Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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...so I don't know when it was last updated, nor how long it might take...
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.
Wrong again, I know exactly where that link goes to since I got the link from an Iowa government page.No, a link to Iowa's instructions for filling out a marriage application in their state.I gave you the link. You ignore it. Oh well.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.
Link to what? Your fantisy?
Ok, we now see your fantisy.
Point?
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.
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.
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...so I don't know when it was last updated, nor how long it might take...
You see, Pops... Our laws and Constitution all rely upon Monty's knowledge. Nothing can be constitutional until Monty hears about it and let's us know that he knows it is constitutional. As long as he is in the dark or ignorant of things, they can't possibly be legal or constitutional. You need to get that through your thick head and understand how things are, by gawd!
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?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?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.
(Oh, why would the population go to zero? Explain)
Gays do what gays do
I know you're not just now figuring out that Sibling Marriage Defender, Pops, is simply trolling.
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...so I don't know when it was last updated, nor how long it might take...
You see, Pops... Our laws and Constitution all rely upon Monty's knowledge. Nothing can be constitutional until Monty hears about it and let's us know that he knows it is constitutional. As long as he is in the dark or ignorant of things, they can't possibly be legal or constitutional. You need to get that through your thick head and understand how things are, by gawd!
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.
All the same old tired nonsense.
No one is going to support "non-consentual" marriage... that's why we'd change the definition of consent, like we've done a million times and as is the case all over the country in various states regarding various laws. We've already been through the fact that animals aren't required to give consent because they aren't constitutionally protected. Age of consent is arbitrary and has been as low as 12-years-old in THIS country.
As for your argument against polygamy, it's even weaker. You're saying it would need to be accommodated.... okay, so what? Didn't we have to make accommodation for homosexuals? We don't disallow fundamental constitutional rights because we don't want to accommodate them or because we think it would be a pain in the ass to accommodate.
As for Obergefell, the equal protection clause is a booger. It has redefined traditional marriage based on the ruling and it will stand as legal precedent in any future challenge. You seem to think it happened in a vacuum and won't have any effect on any future case. It's about the most ignorant and asinine viewpoint I've ever heard. But then, it's coming from you!
Animals would be required to give consent to marry, as anyone who marries is required to give consent.
I have only argued that polygamy does not work with current marriage law.
I have only argued that polygamy does not work with current marriage law.
But you've not explained why this matters with regard to a fundamental right to marriage. You seem to want to believe we're having an argument about what the law currently says is legal and not legal... that's a matter of public record, the laws say what they say today. There is no "argument" there. We're discussing what the law can now be changed to in the future as a result of making marriage a fundamental right based on sexual behavior masquerading as equal protection under the 14th.
"Oh, sorry, that doesn't work for me..." is NOT going to pass constitutional muster.
And really... what actual changes, other than use of a calculator, would be involved in two spouses as opposed to one? I don't understand what "doesn't work" about it? Why can't it be accommodated like we made accommodation for the gays? Oh yeah... that's right, you are FOR polygamy! You done knocked down that taboo!
And yet, Iowa still says close-family marriages are not allowed.Wrong again, I know exactly where that link goes to since I got the link from an Iowa government page.No, a link to Iowa's instructions for filling out a marriage application in their state.I gave you the link. You ignore it. Oh well.
Link to what? Your fantisy?
Ok, we now see your fantisy.
Point?
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.
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.
Again, my link is the actual law that defines what iowa considers to be those that are too closely related. Which are, and those that are void, thus having an empty claim to license:
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.
Notice the last word. Valid. Valid is the opposite of void. Those included in the list have an empty (void) claim to contract, those not listed have a claim (valid) to enter such contracts.
You need to supply the legislation that changes Iowa 595.19 or you're simply spamming the board with a link to a printing company.
You are completely toasted dude:
And yet, Iowa still says close-family marriages are not allowed.Wrong again, I know exactly where that link goes to since I got the link from an Iowa government page.No, a link to Iowa's instructions for filling out a marriage application in their state.Link to what? Your fantisy?
Ok, we now see your fantisy.
Point?
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.
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.
Again, my link is the actual law that defines what iowa considers to be those that are too closely related. Which are, and those that are void, thus having an empty claim to license:
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.
Notice the last word. Valid. Valid is the opposite of void. Those included in the list have an empty (void) claim to contract, those not listed have a claim (valid) to enter such contracts.
You need to supply the legislation that changes Iowa 595.19 or you're simply spamming the board with a link to a printing company.
You are completely toasted dude:
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.
Animals would be required to give consent to marry, as anyone who marries is required to give consent.
Really? So the U.S. Constitution protects animals and they have rights now? How, exactly, are animals supposed to "give consent?" It seems to me you are attempting to deny someone the fundamental rights of marriage based on what an animal cannot do and is not obligated to do under the constitution.
Marriage required people to be of the same race. That was changed. Racists were as certain then of the slippery slope as you are now.Marriage required the relationship to be the union of a male and female. That was changed. Therefore, any argument you have based on what marriage traditionally HAS been, is irrelevant now. We can change what is required for marriage. This has been established.
I'm spamming nothing. I'm replying to your idiocy that the statute you quote is still relevant despite Supreme Court rulings affecting gender in marriages. You're under the delusion that a SC ruling can create a loophole where people can violate the law. I say you're a retard who doesn't understand the spirit of the law prevents that from occurring.And yet, Iowa still says close-family marriages are not allowed.Wrong again, I know exactly where that link goes to since I got the link from an Iowa government page.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.
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.
Again, my link is the actual law that defines what iowa considers to be those that are too closely related. Which are, and those that are void, thus having an empty claim to license:
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.
Notice the last word. Valid. Valid is the opposite of void. Those included in the list have an empty (void) claim to contract, those not listed have a claim (valid) to enter such contracts.
You need to supply the legislation that changes Iowa 595.19 or you're simply spamming the board with a link to a printing company.
You are completely toasted dude:
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.
Only those contained on this list are void:
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.
You need to quit spamming the board and link to the legislation that changed the above.
Or admit you're spamming the board with a link to a pamphlet from a printing company from Spencor Iowa
Marriage is a legal contract. Animals, children and dead people cannot sign their consent to a legal document.
Men used to couldn't fuck other men in the ass! Men used to couldn't marry men! What IS.... doesn't matter and isn't the debate here.
I'm spamming nothing. I'm replying to your idiocy that the statute you quote is still relevant despite Supreme Court rulings affecting gender in marriages. You're under the delusion that a SC ruling can create a loophole where people can violate the law. I say you're a retard who doesn't understand the sprit of the law prevents that from occurring.And yet, Iowa still says close-family marriages are not allowed.Wrong again, I know exactly where that link goes to since I got the link from an Iowa government page.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.
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.
Again, my link is the actual law that defines what iowa considers to be those that are too closely related. Which are, and those that are void, thus having an empty claim to license:
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.
Notice the last word. Valid. Valid is the opposite of void. Those included in the list have an empty (void) claim to contract, those not listed have a claim (valid) to enter such contracts.
You need to supply the legislation that changes Iowa 595.19 or you're simply spamming the board with a link to a printing company.
You are completely toasted dude:
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.
Only those contained on this list are void:
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.
You need to quit spamming the board and link to the legislation that changed the above.
Or admit you're spamming the board with a link to a pamphlet from a printing company from Spencor Iowa
You wanna keep posting that obsolete statute? Go right ahead. Just know that every time you do, I will remind you that Iowa doesn't allow any close family members to marry; regardless of gender.
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.
Goes your argument - loser
Idiot, gay sex, while illegal, was consentual. Animals, children, and dead people are about those who can't consent.Marriage is a legal contract. Animals, children and dead people cannot sign their consent to a legal document.
Men used to couldn't fuck other men in the ass! Men used to couldn't marry men! What IS.... doesn't matter and isn't the debate here.
Why would I give two shits what their opinion is? Iowa still doesn't allow close-family members to marry; regardless of gender...I'm spamming nothing. I'm replying to your idiocy that the statute you quote is still relevant despite Supreme Court rulings affecting gender in marriages. You're under the delusion that a SC ruling can create a loophole where people can violate the law. I say you're a retard who doesn't understand the sprit of the law prevents that from occurring.And yet, Iowa still says close-family marriages are not allowed.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.
Again, my link is the actual law that defines what iowa considers to be those that are too closely related. Which are, and those that are void, thus having an empty claim to license:
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.
Notice the last word. Valid. Valid is the opposite of void. Those included in the list have an empty (void) claim to contract, those not listed have a claim (valid) to enter such contracts.
You need to supply the legislation that changes Iowa 595.19 or you're simply spamming the board with a link to a printing company.
You are completely toasted dude:
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.
Only those contained on this list are void:
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.
You need to quit spamming the board and link to the legislation that changed the above.
Or admit you're spamming the board with a link to a pamphlet from a printing company from Spencor Iowa
You wanna keep posting that obsolete statute? Go right ahead. Just know that every time you do, I will remind you that Iowa doesn't allow any close family members to marry; regardless of gender.
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.
Sure dummy, I'm sure a CPA financial planning practice. (Most of which have attorneys they run thing past prior to publishing). Have a different opinion then you.......
Too bad, so sad
Seems like those in the financial planning fields are catching on to the loopholes with the iowa laws:
"The state of Iowa chose to remain silent on this question; its statute declares as void any marriage 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" (and vice versa) in Iowa Code Ann. § 595.19. The court in Varnum v. Brien did not mention 595.19 or consanguinity and the legislature has not updated the statute since. As such, Iowa has seen fit to allow close same-sex relatives to marry; accordingly, an unmarried woman can marry her daughter and pass wealth to her tax free."
CPA at Law: Gay Marriage Cases Yield Estate Tax Planning Opportunities
Then they added this after Obergfell:
CPA at Law: Pass Wealth Tax Free by Marrying a Descendant?
Interesting read by LICENCED professionals
but of course, you know better than them, Right?
