Gay incest, legal in Iowa?

Thursday, April 9, 2009, 4:06
Constitution Daily
4,855 views
16 comments

According to Iowa Code, Chapter 595.19, marriage in Iowa is not allowed between the following, “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” along with “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.

Did you notice anything left out? According to current Iowa law, coupled with the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision, marriage between the same sexes in any degree of consanguinity will now be legal. In other words, according to Iowa law, it is now legal for a son to marry his father but not his mother.

I’m no lawyer or expert on Iowa law, so there may be another provision in the Iowa Code relating to incestuous relationships but the point is still significant. Since the gay marriage debate began, gay marriage advocates can’t answer this simple question, Who should be restricted from state sanctioned marriage?

When asked this question, they almost certainly will answer with their canned response of, “oh, here we go again, down the slippery slope argument…” But they still can’t answer the question. Who is the state to tell a mother she can’t marry her daughter? Who is the state to tell a bisexual man he can’t marry two people? Is it not their civil right? Is it not love and romance that brought them together? What does it hurt you or me if they marry?

The Supreme Court did not answer this question either. And we all know why…because if you are against marriage for incest or polygamy, you have no standing for gay marriage. Neither gay marriage advocates nor the courts can answer that question with the same gay marriage logic, or they lose all legal standing on the issue.

But that isn’t the point is it? This isn’t about a civil right. This is about a gay marriage movement propelled by emotional arguments made by a few to strip the moral fabric away from the many.

Tags: Gay Marriage

About the Author

Constitution Daily has written 97 stories on this site.

An Iowa based blog with the purpose of giving incentive to those actively engaged in conservative causes. Content will include Iowa and national issues ranging from politics to everyday society, but in every case you will know where Constitution Daily stands. Please feel free to contact me anytime at constitutiondaily@gmail.com.

16 Comments on “Gay incest, legal in Iowa?”

Cory Cramer wrote on 9 April, 2009, 6:07
I think this is a valid point, except for the whole ’similarly situated’ issue makes it a little harder to make case for polygamy and incest.
John Deeth wrote on 9 April, 2009, 6:53
Time for some Jeff Foxworthy jokes:
http://www.zelo.com/redneck.htm
embarrassed wrote on 9 April, 2009, 6:58
Iowans may as well get used to hearing jokes about them. Iowa gay jokes are now a daily thing where I am.
steve right wrote on 9 April, 2009, 7:54
Bigotry and Stupidity: The cornerstone of any nutritious breakfast.

It physically hurts how much opponents of same-sex marriage don’t understand marriage law and didn’t bother reading the decision the court handed down. I beg of you… read it.

Marriage is a legal contract. Those who are underage cannot enter into any form of legal contract. Therefore, underage folks cannot get married anyway.

Marriage is a legal contract you sign with another person. That makes two. Therefore, a legal marriage cannot encompass more than two people (mormons, if you wanna in your churches, it ain’t my business).

There are actually compelling societal reasons to ban incest, including genetic concerns about the children of incestuous marriages, the importance of preventing coercion and abuse within families, etc. By contrast, there is no compelling reason to bar same-sex couples from marriage. Permitting marriages of same-sex couples strengthens families and harms no one.

The problem with slippery slope arguments is that they assume that society and the law can’t make distinctions between situations that are different from one another. But we can tell apples from oranges. For example, that women got the right to vote does not mean that infants are next.
Constitution Daily wrote on 9 April, 2009, 8:12
Steve Right – look back at your little argument there and tell me how you answered any of my questions. Who is the state to say you can’t marry your brother? Who is the state to say marriage has to be between one man or woman and one other person? You even tried to define marriage in your response above…who are you to define marriage?

And finally, you are right, there are compelling social reasons to ban incest and the offspring is one of those reasons. But, marriage isn’t about offspring or procreation; marriage involves individuals who are “sexually and romantically attracted to each other” (according to the Supreme Court). That defines pretty much any assortment of individuals you and I can think of.
Repub wrote on 9 April, 2009, 8:16
Steve Right- Marriage is between a man and a woman. All that other BS means nothing. End of argument. Gay sex is a choice, just like bestiality and other similarly disgusting activities. Doesn’t matter how strong your urges are, acting on them is a choice. The fact that a person can see the truth for what it is does not make them a bigot. Being called a bigot by a pseudo intellectual deviant does not stick.
Sarah F. wrote on 9 April, 2009, 8:35
Steve,
For god’s sake, man, don’t engage with these lunatics. They will never listen to reason or acknowledge evidence. They live in a world that is colored by their religion, and nothing can shake them from there perch. They are grasping at straws trying to scare people into thinking homosexuality is akin to incest, polygamy, bestiality, whatever. Most people are smarter than that, so they are losing this war.

So you can try to reason all you want, but they won’t get it. It’s not that they are stupid or incapable. It’s that they refuse to recognize anything that may contradict their faith. It’s actually kind of sad in a way, but then again ignorance is bliss.
Jackson wrote on 9 April, 2009, 15:51
Sarah, you are criticizing posters because their faith informs their thinking on a subject. But at least they are recognizing and admitting to this presuppostion. You and steve have a presupposition that informs your thinking, but you are unwilling to admit to it. So, who is grasping at straws? In truth you are merely trying to rationalize your own inconsistency. I understand that is philosophically painful. You have my sympathy.
Nick wrote on 9 April, 2009, 21:28
/I’m no lawyer or expert on Iowa law/

Then why did you even bother writing this?
Theodore wrote on 9 April, 2009, 21:41
Ample amount of scientific evidence indicates homosexuality is not a choice, which is contrary to what some of the posters above would like to think. In the context of this, reliance on any source (e.g. religion) that contradicts reality is equivalent to grasping at straws. I believe Sarah was referring to this fact.

It makes sense to amend the law so as to unallow incestuous marriage among homosexuals. There. Problem solved. That wasn’t hard, was it?
anon wrote on 9 April, 2009, 21:44
Theodore,

That is a lie. This is still highly disputed by objective thinkers. Teddy’s the one grasping at straws.
Theodore wrote on 9 April, 2009, 21:55
If it is a lie, why would it be disputed? Sounds like you are a failure when it comes to objective thinking.
Michael wrote on 10 April, 2009, 17:11
That loophole is a good find, Constitution Daily. However, it will be fixed in the future, I’m sure, to reflect the current situation, if it’s not already covered by other law. The government can handle these small issues.

The slippery slope argument is weak though. And will be ignored.
P wrote on 22 April, 2009, 20:45
Our future might just be Canada’s present:

http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/index.php?id=992