It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Montrovant]

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 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.

You keep making this argument as though before Obergefell, marriage was static and unchangeable. In fact, you seem to imply that all law prior to Obergefell was static and unchangeable.

Let's try and be clear. Prior to Obergefell, the USSC had already established marriage as a fundamental right. Because of this any argument based on marriage being a fundamental right is not because of Obergefell.

Something being a fundamental right does not mean it is to be completely unrestricted and undefined.

You disagree with this particular change to marriage; this lifting of a previous restriction. That does not mean that marriage was not changed prior to this ruling or that any further change in the future must be based on this decision.

Consent laws have nothing to do with Obergefell. Those laws can and were changed prior to the ruling and likely will change again. Any argument about age of consent or the requirement of those entering marriage being able to legally consent would therefore not be based on Obergefell.

The idea that consent is based on constitutional protection is something you appear to have made up simply to insert into this argument.

Your ridiculous attempts at trying to find some sort of constitutional crisis based on Obergefell fall well short of any kind of credibility.

 

[Boss]

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.

Black men couldn't fuck white women in the pussy. White men used to couldn't marry black women!!!

Your point?

Well obviously they did, Obama was born!

You are saying :"marriage is a legal contract and children or animals can't consent to a legal contract" and completely disregarding the fact that we're not discussing what the law CURRENTLY says, but what it can be changed to now. All of those things can be changed to accommodate the sexual desires of others. Unless you can present some valid and compelling reason, you can't deny people their constitutional rights.

Animals CAN'T sign consent, they don't have the capacity to and they aren't expected to gain that capacity in the future. The Constitution and rights don't apply to animals. What they can or can't do has nothing to do with the rights of a citizen who DOES have constitutional rights! And "children" ??? What ARE those? Well, we know that in the case of Planned Parenthood, they are an exploitable resource for monetary remuneration.... But in the context of age in which they can legally "consent" we're all over the board. A 13 year old girl can consent to an abortion without her parents permission.... she can't consent to marry... she can't consent to sex with someone over 18... all kinds of things her consent is prohibited for but not abortions. In some states a 16 year old can consent if they have a parent's permission... somehow their ability to consent is connected to their parent. And if they are 15 years and 11 months old, they can't consent at all. Once was a time, you could get a girl really drunk and have sex with her consent... now consent is in question. The entire concept of "consent" is ambiguous, so any philosophical discussion surrounding an argument with it is also ambiguous.

 

[Pop23]

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.

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.​

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

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.

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.

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.​

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?

Goes your argument - loser

Why would I give two shits what their opinion is? Iowa still doesn't allow 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.​

Yeah, we are all watching you dance as the evidence mounts of your delusion.

Why would you give two shits? Because he appears to be an attorney.

From the front page of cpaatlaw

Welcome to CPA at Law, helping individuals and small businesses plan for the future and keep what they have.
This is the personal blog of Sterling Olander, Certified Public Accountant and Attorney at Law. For over five years, I have been working in the professional services industry helping design and implement tax mitigation strategies, business transactions, wealth preservation structures, and estate plans for individuals and business owners. [\quote]

 

[Faun]

And yet, Iowa still says close-family marriages are not allowed.

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.​

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

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.

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.

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.​

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?

Goes your argument - loser

Why would I give two shits what their opinion is? Iowa still doesn't allow 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.​

Yeah, we are all watching you dance as the evidence mounts of your delusion.

You have no evidence to refute Iowa stating they don't issue marriage licenses for close-family members, regardless of gender. You have opinions but none of them result in close-family members marrying each other in Iowa.

 

[Pop23]

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

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.

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.

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.​

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?

Goes your argument - loser

Why would I give two shits what their opinion is? Iowa still doesn't allow 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.​

Yeah, we are all watching you dance as the evidence mounts of your delusion.

You have no evidence to refute Iowa stating they don't issue marriage licenses for close-family members, regardless of gender. You have opinions but none of them result in close-family members marrying each other in Iowa.

Except the law itself and the opinion of an attorney that is:

Here's the dude that backs my argument

Welcome to CPA at Law, helping individuals and small businesses plan for the future and keep what they have.
This is the personal blog of Sterling Olander, Certified Public Accountant and Attorney at Law. For over five years, I have been working in the professional services industry helping design and implement tax mitigation strategies, business transactions, wealth preservation structures, and estate plans for individuals and business owners.

And you have a pamphlet

At recess you stay inside and do your homework

 

[Boss]

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

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

 

[Faun]

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.

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.

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.​

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?

Goes your argument - loser

Why would I give two shits what their opinion is? Iowa still doesn't allow 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.​

Yeah, we are all watching you dance as the evidence mounts of your delusion.

You have no evidence to refute Iowa stating they don't issue marriage licenses for close-family members, regardless of gender. You have opinions but none of them result in close-family members marrying each other in Iowa.

Except the law itself and the opinion of an attorney that is:

Here's the dude that backs my argument

Welcome to CPA at Law, helping individuals and small businesses plan for the future and keep what they have.
This is the personal blog of Sterling Olander, Certified Public Accountant and Attorney at Law. For over five years, I have been working in the professional services industry helping design and implement tax mitigation strategies, business transactions, wealth preservation structures, and estate plans for individuals and business owners.

And you have a pamphlet

At recess you stay inside and do your homework

And yet, the law isn't what you think it is. Iowa still doesn't allow any close family members to marry.

Let's put this to a test ...

You claim Iowa's Supreme Court created a loophole 6 years ago which allows same-sex close family members to marry....

I claim that Iowa doesn't allow any close-family members to marry, regardless of gender, according to their marriage application instructions.

If you're right, there most definitely would have been many such marriages taking place in Iowa over the last 6 years as families from all over the country would flock to Iowa to marry family members in order to avoid paying inheritance taxes.

If I'm right, there haven't been any such marriages over the last 6 years.

Ready? Now go find ONE.
















..... hey everybody .... get ready to watch perv23's head spin....

 

[Faun]

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

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

Who knows why you have a problem denying marriage to those who would violate the law if they were to consummate their marriage?

 

[Pop23]

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?

Goes your argument - loser

Why would I give two shits what their opinion is? Iowa still doesn't allow 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.​

Yeah, we are all watching you dance as the evidence mounts of your delusion.

You have no evidence to refute Iowa stating they don't issue marriage licenses for close-family members, regardless of gender. You have opinions but none of them result in close-family members marrying each other in Iowa.

Except the law itself and the opinion of an attorney that is:

Here's the dude that backs my argument

Welcome to CPA at Law, helping individuals and small businesses plan for the future and keep what they have.
This is the personal blog of Sterling Olander, Certified Public Accountant and Attorney at Law. For over five years, I have been working in the professional services industry helping design and implement tax mitigation strategies, business transactions, wealth preservation structures, and estate plans for individuals and business owners.

And you have a pamphlet

At recess you stay inside and do your homework

And yet, the law isn't what you think it is. Iowa still doesn't allow any close family members to marry.

Let's put this to a test ...

You claim Iowa's Supreme Court created a loophole 6 years ago which allows same-sex close family members to marry....

I claim that Iowa doesn't allow any close-family members to marry, regardless of gender, according to their marriage application instructions.

If you're right, there most definitely would have been many such marriages taking place in Iowa over the last 6 years as families from all over the country would flock to Iowa to marry family members in order to avoid paying inheritance taxes.

If I'm right, there haven't been any such marriages over the last 6 years.

Ready? Now go find ONE.
















..... hey everybody .... get ready to watch perv23's head spin....

No spin required. I've posted links to the actual law. You don't even link to a state document, just to a pamphlet from a print shop in Spensor, Iowa, not even A state link.

I've posted supportive evidence from Findlaw, the National Organization of District Attorney's as well as a CPA/Attorney (cpaatlaw.com).

And you don't even have anything to support your pamphlet.

Oh well, you are delusional. And you prove it

The best part was you posting a proposed bill that would outlaw what you say now, doesn't exist. I've asked you repeatedly to post the link to that document, but you run like the coward you are, and refuse.

You are a sad little fool.

 

[Pop23]

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

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

It never backs up what it claims. Get ready for its dance to begin

 

[Faun]

Why would I give two shits what their opinion is? Iowa still doesn't allow 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.​

Yeah, we are all watching you dance as the evidence mounts of your delusion.

You have no evidence to refute Iowa stating they don't issue marriage licenses for close-family members, regardless of gender. You have opinions but none of them result in close-family members marrying each other in Iowa.

Except the law itself and the opinion of an attorney that is:

Here's the dude that backs my argument

Welcome to CPA at Law, helping individuals and small businesses plan for the future and keep what they have.
This is the personal blog of Sterling Olander, Certified Public Accountant and Attorney at Law. For over five years, I have been working in the professional services industry helping design and implement tax mitigation strategies, business transactions, wealth preservation structures, and estate plans for individuals and business owners.

And you have a pamphlet

At recess you stay inside and do your homework

And yet, the law isn't what you think it is. Iowa still doesn't allow any close family members to marry.

Let's put this to a test ...

You claim Iowa's Supreme Court created a loophole 6 years ago which allows same-sex close family members to marry....

I claim that Iowa doesn't allow any close-family members to marry, regardless of gender, according to their marriage application instructions.

If you're right, there most definitely would have been many such marriages taking place in Iowa over the last 6 years as families from all over the country would flock to Iowa to marry family members in order to avoid paying inheritance taxes.

If I'm right, there haven't been any such marriages over the last 6 years.

Ready? Now go find ONE.
















..... hey everybody .... get ready to watch perv23's head spin....

No spin required. I've posted links to the actual law. You don't even link to a state document, just to a pamphlet from a print shop in Spensor, Iowa, not even A state link.

I've posted supportive evidence from Findlaw, the National Organization of District Attorney's as well as a CPA/Attorney (cpaatlaw.com).

And you don't even have anything to support your pamphlet.

Oh well, you are delusional. And you prove it

The best part was you posting a proposed bill that would outlaw what you say now, doesn't exist. I've asked you repeatedly to post the link to that document, but you run like the coward you are, and refuse.

You are a sad little fool.

Translation: you can't prove shit.

Thanks for playin'!

 

[Pop23]

Yeah, we are all watching you dance as the evidence mounts of your delusion.

You have no evidence to refute Iowa stating they don't issue marriage licenses for close-family members, regardless of gender. You have opinions but none of them result in close-family members marrying each other in Iowa.

Except the law itself and the opinion of an attorney that is:

Here's the dude that backs my argument

Welcome to CPA at Law, helping individuals and small businesses plan for the future and keep what they have.
This is the personal blog of Sterling Olander, Certified Public Accountant and Attorney at Law. For over five years, I have been working in the professional services industry helping design and implement tax mitigation strategies, business transactions, wealth preservation structures, and estate plans for individuals and business owners.

And you have a pamphlet

At recess you stay inside and do your homework

And yet, the law isn't what you think it is. Iowa still doesn't allow any close family members to marry.

Let's put this to a test ...

You claim Iowa's Supreme Court created a loophole 6 years ago which allows same-sex close family members to marry....

I claim that Iowa doesn't allow any close-family members to marry, regardless of gender, according to their marriage application instructions.

If you're right, there most definitely would have been many such marriages taking place in Iowa over the last 6 years as families from all over the country would flock to Iowa to marry family members in order to avoid paying inheritance taxes.

If I'm right, there haven't been any such marriages over the last 6 years.

Ready? Now go find ONE.
















..... hey everybody .... get ready to watch perv23's head spin....

No spin required. I've posted links to the actual law. You don't even link to a state document, just to a pamphlet from a print shop in Spensor, Iowa, not even A state link.

I've posted supportive evidence from Findlaw, the National Organization of District Attorney's as well as a CPA/Attorney (cpaatlaw.com).

And you don't even have anything to support your pamphlet.

Oh well, you are delusional. And you prove it

The best part was you posting a proposed bill that would outlaw what you say now, doesn't exist. I've asked you repeatedly to post the link to that document, but you run like the coward you are, and refuse.

You are a sad little fool.

Translation: you can't prove shit.

Thanks for playin'!

^^^* watch the gay troll dance

 

[Faun]

You have no evidence to refute Iowa stating they don't issue marriage licenses for close-family members, regardless of gender. You have opinions but none of them result in close-family members marrying each other in Iowa.

Except the law itself and the opinion of an attorney that is:

Here's the dude that backs my argument

Welcome to CPA at Law, helping individuals and small businesses plan for the future and keep what they have.
This is the personal blog of Sterling Olander, Certified Public Accountant and Attorney at Law. For over five years, I have been working in the professional services industry helping design and implement tax mitigation strategies, business transactions, wealth preservation structures, and estate plans for individuals and business owners.

And you have a pamphlet

At recess you stay inside and do your homework

And yet, the law isn't what you think it is. Iowa still doesn't allow any close family members to marry.

Let's put this to a test ...

You claim Iowa's Supreme Court created a loophole 6 years ago which allows same-sex close family members to marry....

I claim that Iowa doesn't allow any close-family members to marry, regardless of gender, according to their marriage application instructions.

If you're right, there most definitely would have been many such marriages taking place in Iowa over the last 6 years as families from all over the country would flock to Iowa to marry family members in order to avoid paying inheritance taxes.

If I'm right, there haven't been any such marriages over the last 6 years.

Ready? Now go find ONE.
















..... hey everybody .... get ready to watch perv23's head spin....

No spin required. I've posted links to the actual law. You don't even link to a state document, just to a pamphlet from a print shop in Spensor, Iowa, not even A state link.

I've posted supportive evidence from Findlaw, the National Organization of District Attorney's as well as a CPA/Attorney (cpaatlaw.com).

And you don't even have anything to support your pamphlet.

Oh well, you are delusional. And you prove it

The best part was you posting a proposed bill that would outlaw what you say now, doesn't exist. I've asked you repeatedly to post the link to that document, but you run like the coward you are, and refuse.

You are a sad little fool.

Translation: you can't prove shit.

Thanks for playin'!

^^^* watch the gay troll dance

Funny coming from the forum perv who's obsessed with incest, huh?

Oh, and I knew your head would spin before you could find even one family to marry in Iowa. Again, thanks for playin'!

 

[Pop23]

Except the law itself and the opinion of an attorney that is:

Here's the dude that backs my argument And you have a pamphlet

At recess you stay inside and do your homework

And yet, the law isn't what you think it is. Iowa still doesn't allow any close family members to marry.

Let's put this to a test ...

You claim Iowa's Supreme Court created a loophole 6 years ago which allows same-sex close family members to marry....

I claim that Iowa doesn't allow any close-family members to marry, regardless of gender, according to their marriage application instructions.

If you're right, there most definitely would have been many such marriages taking place in Iowa over the last 6 years as families from all over the country would flock to Iowa to marry family members in order to avoid paying inheritance taxes.

If I'm right, there haven't been any such marriages over the last 6 years.

Ready? Now go find ONE.
















..... hey everybody .... get ready to watch perv23's head spin....

No spin required. I've posted links to the actual law. You don't even link to a state document, just to a pamphlet from a print shop in Spensor, Iowa, not even A state link.

I've posted supportive evidence from Findlaw, the National Organization of District Attorney's as well as a CPA/Attorney (cpaatlaw.com).

And you don't even have anything to support your pamphlet.

Oh well, you are delusional. And you prove it

The best part was you posting a proposed bill that would outlaw what you say now, doesn't exist. I've asked you repeatedly to post the link to that document, but you run like the coward you are, and refuse.

You are a sad little fool.

Translation: you can't prove shit.

Thanks for playin'!

^^^* watch the gay troll dance

Funny coming from the forum perv who's obsessed with incest, huh?

Oh, and I knew your head would spin before you could find even one family to marry in Iowa. Again, thanks for playin'!

Translation - you lost

Not playing your red herring game or dancing with the board pervert.

You mad troll?

 

[Faun]

And yet, the law isn't what you think it is. Iowa still doesn't allow any close family members to marry.

Let's put this to a test ...

You claim Iowa's Supreme Court created a loophole 6 years ago which allows same-sex close family members to marry....

I claim that Iowa doesn't allow any close-family members to marry, regardless of gender, according to their marriage application instructions.

If you're right, there most definitely would have been many such marriages taking place in Iowa over the last 6 years as families from all over the country would flock to Iowa to marry family members in order to avoid paying inheritance taxes.

If I'm right, there haven't been any such marriages over the last 6 years.

Ready? Now go find ONE.
















..... hey everybody .... get ready to watch perv23's head spin....

No spin required. I've posted links to the actual law. You don't even link to a state document, just to a pamphlet from a print shop in Spensor, Iowa, not even A state link.

I've posted supportive evidence from Findlaw, the National Organization of District Attorney's as well as a CPA/Attorney (cpaatlaw.com).

And you don't even have anything to support your pamphlet.

Oh well, you are delusional. And you prove it

The best part was you posting a proposed bill that would outlaw what you say now, doesn't exist. I've asked you repeatedly to post the link to that document, but you run like the coward you are, and refuse.

You are a sad little fool.

Translation: you can't prove shit.

Thanks for playin'!

^^^* watch the gay troll dance

Funny coming from the forum perv who's obsessed with incest, huh?

Oh, and I knew your head would spin before you could find even one family to marry in Iowa. Again, thanks for playin'!

Translation - you lost

Not playing your red herring game or dancing with the board pervert.

You mad troll?

Back to projection, I see.

Nah, you're just a fruit loop dingus. I can't lose until you can find two close family members of the same sex who married each other in Iowa in the last 6 years.

Until then, you're just blowin' smoke. Don't think anyone here thinks otherwise.

 

[Pop23]

Except the law itself and the opinion of an attorney that is:

Here's the dude that backs my argument And you have a pamphlet

At recess you stay inside and do your homework

And yet, the law isn't what you think it is. Iowa still doesn't allow any close family members to marry.

Let's put this to a test ...

You claim Iowa's Supreme Court created a loophole 6 years ago which allows same-sex close family members to marry....

I claim that Iowa doesn't allow any close-family members to marry, regardless of gender, according to their marriage application instructions.

If you're right, there most definitely would have been many such marriages taking place in Iowa over the last 6 years as families from all over the country would flock to Iowa to marry family members in order to avoid paying inheritance taxes.

If I'm right, there haven't been any such marriages over the last 6 years.

Ready? Now go find ONE.
















..... hey everybody .... get ready to watch perv23's head spin....

No spin required. I've posted links to the actual law. You don't even link to a state document, just to a pamphlet from a print shop in Spensor, Iowa, not even A state link.

I've posted supportive evidence from Findlaw, the National Organization of District Attorney's as well as a CPA/Attorney (cpaatlaw.com).

And you don't even have anything to support your pamphlet.

Oh well, you are delusional. And you prove it

The best part was you posting a proposed bill that would outlaw what you say now, doesn't exist. I've asked you repeatedly to post the link to that document, but you run like the coward you are, and refuse.

You are a sad little fool.

Translation: you can't prove shit.

Thanks for playin'!

^^^* watch the gay troll dance

Funny coming from the forum perv who's obsessed with incest, huh?

Oh, and I knew your head would spin before you could find even one family to marry in Iowa. Again, thanks for playin'!

Your the one claiming marriage requires sex, but not a single state makes that a requirement to a valid marriage contract.

So pervert fits you well. According to your logic, marital rape should be legal.

Watch the Perv start its dance and try to spin away from his logic. Why else's would he think, two siblings simply wanting the financial rights gays fought for would even think about having a sexual relationship.

What a disgusting pervert you are

 

[Pop23]

No spin required. I've posted links to the actual law. You don't even link to a state document, just to a pamphlet from a print shop in Spensor, Iowa, not even A state link.

I've posted supportive evidence from Findlaw, the National Organization of District Attorney's as well as a CPA/Attorney (cpaatlaw.com).

And you don't even have anything to support your pamphlet.

Oh well, you are delusional. And you prove it

The best part was you posting a proposed bill that would outlaw what you say now, doesn't exist. I've asked you repeatedly to post the link to that document, but you run like the coward you are, and refuse.

You are a sad little fool.

Translation: you can't prove shit.

Thanks for playin'!

^^^* watch the gay troll dance

Funny coming from the forum perv who's obsessed with incest, huh?

Oh, and I knew your head would spin before you could find even one family to marry in Iowa. Again, thanks for playin'!

Translation - you lost

Not playing your red herring game or dancing with the board pervert.

You mad troll?

Back to projection, I see.

Nah, you're just a fruit loop dingus. I can't lose until you can find two close family members of the same sex who married each other in Iowa in the last 6 years.

Until then, you're just blowin' smoke. Don't think anyone here thinks otherwise.

I proved its legal. You got a pamphlet and we are waiting for the justification of your logic inference that marital rape should be legal.

I've advised you many times sex is not a requirement to marriage, yet you insist it must be.

You disgust me.

 

[Faun]

And yet, the law isn't what you think it is. Iowa still doesn't allow any close family members to marry.

Let's put this to a test ...

You claim Iowa's Supreme Court created a loophole 6 years ago which allows same-sex close family members to marry....

I claim that Iowa doesn't allow any close-family members to marry, regardless of gender, according to their marriage application instructions.

If you're right, there most definitely would have been many such marriages taking place in Iowa over the last 6 years as families from all over the country would flock to Iowa to marry family members in order to avoid paying inheritance taxes.

If I'm right, there haven't been any such marriages over the last 6 years.

Ready? Now go find ONE.
















..... hey everybody .... get ready to watch perv23's head spin....

No spin required. I've posted links to the actual law. You don't even link to a state document, just to a pamphlet from a print shop in Spensor, Iowa, not even A state link.

I've posted supportive evidence from Findlaw, the National Organization of District Attorney's as well as a CPA/Attorney (cpaatlaw.com).

And you don't even have anything to support your pamphlet.

Oh well, you are delusional. And you prove it

The best part was you posting a proposed bill that would outlaw what you say now, doesn't exist. I've asked you repeatedly to post the link to that document, but you run like the coward you are, and refuse.

You are a sad little fool.

Translation: you can't prove shit.

Thanks for playin'!

^^^* watch the gay troll dance

Funny coming from the forum perv who's obsessed with incest, huh?

Oh, and I knew your head would spin before you could find even one family to marry in Iowa. Again, thanks for playin'!

Your the one claiming marriage requires sex, but not a single state makes that a requirement to a valid marriage contract.

So pervert fits you well. According to your logic, marital rape should be legal.

Watch the Perv start its dance and try to spin away from his logic. Why else's would he think, two siblings simply wanting the financial rights gays fought for would even think about having a sexual relationship.

What a disgusting pervert you are

You call projection, "logic?"



The only one here talking about incest .... is you.

 

[Montrovant]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Pop23]

No spin required. I've posted links to the actual law. You don't even link to a state document, just to a pamphlet from a print shop in Spensor, Iowa, not even A state link.

I've posted supportive evidence from Findlaw, the National Organization of District Attorney's as well as a CPA/Attorney (cpaatlaw.com).

And you don't even have anything to support your pamphlet.

Oh well, you are delusional. And you prove it

The best part was you posting a proposed bill that would outlaw what you say now, doesn't exist. I've asked you repeatedly to post the link to that document, but you run like the coward you are, and refuse.

You are a sad little fool.

Translation: you can't prove shit.

Thanks for playin'!

^^^* watch the gay troll dance

Funny coming from the forum perv who's obsessed with incest, huh?

Oh, and I knew your head would spin before you could find even one family to marry in Iowa. Again, thanks for playin'!

Your the one claiming marriage requires sex, but not a single state makes that a requirement to a valid marriage contract.

So pervert fits you well. According to your logic, marital rape should be legal.

Watch the Perv start its dance and try to spin away from his logic. Why else's would he think, two siblings simply wanting the financial rights gays fought for would even think about having a sexual relationship.

What a disgusting pervert you are

You call projection, "logic?"



The only one here talking about incest .... is you.

You can't prove that though. According to the state of iowa, same sex adults don't commit incest (as disgusting as it is), according to the National Association of District Attorney's it isn't incest in Iowa either. Same finding at findlaw.com.

I've said many times that marriage does not require sex to be valid, but you imply it MUST. You just did it again.

Using YOUR LOGIC, no married partner can refuse sex as they consented to enter into a contract THAT REQUIRES SEX.

So in your warped mind that makes marital rape acceptable.

You are one sick fuck.