It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Faun]

What he points out has nothing to do with gender. Oops, there goes another idiocy of yours.

But Iowa 595.19 does.

I know trolling is you're thing

But at least try.

Except that it doesn't since the spirit of that law is to void consanguineous marriages. That hasn't changed even though Iowa has not updated their laws regarding same-sex marriage; though as you've been shown, such a bill is on the docket.

And as always, Iowa still says they don't allow any such marriages regardless of gender...

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.​

Spirit my ass!

You don't need "spirit" when you have the words.

Those are specific in Iowa 595.19.







595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
a. Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
b. Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
c. Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.

And again, not just me, it's five legal experts that back me up.

Same sex siblings can legally be married in Iowa.

If that were true, blood relatives would be marrying each other to save on taxes. You said so yourself.

Logical falicy.

Iowa does not require blood nor DNA testing for a license.

But back to the fun fact:

If an opposite sex sibling couple were found closely blood related, the state would void their license.

If both were same sex, the license would be valid.

A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning.

There is no flaw in reasoning to assume people would take advantage of a tax loophole. Even you said they would. There is no flaw in my reasoning for the strawman reasons you invent as I said nothing about blood or DNA testing to get a license.

If such a loophole existed, family members would marry each other to take advantage of it. You said so yourself.

 

[Pop23]

But Iowa 595.19 does.

I know trolling is you're thing

But at least try.

Except that it doesn't since the spirit of that law is to void consanguineous marriages. That hasn't changed even though Iowa has not updated their laws regarding same-sex marriage; though as you've been shown, such a bill is on the docket.

And as always, Iowa still says they don't allow any such marriages regardless of gender...

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.​

Spirit my ass!

You don't need "spirit" when you have the words.

Those are specific in Iowa 595.19.







595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
a. Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
b. Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
c. Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.

And again, not just me, it's five legal experts that back me up.

Same sex siblings can legally be married in Iowa.

If that were true, blood relatives would be marrying each other to save on taxes. You said so yourself.

Logical falicy.

Iowa does not require blood nor DNA testing for a license.

But back to the fun fact:

If an opposite sex sibling couple were found closely blood related, the state would void their license.

If both were same sex, the license would be valid.

A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning.

There is no flaw in reasoning to assume people would take advantage of a tax loophole. Even you said they would. There is no flaw in my reasoning for the strawman reasons you invent as I said nothing about blood or DNA testing to get a license.

If such a loophole existed, family members would marry each other to take advantage of it. You said so yourself.

The falicy is that your demand for participation is required to prove the legality. It does not

5 legal experts back me.

Sorry, troll on

 

[Faun]

Except that it doesn't since the spirit of that law is to void consanguineous marriages. That hasn't changed even though Iowa has not updated their laws regarding same-sex marriage; though as you've been shown, such a bill is on the docket.

And as always, Iowa still says they don't allow any such marriages regardless of gender...

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.​

Spirit my ass!

You don't need "spirit" when you have the words.

Those are specific in Iowa 595.19.







595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
a. Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
b. Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
c. Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.

And again, not just me, it's five legal experts that back me up.

Same sex siblings can legally be married in Iowa.

If that were true, blood relatives would be marrying each other to save on taxes. You said so yourself.

Logical falicy.

Iowa does not require blood nor DNA testing for a license.

But back to the fun fact:

If an opposite sex sibling couple were found closely blood related, the state would void their license.

If both were same sex, the license would be valid.

A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning.

There is no flaw in reasoning to assume people would take advantage of a tax loophole. Even you said they would. There is no flaw in my reasoning for the strawman reasons you invent as I said nothing about blood or DNA testing to get a license.

If such a loophole existed, family members would marry each other to take advantage of it. You said so yourself.

The falicy is that your demand for participation is required to prove the legality. It does not

5 legal experts back me.

Sorry, troll on

That's not a fallacy. Even you said people would do it.

Now you cry like a bitch because you can't find even one such couple out of a quarter of a billion eligible people over a six year period.

 

[Pop23]

Spirit my ass!

You don't need "spirit" when you have the words.

Those are specific in Iowa 595.19.







595.19 VOID MARRIAGES.
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
blood are void:
a. Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's
daughter, or sister's daughter.
b. Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's
brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or
sister's son.
c. Between first cousins.
2. Marriages between persons either of whom has a husband or wife
living are void, but, if the parties live and cohabit together after
the death or divorce of the former husband or wife, such marriage
shall be valid.

And again, not just me, it's five legal experts that back me up.

Same sex siblings can legally be married in Iowa.

If that were true, blood relatives would be marrying each other to save on taxes. You said so yourself.

Logical falicy.

Iowa does not require blood nor DNA testing for a license.

But back to the fun fact:

If an opposite sex sibling couple were found closely blood related, the state would void their license.

If both were same sex, the license would be valid.

A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning.

There is no flaw in reasoning to assume people would take advantage of a tax loophole. Even you said they would. There is no flaw in my reasoning for the strawman reasons you invent as I said nothing about blood or DNA testing to get a license.

If such a loophole existed, family members would marry each other to take advantage of it. You said so yourself.

The falicy is that your demand for participation is required to prove the legality. It does not

5 legal experts back me.

Sorry, troll on

That's not a fallacy. Even you said people would do it.

Now you cry like a bitch because you can't find even one such couple out of a quarter of a billion eligible people over a six year period.

Again, I'm not sure why you right wing nutjobs need to be told again.

Iowa neither requires a blood, nor DNA test to aquire a marriage license.

So, once again, you go right ahead and fund the tests for everyone married in Iowa since 2009 and get us those results. K?

But then again, if you find opposite sex family members - license would be void

Same sex? VALID.

 

[Faun]

If that were true, blood relatives would be marrying each other to save on taxes. You said so yourself.

Logical falicy.

Iowa does not require blood nor DNA testing for a license.

But back to the fun fact:

If an opposite sex sibling couple were found closely blood related, the state would void their license.

If both were same sex, the license would be valid.

A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning.

There is no flaw in reasoning to assume people would take advantage of a tax loophole. Even you said they would. There is no flaw in my reasoning for the strawman reasons you invent as I said nothing about blood or DNA testing to get a license.

If such a loophole existed, family members would marry each other to take advantage of it. You said so yourself.

The falicy is that your demand for participation is required to prove the legality. It does not

5 legal experts back me.

Sorry, troll on

That's not a fallacy. Even you said people would do it.

Now you cry like a bitch because you can't find even one such couple out of a quarter of a billion eligible people over a six year period.

Again, I'm not sure why you right wing nutjobs need to be told again.

Iowa neither requires a blood, nor DNA test to aquire a marriage license.

So, once again, you go right ahead and fund the tests for everyone married in Iowa since 2009 and get us those results. K?

But then again, if you find opposite sex family members - license would be void

Same sex? VALID.

I said nothing about blood tests. Notice how no one brings that up but you? And then you bitch that it's not required.

Your strawman aside, even you said families would marry each other for financial gain.

Find ONE.

 

[Pop23]

Logical falicy.

Iowa does not require blood nor DNA testing for a license.

But back to the fun fact:

If an opposite sex sibling couple were found closely blood related, the state would void their license.

If both were same sex, the license would be valid.

A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning.

There is no flaw in reasoning to assume people would take advantage of a tax loophole. Even you said they would. There is no flaw in my reasoning for the strawman reasons you invent as I said nothing about blood or DNA testing to get a license.

If such a loophole existed, family members would marry each other to take advantage of it. You said so yourself.

The falicy is that your demand for participation is required to prove the legality. It does not

5 legal experts back me.

Sorry, troll on

That's not a fallacy. Even you said people would do it.

Now you cry like a bitch because you can't find even one such couple out of a quarter of a billion eligible people over a six year period.

Again, I'm not sure why you right wing nutjobs need to be told again.

Iowa neither requires a blood, nor DNA test to aquire a marriage license.

So, once again, you go right ahead and fund the tests for everyone married in Iowa since 2009 and get us those results. K?

But then again, if you find opposite sex family members - license would be void

Same sex? VALID.

I said nothing about blood tests. Notice how no one brings that up but you? And then you bitch that it's not required.

Your strawman aside, even you said families would marry each other for financial gain.

Find ONE.

Impossible, as stated sooooooo many times. The only way to know IS WITH blood or DNA test.

So come on wingnut, pony up with the funds for the test.

You won't because.........

If opposite sex family members are found, the State would void their license, BUT

IF SAME SEX? VALID.

Man your fails are incredibly epic.

Truly laughable.

 

[Faun]

A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning.

There is no flaw in reasoning to assume people would take advantage of a tax loophole. Even you said they would. There is no flaw in my reasoning for the strawman reasons you invent as I said nothing about blood or DNA testing to get a license.

If such a loophole existed, family members would marry each other to take advantage of it. You said so yourself.

The falicy is that your demand for participation is required to prove the legality. It does not

5 legal experts back me.

Sorry, troll on

That's not a fallacy. Even you said people would do it.

Now you cry like a bitch because you can't find even one such couple out of a quarter of a billion eligible people over a six year period.

Again, I'm not sure why you right wing nutjobs need to be told again.

Iowa neither requires a blood, nor DNA test to aquire a marriage license.

So, once again, you go right ahead and fund the tests for everyone married in Iowa since 2009 and get us those results. K?

But then again, if you find opposite sex family members - license would be void

Same sex? VALID.

I said nothing about blood tests. Notice how no one brings that up but you? And then you bitch that it's not required.

Your strawman aside, even you said families would marry each other for financial gain.

Find ONE.

Impossible, as stated sooooooo many times. The only way to know IS WITH blood or DNA test.

So come on wingnut, pony up with the funds for the test.

You won't because.........

If opposite sex family members are found, the State would void their license, BUT

IF SAME SEX? VALID.

Man your fails are incredibly epic.

Truly laughable.

You're still lying. That's not the only way. Had such marriages occurred, it would have been huge news. Just like gay marriages were when they were first legalized. Families from all around the country would have traveled to Iowa for the huge tax savings.

You know no such couples got married so you pretend it's not possible to find any due to unavailable DNA. That's how big of a loser you are.

 

[Pop23]

The falicy is that your demand for participation is required to prove the legality. It does not

5 legal experts back me.

Sorry, troll on

That's not a fallacy. Even you said people would do it.

Now you cry like a bitch because you can't find even one such couple out of a quarter of a billion eligible people over a six year period.

Again, I'm not sure why you right wing nutjobs need to be told again.

Iowa neither requires a blood, nor DNA test to aquire a marriage license.

So, once again, you go right ahead and fund the tests for everyone married in Iowa since 2009 and get us those results. K?

But then again, if you find opposite sex family members - license would be void

Same sex? VALID.

I said nothing about blood tests. Notice how no one brings that up but you? And then you bitch that it's not required.

Your strawman aside, even you said families would marry each other for financial gain.

Find ONE.

Impossible, as stated sooooooo many times. The only way to know IS WITH blood or DNA test.

So come on wingnut, pony up with the funds for the test.

You won't because.........

If opposite sex family members are found, the State would void their license, BUT

IF SAME SEX? VALID.

Man your fails are incredibly epic.

Truly laughable.

You're still lying. That's not the only way. Had such marriages occurred, it would have been huge news. Just like gay marriages were when they were first legalized. Families from all around the country would have traveled to Iowa for the huge tax savings.

You know no such couples got married so you pretend it's not possible to find any due to unavailable DNA. That's how big of a loser you are.

There's your logical falicy again. All I need to do is prove the legality.

I did so with 5 (count em 5) legal experts vs. you're troll opinion.

So you loser wingnut, get that funding for the testing going if the amount of participants intetest you so much.

Report back. K?

 

[Faun]

That's not a fallacy. Even you said people would do it.

Now you cry like a bitch because you can't find even one such couple out of a quarter of a billion eligible people over a six year period.

Again, I'm not sure why you right wing nutjobs need to be told again.

Iowa neither requires a blood, nor DNA test to aquire a marriage license.

So, once again, you go right ahead and fund the tests for everyone married in Iowa since 2009 and get us those results. K?

But then again, if you find opposite sex family members - license would be void

Same sex? VALID.

I said nothing about blood tests. Notice how no one brings that up but you? And then you bitch that it's not required.

Your strawman aside, even you said families would marry each other for financial gain.

Find ONE.

Impossible, as stated sooooooo many times. The only way to know IS WITH blood or DNA test.

So come on wingnut, pony up with the funds for the test.

You won't because.........

If opposite sex family members are found, the State would void their license, BUT

IF SAME SEX? VALID.

Man your fails are incredibly epic.

Truly laughable.

You're still lying. That's not the only way. Had such marriages occurred, it would have been huge news. Just like gay marriages were when they were first legalized. Families from all around the country would have traveled to Iowa for the huge tax savings.

You know no such couples got married so you pretend it's not possible to find any due to unavailable DNA. That's how big of a loser you are.

There's your logical falicy again. All I need to do is prove the legality.

I did so with 5 (count em 5) legal experts vs. you're troll opinion.

So you loser wingnut, get that funding for the testing going if the amount of participants intetest you so much.

Report back. K?

If you could prove it was legal you could prove people are taking advantage of such a loophole. It's beyond preposterous to infer a tax loophole was created which would save people potentially millions of dollars, depending on their wealth -- and in a country of more than a quarter of a billion eligible such folks, you can't find one single such couple to get married in more than 6 years.

Not one.

Speaks far louder than anything you've posted.

 

[Pop23]

Again, I'm not sure why you right wing nutjobs need to be told again.

Iowa neither requires a blood, nor DNA test to aquire a marriage license.

So, once again, you go right ahead and fund the tests for everyone married in Iowa since 2009 and get us those results. K?

But then again, if you find opposite sex family members - license would be void

Same sex? VALID.

I said nothing about blood tests. Notice how no one brings that up but you? And then you bitch that it's not required.

Your strawman aside, even you said families would marry each other for financial gain.

Find ONE.

Impossible, as stated sooooooo many times. The only way to know IS WITH blood or DNA test.

So come on wingnut, pony up with the funds for the test.

You won't because.........

If opposite sex family members are found, the State would void their license, BUT

IF SAME SEX? VALID.

Man your fails are incredibly epic.

Truly laughable.

You're still lying. That's not the only way. Had such marriages occurred, it would have been huge news. Just like gay marriages were when they were first legalized. Families from all around the country would have traveled to Iowa for the huge tax savings.

You know no such couples got married so you pretend it's not possible to find any due to unavailable DNA. That's how big of a loser you are.

There's your logical falicy again. All I need to do is prove the legality.

I did so with 5 (count em 5) legal experts vs. you're troll opinion.

So you loser wingnut, get that funding for the testing going if the amount of participants intetest you so much.

Report back. K?

If you could prove it was legal you could prove people are taking advantage of such a loophole. It's beyond preposterous to infer a tax loophole was created which would save people potentially millions of dollars, depending on their wealth -- and in a country of more than a quarter of a billion eligible such folks, you can't find one single such couple to get married in more than 6 years.

Not one.

Speaks far louder than anything you've posted.

Me and five legal experts laugh at you're foolishness.

 

[Faun]

I said nothing about blood tests. Notice how no one brings that up but you? And then you bitch that it's not required.

Your strawman aside, even you said families would marry each other for financial gain.

Find ONE.

Impossible, as stated sooooooo many times. The only way to know IS WITH blood or DNA test.

So come on wingnut, pony up with the funds for the test.

You won't because.........

If opposite sex family members are found, the State would void their license, BUT

IF SAME SEX? VALID.

Man your fails are incredibly epic.

Truly laughable.

You're still lying. That's not the only way. Had such marriages occurred, it would have been huge news. Just like gay marriages were when they were first legalized. Families from all around the country would have traveled to Iowa for the huge tax savings.

You know no such couples got married so you pretend it's not possible to find any due to unavailable DNA. That's how big of a loser you are.

There's your logical falicy again. All I need to do is prove the legality.

I did so with 5 (count em 5) legal experts vs. you're troll opinion.

So you loser wingnut, get that funding for the testing going if the amount of participants intetest you so much.

Report back. K?

If you could prove it was legal you could prove people are taking advantage of such a loophole. It's beyond preposterous to infer a tax loophole was created which would save people potentially millions of dollars, depending on their wealth -- and in a country of more than a quarter of a billion eligible such folks, you can't find one single such couple to get married in more than 6 years.

Not one.

Speaks far louder than anything you've posted.

Me and five legal experts laugh at you're foolishness.

You and your 5 lawyers (one of whom wasn't even discussing your raison d'être of same-sex marriage) can't even carry my jock strap. You're buried by 30 Iowa counties stating Iowa doesn't permit close-family members to marry each other, regardless of gender.

Black Hawk County

Ceder County

Cherokee County

Chickasaw County

Clay County

Clayton County

Dallas County

Des Moines County

Dickson County

Dubuque County

Floyd County

Hardin Country

Humboldt County

Iowa County

Jackson County

Johnson County

Marion County

Muscatine County

Polk County

Linn County

Mills County

Montgomery County

Pott County

Plymouth County

Scott County

Sioux County

Story County

Union County

Woodbury County

Wright County

 

[Pop23]

Impossible, as stated sooooooo many times. The only way to know IS WITH blood or DNA test.

So come on wingnut, pony up with the funds for the test.

You won't because.........

If opposite sex family members are found, the State would void their license, BUT

IF SAME SEX? VALID.

Man your fails are incredibly epic.

Truly laughable.

You're still lying. That's not the only way. Had such marriages occurred, it would have been huge news. Just like gay marriages were when they were first legalized. Families from all around the country would have traveled to Iowa for the huge tax savings.

You know no such couples got married so you pretend it's not possible to find any due to unavailable DNA. That's how big of a loser you are.

There's your logical falicy again. All I need to do is prove the legality.

I did so with 5 (count em 5) legal experts vs. you're troll opinion.

So you loser wingnut, get that funding for the testing going if the amount of participants intetest you so much.

Report back. K?

If you could prove it was legal you could prove people are taking advantage of such a loophole. It's beyond preposterous to infer a tax loophole was created which would save people potentially millions of dollars, depending on their wealth -- and in a country of more than a quarter of a billion eligible such folks, you can't find one single such couple to get married in more than 6 years.

Not one.

Speaks far louder than anything you've posted.

Me and five legal experts laugh at you're foolishness.

You and your 5 lawyers (one of whom wasn't even discussing your raison d'être of same-sex marriage) can't even carry my jock strap. You're buried by 30 Iowa counties stating Iowa doesn't permit close-family members to marry each other, regardless of gender.

Black Hawk County

Ceder County

Cherokee County

Chickasaw County

Clay County

Clayton County

Dallas County

Des Moines County

Dickson County

Dubuque County

Floyd County

Hardin Country

Humboldt County

Iowa County

Jackson County

Johnson County

Marion County

Muscatine County

Polk County

Linn County

Mills County

Montgomery County

Pott County

Plymouth County

Scott County

Sioux County

Story County

Union County

Woodbury County

Wright County

And none of which shows the degree of constanguity that you want to associate with closely blood related.

So tell me Sherlock. You've used this rouse time and time again:

What degree of constanguity is it?

1?

3?

8?

Or Adam and Eve?

 

[Faun]

You're still lying. That's not the only way. Had such marriages occurred, it would have been huge news. Just like gay marriages were when they were first legalized. Families from all around the country would have traveled to Iowa for the huge tax savings.

You know no such couples got married so you pretend it's not possible to find any due to unavailable DNA. That's how big of a loser you are.

There's your logical falicy again. All I need to do is prove the legality.

I did so with 5 (count em 5) legal experts vs. you're troll opinion.

So you loser wingnut, get that funding for the testing going if the amount of participants intetest you so much.

Report back. K?

If you could prove it was legal you could prove people are taking advantage of such a loophole. It's beyond preposterous to infer a tax loophole was created which would save people potentially millions of dollars, depending on their wealth -- and in a country of more than a quarter of a billion eligible such folks, you can't find one single such couple to get married in more than 6 years.

Not one.

Speaks far louder than anything you've posted.

Me and five legal experts laugh at you're foolishness.

You and your 5 lawyers (one of whom wasn't even discussing your raison d'être of same-sex marriage) can't even carry my jock strap. You're buried by 30 Iowa counties stating Iowa doesn't permit close-family members to marry each other, regardless of gender.

Black Hawk County

Ceder County

Cherokee County

Chickasaw County

Clay County

Clayton County

Dallas County

Des Moines County

Dickson County

Dubuque County

Floyd County

Hardin Country

Humboldt County

Iowa County

Jackson County

Johnson County

Marion County

Muscatine County

Polk County

Linn County

Mills County

Montgomery County

Pott County

Plymouth County

Scott County

Sioux County

Story County

Union County

Woodbury County

Wright County

And none of which shows the degree of constanguity that you want to associate with closely blood related.

So tell me Sherlock. You've used this rouse time and time again:

What degree of constanguity is it?

1?

3?

8?

Or Adam and Eve?

According to the law upon which it's based, it's at least 2. So at the very least, that means siblings, parents/children, and grandparents/grandchildren can't marry each other regardless of gender.

 

[Pop23]

There's your logical falicy again. All I need to do is prove the legality.

I did so with 5 (count em 5) legal experts vs. you're troll opinion.

So you loser wingnut, get that funding for the testing going if the amount of participants intetest you so much.

Report back. K?

If you could prove it was legal you could prove people are taking advantage of such a loophole. It's beyond preposterous to infer a tax loophole was created which would save people potentially millions of dollars, depending on their wealth -- and in a country of more than a quarter of a billion eligible such folks, you can't find one single such couple to get married in more than 6 years.

Not one.

Speaks far louder than anything you've posted.

Me and five legal experts laugh at you're foolishness.

You and your 5 lawyers (one of whom wasn't even discussing your raison d'être of same-sex marriage) can't even carry my jock strap. You're buried by 30 Iowa counties stating Iowa doesn't permit close-family members to marry each other, regardless of gender.

Black Hawk County

Ceder County

Cherokee County

Chickasaw County

Clay County

Clayton County

Dallas County

Des Moines County

Dickson County

Dubuque County

Floyd County

Hardin Country

Humboldt County

Iowa County

Jackson County

Johnson County

Marion County

Muscatine County

Polk County

Linn County

Mills County

Montgomery County

Pott County

Plymouth County

Scott County

Sioux County

Story County

Union County

Woodbury County

Wright County

And none of which shows the degree of constanguity that you want to associate with closely blood related.

So tell me Sherlock. You've used this rouse time and time again:

What degree of constanguity is it?

1?

3?

8?

Or Adam and Eve?

According to the law upon which it's based, it's at least 2. So at the very least, that means siblings, parents/children, and grandparents/grandchildren can't marry each other regardless of gender.

Then you ARE using 595.19 as the basis for an assumption.

Nice

But then, 596.19 also states, quite clearly, that it ONLY APPLIES TO OPPOSITE SEX, BLOOD RELATED couples.

I weep for you.

 

[Faun]

If you could prove it was legal you could prove people are taking advantage of such a loophole. It's beyond preposterous to infer a tax loophole was created which would save people potentially millions of dollars, depending on their wealth -- and in a country of more than a quarter of a billion eligible such folks, you can't find one single such couple to get married in more than 6 years.

Not one.

Speaks far louder than anything you've posted.

Me and five legal experts laugh at you're foolishness.

You and your 5 lawyers (one of whom wasn't even discussing your raison d'être of same-sex marriage) can't even carry my jock strap. You're buried by 30 Iowa counties stating Iowa doesn't permit close-family members to marry each other, regardless of gender.

Black Hawk County

Ceder County

Cherokee County

Chickasaw County

Clay County

Clayton County

Dallas County

Des Moines County

Dickson County

Dubuque County

Floyd County

Hardin Country

Humboldt County

Iowa County

Jackson County

Johnson County

Marion County

Muscatine County

Polk County

Linn County

Mills County

Montgomery County

Pott County

Plymouth County

Scott County

Sioux County

Story County

Union County

Woodbury County

Wright County

And none of which shows the degree of constanguity that you want to associate with closely blood related.

So tell me Sherlock. You've used this rouse time and time again:

What degree of constanguity is it?

1?

3?

8?

Or Adam and Eve?

According to the law upon which it's based, it's at least 2. So at the very least, that means siblings, parents/children, and grandparents/grandchildren can't marry each other regardless of gender.

Then you ARE using 595.19 as the basis for an assumption.

Nice

But then, 596.19 also states, quite clearly, that it ONLY APPLIES TO OPPOSITE SEX, BLOOD RELATED couples.

I weep for you.

No, I'm not referencing 595.19, though I could if I wanted to since the intent of that statute is to prohibit all marriages within 3 degrees of consanguinity.

You really suck at this, pervert.

 

[Pop23]

Me and five legal experts laugh at you're foolishness.

You and your 5 lawyers (one of whom wasn't even discussing your raison d'être of same-sex marriage) can't even carry my jock strap. You're buried by 30 Iowa counties stating Iowa doesn't permit close-family members to marry each other, regardless of gender.

Black Hawk County

Ceder County

Cherokee County

Chickasaw County

Clay County

Clayton County

Dallas County

Des Moines County

Dickson County

Dubuque County

Floyd County

Hardin Country

Humboldt County

Iowa County

Jackson County

Johnson County

Marion County

Muscatine County

Polk County

Linn County

Mills County

Montgomery County

Pott County

Plymouth County

Scott County

Sioux County

Story County

Union County

Woodbury County

Wright County

And none of which shows the degree of constanguity that you want to associate with closely blood related.

So tell me Sherlock. You've used this rouse time and time again:

What degree of constanguity is it?

1?

3?

8?

Or Adam and Eve?

According to the law upon which it's based, it's at least 2. So at the very least, that means siblings, parents/children, and grandparents/grandchildren can't marry each other regardless of gender.

Then you ARE using 595.19 as the basis for an assumption.

Nice

But then, 596.19 also states, quite clearly, that it ONLY APPLIES TO OPPOSITE SEX, BLOOD RELATED couples.

I weep for you.

No, I'm not referencing 595.19, though I could if I wanted to since the intent of that statute is to prohibit all marriages within 3 degrees of consanguinity.

You really suck at this, pervert.

Then the Iowa Supreme Court would have changed it dummy.

And 5 legal experts (meaning they know what they are talking about.....the opposite of you), back me up.

 

[Faun]

You and your 5 lawyers (one of whom wasn't even discussing your raison d'être of same-sex marriage) can't even carry my jock strap. You're buried by 30 Iowa counties stating Iowa doesn't permit close-family members to marry each other, regardless of gender.

Black Hawk County

Ceder County

Cherokee County

Chickasaw County

Clay County

Clayton County

Dallas County

Des Moines County

Dickson County

Dubuque County

Floyd County

Hardin Country

Humboldt County

Iowa County

Jackson County

Johnson County

Marion County

Muscatine County

Polk County

Linn County

Mills County

Montgomery County

Pott County

Plymouth County

Scott County

Sioux County

Story County

Union County

Woodbury County

Wright County

And none of which shows the degree of constanguity that you want to associate with closely blood related.

So tell me Sherlock. You've used this rouse time and time again:

What degree of constanguity is it?

1?

3?

8?

Or Adam and Eve?

According to the law upon which it's based, it's at least 2. So at the very least, that means siblings, parents/children, and grandparents/grandchildren can't marry each other regardless of gender.

Then you ARE using 595.19 as the basis for an assumption.

Nice

But then, 596.19 also states, quite clearly, that it ONLY APPLIES TO OPPOSITE SEX, BLOOD RELATED couples.

I weep for you.

No, I'm not referencing 595.19, though I could if I wanted to since the intent of that statute is to prohibit all marriages within 3 degrees of consanguinity.

You really suck at this, pervert.

Then the Iowa Supreme Court would have changed it dummy.

And 5 legal experts (meaning they know what they are talking about.....the opposite of you), back me up.

The Supreme Court doesn't have to specify which codes are affected by their rulings. Just like when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Obergefell, they didn't specify which codes were affected.

And as far as your 4 attornies (+1 who doesn't confirm your idiocy) ... you still lose to 30 counties in Iowa who claim Iowa does not issue marriage licenses to close-family members who want to marry each other, regardless of gender...

Black Hawk County

Ceder County

Cherokee County

Chickasaw County

Clay County

Clayton County

Dallas County

Des Moines County

Dickson County

Dubuque County

Floyd County

Hardin Country

Humboldt County

Iowa County

Jackson County

Johnson County

Marion County

Muscatine County

Polk County

Linn County

Mills County

Montgomery County

Pott County

Plymouth County

Scott County

Sioux County

Story County

Union County

Woodbury County

Wright County

 

[Pop23]

And none of which shows the degree of constanguity that you want to associate with closely blood related.

So tell me Sherlock. You've used this rouse time and time again:

What degree of constanguity is it?

1?

3?

8?

Or Adam and Eve?

According to the law upon which it's based, it's at least 2. So at the very least, that means siblings, parents/children, and grandparents/grandchildren can't marry each other regardless of gender.

Then you ARE using 595.19 as the basis for an assumption.

Nice

But then, 596.19 also states, quite clearly, that it ONLY APPLIES TO OPPOSITE SEX, BLOOD RELATED couples.

I weep for you.

No, I'm not referencing 595.19, though I could if I wanted to since the intent of that statute is to prohibit all marriages within 3 degrees of consanguinity.

You really suck at this, pervert.

Then the Iowa Supreme Court would have changed it dummy.

And 5 legal experts (meaning they know what they are talking about.....the opposite of you), back me up.

The Supreme Court doesn't have to specify which codes are affected by their rulings. Just like when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Obergefell, they didn't specify which codes were affected.

And as far as your 4 attornies (+1 who doesn't confirm your idiocy) ... you still lose to 30 counties in Iowa who claim Iowa does not issue marriage licenses to close-family members who want to marry each other, regardless of gender...

Black Hawk County

Ceder County

Cherokee County

Chickasaw County

Clay County

Clayton County

Dallas County

Des Moines County

Dickson County

Dubuque County

Floyd County

Hardin Country

Humboldt County

Iowa County

Jackson County

Johnson County

Marion County

Muscatine County

Polk County

Linn County

Mills County

Montgomery County

Pott County

Plymouth County

Scott County

Sioux County

Story County

Union County

Woodbury County

Wright County

No, they actually don't.

 

[Faun]

According to the law upon which it's based, it's at least 2. So at the very least, that means siblings, parents/children, and grandparents/grandchildren can't marry each other regardless of gender.

Then you ARE using 595.19 as the basis for an assumption.

Nice

But then, 596.19 also states, quite clearly, that it ONLY APPLIES TO OPPOSITE SEX, BLOOD RELATED couples.

I weep for you.

No, I'm not referencing 595.19, though I could if I wanted to since the intent of that statute is to prohibit all marriages within 3 degrees of consanguinity.

You really suck at this, pervert.

Then the Iowa Supreme Court would have changed it dummy.

And 5 legal experts (meaning they know what they are talking about.....the opposite of you), back me up.

The Supreme Court doesn't have to specify which codes are affected by their rulings. Just like when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Obergefell, they didn't specify which codes were affected.

And as far as your 4 attornies (+1 who doesn't confirm your idiocy) ... you still lose to 30 counties in Iowa who claim Iowa does not issue marriage licenses to close-family members who want to marry each other, regardless of gender...

Black Hawk County

Ceder County

Cherokee County

Chickasaw County

Clay County

Clayton County

Dallas County

Des Moines County

Dickson County

Dubuque County

Floyd County

Hardin Country

Humboldt County

Iowa County

Jackson County

Johnson County

Marion County

Muscatine County

Polk County

Linn County

Mills County

Montgomery County

Pott County

Plymouth County

Scott County

Sioux County

Story County

Union County

Woodbury County

Wright County

No, they actually don't.

Of course they do.

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.​

It's cute though how you think your inability to comprehend that actually matters.

 

[Pop23]

Then you ARE using 595.19 as the basis for an assumption.

Nice

But then, 596.19 also states, quite clearly, that it ONLY APPLIES TO OPPOSITE SEX, BLOOD RELATED couples.

I weep for you.

No, I'm not referencing 595.19, though I could if I wanted to since the intent of that statute is to prohibit all marriages within 3 degrees of consanguinity.

You really suck at this, pervert.

Then the Iowa Supreme Court would have changed it dummy.

And 5 legal experts (meaning they know what they are talking about.....the opposite of you), back me up.

The Supreme Court doesn't have to specify which codes are affected by their rulings. Just like when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Obergefell, they didn't specify which codes were affected.

And as far as your 4 attornies (+1 who doesn't confirm your idiocy) ... you still lose to 30 counties in Iowa who claim Iowa does not issue marriage licenses to close-family members who want to marry each other, regardless of gender...

Black Hawk County

Ceder County

Cherokee County

Chickasaw County

Clay County

Clayton County

Dallas County

Des Moines County

Dickson County

Dubuque County

Floyd County

Hardin Country

Humboldt County

Iowa County

Jackson County

Johnson County

Marion County

Muscatine County

Polk County

Linn County

Mills County

Montgomery County

Pott County

Plymouth County

Scott County

Sioux County

Story County

Union County

Woodbury County

Wright County

No, they actually don't.

Of course they do.

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.​

It's cute though how you think your inability to comprehend that actually matters.

Nor yours. You really think "blood related" truly has the same reasoning with both groups?

That's the funniest aspect of this whole discussion.