Ramifications of Same Sex Marriage

[amrchaos]

By the way, looking at some religions handling of incest, and it turns out that Zoroastrianism, sibling marriages is a virtue. In other words incest is a good religious practice.

 

[Pop23]

Yes, fix it, explain how?

Case by case, explain how a legislature can exclude a same sex couple of sisters while allowing lesbians from marrying?

Neither can procreate, and they are not remarkably different in nature.

You can go down the list if you want, each have a right in Iowa to marry and the state must demonstrate a compelling interest in denying each subsets right to marry

To fix the law, you include the same bar to same sex marriages as you do to hetero marriages.

In any case--why is there an inheritance tax on family farms in Ohio anyway? That is a stupid law too.

And a sound legal reason you would include all in the prohibition?

Procreation sounds absurd, so go for one

Regardless if or if not the relationship revolves around procreation, you can ban relationships of an incestrous nature due to the psychological problems associated with incestuous relationships.

However, even with this in place, there is nothing that bars an incestuous couple from going elsewhere to get married and forcing the State to recognize their marriage by treaty!! This is especially possible with female couples since female coupling is allowable even in fantastically homophoic nations such as Kenya!!

I would and do agree. But take the case of the two straight sisters. Is there any research on the harm you speak of in a non sexual relationship that the two simply desire for financial gain?

I don't know of a single one that exists.

Like I said, in Ohio they could cite psychological issues that may be inherit in an incestuous relationship that will bar their marrying in Ohio. again, the question of sex does not enter it.

In this case, fraud could enter in the equation if the two sisters wish to marry in Ohio if they are doing this for financial reasons. However, in Kenya, such arrangements are allowable and usually arranged.

1. Likely the same in most states, but clearly that would only apply in adult child cases and in cases that involve sex. Straights don't have sex with each other so you would need studies that conclude that it occurs more in this group than in the population as a whole.

That study does not exist as far as I can tell

2. Fraud? Not seeing that at all, but I guess I'm open to the argument

3. These relationships that appear to be legal potentially affect straight to a much larger extent than gays. The potential for heterosexual marriage, in raw numbers is far larger than gay.

 

[Pop23]

I also think about how John Wayne Gacy also wore a clowns mask and was gay.

Interesting to say the least.

So I guess since you wear a clowns mask........

It is your theory afterall.

Maybe if he wasn't raised to hate himself by a Christian society.

This will be highly interesting on a number of ways.

First, will one small group, those that are not remarkably different than ordinary same sex partners (sisters wanting the benefits of marriage vs. a lesbian couple) be excluded because another group also seeking the same benefit, can procreate?

I think that went down in flames the last time it was tried

And, since at least one brief was given to the court (likely more) and that court said his ruling would not lead to legal incest, did the court willfully lie?

And think about it, did Kennedy actually make certain forms of incest legal in Iowa as well as a few other states states that describe incest as "vaginal penetration"?

You would think a Supreme Court judge, given the resources at his command, and this being a law effecting all 50 states would have, at a minimum, taken the time to find how each state defind the institution?

Maybe he was playing golf that day?

I can't see myself supporting incest, can you? Are they trying to make a point? Are you? Go ahead make your case for incest then nambla.

No, not me, I am firmly against incestuous marriage.

Read the first line of the OP.

When the courts legalized same sex marriage, the way the Iowa marriage law reads, is that same sex incestuous marriage is legal in Iowa (link to the statute is in the OP), or so it would appear.

Now, how do you remove those rights from those allowed to be incestuous, without using PROCREATION as the basis.

The reason I use two sisters, let's say they're straight, and their reason to marry is for financial benefit.

What makes them remarkably different than two lesbians?

It's a mess that I would have thought would have made headlines!

Seen any?

Now I see. But its illegal to marry your sister, even if you are a sister.

I'd marry my sister if she had a pension. Then if she died I would continue getting 65% of it. That's why you can't marry a sister. But you can do this with a cousin if you want. Go for it.

I would read the statute included in the OP. It appears that a sister marrying a sister is allowed in Iowa.

 

[Pop23]

^^^snarky remark without any argument.

Noted

It's at least as valid as the nonsense you've been spewing here every day since the ruling was passed down. Gym bathing, marrying your children... you're insane.

Mine are fact based, yours are simply trolling

The real fun is noting the lack of evidence you have.

Evidence of what you nincompoop? You. Are. Nuts.

You still can't dispute my argument.

Attacking the messenger, and not the message is trolling.

You are exactly that, a troll, and not exactly good at it.

One more time, a link to the Iowa law in case you want educated:

Iowa Code 595.19

Depends on your argument- if your argument is that current Iowa law appears to allow a father to marry his son- sure appears that way.

If your argument is that this has any bigger meaning- no.

The citizens of Iowa can decide whether or not they want a father to be able to marry his son- if they do not- they can just adopt the language in one of the majority of states that has simple gender neutral language preventing incestuous marriage.

If the citizens of Iowa don't want to do that- why would you care?

If it appears so, than the Justice you continually cite was wrong. It's amazing that he would not know this as its public record.

Will be interesting to watch if iowa try's to change it, the arguments will be challenging.

 

[Pop23]

I found this interesting. This brings up a few states that appear to allow same sex incestuous marriage, plus the benefits of same sex (gay or straight I assume) for estate planning. Especially for a wealthy individuals tax free way to leave his estate to a same sex child.

Link:

CPA at Law April 2014

 

[Wildman]

What a mess we made.

"we" ? how about "THEY" ?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I firmly oppose incestuous marriage and have been struggling to find a legal basis as to how many incestuous marriages could be banned. I've been called foolish, but it appears it's already legal in at least one state, or at least, not prohibited, if I read the statute correctly.

The link below is to the State of Iowa code addressing who is eligible to marry:

Iowa Code 595.19

Did you notice that only opposite gender closely related individuals are listed as those prohibited to Marry? Same sex closely related relatives are not prohibited from marriage.

The law was written prior to same sex marriage being ruled legal obviously, but it is now the law.

This creates an interesting paradox.

A straight farmer, looking to pass his farm onto his son without the burdon of the inheritance tax could simply Marry his son and POOF, no inheritance tax, but he could not do that with his daughter?

I came across this odd situation from a brief submitted to the ninth circuit, and apparently ignored. That lead me to research if anyone thought that same sex siblings actually wanted the right.

In a marriage equality forum a couple of people posted that they were in same sex sibling relationships and were upset that they could not Marry as other same sex couples now could.

It also appears that several other states have similar laws to Iowa, and others define incest as vaginal penetration.

What a mess we made.

If you follow your link to 595.2 it says

1. Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid.

...so your link appears to be obsolete.

 

[Pop23]

I firmly oppose incestuous marriage and have been struggling to find a legal basis as to how many incestuous marriages could be banned. I've been called foolish, but it appears it's already legal in at least one state, or at least, not prohibited, if I read the statute correctly.

The link below is to the State of Iowa code addressing who is eligible to marry:

Iowa Code 595.19

Did you notice that only opposite gender closely related individuals are listed as those prohibited to Marry? Same sex closely related relatives are not prohibited from marriage.

The law was written prior to same sex marriage being ruled legal obviously, but it is now the law.

This creates an interesting paradox.

A straight farmer, looking to pass his farm onto his son without the burdon of the inheritance tax could simply Marry his son and POOF, no inheritance tax, but he could not do that with his daughter?

I came across this odd situation from a brief submitted to the ninth circuit, and apparently ignored. That lead me to research if anyone thought that same sex siblings actually wanted the right.

In a marriage equality forum a couple of people posted that they were in same sex sibling relationships and were upset that they could not Marry as other same sex couples now could.

It also appears that several other states have similar laws to Iowa, and others define incest as vaginal penetration.

What a mess we made.

If you follow your link to 595.2 it says

1. Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid.

...so your link appears to be obsolete.

Agreed, 595.2 appears obsolete, but what does that have to do with 595.19?

It appears it would not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I firmly oppose incestuous marriage and have been struggling to find a legal basis as to how many incestuous marriages could be banned. I've been called foolish, but it appears it's already legal in at least one state, or at least, not prohibited, if I read the statute correctly.

The link below is to the State of Iowa code addressing who is eligible to marry:

Iowa Code 595.19

Did you notice that only opposite gender closely related individuals are listed as those prohibited to Marry? Same sex closely related relatives are not prohibited from marriage.

The law was written prior to same sex marriage being ruled legal obviously, but it is now the law.

This creates an interesting paradox.

A straight farmer, looking to pass his farm onto his son without the burdon of the inheritance tax could simply Marry his son and POOF, no inheritance tax, but he could not do that with his daughter?

I came across this odd situation from a brief submitted to the ninth circuit, and apparently ignored. That lead me to research if anyone thought that same sex siblings actually wanted the right.

In a marriage equality forum a couple of people posted that they were in same sex sibling relationships and were upset that they could not Marry as other same sex couples now could.

It also appears that several other states have similar laws to Iowa, and others define incest as vaginal penetration.

What a mess we made.

If you follow your link to 595.2 it says

1. Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid.

...so your link appears to be obsolete.

Agreed, 595.2 appears obsolete, but what does that have to do with 595.19?

It appears it would not.

Because it's all from the same document you linked to.

 

[Pop23]

I firmly oppose incestuous marriage and have been struggling to find a legal basis as to how many incestuous marriages could be banned. I've been called foolish, but it appears it's already legal in at least one state, or at least, not prohibited, if I read the statute correctly.

The link below is to the State of Iowa code addressing who is eligible to marry:

Iowa Code 595.19

Did you notice that only opposite gender closely related individuals are listed as those prohibited to Marry? Same sex closely related relatives are not prohibited from marriage.

The law was written prior to same sex marriage being ruled legal obviously, but it is now the law.

This creates an interesting paradox.

A straight farmer, looking to pass his farm onto his son without the burdon of the inheritance tax could simply Marry his son and POOF, no inheritance tax, but he could not do that with his daughter?

I came across this odd situation from a brief submitted to the ninth circuit, and apparently ignored. That lead me to research if anyone thought that same sex siblings actually wanted the right.

In a marriage equality forum a couple of people posted that they were in same sex sibling relationships and were upset that they could not Marry as other same sex couples now could.

It also appears that several other states have similar laws to Iowa, and others define incest as vaginal penetration.

What a mess we made.

If you follow your link to 595.2 it says

1. Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid.

...so your link appears to be obsolete.

Agreed, 595.2 appears obsolete, but what does that have to do with 595.19?

It appears it would not.

Because it's all from the same document you linked to.

Yes?

Are you saying that the list of prohibited parties would now be eligible to marry? There are no others listed.

 

[Freewill]

I think that this does open the door for a man marrying his son, I am not sure what the argument against would be. As I have always argued there are economic consideration for making SSM legal. Maybe not enough to stop the practice but they are there.

 

[Seawytch]

Family members do not need the legal protections marriage affords. They already have them.

Forty states and the District of Columbia do, indeed, have laws specifying who can make decisions for a patient who does not have an advance directive. In many – but not all – of those states, a spouse is designated as first in priority, followed by adult children, parents, and siblings. Other states have different procedures for deciding who will speak for a patient.​

 

[deltex1]

One good thing about gay marriages...no increase in abortions.

 

[Pop23]

Family members do not need the legal protections marriage affords. They already have them.

Forty states and the District of Columbia do, indeed, have laws specifying who can make decisions for a patient who does not have an advance directive. In many – but not all – of those states, a spouse is designated as first in priority, followed by adult children, parents, and siblings. Other states have different procedures for deciding who will speak for a patient.​

Then why does iowa not exclude all family members?

Your post has little to nothing to do with the blanket protections and financial benefits afforded in marriage.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I firmly oppose incestuous marriage and have been struggling to find a legal basis as to how many incestuous marriages could be banned. I've been called foolish, but it appears it's already legal in at least one state, or at least, not prohibited, if I read the statute correctly.

The link below is to the State of Iowa code addressing who is eligible to marry:

Iowa Code 595.19

Did you notice that only opposite gender closely related individuals are listed as those prohibited to Marry? Same sex closely related relatives are not prohibited from marriage.

The law was written prior to same sex marriage being ruled legal obviously, but it is now the law.

This creates an interesting paradox.

A straight farmer, looking to pass his farm onto his son without the burdon of the inheritance tax could simply Marry his son and POOF, no inheritance tax, but he could not do that with his daughter?

I came across this odd situation from a brief submitted to the ninth circuit, and apparently ignored. That lead me to research if anyone thought that same sex siblings actually wanted the right.

In a marriage equality forum a couple of people posted that they were in same sex sibling relationships and were upset that they could not Marry as other same sex couples now could.

It also appears that several other states have similar laws to Iowa, and others define incest as vaginal penetration.

What a mess we made.

Incest is not allowed because any potential children would be harmed. Also two people who are closely related are already closely related. Marrying wouldn't do anything, they're a family member, they don't need the govt to make them that.

What potential children in same sex relationships?

Which are not excluded under iowa statute?

Well, I made several points. The first has been the argument against incest for a long time, on biological terms.

However the fact that they are already related also has a massive impact.

I've never been to Iowa, why are you asking me?

 

[Pop23]

I firmly oppose incestuous marriage and have been struggling to find a legal basis as to how many incestuous marriages could be banned. I've been called foolish, but it appears it's already legal in at least one state, or at least, not prohibited, if I read the statute correctly.

The link below is to the State of Iowa code addressing who is eligible to marry:

Iowa Code 595.19

Did you notice that only opposite gender closely related individuals are listed as those prohibited to Marry? Same sex closely related relatives are not prohibited from marriage.

The law was written prior to same sex marriage being ruled legal obviously, but it is now the law.

This creates an interesting paradox.

A straight farmer, looking to pass his farm onto his son without the burdon of the inheritance tax could simply Marry his son and POOF, no inheritance tax, but he could not do that with his daughter?

I came across this odd situation from a brief submitted to the ninth circuit, and apparently ignored. That lead me to research if anyone thought that same sex siblings actually wanted the right.

In a marriage equality forum a couple of people posted that they were in same sex sibling relationships and were upset that they could not Marry as other same sex couples now could.

It also appears that several other states have similar laws to Iowa, and others define incest as vaginal penetration.

What a mess we made.

Incest is not allowed because any potential children would be harmed. Also two people who are closely related are already closely related. Marrying wouldn't do anything, they're a family member, they don't need the govt to make them that.

What potential children in same sex relationships?

Which are not excluded under iowa statute?

Well, I made several points. The first has been the argument against incest for a long time, on biological terms.

However the fact that they are already related also has a massive impact.

I've never been to Iowa, why are you asking me?

It would appear that those incestuos marriages that appear to be legal in Iowa could not have negative impact on children because no procreation is possible.

The reasoning for the couple not being closely related has several points to it, yet seem absurd in regards to straight same sex siblings? Maybe more so with gay same sex siblings, but are you going to limit one set because of the sexuality of the other?

The State then would have to prove the compelling interest for denying the straight couple. It comes down to the sexuality of one being applied to the other.

I'm thinking Iowa hasn't amended 595.19 because it opens a hornets nest where, do "A" you deny this groups rights for absurd reasons, or do "B" deny rights to a different group for absurd reasons.

As I said before, a mess

 

[frigidweirdo]

It would appear that those incestuos marriages that appear to be legal in Iowa could not have negative impact on children because no procreation is possible.

The reasoning for the couple not being closely related has several points to it, yet seem absurd in regards to straight same sex siblings? Maybe more so with gay same sex siblings, but are you going to limit one set because of the sexuality of the other?

The State then would have to prove the compelling interest for denying the straight couple. It comes down to the sexuality of one being applied to the other.

I'm thinking Iowa hasn't amended 595.19 because it opens a hornets nest where, do "A" you deny this groups rights for absurd reasons, or do "B" deny rights to a different group for absurd reasons.

As I said before, a mess

Well, what I'd say is that all rights are limited, and they're generally limited when harm is caused. Saying "******" doesn't immediately cause harm just because it has been said. However if someone were to say it and harm were caused, like rioting started and fifty people were killed, then you would be in trouble.
So, you could quite easily ban incestuous marriages for those who could produce children, or potentially produce children based on this alone.
This argument is about harm, and how rights are limited when harm comes into the equation. With gay couples this simply wouldn't be an argument. Hence why there is another compelling argument:

The other argument is that people who are directly related should be unable to get married simply because their legal status is already one of being related. I don't know about benefits that brother and sister have when it comes to one of them dying, but I'm going to assume in most places that they would be able to inherit, and also get many of the other such things that would fall under "equality of the law".
But it would also not be that difficult for the law to simply say that people are either directly related or not. Brother and sister are directly related if they have either the same father or mother or both. That Mother and son are both directly related. That husband and wife are directly related and so on. That there is a status, you're either directly related or your not. If you're directly related you cannot marry simply because you're already directly related, you don't need to be directly related legally again, it makes no sense.

 

[Syriusly]

It's at least as valid as the nonsense you've been spewing here every day since the ruling was passed down. Gym bathing, marrying your children... you're insane.

Mine are fact based, yours are simply trolling

The real fun is noting the lack of evidence you have.

Evidence of what you nincompoop? You. Are. Nuts.

You still can't dispute my argument.

Attacking the messenger, and not the message is trolling.

You are exactly that, a troll, and not exactly good at it.

One more time, a link to the Iowa law in case you want educated:

Iowa Code 595.19

Depends on your argument- if your argument is that current Iowa law appears to allow a father to marry his son- sure appears that way.

If your argument is that this has any bigger meaning- no.

The citizens of Iowa can decide whether or not they want a father to be able to marry his son- if they do not- they can just adopt the language in one of the majority of states that has simple gender neutral language preventing incestuous marriage.

If the citizens of Iowa don't want to do that- why would you care?

If it appears so, than the Justice you continually cite was wrong. It's amazing that he would not know this as its public record.

Will be interesting to watch if iowa try's to change it, the arguments will be challenging.

Feel free to show why Judge Crabb was wrong when she said:

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

Beyond that- The Supreme Court's ruling 2 weeks ago didn't change a thing in Iowa.

Because this issue was pointed out 6 years ago in Iowa, when Iowa's Supreme Court overturned Iowa's gay marriage ban.
Gay incest legal in Iowa The Iowa Republican

So for the last 6 years- apparently there has been no law preventing same gender relatives from marrying.

It appears that the citizens of Iowa are okay with that- since I can find no record of any attempt to change the law.

Do you think that the citizens of Iowa are wrong?

 

[Syriusly]

I firmly oppose incestuous marriage and have been struggling to find a legal basis as to how many incestuous marriages could be banned. I've been called foolish, but it appears it's already legal in at least one state, or at least, not prohibited, if I read the statute correctly.

The link below is to the State of Iowa code addressing who is eligible to marry:

Iowa Code 595.19

Did you notice that only opposite gender closely related individuals are listed as those prohibited to Marry? Same sex closely related relatives are not prohibited from marriage.

The law was written prior to same sex marriage being ruled legal obviously, but it is now the law.

This creates an interesting paradox.

A straight farmer, looking to pass his farm onto his son without the burdon of the inheritance tax could simply Marry his son and POOF, no inheritance tax, but he could not do that with his daughter?

I came across this odd situation from a brief submitted to the ninth circuit, and apparently ignored. That lead me to research if anyone thought that same sex siblings actually wanted the right.

In a marriage equality forum a couple of people posted that they were in same sex sibling relationships and were upset that they could not Marry as other same sex couples now could.

It also appears that several other states have similar laws to Iowa, and others define incest as vaginal penetration.

What a mess we made.

Incest is not allowed because any potential children would be harmed. Also two people who are closely related are already closely related. Marrying wouldn't do anything, they're a family member, they don't need the govt to make them that.

What potential children in same sex relationships?

Which are not excluded under iowa statute?

Well, I made several points. The first has been the argument against incest for a long time, on biological terms.

However the fact that they are already related also has a massive impact.

I've never been to Iowa, why are you asking me?

I'm thinking Iowa hasn't amended 595.19 because it opens a hornets nest where, do "A" you deny this groups rights for absurd reasons, or do "B" deny rights to a different group for absurd reasons.

As I said before, a mess

I'm thinking you are just making crap up to suit your agenda.

Most states have gender neutral laws regarding incestuous marriage that Iowa could easily adopt- laws that have not been challenged for up to 11 years.

No mess at all. Other than the mess you keep trying to create.

 

[Syriusly]

Family members do not need the legal protections marriage affords. They already have them.

Forty states and the District of Columbia do, indeed, have laws specifying who can make decisions for a patient who does not have an advance directive. In many – but not all – of those states, a spouse is designated as first in priority, followed by adult children, parents, and siblings. Other states have different procedures for deciding who will speak for a patient.​

Then why does iowa not exclude all family members?

Your post has little to nothing to do with the blanket protections and financial benefits afforded in marriage.

Because Iowa's marriage statute is not gender neutral and is very convoluted.

Others- like California are more inclusive and gender neutral

2200. Marriages between parents and children, ancestors and
descendants of every degree, and between siblings of the half as well
as the whole blood, and between uncles or aunts and nieces or
nephews, are incestuous, and void from the beginning, whether the
relationship is legitimate or illegitimate.