can't, you just admitted that you are the pervert.

As has been pointed out to you, SC rulings nullified marriage laws regarding gender.

You're the one who can't stop talking about incest, perv.

Then you ought to be able to provide the link to the wording......,

But you've been beaten and reduced to a troll.

Damn, you were a challenge once, now just a bug on the bottom of my shoe.

I'll scrape you off later, but for now I'm just enjoying walking all over your mangled remains

Already provided. Here it again...

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.​

Check the law again and find a mention of sex being a requirement of a marriage contract.

If you can't, you just admitted that you are the pervert.

As has been pointed out to you, SC rulings nullified marriage laws regarding gender.

You're the one who can't stop talking about incest, perv.

Then you ought to be able to provide the link to the wording......,

But you've been beaten and reduced to a troll.

Damn, you were a challenge once, now just a bug on the bottom of my shoe.

I'll scrape you off later, but for now I'm just enjoying walking all over your mangled remains

Already provided. Here it again...

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.​

Poor dipshit Faun. To lazy to check the ruling: here it is:

http://www.iowacourts.gov/wfData/files/Varnum/07-1499(1).pdf

Last page is all you need. It forces a change in Iowa code 595.2 only.

But because I am always helpful:

The district court properly granted summary judgment to plaintiffs. Iowa Code section 595.2 violates the equal protection provision of the Iowa Constitution. Our decision becomes effective upon issuance of procedendo.33

AFFIRMED.

All justices concur.

Gee, no other changes to existing law???

Too bad the couples excluded are contained elsewhere.

Fauns dumbfuckery is now revealed completely

And still, the state of Iowa laughs at your ignorance, Perv23...

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 you will supply a link that changes Iowa 595.19 that is the description for the meaning "not closely related by blood" means under Iowa statute, right?

It is the State of Iowa, not dipshit Faun, Wikipedia, dictionary.com or a print shop in Spencer, Iowa that gets that privilege.

Good God, have you no pride? Simply supply the Court ruling or Legislation that changes iowa 595.19. It is the only two things that can change state definition.

 

[Pop23]

Poor fool, takes the word of a printing company over the Iowa State Legislature.

Oh look... Now the form pervert thinks that marriage applications aren't valid because they're printed up by printing companies.

Your desperation is noted, perv.

It is the controlling law behind the forms that are important bug.

Youre smashed again.

Nope. If it were, marriage would be limited to a man and a woman since that is what the law reads.

Not according to the IOWA SUPREME COURT.

But then again, by your explanation, no marriages have been performed in
Iowa since 2009.

I guess you could clear this up by supplying a link to the ISC ruling changing those included in the prohibited list

Now you're lying, perv. I never inferred no marriages have occurred in Iowa since 2009. And I could even prove many have.

Unlike you, claiming same-sex close-family marriage has been legal there since 2009 only you can't find even one such marriage.

Because there are none.

Because Iowa doesn't allow it.

Your argument has been thoroughly and completely defeated.

 

[Faun]

As has been pointed out to you, SC rulings nullified marriage laws regarding gender.

You're the one who can't stop talking about incest, perv.

Then you ought to be able to provide the link to the wording......,

But you've been beaten and reduced to a troll.

Damn, you were a challenge once, now just a bug on the bottom of my shoe.

I'll scrape you off later, but for now I'm just enjoying walking all over your mangled remains

Already provided. Here it again...

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.​

As has been pointed out to you, SC rulings nullified marriage laws regarding gender.

You're the one who can't stop talking about incest, perv.

Then you ought to be able to provide the link to the wording......,

But you've been beaten and reduced to a troll.

Damn, you were a challenge once, now just a bug on the bottom of my shoe.

I'll scrape you off later, but for now I'm just enjoying walking all over your mangled remains

Already provided. Here it again...

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.​

Poor dipshit Faun. To lazy to check the ruling: here it is:

http://www.iowacourts.gov/wfData/files/Varnum/07-1499(1).pdf

Last page is all you need. It forces a change in Iowa code 595.2 only.

But because I am always helpful:

The district court properly granted summary judgment to plaintiffs. Iowa Code section 595.2 violates the equal protection provision of the Iowa Constitution. Our decision becomes effective upon issuance of procedendo.33

AFFIRMED.

All justices concur.

Gee, no other changes to existing law???

Too bad the couples excluded are contained elsewhere.

Fauns dumbfuckery is now revealed completely

And still, the state of Iowa laughs at your ignorance, Perv23...

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 you will supply a link that changes Iowa 595.19 that is the description for the meaning "not closely related by blood" means under Iowa statute, right?

It is the State of Iowa, not dipshit Faun, Wikipedia, dictionary.com or a print shop in Spencer, Iowa that gets that privilege.

Good God, have you no pride? Simply supply the Court ruling or Legislation that changes iowa 595.19. It is the only two things that can change state definition.

I gave you the link. You ignore it. Oh well.

 

[Faun]

Oh look... Now the form pervert thinks that marriage applications aren't valid because they're printed up by printing companies.

Your desperation is noted, perv.

It is the controlling law behind the forms that are important bug.

Youre smashed again.

Nope. If it were, marriage would be limited to a man and a woman since that is what the law reads.

Not according to the IOWA SUPREME COURT.

But then again, by your explanation, no marriages have been performed in
Iowa since 2009.

I guess you could clear this up by supplying a link to the ISC ruling changing those included in the prohibited list

Now you're lying, perv. I never inferred no marriages have occurred in Iowa since 2009. And I could even prove many have.

Unlike you, claiming same-sex close-family marriage has been legal there since 2009 only you can't find even one such marriage.

Because there are none.

Because Iowa doesn't allow it.

Your argument has been thoroughly and completely defeated.

Says you. Iowa says otherwise.

State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions​

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

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

 

[Pop23]

Then you ought to be able to provide the link to the wording......,

But you've been beaten and reduced to a troll.

Damn, you were a challenge once, now just a bug on the bottom of my shoe.

I'll scrape you off later, but for now I'm just enjoying walking all over your mangled remains

Already provided. Here it again...

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.​

Then you ought to be able to provide the link to the wording......,

But you've been beaten and reduced to a troll.

Damn, you were a challenge once, now just a bug on the bottom of my shoe.

I'll scrape you off later, but for now I'm just enjoying walking all over your mangled remains

Already provided. Here it again...

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.​

Poor dipshit Faun. To lazy to check the ruling: here it is:

http://www.iowacourts.gov/wfData/files/Varnum/07-1499(1).pdf

Last page is all you need. It forces a change in Iowa code 595.2 only.

But because I am always helpful:

The district court properly granted summary judgment to plaintiffs. Iowa Code section 595.2 violates the equal protection provision of the Iowa Constitution. Our decision becomes effective upon issuance of procedendo.33

AFFIRMED.

All justices concur.

Gee, no other changes to existing law???

Too bad the couples excluded are contained elsewhere.

Fauns dumbfuckery is now revealed completely

And still, the state of Iowa laughs at your ignorance, Perv23...

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 you will supply a link that changes Iowa 595.19 that is the description for the meaning "not closely related by blood" means under Iowa statute, right?

It is the State of Iowa, not dipshit Faun, Wikipedia, dictionary.com or a print shop in Spencer, Iowa that gets that privilege.

Good God, have you no pride? Simply supply the Court ruling or Legislation that changes iowa 595.19. It is the only two things that can change state definition.

I gave you the link. You ignore it. Oh well.

Link to what? Your fantisy?

Ok, we now see your fantisy.

Point?

 

[Faun]

Already provided. Here it again...

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.​

Already provided. Here it again...

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.​

Poor dipshit Faun. To lazy to check the ruling: here it is:

http://www.iowacourts.gov/wfData/files/Varnum/07-1499(1).pdf

Last page is all you need. It forces a change in Iowa code 595.2 only.

But because I am always helpful:

The district court properly granted summary judgment to plaintiffs. Iowa Code section 595.2 violates the equal protection provision of the Iowa Constitution. Our decision becomes effective upon issuance of procedendo.33

AFFIRMED.

All justices concur.

Gee, no other changes to existing law???

Too bad the couples excluded are contained elsewhere.

Fauns dumbfuckery is now revealed completely

And still, the state of Iowa laughs at your ignorance, Perv23...

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 you will supply a link that changes Iowa 595.19 that is the description for the meaning "not closely related by blood" means under Iowa statute, right?

It is the State of Iowa, not dipshit Faun, Wikipedia, dictionary.com or a print shop in Spencer, Iowa that gets that privilege.

Good God, have you no pride? Simply supply the Court ruling or Legislation that changes iowa 595.19. It is the only two things that can change state definition.

I gave you the link. You ignore it. Oh well.

Link to what? Your fantisy?

Ok, we now see your fantisy.

Point?

No, a link to Iowa's instructions for filling out a marriage application in their state.

 

[Pop23]

It is the controlling law behind the forms that are important bug.

Youre smashed again.

Nope. If it were, marriage would be limited to a man and a woman since that is what the law reads.

Not according to the IOWA SUPREME COURT.

But then again, by your explanation, no marriages have been performed in
Iowa since 2009.

I guess you could clear this up by supplying a link to the ISC ruling changing those included in the prohibited list

Now you're lying, perv. I never inferred no marriages have occurred in Iowa since 2009. And I could even prove many have.

Unlike you, claiming same-sex close-family marriage has been legal there since 2009 only you can't find even one such marriage.

Because there are none.

Because Iowa doesn't allow it.

Your argument has been thoroughly and completely defeated.

Says you. Iowa says otherwise.

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.​

Sorry, your link takes us to a page from a print shop in Spensor Iowa.

Here's the relevent link, to the Iowa State Law:

Iowa Code 595

You've been, once again


BUSTED

 

[Faun]

Nope. If it were, marriage would be limited to a man and a woman since that is what the law reads.

Not according to the IOWA SUPREME COURT.

But then again, by your explanation, no marriages have been performed in
Iowa since 2009.

I guess you could clear this up by supplying a link to the ISC ruling changing those included in the prohibited list

Now you're lying, perv. I never inferred no marriages have occurred in Iowa since 2009. And I could even prove many have.

Unlike you, claiming same-sex close-family marriage has been legal there since 2009 only you can't find even one such marriage.

Because there are none.

Because Iowa doesn't allow it.

Your argument has been thoroughly and completely defeated.

Says you. Iowa says otherwise.

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.​

Sorry, your link takes us to a page from a print shop in Spensor Iowa.

Here's the relevent link, to the Iowa State Law:

Iowa Code 595

You've been, once again


BUSTED

Iowa's marriage instructions are approved by Iowa. You focus on who prints them up only because you're desperate. How sad, perv23.

 

[Pop23]

Poor dipshit Faun. To lazy to check the ruling: here it is:

http://www.iowacourts.gov/wfData/files/Varnum/07-1499(1).pdf

Last page is all you need. It forces a change in Iowa code 595.2 only.

But because I am always helpful:

The district court properly granted summary judgment to plaintiffs. Iowa Code section 595.2 violates the equal protection provision of the Iowa Constitution. Our decision becomes effective upon issuance of procedendo.33

AFFIRMED.

All justices concur.

Gee, no other changes to existing law???

Too bad the couples excluded are contained elsewhere.

Fauns dumbfuckery is now revealed completely

And still, the state of Iowa laughs at your ignorance, Perv23...

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 you will supply a link that changes Iowa 595.19 that is the description for the meaning "not closely related by blood" means under Iowa statute, right?

It is the State of Iowa, not dipshit Faun, Wikipedia, dictionary.com or a print shop in Spencer, Iowa that gets that privilege.

Good God, have you no pride? Simply supply the Court ruling or Legislation that changes iowa 595.19. It is the only two things that can change state definition.

I gave you the link. You ignore it. Oh well.

Link to what? Your fantisy?

Ok, we now see your fantisy.

Point?

No, a link to Iowa's instructions for filling out a marriage application in their state.

Dude, the link doesn't take you where you think it does, it takes you to a print shop in Spensor, Iowa.

Iowa defines "not closely blood related" as, per iowa code 595.19 (not amended or changed by the Iowa judicial system):

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.

 

[Pop23]

Not according to the IOWA SUPREME COURT.

But then again, by your explanation, no marriages have been performed in
Iowa since 2009.

I guess you could clear this up by supplying a link to the ISC ruling changing those included in the prohibited list

Now you're lying, perv. I never inferred no marriages have occurred in Iowa since 2009. And I could even prove many have.

Unlike you, claiming same-sex close-family marriage has been legal there since 2009 only you can't find even one such marriage.

Because there are none.

Because Iowa doesn't allow it.

Your argument has been thoroughly and completely defeated.

Says you. Iowa says otherwise.

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.​

Sorry, your link takes us to a page from a print shop in Spensor Iowa.

Here's the relevent link, to the Iowa State Law:

Iowa Code 595

You've been, once again


BUSTED

Iowa's marriage instructions are approved by Iowa. You focus on who prints them up only because you're desperate. How sad, perv23.

Which includes this gem

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, no same sex immediate family members included.

You going for a record loss total?

 

[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?

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.

Again... if we are arguing what the law currently says and is, then I guess you win that argument.

I thought we were arguing about this hypothetical case and what your justification would be in denying him the right to marry the person he loves? I already know "how you look at it" ...you don't think he can have a second marriage cuz he already gotz one and datz what da law sez.

Men can't fuck each other in the ass... that's what the law said. Once.
Men can't marry men.... that's what the law said. Once.

And again, I don't have any problems with polygamy, it just doesn't work with current marriage law. If the law is changed, I wouldn't be upset about it.

However, your silliness was not 'what if the law were changed or if we ignore the law?'. You were clearly continuing your dialogue about same sex marriage changing everything.

And you've still not explained how your "doesn't work with" is different than the "doesn't work with" arguments against gay marriage. You reeled off some things that would be effected and would have to be changed but that was also the case for gay marriage... things were effected and had to change.

No, Monty, I have never argued that Obergefell changed the law and now allows polygamy and sibling marriage. Again, if THAT is the argument you think we're having it's no wonder you're like a dog with a bone and think you've won. I totally realize none of these things are legal and would all have to be passed into law or challenged in court. We are discussing what your argument is going to be against it when this happens (and it will happen.) Thus far, your only argument seems to be that it's not going to happen because it's against the law and it "doesn't work."

Of course, now you've slowly revealed that you're really okay with polygamy. And you know what else, I believe you'll be okay with sibling marriages, hebephile marriages, zoophile marriages, or whatever other perversion of marriage comes down the pike.

 

[Faun]

And still, the state of Iowa laughs at your ignorance, Perv23...

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 you will supply a link that changes Iowa 595.19 that is the description for the meaning "not closely related by blood" means under Iowa statute, right?

It is the State of Iowa, not dipshit Faun, Wikipedia, dictionary.com or a print shop in Spencer, Iowa that gets that privilege.

Good God, have you no pride? Simply supply the Court ruling or Legislation that changes iowa 595.19. It is the only two things that can change state definition.

I gave you the link. You ignore it. Oh well.

Link to what? Your fantisy?

Ok, we now see your fantisy.

Point?

No, a link to Iowa's instructions for filling out a marriage application in their state.

Dude, the link doesn't take you where you think it does, it takes you to a print shop in Spensor, Iowa.

Iowa defines "not closely blood related" as, per iowa code 595.19 (not amended or changed by the Iowa judicial system):

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.

Wrong again, I know exactly where that link goes to since I got the link from an Iowa government page.

As much as you want to dismiss the contents of their instructions because of who prints them up for the government, Iowa still approves of their marriage application instructions.

Again, your desperation is noted and dismissed since Iowa doesn't allow close-family members to marry, regardless of gender.

Also evidenced by your inability to find even one such couple to get married in 6 years.

6 years ... 250+ million American citizens 16 and older ... zero close-family marriages.

 

[Seawytch]

Nope, cuz I think we have a majority of states to back us.

So....you rely on being in the majority at all times. What if that were to change in some way?

The population would go to zero and then......

What the hells your point.

Male/female coupling is a species necessity. Female/Female? Not so much.

What if you became the minority in something besides sexuality? For example, what if you are left-handed and the MAJORITY decided to take away some civil right of left-handed people? That wouldn't bother you? Or you are blue-eyed and the MAJORITY decided to take away some civil right of blue-eyed people? That wouldn't bother you?


(Oh, why would the population go to zero? Explain)

Gays do what gays do

That is your answer to my simple question? Ok, since you really don't want to be serious and hold a serious discussion............just trolling then?

I know you're not just now figuring out that Sibling Marriage Defender, Pops, is simply trolling.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

So your link takes me to gmdsolutions. Not exactly a govermental branch of the iowa government, is it?

No wonder you dance so much.

Mine quoted the entire controlling law, which the corporation is not obligated to include when their sales person contracts with the county.

Nice dodge though.

While we are at it. Please supply a link to the proposed legislation you claim exists that would change Iowa 595 to exclude same sex family members the right to Marry.

BOOM

You lose yet again

It's like clockwork for you!

There are numerous Iowa counties found in this link. I did not find a relevant state law to link, only some individual counties.

state of iowa marriage license instructions at DuckDuckGo

Why waste your time, here is the actual law:

Iowa Code 595

If it's been modified by the legislature or court order, please link to those. All counties can do is reference questions back to the State Authority.

Wait, you are saying that all of those various counties using the same wording for what Iowa says are the qualifications for marriage are really just sending questions to the state?

Counties can synopsis the law anyway they wish, the State is the Controlling Authority and it is the State that created marriage law, including who is disqualified fro entering into the contract.

The IOWA SUPREME COURT ordered that the State allow same gender couples be allowed to marry, nothing more, nothing less.

Link to the court order that does different.

You seem to ask for links to things that people haven't claimed an awful lot.

I just pointed out that multiple Iowa counties have the same wording as part of the requirements for obtaining a marriage license, as though quoting from something like a statute. It seems unlikely that they would make up marriage requirements among themselves, particularly if doing so is non-binding or illegal.

You've linked to marriage law in Iowa, but I have no idea if any other law has been passed or if the relevant sections of 595 have been adjusted since the legalization of same sex marriage. Perhaps it has not been and there could be an issue if same sex close relations petition to be married. The most recent iteration of 595 I have seen was from 2014. I did not see any date from your link so I don't know when it was last updated, nor how long it might take between passage of or change to law by the legislature and updating online.

 

[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.

Again... if we are arguing what the law currently says and is, then I guess you win that argument.

I thought we were arguing about this hypothetical case and what your justification would be in denying him the right to marry the person he loves? I already know "how you look at it" ...you don't think he can have a second marriage cuz he already gotz one and datz what da law sez.

Men can't fuck each other in the ass... that's what the law said. Once.
Men can't marry men.... that's what the law said. Once.

And again, I don't have any problems with polygamy, it just doesn't work with current marriage law. If the law is changed, I wouldn't be upset about it.

However, your silliness was not 'what if the law were changed or if we ignore the law?'. You were clearly continuing your dialogue about same sex marriage changing everything.

And you've still not explained how your "doesn't work with" is different than the "doesn't work with" arguments against gay marriage. You reeled off some things that would be effected and would have to be changed but that was also the case for gay marriage... things were effected and had to change.

No, Monty, I have never argued that Obergefell changed the law and now allows polygamy and sibling marriage. Again, if THAT is the argument you think we're having it's no wonder you're like a dog with a bone and think you've won. I totally realize none of these things are legal and would all have to be passed into law or challenged in court. We are discussing what your argument is going to be against it when this happens (and it will happen.) Thus far, your only argument seems to be that it's not going to happen because it's against the law and it "doesn't work."

Of course, now you've slowly revealed that you're really okay with polygamy. And you know what else, I believe you'll be okay with sibling marriages, hebephile marriages, zoophile marriages, or whatever other perversion of marriage comes down the pike.

Of course you think these things. You are a deluded twit.

I've never spoken against polygamous marriage that I can recall in a moral sense. My only problem with polygamy is in the practicality of its application. Many different laws about marriage would need to be changed for polygamous marriage to work. With same sex marriage there are very few changes needed. That you cannot see the difference is not my problem.

I would not support non-consensual marriage, whatever you may think. You are the only one who seems to feel consent is unimportant in these discussions. I don't expect any serious legal challenge to laws requiring humans be the participants in marriage to occur anyway, despite your histrionics.

You have argued that Obergefell has changed the law so that, if challenged, any joining which wants to gain legal marriage must get it. They may not be legal now but, based on what you've said, if someone takes it to court they must be legalized based on Obergefell. I have, on many occasions now, given arguments as to why your silly claims about potential forms of marriage will not be legalized. You seem to have decided to ignore them in order to try and winnow my arguments down to an easier to argue against straw man.

There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of laws in which marital status plays a part. I believe it would be far more difficult to fit polygamous marriage into those laws, that many more changes or completely new additions would need to be made, than for same sex marriage.