It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Pop23]

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.

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.

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 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.

Reality is Iowa doesn't allow any close-family members to marry each other regardless of gender.

Problem is, you're dishonest, you highlights the non salient portion.

The salient portion is:

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

Same sex immediate family members are not included in the list of invalid marriages.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Why? I'm against family marriage. Just confused as to why the Iowa Supreme Court legalized it.

 

[Faun]

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.

Logical falicy doesn't help you're loser position.

There is no logical falicy. The one thing you got right was saying many of the hundreds of Americans would take advantage of such a loop hole.

You're right, they would. Unquestionably.

You can find none who did.

 

[Faun]

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 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, 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.

It is based on their laws. Never said otherwise. The instructions even state as much. Nowhere does it state the list of restrictions is exhaustive. But keep trying, it's quite entertaining watching you flop around like a dead fish on the deck of a boat, gasping for life.

 

[Faun]

Again, for the hard of reading.... nothing in their marriage instructions says that list of restrictions is exhaustive.

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.

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 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.

Reality is Iowa doesn't allow any close-family members to marry each other regardless of gender.

Problem is, you're dishonest, you highlights the non salient portion.

The salient portion is:

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

Same sex immediate family members are not included in the list of invalid marriages.

Again, you're citing laws as they were written prior to changes affecting gender and marriage due to a Supreme Court ruling.

Iowa instructs people interested in filling out a marriage application that regardless of gender, a marriage license will not be issued to any consanguineous couples.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Logical falicy doesn't help you're loser position.

There is no logical falicy. The one thing you got right was saying many of the hundreds of Americans would take advantage of such a loop hole.

You're right, they would. Unquestionably.

You can find none who did.

You're logical falicy is failing to grip
the argument.

I argue its legal, nothing more.

You can't even dispute that, so you deflect to a logical falicy.

You are sad.

 

[Pop23]

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.

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 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.

Reality is Iowa doesn't allow any close-family members to marry each other regardless of gender.

Problem is, you're dishonest, you highlights the non salient portion.

The salient portion is:

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

Same sex immediate family members are not included in the list of invalid marriages.

Again, you're citing laws as they were written prior to changes affecting gender and marriage due to a Supreme Court ruling.

Iowa instructs people interested in filling out a marriage application that regardless of gender, a marriage license will not be issued to any consanguineous couples.

Wrong, quit representing this in clearly a misleading way. There is not absolute ban on same sex, blood related same sex immediate family marriage.

See


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

None on the list found in Iowa code 595.19 are same sex immediate family. There claim to a marriage license is then valid.

 

[Pop23]

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.

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.

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.

It is based on their laws. Never said otherwise. The instructions even state as much. Nowhere does it state the list of restrictions is exhaustive. But keep trying, it's quite entertaining watching you flop around like a dead fish on the deck of a boat, gasping for life.

And not a single shred of supportive evidence.

Fish, you got hooked

 

[Pop23]

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.

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 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.

Reality is Iowa doesn't allow any close-family members to marry each other regardless of gender.

Problem is, you're dishonest, you highlights the non salient portion.

The salient portion is:

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

Same sex immediate family members are not included in the list of invalid marriages.

Again, you're citing laws as they were written prior to changes affecting gender and marriage due to a Supreme Court ruling
.

And knowing this, why did the Supreme Court address it in their ruling which only made same sex marriage legal, and did nothing to make same sex immediate family marriage illegal?

 

[Faun]

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.

Logical falicy doesn't help you're loser position.

There is no logical falicy. The one thing you got right was saying many of the hundreds of Americans would take advantage of such a loop hole.

You're right, they would. Unquestionably.

You can find none who did.

You're logical falicy is failing to grip
the argument.

I argue its legal, nothing more.

You can't even dispute that, so you deflect to a logical falicy.

You are sad.

And yet, you can't even prove that.

 

[Faun]

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.

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 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.

Reality is Iowa doesn't allow any close-family members to marry each other regardless of gender.

Problem is, you're dishonest, you highlights the non salient portion.

The salient portion is:

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

Same sex immediate family members are not included in the list of invalid marriages.

Again, you're citing laws as they were written prior to changes affecting gender and marriage due to a Supreme Court ruling.

Iowa instructs people interested in filling out a marriage application that regardless of gender, a marriage license will not be issued to any consanguineous couples.

Wrong, quit representing this in clearly a misleading way. There is not absolute ban on same sex, blood related same sex immediate family marriage.

See


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

None on the list found in Iowa code 595.19 are same sex immediate family. There claim to a marriage license is then valid.

Iowa says there is. I choose to believe them over a forum pervert like you.

State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions​

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

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

 

[Faun]

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, 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.

It is based on their laws. Never said otherwise. The instructions even state as much. Nowhere does it state the list of restrictions is exhaustive. But keep trying, it's quite entertaining watching you flop around like a dead fish on the deck of a boat, gasping for life.

And not a single shred of supportive evidence.

Fish, you got hooked

As usual, you prove yourself to be too brain-dead to think for yourself, so you idiotically project your shortcomings upon others.

 

[Faun]

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.

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 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.

Reality is Iowa doesn't allow any close-family members to marry each other regardless of gender.

Problem is, you're dishonest, you highlights the non salient portion.

The salient portion is:

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

Same sex immediate family members are not included in the list of invalid marriages.

Again, you're citing laws as they were written prior to changes affecting gender and marriage due to a Supreme Court ruling
.

And knowing this, why did the Supreme Court address it in their ruling which only made same sex marriage legal, and did nothing to make same sex immediate family marriage illegal?

Because it was already illegal. The SC ruling did not create a loophole in the law. The spirit of the law remains; close-family marriages are still not permitted in iowa. You really are too slow to keep up. I don't know why you even try?

 

[Pop23]

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.

Logical falicy doesn't help you're loser position.

There is no logical falicy. The one thing you got right was saying many of the hundreds of Americans would take advantage of such a loop hole.

You're right, they would. Unquestionably.

You can find none who did.

You're logical falicy is failing to grip
the argument.

I argue its legal, nothing more.

You can't even dispute that, so you deflect to a logical falicy.

You are sad.

And yet, you can't even prove that.

Except that I provided links to attorneys websites that indicate I did.

And you, a pamphlet.

Sad

 

[Pop23]

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 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.

Reality is Iowa doesn't allow any close-family members to marry each other regardless of gender.

Problem is, you're dishonest, you highlights the non salient portion.

The salient portion is:

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

Same sex immediate family members are not included in the list of invalid marriages.

Again, you're citing laws as they were written prior to changes affecting gender and marriage due to a Supreme Court ruling
.

And knowing this, why did the Supreme Court address it in their ruling which only made same sex marriage legal, and did nothing to make same sex immediate family marriage illegal?

Because it was already illegal. The SC ruling did not create a loophole in the law. The spirit of the law remains; close-family marriages are still not permitted in iowa. You really are too slow to keep up. I don't know why you even try?

Nope, the SC only changed 595.20 and was silent on 595.19.

So you're wrong again

 

[Pop23]

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.

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.

It is based on their laws. Never said otherwise. The instructions even state as much. Nowhere does it state the list of restrictions is exhaustive. But keep trying, it's quite entertaining watching you flop around like a dead fish on the deck of a boat, gasping for life.

And not a single shred of supportive evidence.

Fish, you got hooked

As usual, you prove yourself to be too brain-dead to think for yourself, so you idiotically project your shortcomings upon others.

And still no supportive evidence.

Just a bunch of butthurt

 

[Faun]

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.

Logical falicy doesn't help you're loser position.

There is no logical falicy. The one thing you got right was saying many of the hundreds of Americans would take advantage of such a loop hole.

You're right, they would. Unquestionably.

You can find none who did.

You're logical falicy is failing to grip
the argument.

I argue its legal, nothing more.

You can't even dispute that, so you deflect to a logical falicy.

You are sad.

And yet, you can't even prove that.

Except that I provided links to attorneys websites that indicate I did.

And you, a pamphlet.

Sad

Those attorney's don't speak for Iowa... Iowa's marriage instructions do.

Learn.

 

[Faun]

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.

Reality is Iowa doesn't allow any close-family members to marry each other regardless of gender.

Problem is, you're dishonest, you highlights the non salient portion.

The salient portion is:

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

Same sex immediate family members are not included in the list of invalid marriages.

Again, you're citing laws as they were written prior to changes affecting gender and marriage due to a Supreme Court ruling
.

And knowing this, why did the Supreme Court address it in their ruling which only made same sex marriage legal, and did nothing to make same sex immediate family marriage illegal?

Because it was already illegal. The SC ruling did not create a loophole in the law. The spirit of the law remains; close-family marriages are still not permitted in iowa. You really are too slow to keep up. I don't know why you even try?

Nope, the SC only changed 595.20 and was silent on 595.19.

So you're wrong again

Iowa claims otherwise...

State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions​

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

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

 

[Pop23]

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 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.

Reality is Iowa doesn't allow any close-family members to marry each other regardless of gender.

Problem is, you're dishonest, you highlights the non salient portion.

The salient portion is:

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

Same sex immediate family members are not included in the list of invalid marriages.

Again, you're citing laws as they were written prior to changes affecting gender and marriage due to a Supreme Court ruling.

Iowa instructs people interested in filling out a marriage application that regardless of gender, a marriage license will not be issued to any consanguineous couples.

Wrong, quit representing this in clearly a misleading way. There is not absolute ban on same sex, blood related same sex immediate family marriage.

See


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

None on the list found in Iowa code 595.19 are same sex immediate family. There claim to a marriage license is then valid.

Iowa says there is. I choose to believe them over a forum pervert like you.

State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions​

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

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

So, if this is definitive, then you beleive a stepdaughter can Marry a Step father.

PervFaun never fails to amaze me.

 

[Faun]

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.

It is based on their laws. Never said otherwise. The instructions even state as much. Nowhere does it state the list of restrictions is exhaustive. But keep trying, it's quite entertaining watching you flop around like a dead fish on the deck of a boat, gasping for life.

And not a single shred of supportive evidence.

Fish, you got hooked

As usual, you prove yourself to be too brain-dead to think for yourself, so you idiotically project your shortcomings upon others.

And still no supportive evidence.

Just a bunch of butthurt

The evidence was given... no such couples could be found.