"Yes, Gay Marriage Hurts Me Personally"

[Skylar]

Oh, and you're also running into a small problem in terms of cause and effect. See, in our universe, cause precedes effect. You've said that its same sex marriage that caused incestuous marriage to be legal.

And to support that claim, you cite a law that was passed in 1962.

So by the logic of your argument, a ruling in 2015 caused a law to be passed in 1962?

Can you see any reason why that might not be the strongest argument for causation?

 

[Syriusly]

You are literally ignoring the judiciary that contradicts you....while insisting that the judiciary agrees with you and will implement your every prediction. Contradiction isn't agreement. No matter how hard you pretend otherwise.

This despite the fact that in the 10 years or so that same sex marriage has been legal somewhere in this country, absolutely nothing you've predicted has ever come to pass.

So contradiction by the judiciary....and perfect failure of your every prediction.

Why am I supposed to give a shit about your pseudo-legal gibberish again?

You are aware of Iowa statute 595.19, that lists those individuals not allowed to marry due to the incesturous nature of their relationship?

It only excluded male/female, blood related marriage, with the odd exception of first cousins. Same sex blood reletives are nowhere to be found, thus, unwittingly, I appear correct in the prediction that incest would be legal.

Your prediction is that incestuous marriage would be legal.

Its been 10 years. Where is it?

And with the judiciary explicitly contradicting you.......why is it that you conclude that the judiciary must agree with you? 10 years of perfect failure of your predictions and explicit contradiction by the judiciary both stand as powerful indications that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Which brings me back to my question: Why should I care about your pseudo-legal babble?

Link please, I believe the last time I checked the Iowa law still stands making incestous marriage legal.

It's your choice to care or not, I can't stop you hitting the submit button.

It is also legal in Iowa for a Great grandfather to marry his great granddaughter.

Iowa's incest laws need revamping- they could look at California's for a great example of a gender neutral law that would include fathers and sons- and greatgrandfathers and great grand daughters.

....... Or great great great great grandfather.

God you must be boring in real life.

Odd isn't it- your faux outrage about how Iowa allows same gender siblings to marry each other- but you don't care that Iowa allows a Great-grandfather to marry his great granddaughter?

Even odder is that you won't deal with the fact that states like California have simple language which forbids all of those marriages- and Iowa doesn't seem to want comprehensive bans on incestuous marriages.

 

[Pop23]

You are aware of Iowa statute 595.19, that lists those individuals not allowed to marry due to the incesturous nature of their relationship?

It only excluded male/female, blood related marriage, with the odd exception of first cousins. Same sex blood reletives are nowhere to be found, thus, unwittingly, I appear correct in the prediction that incest would be legal.

Your prediction is that incestuous marriage would be legal.

Its been 10 years. Where is it?

And with the judiciary explicitly contradicting you.......why is it that you conclude that the judiciary must agree with you? 10 years of perfect failure of your predictions and explicit contradiction by the judiciary both stand as powerful indications that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Which brings me back to my question: Why should I care about your pseudo-legal babble?

Link please, I believe the last time I checked the Iowa law still stands making incestous marriage legal.

Says you. The Iowa law says differently:

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.

Iowa Code 595.19

So you say Iowa allows incestuous marriage. And Iowa says those marriages are void.

Why would I ignore Iowa and instead believe you?

You did note that the law makes a marriage void if, for example, a father married his daughter, but is silent if he married his SON.

It explicitly voids marriages based on incestuous relationships. You said such bans are against the law. And that incestuous marriage must be legalized.

Obviously Iowa disagrees with you.

How do you reconcile this explicit contradiction by State law with your assumptions of what the States must do? No state, no court, no judge has ever found incestuous marriage to be a constitutional right. Or found a law banning incestuous marriage to be a violation of the constitution, the due process clause, or any constitutional guarantee.

Its almost like you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

You posted the law moron. A Father marrying a Son is incesturous.

Good god.

You do understand what the ":" is, right?

The list of who this relates to are as follows.

Ya think they just kinda left out all same sex couplings, cuz....

They ran out of ink?

It is

1.

a.

b.

c.

"A" "B" and "C" explains "1"

Now "c", for some odd reason excluded ALL INCEST BETWEEN ALL SEXES.

If "a" and "b" had the same intent, it would simply state it in those same terms.

 

[Pop23]

You are aware of Iowa statute 595.19, that lists those individuals not allowed to marry due to the incesturous nature of their relationship?

It only excluded male/female, blood related marriage, with the odd exception of first cousins. Same sex blood reletives are nowhere to be found, thus, unwittingly, I appear correct in the prediction that incest would be legal.

Your prediction is that incestuous marriage would be legal.

Its been 10 years. Where is it?

And with the judiciary explicitly contradicting you.......why is it that you conclude that the judiciary must agree with you? 10 years of perfect failure of your predictions and explicit contradiction by the judiciary both stand as powerful indications that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Which brings me back to my question: Why should I care about your pseudo-legal babble?

Link please, I believe the last time I checked the Iowa law still stands making incestous marriage legal.

It's your choice to care or not, I can't stop you hitting the submit button.

It is also legal in Iowa for a Great grandfather to marry his great granddaughter.

Iowa's incest laws need revamping- they could look at California's for a great example of a gender neutral law that would include fathers and sons- and greatgrandfathers and great grand daughters.

....... Or great great great great grandfather.

God you must be boring in real life.

Odd isn't it- your faux outrage about how Iowa allows same gender siblings to marry each other- but you don't care that Iowa allows a Great-grandfather to marry his great granddaughter?

Even odder is that you won't deal with the fact that states like California have simple language which forbids all of those marriages- and Iowa doesn't seem to want comprehensive bans on incestuous marriages.

Both are deflections from the points brought up.

1. I am outraged by any forms of incest, I don't care how close, the sex of any, or how utterly preposterous they are.

2. California laws have no bearing on Iowa laws.

Demonstrate just how easy it would be to change Iowas law. It's been this way since 2009

 

[Skylar]

Your prediction is that incestuous marriage would be legal.

Its been 10 years. Where is it?

And with the judiciary explicitly contradicting you.......why is it that you conclude that the judiciary must agree with you? 10 years of perfect failure of your predictions and explicit contradiction by the judiciary both stand as powerful indications that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Which brings me back to my question: Why should I care about your pseudo-legal babble?

Link please, I believe the last time I checked the Iowa law still stands making incestous marriage legal.

Says you. The Iowa law says differently:

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.

Iowa Code 595.19

So you say Iowa allows incestuous marriage. And Iowa says those marriages are void.

Why would I ignore Iowa and instead believe you?

You did note that the law makes a marriage void if, for example, a father married his daughter, but is silent if he married his SON.

It explicitly voids marriages based on incestuous relationships. You said such bans are against the law. And that incestuous marriage must be legalized.

Obviously Iowa disagrees with you.

How do you reconcile this explicit contradiction by State law with your assumptions of what the States must do? No state, no court, no judge has ever found incestuous marriage to be a constitutional right. Or found a law banning incestuous marriage to be a violation of the constitution, the due process clause, or any constitutional guarantee.

Its almost like you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

You posted the law moron.

A law that explicitly forbids incestuous relationships. If your premise that gay marriage makes incestuous relationships legal.....then how could this law exist?

And if its same sex marriage that makes incestuous relationships legal....then why is the law you're citing from 1962. You do realize that cause PRECEDES effect. It doesn't follow it by half a century.

And this law hasn't been changed from the 60s. So how, pray tell, could it be a consequence of same sex marriage?

 

[Syriusly]

Your prediction is that incestuous marriage would be legal.

Its been 10 years. Where is it?

And with the judiciary explicitly contradicting you.......why is it that you conclude that the judiciary must agree with you? 10 years of perfect failure of your predictions and explicit contradiction by the judiciary both stand as powerful indications that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Which brings me back to my question: Why should I care about your pseudo-legal babble?

Link please, I believe the last time I checked the Iowa law still stands making incestous marriage legal.

Says you. The Iowa law says differently:

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.

Iowa Code 595.19

So you say Iowa allows incestuous marriage. And Iowa says those marriages are void.

Why would I ignore Iowa and instead believe you?

You did note that the law makes a marriage void if, for example, a father married his daughter, but is silent if he married his SON.

It explicitly voids marriages based on incestuous relationships. You said such bans are against the law. And that incestuous marriage must be legalized.

Obviously Iowa disagrees with you.

How do you reconcile this explicit contradiction by State law with your assumptions of what the States must do? No state, no court, no judge has ever found incestuous marriage to be a constitutional right. Or found a law banning incestuous marriage to be a violation of the constitution, the due process clause, or any constitutional guarantee.

Its almost like you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

You posted the law moron. A Father marrying a Son is incesturous.

Apparently not in Iowa.

As you pointed out they don't have to be having sex- they could do it just to screw tax payers.

And apparently the citizens of Iowa are okay with that.

 

[Syriusly]

Your prediction is that incestuous marriage would be legal.

Its been 10 years. Where is it?

And with the judiciary explicitly contradicting you.......why is it that you conclude that the judiciary must agree with you? 10 years of perfect failure of your predictions and explicit contradiction by the judiciary both stand as powerful indications that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Which brings me back to my question: Why should I care about your pseudo-legal babble?

Link please, I believe the last time I checked the Iowa law still stands making incestous marriage legal.

It's your choice to care or not, I can't stop you hitting the submit button.

It is also legal in Iowa for a Great grandfather to marry his great granddaughter.

Iowa's incest laws need revamping- they could look at California's for a great example of a gender neutral law that would include fathers and sons- and greatgrandfathers and great grand daughters.

....... Or great great great great grandfather.

God you must be boring in real life.

Odd isn't it- your faux outrage about how Iowa allows same gender siblings to marry each other- but you don't care that Iowa allows a Great-grandfather to marry his great granddaughter?

Even odder is that you won't deal with the fact that states like California have simple language which forbids all of those marriages- and Iowa doesn't seem to want comprehensive bans on incestuous marriages.

Both are deflections from the points brought up.

1. I am outraged by any forms of incest, I don't care how close, the sex of any, or how utterly preposterous they are.

2. California laws have no bearing on Iowa laws.

Demonstrate just how easy it would be to change Iowas law. It's been this way since 2009

Clearly you are not as outraged by all forms of incest- since you started a thread about how Iowa law now apparently makes the possibility of incestuous same gender marriage possible- but you mentioned nothing about how Iowa has always allowed a great grandfather to marry his great granddaughter.

 

[Syriusly]

Your prediction is that incestuous marriage would be legal.

Its been 10 years. Where is it?

And with the judiciary explicitly contradicting you.......why is it that you conclude that the judiciary must agree with you? 10 years of perfect failure of your predictions and explicit contradiction by the judiciary both stand as powerful indications that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Which brings me back to my question: Why should I care about your pseudo-legal babble?

Link please, I believe the last time I checked the Iowa law still stands making incestous marriage legal.

It's your choice to care or not, I can't stop you hitting the submit button.

It is also legal in Iowa for a Great grandfather to marry his great granddaughter.

Iowa's incest laws need revamping- they could look at California's for a great example of a gender neutral law that would include fathers and sons- and greatgrandfathers and great grand daughters.

....... Or great great great great grandfather.

God you must be boring in real life.

Odd isn't it- your faux outrage about how Iowa allows same gender siblings to marry each other- but you don't care that Iowa allows a Great-grandfather to marry his great granddaughter?

Even odder is that you won't deal with the fact that states like California have simple language which forbids all of those marriages- and Iowa doesn't seem to want comprehensive bans on incestuous marriages.

2. California laws have no bearing on Iowa laws.

Demonstrate just how easy it would be to change Iowas law. It's been this way since 2009

California laws are both stricter and more inclusive than Iowas- and were long before Iowa legalized same gender marriage. Iowa could copy and paste California's law if Iowa wanted a 'strict' anti-incest law.

Why hasn't Iowa done that in 6 years Pop?

And why hasn't there been a single incestuous marriage reported in Iowa during this time?

 

[Pop23]

Link please, I believe the last time I checked the Iowa law still stands making incestous marriage legal.

It's your choice to care or not, I can't stop you hitting the submit button.

It is also legal in Iowa for a Great grandfather to marry his great granddaughter.

Iowa's incest laws need revamping- they could look at California's for a great example of a gender neutral law that would include fathers and sons- and greatgrandfathers and great grand daughters.

....... Or great great great great grandfather.

God you must be boring in real life.

Odd isn't it- your faux outrage about how Iowa allows same gender siblings to marry each other- but you don't care that Iowa allows a Great-grandfather to marry his great granddaughter?

Even odder is that you won't deal with the fact that states like California have simple language which forbids all of those marriages- and Iowa doesn't seem to want comprehensive bans on incestuous marriages.

Both are deflections from the points brought up.

1. I am outraged by any forms of incest, I don't care how close, the sex of any, or how utterly preposterous they are.

2. California laws have no bearing on Iowa laws.

Demonstrate just how easy it would be to change Iowas law. It's been this way since 2009

Clearly you are not as outraged by all forms of incest- since you started a thread about how Iowa law now apparently makes the possibility of incestuous same gender marriage possible- but you mentioned nothing about how Iowa has always allowed a great grandfather to marry his great granddaughter.

Thanks for pointing that relationship out for the third time, and for the second time may I point out that it is outrageous as well.

Now, is there anything else I can do for you, cuz your customers want extra salt on their fries b

 

[Pop23]

Link please, I believe the last time I checked the Iowa law still stands making incestous marriage legal.

It's your choice to care or not, I can't stop you hitting the submit button.

It is also legal in Iowa for a Great grandfather to marry his great granddaughter.

Iowa's incest laws need revamping- they could look at California's for a great example of a gender neutral law that would include fathers and sons- and greatgrandfathers and great grand daughters.

....... Or great great great great grandfather.

God you must be boring in real life.

Odd isn't it- your faux outrage about how Iowa allows same gender siblings to marry each other- but you don't care that Iowa allows a Great-grandfather to marry his great granddaughter?

Even odder is that you won't deal with the fact that states like California have simple language which forbids all of those marriages- and Iowa doesn't seem to want comprehensive bans on incestuous marriages.

2. California laws have no bearing on Iowa laws.

Demonstrate just how easy it would be to change Iowas law. It's been this way since 2009

California laws are both stricter and more inclusive than Iowas- and were long before Iowa legalized same gender marriage. Iowa could copy and paste California's law if Iowa wanted a 'strict' anti-incest law.

Why hasn't Iowa done that in 6 years Pop?

And why hasn't there been a single incestuous marriage reported in Iowa during this time?

Copy and paste away individuals rights. Progressives crack me up!

 

[Pop23]

Link please, I believe the last time I checked the Iowa law still stands making incestous marriage legal.

It's your choice to care or not, I can't stop you hitting the submit button.

It is also legal in Iowa for a Great grandfather to marry his great granddaughter.

Iowa's incest laws need revamping- they could look at California's for a great example of a gender neutral law that would include fathers and sons- and greatgrandfathers and great grand daughters.

....... Or great great great great grandfather.

God you must be boring in real life.

Odd isn't it- your faux outrage about how Iowa allows same gender siblings to marry each other- but you don't care that Iowa allows a Great-grandfather to marry his great granddaughter?

Even odder is that you won't deal with the fact that states like California have simple language which forbids all of those marriages- and Iowa doesn't seem to want comprehensive bans on incestuous marriages.

2. California laws have no bearing on Iowa laws.

Demonstrate just how easy it would be to change Iowas law. It's been this way since 2009

California laws are both stricter and more inclusive than Iowas- and were long before Iowa legalized same gender marriage. Iowa could copy and paste California's law if Iowa wanted a 'strict' anti-incest law.

Why hasn't Iowa done that in 6 years Pop?

And why hasn't there been a single incestuous marriage reported in Iowa during this time?

Are you sure there haven't been?

(Note the question mark)

Do you often report on laws that were not broken?

Today Syriously did not Rob a bank, and in other news Pop did not litter.

 

[Skylar]

Your prediction is that incestuous marriage would be legal.

Its been 10 years. Where is it?

And with the judiciary explicitly contradicting you.......why is it that you conclude that the judiciary must agree with you? 10 years of perfect failure of your predictions and explicit contradiction by the judiciary both stand as powerful indications that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Which brings me back to my question: Why should I care about your pseudo-legal babble?

Link please, I believe the last time I checked the Iowa law still stands making incestous marriage legal.

It's your choice to care or not, I can't stop you hitting the submit button.

It is also legal in Iowa for a Great grandfather to marry his great granddaughter.

Iowa's incest laws need revamping- they could look at California's for a great example of a gender neutral law that would include fathers and sons- and greatgrandfathers and great grand daughters.

....... Or great great great great grandfather.

God you must be boring in real life.

Odd isn't it- your faux outrage about how Iowa allows same gender siblings to marry each other- but you don't care that Iowa allows a Great-grandfather to marry his great granddaughter?

Even odder is that you won't deal with the fact that states like California have simple language which forbids all of those marriages- and Iowa doesn't seem to want comprehensive bans on incestuous marriages.

Both are deflections from the points brought up.

1. I am outraged by any forms of incest, I don't care how close, the sex of any, or how utterly preposterous they are.

Why?

2. California laws have no bearing on Iowa laws.

Demonstrate just how easy it would be to change Iowas law. It's been this way since 2009

And Iowa's laws have nothing to do with same sex marriage. As they never mention same sex marriage....nor were passed in an era were same sex marriage was legal in Iowa.

But instead, passed in 1962. Thus, what relevance do they have to your claims.

 

[Pop23]

Link please, I believe the last time I checked the Iowa law still stands making incestous marriage legal.

It's your choice to care or not, I can't stop you hitting the submit button.

It is also legal in Iowa for a Great grandfather to marry his great granddaughter.

Iowa's incest laws need revamping- they could look at California's for a great example of a gender neutral law that would include fathers and sons- and greatgrandfathers and great grand daughters.

....... Or great great great great grandfather.

God you must be boring in real life.

Odd isn't it- your faux outrage about how Iowa allows same gender siblings to marry each other- but you don't care that Iowa allows a Great-grandfather to marry his great granddaughter?

Even odder is that you won't deal with the fact that states like California have simple language which forbids all of those marriages- and Iowa doesn't seem to want comprehensive bans on incestuous marriages.

Both are deflections from the points brought up.

1. I am outraged by any forms of incest, I don't care how close, the sex of any, or how utterly preposterous they are.

Why?

2. California laws have no bearing on Iowa laws.

Demonstrate just how easy it would be to change Iowas law. It's been this way since 2009

And Iowa's laws have nothing to do with same sex marriage. As they never mention same sex marriage....nor were passed in an era were same sex marriage was legal in Iowa.

But instead, passed in 1962. Thus, what relevance do they have to your claims.

They exist.

Your turn.

 

[Skylar]

It is also legal in Iowa for a Great grandfather to marry his great granddaughter.

Iowa's incest laws need revamping- they could look at California's for a great example of a gender neutral law that would include fathers and sons- and greatgrandfathers and great grand daughters.

....... Or great great great great grandfather.

God you must be boring in real life.

Odd isn't it- your faux outrage about how Iowa allows same gender siblings to marry each other- but you don't care that Iowa allows a Great-grandfather to marry his great granddaughter?

Even odder is that you won't deal with the fact that states like California have simple language which forbids all of those marriages- and Iowa doesn't seem to want comprehensive bans on incestuous marriages.

2. California laws have no bearing on Iowa laws.

Demonstrate just how easy it would be to change Iowas law. It's been this way since 2009

California laws are both stricter and more inclusive than Iowas- and were long before Iowa legalized same gender marriage. Iowa could copy and paste California's law if Iowa wanted a 'strict' anti-incest law.

Why hasn't Iowa done that in 6 years Pop?

And why hasn't there been a single incestuous marriage reported in Iowa during this time?

Are you sure there haven't been?

(Note the question mark)

Section 595.19 goes back to at least 1962:

https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/shelves/code/ocr/1962 Iowa Code Index.pdf

You'll need to establish that;

1) it has been changed to allow for incestuous relationships;
2) that the change came after gay marriage was legalized;
3) that the change was caused by gay marriage;
4) That Iowa has recognized an actual incestuous marriage as legally valid.

All four would have to be valid for your premise to be valid.

And given that in Iowa incest is still a felony, and Iowa laws don't recognize marriages prohibited by law, you're gonna have a very difficult time proving that incest marriage is legal in Iowa for any reason.

Please do so now.

 

[Skylar]

It is also legal in Iowa for a Great grandfather to marry his great granddaughter.

Iowa's incest laws need revamping- they could look at California's for a great example of a gender neutral law that would include fathers and sons- and greatgrandfathers and great grand daughters.

....... Or great great great great grandfather.

God you must be boring in real life.

Odd isn't it- your faux outrage about how Iowa allows same gender siblings to marry each other- but you don't care that Iowa allows a Great-grandfather to marry his great granddaughter?

Even odder is that you won't deal with the fact that states like California have simple language which forbids all of those marriages- and Iowa doesn't seem to want comprehensive bans on incestuous marriages.

Both are deflections from the points brought up.

1. I am outraged by any forms of incest, I don't care how close, the sex of any, or how utterly preposterous they are.

Why?

2. California laws have no bearing on Iowa laws.

Demonstrate just how easy it would be to change Iowas law. It's been this way since 2009

And Iowa's laws have nothing to do with same sex marriage. As they never mention same sex marriage....nor were passed in an era were same sex marriage was legal in Iowa.

But instead, passed in 1962. Thus, what relevance do they have to your claims.

They exist.

Your turn.

You have yet to establish that incestuous marriages recognized by Iowa's laws do exist. As Iowa explicitly forbids incest and recognizes it as a felony. And doesn't recognize any marriage prohibited by law.

Nor can you cite a single instance of Iowa recognizing incest marriage as legally valid. Not one.

You assume it all.

Worse, your argument is that gay marriage caused incestuous marriage to be legal. But this law dates back to at least 1962. Rendering your argument physically impossible without a blue police box or a flux capacitor.

Because cause, you know....precedes effect. It doesn't follow it by half a century.

Explain how that works. With evidence, please.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes... Because the Charter of American Principles licenses Degeneracy.

Neither the Windsor nor the Obergefell quoted your 'Charter of American Principles'. But instead, the US constitution and caselaw.

Of course not. There is no way to license Degeneracy by citing self evident truth.

What's more, there is no kinship with the U.S. Constitution and the licensing of Degeneracy.

 

[Skylar]

Yes... Because the Charter of American Principles licenses Degeneracy.

Neither the Windsor nor the Obergefell quoted your 'Charter of American Principles'. But instead, the US constitution and caselaw.

Of course not. There no way to license Degeneracy by citing self evident truth.

Alas, your subjective opinion doesn't establish 'self evident truth'. And you citing you is the only source you have.

While the USSC cited the constitution and existing caselaw.

What's more, there is no kinship with the U.S. Constitution and the licensing of Degeneracy.]

Says you. Which is obviously hopelessly subjective. And legally irrelevant.

 

[Pop23]

....... Or great great great great grandfather.

God you must be boring in real life.

Odd isn't it- your faux outrage about how Iowa allows same gender siblings to marry each other- but you don't care that Iowa allows a Great-grandfather to marry his great granddaughter?

Even odder is that you won't deal with the fact that states like California have simple language which forbids all of those marriages- and Iowa doesn't seem to want comprehensive bans on incestuous marriages.

2. California laws have no bearing on Iowa laws.

Demonstrate just how easy it would be to change Iowas law. It's been this way since 2009

California laws are both stricter and more inclusive than Iowas- and were long before Iowa legalized same gender marriage. Iowa could copy and paste California's law if Iowa wanted a 'strict' anti-incest law.

Why hasn't Iowa done that in 6 years Pop?

And why hasn't there been a single incestuous marriage reported in Iowa during this time?

Are you sure there haven't been?

(Note the question mark)

Section 595.19 goes back to at least 1962:

https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/shelves/code/ocr/1962 Iowa Code Index.pdf

You'll need to establish that;

1) it has been changed to allow for incestuous relationships;
2) that the change came after gay marriage was legalized;
3) that the change was caused by gay marriage;
4) That Iowa has recognized an actual incestuous marriage as legally valid.

All four would have to be valid for your premise to be valid.

And given that in Iowa incest is still a felony, and Iowa laws don't recognize marriages prohibited by law, you're gonna have a very difficult time proving that incest marriage is legal in Iowa for any reason.

Please do so now.

I must do so now?

Why, your just an interweb bully wannabe, not a true bully

I think I'll wait a bit and watch you whine.

 

[Pop23]

Yes... Because the Charter of American Principles licenses Degeneracy.

Neither the Windsor nor the Obergefell quoted your 'Charter of American Principles'. But instead, the US constitution and caselaw.

Of course not. There no way to license Degeneracy by citing self evident truth.

Alas, your subjective opinion doesn't establish 'self evident truth'. And you citing you is the only source you have.

While the USSC cited the constitution and existing caselaw.

What's more, there is no kinship with the U.S. Constitution and the licensing of Degeneracy.]

Says you. Which is obviously hopelessly subjective. And legally irrelevant.

Skylar is so very dynamic. The arguments start so often with

"says you"

You can't make this shit up folks

 

[Syriusly]

It is also legal in Iowa for a Great grandfather to marry his great granddaughter.

Iowa's incest laws need revamping- they could look at California's for a great example of a gender neutral law that would include fathers and sons- and greatgrandfathers and great grand daughters.

....... Or great great great great grandfather.

God you must be boring in real life.

Odd isn't it- your faux outrage about how Iowa allows same gender siblings to marry each other- but you don't care that Iowa allows a Great-grandfather to marry his great granddaughter?

Even odder is that you won't deal with the fact that states like California have simple language which forbids all of those marriages- and Iowa doesn't seem to want comprehensive bans on incestuous marriages.

2. California laws have no bearing on Iowa laws.

Demonstrate just how easy it would be to change Iowas law. It's been this way since 2009

California laws are both stricter and more inclusive than Iowas- and were long before Iowa legalized same gender marriage. Iowa could copy and paste California's law if Iowa wanted a 'strict' anti-incest law.

Why hasn't Iowa done that in 6 years Pop?

And why hasn't there been a single incestuous marriage reported in Iowa during this time?

Are you sure there haven't been?

(Note the question mark)

Do you often report on laws that were not broken?

Today Syriously did not Rob a bank, and in other news Pop did not litter.

"And why hasn't there been a single incestuous marriage reported in Iowa during this time?"

Feel free to prove me wrong. In 2009 one of your fellow travellers in Iowa got just as pissy about Iowa law and gay marriage as you are- and since then- he hasn't published a single example.

Feel free to prove me wrong.