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.
If the law was superior, men wouldn't be allowed to marry men since that's how the law reads. Supreme Court rulings have altered laws regarding gender and marriage.That was last updated in 2005, before Supreme Court rulings altered their marriage laws.The "pamphlet" Iowa has on their government websites? The one which reads, "not closely related by blood or first cousins", are not eligible to marry in their state?Because that random person backs up his argument with many legal opinions from actual attorneys.
But you have a pamphlet you can't back up.
So sad for you
And you didn't answer my question... why would I take the word of some random person you found on the Internet over the "pamphlet" I found on their government websites?
And of course I have evidence which backs me up... not a single such marriage took place in Iowa in 6 years. Even you said families, out of hundreds of millions of people, would marry to take advantage of marriage benefits. Yet none have.
Iowa also says you can't marry there -- you have to be legally competent.
Prove none have
I'm sure you can gladly supply the DNA tests, right.
And the law specifically states the pairs who's marriages are void (the opposite of Valid) it appears you are wrong.
Here is the license qualification that you pamphlet references:
595.3 LICENSE.
Previous to the solemnization of any marriage, a license for that
purpose must be obtained from the county registrar. The license must
not be granted in any case:
1. Where either party is under the age necessary to render the
marriage valid.
2. Where either party is under eighteen years of age, unless the
marriage is approved by a judge of the district court as provided by
section 595.2.
3. Where either party is disqualified from making any civil
contract.
4. Where the parties are within the degrees of consanguinity or
affinity in which marriages are prohibited by law.
5. Where either party is a ward under a guardianship and the
court has made a finding that the ward lacks the capacity to contract
a valid marriage.
Your pamphlet references number 4.
Those prohibited are outlined in 595.19
They are:
Iowa Code 595.19
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.
Sorry dude, still wrong.
Any way you cut it, same sex immediate family members may Marry in Iowa.
Their latest instructions indicate no consanguineous marriages are allowed.
So using you're idiotic logic. A stepdaughter can marry her stepfather and a stepson can Marry his stepmother.
Also then, show us the updated version.
Clue, you're pamphlet is just reference material. The ACTUAL LAW is superior.
You lose again
And still, Iowa doesn't allow any close-family members to marry each other 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.
So? 595.19 doesn't disqualify step patents either. According to your brain-dead logic, that renders 595.19 as "bunk."If the law was superior, men wouldn't be allowed to marry men since that's how the law reads. Supreme Court rulings have altered laws regarding gender and marriage.That was last updated in 2005, before Supreme Court rulings altered their marriage laws.The "pamphlet" Iowa has on their government websites? The one which reads, "not closely related by blood or first cousins", are not eligible to marry in their state?
And you didn't answer my question... why would I take the word of some random person you found on the Internet over the "pamphlet" I found on their government websites?
And of course I have evidence which backs me up... not a single such marriage took place in Iowa in 6 years. Even you said families, out of hundreds of millions of people, would marry to take advantage of marriage benefits. Yet none have.
Iowa also says you can't marry there -- you have to be legally competent.
Prove none have
I'm sure you can gladly supply the DNA tests, right.
And the law specifically states the pairs who's marriages are void (the opposite of Valid) it appears you are wrong.
Here is the license qualification that you pamphlet references:
595.3 LICENSE.
Previous to the solemnization of any marriage, a license for that
purpose must be obtained from the county registrar. The license must
not be granted in any case:
1. Where either party is under the age necessary to render the
marriage valid.
2. Where either party is under eighteen years of age, unless the
marriage is approved by a judge of the district court as provided by
section 595.2.
3. Where either party is disqualified from making any civil
contract.
4. Where the parties are within the degrees of consanguinity or
affinity in which marriages are prohibited by law.
5. Where either party is a ward under a guardianship and the
court has made a finding that the ward lacks the capacity to contract
a valid marriage.
Your pamphlet references number 4.
Those prohibited are outlined in 595.19
They are:
Iowa Code 595.19
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.
Sorry dude, still wrong.
Any way you cut it, same sex immediate family members may Marry in Iowa.
Their latest instructions indicate no consanguineous marriages are allowed.
So using you're idiotic logic. A stepdaughter can marry her stepfather and a stepson can Marry his stepmother.
Also then, show us the updated version.
Clue, you're pamphlet is just reference material. The ACTUAL LAW is superior.
You lose again
And still, Iowa doesn't allow any close-family members to marry each other 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.
I've linked to the Iowa Supreme Court change, which only creates legal same sex marriage and pointing only to Iowa 595.2 and nothing else.
But iowa does not allow opposite sex step children to marry step parents.
So your claim turns out to be bunk.
But you already knew that.
You're understanding of law is incredibly limited.
And, you lose twice in a single post.
Of course you uber right wing nutjobs are bigots to begin with
So there's that.
So? 595.19 doesn't disqualify step patents either. According to your brain-dead logic, that renders 595.19 as "bunk."If the law was superior, men wouldn't be allowed to marry men since that's how the law reads. Supreme Court rulings have altered laws regarding gender and marriage.That was last updated in 2005, before Supreme Court rulings altered their marriage laws.Prove none have
I'm sure you can gladly supply the DNA tests, right.
And the law specifically states the pairs who's marriages are void (the opposite of Valid) it appears you are wrong.
Here is the license qualification that you pamphlet references:
595.3 LICENSE.
Previous to the solemnization of any marriage, a license for that
purpose must be obtained from the county registrar. The license must
not be granted in any case:
1. Where either party is under the age necessary to render the
marriage valid.
2. Where either party is under eighteen years of age, unless the
marriage is approved by a judge of the district court as provided by
section 595.2.
3. Where either party is disqualified from making any civil
contract.
4. Where the parties are within the degrees of consanguinity or
affinity in which marriages are prohibited by law.
5. Where either party is a ward under a guardianship and the
court has made a finding that the ward lacks the capacity to contract
a valid marriage.
Your pamphlet references number 4.
Those prohibited are outlined in 595.19
They are:
Iowa Code 595.19
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.
Sorry dude, still wrong.
Any way you cut it, same sex immediate family members may Marry in Iowa.
Their latest instructions indicate no consanguineous marriages are allowed.
So using you're idiotic logic. A stepdaughter can marry her stepfather and a stepson can Marry his stepmother.
Also then, show us the updated version.
Clue, you're pamphlet is just reference material. The ACTUAL LAW is superior.
You lose again
And still, Iowa doesn't allow any close-family members to marry each other 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.
I've linked to the Iowa Supreme Court change, which only creates legal same sex marriage and pointing only to Iowa 595.2 and nothing else.
But iowa does not allow opposite sex step children to marry step parents.
So your claim turns out to be bunk.
But you already knew that.
You're understanding of law is incredibly limited.
And, you lose twice in a single post.
Of course you uber right wing nutjobs are bigots to begin with
So there's that.
And just the fact you think I'm an "uber rightwing nutjob bigot," reveals how retarded you are.
Moron, even 595.19 spoke only to blood relations...So? 595.19 doesn't disqualify step patents either. According to your brain-dead logic, that renders 595.19 as "bunk."If the law was superior, men wouldn't be allowed to marry men since that's how the law reads. Supreme Court rulings have altered laws regarding gender and marriage.That was last updated in 2005, before Supreme Court rulings altered their marriage laws.
Their latest instructions indicate no consanguineous marriages are allowed.
So using you're idiotic logic. A stepdaughter can marry her stepfather and a stepson can Marry his stepmother.
Also then, show us the updated version.
Clue, you're pamphlet is just reference material. The ACTUAL LAW is superior.
You lose again
And still, Iowa doesn't allow any close-family members to marry each other 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.
I've linked to the Iowa Supreme Court change, which only creates legal same sex marriage and pointing only to Iowa 595.2 and nothing else.
But iowa does not allow opposite sex step children to marry step parents.
So your claim turns out to be bunk.
But you already knew that.
You're understanding of law is incredibly limited.
And, you lose twice in a single post.
Of course you uber right wing nutjobs are bigots to begin with
So there's that.
And just the fact you think I'm an "uber rightwing nutjob bigot," reveals how retarded you are.
Not at all. You understand affinity, right.
You read Iowa 595 completely right?
According to you're pamphlet affinity doesn't matter, just close blood relations.
So according to your pamphlet an uncle could Marry a Neice and a Stepfather his stepdaughter.
You just made you're pamphlet a non issue with one single post.
Good Job!
Moron, even 595.19 spoke only to blood relations...So? 595.19 doesn't disqualify step patents either. According to your brain-dead logic, that renders 595.19 as "bunk."If the law was superior, men wouldn't be allowed to marry men since that's how the law reads. Supreme Court rulings have altered laws regarding gender and marriage.So using you're idiotic logic. A stepdaughter can marry her stepfather and a stepson can Marry his stepmother.
Also then, show us the updated version.
Clue, you're pamphlet is just reference material. The ACTUAL LAW is superior.
You lose again
And still, Iowa doesn't allow any close-family members to marry each other 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.
I've linked to the Iowa Supreme Court change, which only creates legal same sex marriage and pointing only to Iowa 595.2 and nothing else.
But iowa does not allow opposite sex step children to marry step parents.
So your claim turns out to be bunk.
But you already knew that.
You're understanding of law is incredibly limited.
And, you lose twice in a single post.
Of course you uber right wing nutjobs are bigots to begin with
So there's that.
And just the fact you think I'm an "uber rightwing nutjob bigot," reveals how retarded you are.
Not at all. You understand affinity, right.
You read Iowa 595 completely right?
According to you're pamphlet affinity doesn't matter, just close blood relations.
So according to your pamphlet an uncle could Marry a Neice and a Stepfather his stepdaughter.
You just made you're pamphlet a non issue with one single post.
Good Job!
595.19 Void marriages.
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by blood are void...
So? 595.19 doesn't disqualify step patents either. According to your brain-dead logic, that renders 595.19 as "bunk."If the law was superior, men wouldn't be allowed to marry men since that's how the law reads. Supreme Court rulings have altered laws regarding gender and marriage.That was last updated in 2005, before Supreme Court rulings altered their marriage laws.Prove none have
I'm sure you can gladly supply the DNA tests, right.
And the law specifically states the pairs who's marriages are void (the opposite of Valid) it appears you are wrong.
Here is the license qualification that you pamphlet references:
595.3 LICENSE.
Previous to the solemnization of any marriage, a license for that
purpose must be obtained from the county registrar. The license must
not be granted in any case:
1. Where either party is under the age necessary to render the
marriage valid.
2. Where either party is under eighteen years of age, unless the
marriage is approved by a judge of the district court as provided by
section 595.2.
3. Where either party is disqualified from making any civil
contract.
4. Where the parties are within the degrees of consanguinity or
affinity in which marriages are prohibited by law.
5. Where either party is a ward under a guardianship and the
court has made a finding that the ward lacks the capacity to contract
a valid marriage.
Your pamphlet references number 4.
Those prohibited are outlined in 595.19
They are:
Iowa Code 595.19
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.
Sorry dude, still wrong.
Any way you cut it, same sex immediate family members may Marry in Iowa.
Their latest instructions indicate no consanguineous marriages are allowed.
So using you're idiotic logic. A stepdaughter can marry her stepfather and a stepson can Marry his stepmother.
Also then, show us the updated version.
Clue, you're pamphlet is just reference material. The ACTUAL LAW is superior.
You lose again
And still, Iowa doesn't allow any close-family members to marry each other 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.
I've linked to the Iowa Supreme Court change, which only creates legal same sex marriage and pointing only to Iowa 595.2 and nothing else.
But iowa does not allow opposite sex step children to marry step parents.
So your claim turns out to be bunk.
But you already knew that.
You're understanding of law is incredibly limited.
And, you lose twice in a single post.
Of course you uber right wing nutjobs are bigots to begin with
So there's that.
And just the fact you think I'm an "uber rightwing nutjob bigot," reveals how retarded you are.
Guess you're too stupid to notice nothing in there explicitly voids a step-daughter from marrying her non-blood related step-father.Moron, even 595.19 spoke only to blood relations...So? 595.19 doesn't disqualify step patents either. According to your brain-dead logic, that renders 595.19 as "bunk."If the law was superior, men wouldn't be allowed to marry men since that's how the law reads. Supreme Court rulings have altered laws regarding gender and marriage.
And still, Iowa doesn't allow any close-family members to marry each other 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.
I've linked to the Iowa Supreme Court change, which only creates legal same sex marriage and pointing only to Iowa 595.2 and nothing else.
But iowa does not allow opposite sex step children to marry step parents.
So your claim turns out to be bunk.
But you already knew that.
You're understanding of law is incredibly limited.
And, you lose twice in a single post.
Of course you uber right wing nutjobs are bigots to begin with
So there's that.
And just the fact you think I'm an "uber rightwing nutjob bigot," reveals how retarded you are.
Not at all. You understand affinity, right.
You read Iowa 595 completely right?
According to you're pamphlet affinity doesn't matter, just close blood relations.
So according to your pamphlet an uncle could Marry a Neice and a Stepfather his stepdaughter.
You just made you're pamphlet a non issue with one single post.
Good Job!
595.19 Void marriages.
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by blood are void...
You missed the mention of affinity earlier in the law then? You should try being a bit honest. You dishonesty makes you such an easy target.
Once again proving you're dishonesty by not providing the entirety, plus not highlighting the applicable full statement:
Here, I'll do just that:
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.
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 lose again.
Are you ever even going to provide a single point that stands?
So far you're batting .000
Hey, I guess even you now know your assertion that the pamphlet acutely represents the actual law is BS.
You're learning little fella
Same sex immediate family members can indeed Marry in Iowa.
Sucks to be you
Guess you're too stupid to notice nothing in there explicitly voids a step-daughter from marrying her non-blood related step-father.Moron, even 595.19 spoke only to blood relations...So? 595.19 doesn't disqualify step patents either. According to your brain-dead logic, that renders 595.19 as "bunk."I've linked to the Iowa Supreme Court change, which only creates legal same sex marriage and pointing only to Iowa 595.2 and nothing else.
But iowa does not allow opposite sex step children to marry step parents.
So your claim turns out to be bunk.
But you already knew that.
You're understanding of law is incredibly limited.
And, you lose twice in a single post.
Of course you uber right wing nutjobs are bigots to begin with
So there's that.
And just the fact you think I'm an "uber rightwing nutjob bigot," reveals how retarded you are.
Not at all. You understand affinity, right.
You read Iowa 595 completely right?
According to you're pamphlet affinity doesn't matter, just close blood relations.
So according to your pamphlet an uncle could Marry a Neice and a Stepfather his stepdaughter.
You just made you're pamphlet a non issue with one single post.
Good Job!
595.19 Void marriages.
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by blood are void...
You missed the mention of affinity earlier in the law then? You should try being a bit honest. You dishonesty makes you such an easy target.
Once again proving you're dishonesty by not providing the entirety, plus not highlighting the applicable full statement:
Here, I'll do just that:
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.
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 lose again.
Are you ever even going to provide a single point that stands?
So far you're batting .000
Hey, I guess even you now know your assertion that the pamphlet acutely represents the actual law is BS.
You're learning little fella
Same sex immediate family members can indeed Marry in Iowa.
Sucks to be you
You're also too stupid to notice you posted it 3 times.
Thanks again, though! I'm always amused watching you declare victory after failing to make your point.
The prohibition on affinity says nothing about gender.Guess you're too stupid to notice nothing in there explicitly voids a step-daughter from marrying her non-blood related step-father.Moron, even 595.19 spoke only to blood relations...So? 595.19 doesn't disqualify step patents either. According to your brain-dead logic, that renders 595.19 as "bunk."
And just the fact you think I'm an "uber rightwing nutjob bigot," reveals how retarded you are.
Not at all. You understand affinity, right.
You read Iowa 595 completely right?
According to you're pamphlet affinity doesn't matter, just close blood relations.
So according to your pamphlet an uncle could Marry a Neice and a Stepfather his stepdaughter.
You just made you're pamphlet a non issue with one single post.
Good Job!
595.19 Void marriages.
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by blood are void...
You missed the mention of affinity earlier in the law then? You should try being a bit honest. You dishonesty makes you such an easy target.
Once again proving you're dishonesty by not providing the entirety, plus not highlighting the applicable full statement:
Here, I'll do just that:
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.
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 lose again.
Are you ever even going to provide a single point that stands?
So far you're batting .000
Hey, I guess even you now know your assertion that the pamphlet acutely represents the actual law is BS.
You're learning little fella
Same sex immediate family members can indeed Marry in Iowa.
Sucks to be you
You're also too stupid to notice you posted it 3 times.
Thanks again, though! I'm always amused watching you declare victory after failing to make your point.
Except the prohibition on affinity.
That's all inclusive.
Sorry, study up on affinity relationships and get back to us. Those are relationships created in writing, such as the one parent signing a marriage license thus bestowing rights and responsibilities of the non parent:
Link:
Affinity (law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BOOM
Another FAUN FAILURE!
Lovin every time you post
Cuz you
The prohibition on affinity says nothing about gender.Guess you're too stupid to notice nothing in there explicitly voids a step-daughter from marrying her non-blood related step-father.Moron, even 595.19 spoke only to blood relations...Not at all. You understand affinity, right.
You read Iowa 595 completely right?
According to you're pamphlet affinity doesn't matter, just close blood relations.
So according to your pamphlet an uncle could Marry a Neice and a Stepfather his stepdaughter.
You just made you're pamphlet a non issue with one single post.
Good Job!
595.19 Void marriages.
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by blood are void...
You missed the mention of affinity earlier in the law then? You should try being a bit honest. You dishonesty makes you such an easy target.
Once again proving you're dishonesty by not providing the entirety, plus not highlighting the applicable full statement:
Here, I'll do just that:
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.
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 lose again.
Are you ever even going to provide a single point that stands?
So far you're batting .000
Hey, I guess even you now know your assertion that the pamphlet acutely represents the actual law is BS.
You're learning little fella
Same sex immediate family members can indeed Marry in Iowa.
Sucks to be you
You're also too stupid to notice you posted it 3 times.
Thanks again, though! I'm always amused watching you declare victory after failing to make your point.
Except the prohibition on affinity.
That's all inclusive.
Sorry, study up on affinity relationships and get back to us. Those are relationships created in writing, such as the one parent signing a marriage license thus bestowing rights and responsibilities of the non parent:
Link:
Affinity (law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BOOM
Another FAUN FAILURE!
Lovin every time you post
Cuz you
The marriage instructions say nothing that excludes marriage laws in Iowa.
That boom you hear is you, hitting yourself over the head again with the stupid stick.
http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/funny/1/baseball-bat-smiley-emoticon.gif
No, there is no error. All there is, is your false premise that there's an error where there is none. Again, nothing in the marriage instructions claims that list of restrictions is exhaustive. That's the part you're incapable of understanding.The prohibition on affinity says nothing about gender.Guess you're too stupid to notice nothing in there explicitly voids a step-daughter from marrying her non-blood related step-father.Moron, even 595.19 spoke only to blood relations...
595.19 Void marriages.
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by blood are void...
You missed the mention of affinity earlier in the law then? You should try being a bit honest. You dishonesty makes you such an easy target.
Once again proving you're dishonesty by not providing the entirety, plus not highlighting the applicable full statement:
Here, I'll do just that:
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.
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 lose again.
Are you ever even going to provide a single point that stands?
So far you're batting .000
Hey, I guess even you now know your assertion that the pamphlet acutely represents the actual law is BS.
You're learning little fella
Same sex immediate family members can indeed Marry in Iowa.
Sucks to be you
You're also too stupid to notice you posted it 3 times.
Thanks again, though! I'm always amused watching you declare victory after failing to make your point.
Except the prohibition on affinity.
That's all inclusive.
Sorry, study up on affinity relationships and get back to us. Those are relationships created in writing, such as the one parent signing a marriage license thus bestowing rights and responsibilities of the non parent:
Link:
Affinity (law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BOOM
Another FAUN FAILURE!
Lovin every time you post
Cuz you
The marriage instructions say nothing that excludes marriage laws in Iowa.
That boom you hear is you, hitting yourself over the head again with the stupid stick.
http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/funny/1/baseball-bat-smiley-emoticon.gif
Then your pamphlet is in error and obviously does not represent the law as it does not stop a stepparent from marrying a stepchild.
And iowa 595.19 allows same sex family members to obtain valid marriage licences as they are not prohibited from a valid contract.
You still haven't produced a legislative passed bill, or a judicial ruling making the necessary change, and can no longer use the pamphlet as its been shown inaccurate.
So I have multiple attorneys opinions on my side, the law itself and several independent websites that deal with these matters.
And you have a discredited pamphlet.
But you do babble.
No, there is no error. All there is, is your false premise that there's an error where there is none. Again, nothing in the marriage instructions claims that list of restrictions is exhaustive. That's the part you're incapable of understanding.The prohibition on affinity says nothing about gender.Guess you're too stupid to notice nothing in there explicitly voids a step-daughter from marrying her non-blood related step-father.You missed the mention of affinity earlier in the law then? You should try being a bit honest. You dishonesty makes you such an easy target.
Once again proving you're dishonesty by not providing the entirety, plus not highlighting the applicable full statement:
Here, I'll do just that:
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.
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 lose again.
Are you ever even going to provide a single point that stands?
So far you're batting .000
Hey, I guess even you now know your assertion that the pamphlet acutely represents the actual law is BS.
You're learning little fella
Same sex immediate family members can indeed Marry in Iowa.
Sucks to be you
You're also too stupid to notice you posted it 3 times.
Thanks again, though! I'm always amused watching you declare victory after failing to make your point.
Except the prohibition on affinity.
That's all inclusive.
Sorry, study up on affinity relationships and get back to us. Those are relationships created in writing, such as the one parent signing a marriage license thus bestowing rights and responsibilities of the non parent:
Link:
Affinity (law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BOOM
Another FAUN FAILURE!
Lovin every time you post
Cuz you
The marriage instructions say nothing that excludes marriage laws in Iowa.
That boom you hear is you, hitting yourself over the head again with the stupid stick.
http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/funny/1/baseball-bat-smiley-emoticon.gif
Then your pamphlet is in error and obviously does not represent the law as it does not stop a stepparent from marrying a stepchild.
And iowa 595.19 allows same sex family members to obtain valid marriage licences as they are not prohibited from a valid contract.
You still haven't produced a legislative passed bill, or a judicial ruling making the necessary change, and can no longer use the pamphlet as its been shown inaccurate.
So I have multiple attorneys opinions on my side, the law itself and several independent websites that deal with these matters.
And you have a discredited pamphlet.
But you do babble.
Again, for the hard of reading.... nothing in their marriage instructions says that list of restrictions is exhaustive.No, there is no error. All there is, is your false premise that there's an error where there is none. Again, nothing in the marriage instructions claims that list of restrictions is exhaustive. That's the part you're incapable of understanding.The prohibition on affinity says nothing about gender.Guess you're too stupid to notice nothing in there explicitly voids a step-daughter from marrying her non-blood related step-father.
You're also too stupid to notice you posted it 3 times.
Thanks again, though! I'm always amused watching you declare victory after failing to make your point.
Except the prohibition on affinity.
That's all inclusive.
Sorry, study up on affinity relationships and get back to us. Those are relationships created in writing, such as the one parent signing a marriage license thus bestowing rights and responsibilities of the non parent:
Link:
Affinity (law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BOOM
Another FAUN FAILURE!
Lovin every time you post
Cuz you
The marriage instructions say nothing that excludes marriage laws in Iowa.
That boom you hear is you, hitting yourself over the head again with the stupid stick.
http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/funny/1/baseball-bat-smiley-emoticon.gif
Then your pamphlet is in error and obviously does not represent the law as it does not stop a stepparent from marrying a stepchild.
And iowa 595.19 allows same sex family members to obtain valid marriage licences as they are not prohibited from a valid contract.
You still haven't produced a legislative passed bill, or a judicial ruling making the necessary change, and can no longer use the pamphlet as its been shown inaccurate.
So I have multiple attorneys opinions on my side, the law itself and several independent websites that deal with these matters.
And you have a discredited pamphlet.
But you do babble.
No dummy, you represented it as the law. It is obviously not. If so, step parents would be able to Marry stepchildren as they are NOT BLOOD RELATED.
Further, as pointed out before the law reads.
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.
It is indeed finite.
You have yet to come up with a single piece of supportive evidence that shows that same sex family members are not eligible to hold a VALID marriage license.
But you do exhibit quite a nasty butthurt from the beating youre taking.
Again, for the hard of reading.... nothing in their marriage instructions says that list of restrictions is exhaustive.No, there is no error. All there is, is your false premise that there's an error where there is none. Again, nothing in the marriage instructions claims that list of restrictions is exhaustive. That's the part you're incapable of understanding.The prohibition on affinity says nothing about gender.Except the prohibition on affinity.
That's all inclusive.
Sorry, study up on affinity relationships and get back to us. Those are relationships created in writing, such as the one parent signing a marriage license thus bestowing rights and responsibilities of the non parent:
Link:
Affinity (law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BOOM
Another FAUN FAILURE!
Lovin every time you post
Cuz you
The marriage instructions say nothing that excludes marriage laws in Iowa.
That boom you hear is you, hitting yourself over the head again with the stupid stick.
http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/funny/1/baseball-bat-smiley-emoticon.gif
Then your pamphlet is in error and obviously does not represent the law as it does not stop a stepparent from marrying a stepchild.
And iowa 595.19 allows same sex family members to obtain valid marriage licences as they are not prohibited from a valid contract.
You still haven't produced a legislative passed bill, or a judicial ruling making the necessary change, and can no longer use the pamphlet as its been shown inaccurate.
So I have multiple attorneys opinions on my side, the law itself and several independent websites that deal with these matters.
And you have a discredited pamphlet.
But you do babble.
No dummy, you represented it as the law. It is obviously not. If so, step parents would be able to Marry stepchildren as they are NOT BLOOD RELATED.
Further, as pointed out before the law reads.
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.
It is indeed finite.
You have yet to come up with a single piece of supportive evidence that shows that same sex family members are not eligible to hold a VALID marriage license.
But you do exhibit quite a nasty butthurt from the beating youre taking.
Here, have a tissue...
As usual, you win nothing. I'm not backtracking anything. I still maintain the list of restrictions in their marriage instructions is accurate. I'm merely pointing out those instructions are not an exhaustive list of restrictions.Again, for the hard of reading.... nothing in their marriage instructions says that list of restrictions is exhaustive.No, there is no error. All there is, is your false premise that there's an error where there is none. Again, nothing in the marriage instructions claims that list of restrictions is exhaustive. That's the part you're incapable of understanding.The prohibition on affinity says nothing about gender.
The marriage instructions say nothing that excludes marriage laws in Iowa.
That boom you hear is you, hitting yourself over the head again with the stupid stick.
http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/funny/1/baseball-bat-smiley-emoticon.gif
Then your pamphlet is in error and obviously does not represent the law as it does not stop a stepparent from marrying a stepchild.
And iowa 595.19 allows same sex family members to obtain valid marriage licences as they are not prohibited from a valid contract.
You still haven't produced a legislative passed bill, or a judicial ruling making the necessary change, and can no longer use the pamphlet as its been shown inaccurate.
So I have multiple attorneys opinions on my side, the law itself and several independent websites that deal with these matters.
And you have a discredited pamphlet.
But you do babble.
No dummy, you represented it as the law. It is obviously not. If so, step parents would be able to Marry stepchildren as they are NOT BLOOD RELATED.
Further, as pointed out before the law reads.
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.
It is indeed finite.
You have yet to come up with a single piece of supportive evidence that shows that same sex family members are not eligible to hold a VALID marriage license.
But you do exhibit quite a nasty butthurt from the beating youre taking.
Here, have a tissue...
You (that would be You) that presented that as your evidence that SAME SEX FAMILY MEMBERS could not marry, because they were blood related.
You posted that foolishness dozens of times. Now you backtrack.
I win again.
Imagine that
As usual, you win nothing. I'm not backtracking anything. I still maintain the list of restrictions in their marriage instructions is accurate. I'm merely pointing out those instructions are not an exhaustive list of restrictions.Again, for the hard of reading.... nothing in their marriage instructions says that list of restrictions is exhaustive.No, there is no error. All there is, is your false premise that there's an error where there is none. Again, nothing in the marriage instructions claims that list of restrictions is exhaustive. That's the part you're incapable of understanding.Then your pamphlet is in error and obviously does not represent the law as it does not stop a stepparent from marrying a stepchild.
And iowa 595.19 allows same sex family members to obtain valid marriage licences as they are not prohibited from a valid contract.
You still haven't produced a legislative passed bill, or a judicial ruling making the necessary change, and can no longer use the pamphlet as its been shown inaccurate.
So I have multiple attorneys opinions on my side, the law itself and several independent websites that deal with these matters.
And you have a discredited pamphlet.
But you do babble.
No dummy, you represented it as the law. It is obviously not. If so, step parents would be able to Marry stepchildren as they are NOT BLOOD RELATED.
Further, as pointed out before the law reads.
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.
It is indeed finite.
You have yet to come up with a single piece of supportive evidence that shows that same sex family members are not eligible to hold a VALID marriage license.
But you do exhibit quite a nasty butthurt from the beating youre taking.
Here, have a tissue...
You (that would be You) that presented that as your evidence that SAME SEX FAMILY MEMBERS could not marry, because they were blood related.
You posted that foolishness dozens of times. Now you backtrack.
I win again.
Imagine that
It's not my fault you can't understand that.
And that is where you argument falls to pieces. I highlighted the salient portion for you to understand that what appears to retards like you is not reality.As usual, you win nothing. I'm not backtracking anything. I still maintain the list of restrictions in their marriage instructions is accurate. I'm merely pointing out those instructions are not an exhaustive list of restrictions.Again, for the hard of reading.... nothing in their marriage instructions says that list of restrictions is exhaustive.No, there is no error. All there is, is your false premise that there's an error where there is none. Again, nothing in the marriage instructions claims that list of restrictions is exhaustive. That's the part you're incapable of understanding.
No dummy, you represented it as the law. It is obviously not. If so, step parents would be able to Marry stepchildren as they are NOT BLOOD RELATED.
Further, as pointed out before the law reads.
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.
It is indeed finite.
You have yet to come up with a single piece of supportive evidence that shows that same sex family members are not eligible to hold a VALID marriage license.
But you do exhibit quite a nasty butthurt from the beating youre taking.
Here, have a tissue...
You (that would be You) that presented that as your evidence that SAME SEX FAMILY MEMBERS could not marry, because they were blood related.
You posted that foolishness dozens of times. Now you backtrack.
I win again.
Imagine that
It's not my fault you can't understand that.
I indeed won.
I supplied THE LIST of prohibited marriages by blood that your link said would be invalid because they were blood related.
Same sex immediate family members do not appear on that list. Iowa 595.19.
Valid same sex immediate family members appear to have claim to valid marriage license in Iowa.
And despite claiming people out of hundreds of millions in America would marry close-family members to take advantage of tax benefits he claims are available by a loophole in the law created by same-sex marriage, he has failed miserably to show even a single such couple actually did.Wow...been away from this thread for a while...but nothing has changed. Pops is still advocating for siblings to marry but not actually doing anything about it....just more bloviating from the Popster.
And despite claiming people out of hundreds of millions in America would marry close-family members to take advantage of tax benefits he claims are available by a loophole in the law created by same-sex marriage, he has failed miserably to show even a single such couple actually did.Wow...been away from this thread for a while...but nothing has changed. Pops is still advocating for siblings to marry but not actually doing anything about it....just more bloviating from the Popster.
