Ramifications of Same Sex Marriage

[Syriusly]

The funny thing about this argument is that Pop keeps trying to pretend that the bans on incestuous marriage are about procreation.

But then there is the issue of exemptions from inheritance tax.

IF the purpose of marriage is procreation- and IF the purpose of spousal benefits are for procreation- then WHY does a spouse inherit their joint estate tax free- but children do not?

IF the benefits for marriage were for children- then why does the spouse get the exemption- and not the children?

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Thats a hot loophole. Close it.

 

[sealybobo]

The funny thing about this argument is that Pop keeps trying to pretend that the bans on incestuous marriage are about procreation.

But then there is the issue of exemptions from inheritance tax.

IF the purpose of marriage is procreation- and IF the purpose of spousal benefits are for procreation- then WHY does a spouse inherit their joint estate tax free- but children do not?

IF the benefits for marriage were for children- then why does the spouse get the exemption- and not the children?

Fathers should just marry their daughters then grand daughters.

 

[Pop23]

The funny thing about this argument is that Pop keeps trying to pretend that the bans on incestuous marriage are about procreation.

But then there is the issue of exemptions from inheritance tax.

IF the purpose of marriage is procreation- and IF the purpose of spousal benefits are for procreation- then WHY does a spouse inherit their joint estate tax free- but children do not?

IF the benefits for marriage were for children- then why does the spouse get the exemption- and not the children?

Simple really, the spouse is co creator.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Interesting really

You say that the Justice you keep referencing says that including same sex marriages will not lead to legal incestuous marriage, yet after I post the iowa statute, 595.19, which clearly shows it did..........

Did I also mention the several states that includes in the classification of incestuous marriage, "vaginal penetration"

You are correct, iowa enacted same sex marriage six years ago, and 595.19 was still on the books when the Justice made the comments you keep posting. Was he naive or incompetant? Or possibly both?

All 50 states have marriage laws that are easily accessible, only this brilliant jurist can't google?

 

[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.

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.

I don't blame iowa. Prior to same sex marriage being legal it had one of the strictest anti incest marriage laws in the country, even a complete ban on first cousin marriage which many states allow.

Without as much as laying a pen to paper, they became one of, if not the, weakest protectors of marriage in the country.

What a paradox

 

[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?

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.

Challenge the information presented. I've even supplied links

Nobody really wants to hear you thinking out loud.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Darn, it doesn't prohibit them from marrying their mule, either...

Sounds like a Lib paradise!!!!

wait, I can marry my mule?
Finally, I can come out of the barn.

 

[Pop23]

Darn, it doesn't prohibit them from marrying their mule, either...

Sounds like a Lib paradise!!!!

wait, I can marry my mule?
Finally, I can come out of the barn.

If this was Colorado, you and your mule could also take a trip without leaving the farm!!

True story

I wish you both great happiness in you're future together (I guess)

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Challenge the information presented. I've even supplied links

Nobody really wants to hear you thinking out loud.

Done

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.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Darn, it doesn't prohibit them from marrying their mule, either...

Sounds like a Lib paradise!!!!

wait, I can marry my mule?
Finally, I can come out of the barn.

If this was Colorado, you and your mule could also take a trip without leaving the farm!!

True story

I wish you both great happiness in you're future together (I guess)

Thank you.
will you bake us a carrot cake for the wedding?

 

[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.

I don't blame iowa. Prior to same sex marriage being legal it had one of the strictest anti incest marriage laws in the country, even a complete ban on first cousin marriage which many states allow.

Without as much as laying a pen to paper, they became one of, if not the, weakest protectors of marriage in the country.

What a paradox

Not a paradox- their anti-incest laws were always among the weakest- compare their laws to California's- California's was always more comprehensive.

Because Iowa's anti-incest laws never covered same gender relatives- they were always weaker than California's or most states.

Of course Iowa has had 6 years to 'fix' this problem- and apparently Iowa doesn't see the problem that you do- since Iowa doesn't seem to be doing anything.

Or marrying any same sex siblings.

 

[Syriusly]

The funny thing about this argument is that Pop keeps trying to pretend that the bans on incestuous marriage are about procreation.

But then there is the issue of exemptions from inheritance tax.

IF the purpose of marriage is procreation- and IF the purpose of spousal benefits are for procreation- then WHY does a spouse inherit their joint estate tax free- but children do not?

IF the benefits for marriage were for children- then why does the spouse get the exemption- and not the children?

Simple really, the spouse is co creator.

Why the spouse- and not the children- if marriage is for procreation?

 

[Pop23]

Darn, it doesn't prohibit them from marrying their mule, either...

Sounds like a Lib paradise!!!!

wait, I can marry my mule?
Finally, I can come out of the barn.

If this was Colorado, you and your mule could also take a trip without leaving the farm!!

True story

I wish you both great happiness in you're future together (I guess)

Thank you.
will you bake us a carrot cake for the wedding?

Damn straight I will! Unless you and the mule are blood related, then fuck off dude!

 

[Pop23]

The funny thing about this argument is that Pop keeps trying to pretend that the bans on incestuous marriage are about procreation.

But then there is the issue of exemptions from inheritance tax.

IF the purpose of marriage is procreation- and IF the purpose of spousal benefits are for procreation- then WHY does a spouse inherit their joint estate tax free- but children do not?

IF the benefits for marriage were for children- then why does the spouse get the exemption- and not the children?

Simple really, the spouse is co creator.

Why the spouse- and not the children- if marriage is for procreation?

The spouse is co creator. They together spend the money to raise..........

A future tax payer


You can thank us later

 

[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.

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.

I don't blame iowa. Prior to same sex marriage being legal it had one of the strictest anti incest marriage laws in the country, even a complete ban on first cousin marriage which many states allow.

Without as much as laying a pen to paper, they became one of, if not the, weakest protectors of marriage in the country.

What a paradox

Not a paradox- their anti-incest laws were always among the weakest- compare their laws to California's- California's was always more comprehensive.

Because Iowa's anti-incest laws never covered same gender relatives- they were always weaker than California's or most states.

Of course Iowa has had 6 years to 'fix' this problem- and apparently Iowa doesn't see the problem that you do- since Iowa doesn't seem to be doing anything.

Or marrying any same sex siblings.

Nope, same gender was never an issue prior to 2009. They were extremely strict, even excluding first cousins.

But you do such like to babble

 

[Syriusly]

The funny thing about this argument is that Pop keeps trying to pretend that the bans on incestuous marriage are about procreation.

But then there is the issue of exemptions from inheritance tax.

IF the purpose of marriage is procreation- and IF the purpose of spousal benefits are for procreation- then WHY does a spouse inherit their joint estate tax free- but children do not?

IF the benefits for marriage were for children- then why does the spouse get the exemption- and not the children?

Simple really, the spouse is co creator.

Why the spouse- and not the children- if marriage is for procreation?

The spouse is co creator. They together spend the money to raise..........

A future tax payer


You can thank us later

Or they don't.

My 80 year old uncle recently married a woman in her 70's- when he dies, she will likely survive him and be able to inherit his estate tax free- while his children from his previous marriage will have to pay inheritance tax.

Again- if marriage is about 'procreation' why do the benefits accrue to the spouse- not the children?

 

[rightwinger]

So same sex marriage is causing Iowa farmers to marry their sons

Even lamer than the wedding

 

[rightwinger]

I got a better plan pop

Make your son divorce his wife then marry her and leave the farm to her when you die

Then have your son remarry

 

[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.

I don't blame iowa. Prior to same sex marriage being legal it had one of the strictest anti incest marriage laws in the country, even a complete ban on first cousin marriage which many states allow.

Without as much as laying a pen to paper, they became one of, if not the, weakest protectors of marriage in the country.

What a paradox

Not a paradox- their anti-incest laws were always among the weakest- compare their laws to California's- California's was always more comprehensive.

Because Iowa's anti-incest laws never covered same gender relatives- they were always weaker than California's or most states.

Of course Iowa has had 6 years to 'fix' this problem- and apparently Iowa doesn't see the problem that you do- since Iowa doesn't seem to be doing anything.

Or marrying any same sex siblings.

Nope, same gender was never an issue prior to 2009. They were extremely strict, even excluding first cousins.

But you do such like to babble

You said- quote:
Prior to same sex marriage being legal it had one of the strictest anti incest marriage laws in the country,

And of course that is false- since their anti-incest marriage law did not include same gender couples, or for that matter even great-grandparents and great grandchildren.

Iowa has had 6 years to 'solve this problem'- and has done nothing to change the law.

Apparently Iowa doesn't see the problem that you see.