(June 2, 2015 at 12:54 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

Quote:It may further be argued that our apprehension to children contracting into marriage (even after it is determined to be a fundamental right and recognition or security centric as petitioners desire) is due to our inability to separate the concept of marriage from implicit agreement to sexual activity. Which would be to say we do not accept that marriage is not procreation centric implicitly even if we say it is not explicitly.

It may be, but you and I both would laugh that person out of the room...since sexual activity does not equal procreation centric...nor does our law have any trouble distinguishing in this instance (where the slope is claimed to be so slippery).  It is illegal to have sexual relationships with minors regardless of whether or not one procreates with minors.  

-Every argument offered is indirect.....  It's almost as if they wish to say "well, sure, it's unfortunate that were discriminating against your group, but if we didn't -other- things would get ugly...so we're going to continue to do that."

 

"Give blacks the vote you say?  My goodness, whats next, donkeys and cattle in the voting booths!  We don't want that...move to dismiss."

Remember the petitioners are pushing for marriage to have no relation to sexual intimacy. Marriage as they wish to define it is about recognition of relationships and security. So why are we opposed to adult/child relationships being recognized and the child being granted extra security. DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN!!!

Actually there are various pushes to have animal recognized as citizens of the state (they generally argue that the animal is equivalent to an infant). I believe the last one was in New York District Court regarding a chimp. The Judge ruled that citizenship constitutes a combination of civic right and duties. Because the chimp cannot be trusted to perform or adhere to its civic duties (such as obeying the law) it is not to be granted civic rights.

---

(June 2, 2015 at 1:29 pm)robvalue Wrote: I don't believe there is any agreement to sexual activity in marriage. Please correct me if I'm wrong. How would that even work? If people want to say "nudge nudge wink wink course there is" then fine, but I'm talking about legal obligations.

When and how would this obligation be "cashed in"? People can refuse to have sexual activity, even with their partner, whenever they don't want to.

Now, anyway. Good things laws change, huh?

Legally there was and still is. Like I said, married couples may sue for loss of consortium!! You can sue for loss of yum-yum bouncy-bouncy if that loss was caused by someone not in the marriage. Only married couples may sue for loss of consortium.

At common law spouses could not legally refuse sexual activity with their partners. The laws on this have changed such that while general sexual consent is still granted upon marriage particular legal consent is not given such that any particular engagement in sexual activity need a present expression of consent or (you are going to love this) a perceived expression of consent. That is right it is not rape if the person believes you consent even when you did not.

Quote:So why are we opposed to adult/child relationships being recognized and the child being granted extra security.

-we aren't....those types of arrangements exist and are recognized, but we're talking about marriage specifically at the moment..so I don't know what the relevance would be.

Quote:Actually there are various pushes to have animal recognized as citizens of the state (they generally argue that the animal is equivalent to an infant). I believe the last one was in New York District Court regarding a chimp.  The Judge ruled that citizenship constitutes a combination of civic right and duties.  Because the chimp cannot be trusted to perform or adhere to its civic duties (such as obeying the law) it is not to be granted civic rights.

-and of course we modify what rights children have for similar reasons...there are some contracts (for example) we won't let them sign, and we won't honor if they do (technically infringing upon a second parties expectation of what their rights provide them).  We seem to understand both why -and how- to handle this situation. /shrugs

(June 2, 2015 at 6:31 pm)Rhythm Wrote: -we aren't....those types of arrangements exist and are recognized, but we're talking about marriage specifically at the moment..so I don't know what the relevance would be.

When I stated recognized I meant under a new definition of marriage which is not about sex or procreation, but is about recognition of relationship and security.

For clarification: Why are we opposed to adult/child marriages that recognize the adult/child relationship and grant extra security?

(June 2, 2015 at 6:31 pm)Rhythm Wrote: -and of course we modify what rights children have for similar reasons...there are some contracts (for example) we won't let them sign, and we won't honor if they do (technically infringing upon a second parties expectation of what their rights provide them).  We seem to understand both why -and how- to handle this situation.  /shrugs

Pray tell what rights were modified and contracts are these children excluded from? Children have the same rights as adults, but if under the age of 5 those rights are exercised on their behalf by the parents or the state. So while we may restrict children under the age of 5 from a fundamental right of marriage by not engaging on their behalf they are free (to my knowledge) to enter into any valid contract an adult may enter into after the age of 5. Adults are encourage not to enter into contracts with children due to their ability to break the contract without it constituting a breach of contract, while the adult is not so permitted.

(June 2, 2015 at 1:45 pm)Anima Wrote:

(June 2, 2015 at 1:29 pm)robvalue Wrote: I don't believe there is any agreement to sexual activity in marriage. Please correct me if I'm wrong. How would that even work? If people want to say "nudge nudge wink wink course there is" then fine, but I'm talking about legal obligations.

When and how would this obligation be "cashed in"? People can refuse to have sexual activity, even with their partner, whenever they don't want to.

Now, anyway. Good things laws change, huh?

Legally there was and still is.  Like I said, married couples may sue for loss of consortium!!  You can sue for loss of yum-yum bouncy-bouncy if that loss was caused by someone not in the marriage.  Only married couples may sue for loss of consortium.

Loss of Consortium is for suing another party if a spouse is denied marital relations because of injury by that party.  Married people aren't suing each other because they aren't getting laid, dude.  Divorced, maybe, but no one has any obligation ever to have sex without consent.

Quote:At common law spouses could not legally refuse sexual activity with their partners.  The laws on this have changed such that while general sexual consent is still granted upon marriage particular legal consent is not given such that any particular engagement in sexual activity need a present expression of consent or (you are going to love this) a perceived expression of consent.  That is right it is not rape if the person believes you consent even when you did not.

That's not true.

(May 29, 2015 at 12:12 pm)TRJF Wrote: Sort of.  The technical issue here that Anima is getting at is "a ruling that marriage is a fundamental right would make it much harder to place restrictions on marriage."  The suggestion is that any "expansion" of a right to marriage that is sufficiently large to necessitate the removal of a same-sex restriction would be too blunt to avoid also taking out age restrictions.

Even if the animus is "slippery slope scaremongering" - I'm not saying it is in Anima's case, but you do see it a lot on, say, the news or comments sections of websites and such - it's not a ridiculous sort of question to ask.  In this case, however, I think it's extremely obvious that you can expand marriage to be between two men and not have to expand it to be between a 40-year-old man and a 10-year-old girl.  This is partly for reasons I've mentioned above; again, I stress that if you expand what marriage is, you're not expanding the capacity to consent to things such as marriage.

Marriage is already a fundamental right, as it is included as part of our fundamental right to privacy. I'm sorry if I've gone completely out of line here but this is what if remember from high school government class. 


Privacy:
Contraception: right to use and purchase contraceptives 

Abortion: Prior to viability. No undue burdens

Marriage: Right to marry. No bans on interracial marriage.

Procreation: Right to have children without excessive government intrusion 

Private Education: Parents have right to homeschool or otherwise educate their kids privately. 

Relations: •Right for nuclear family to live together. 
•Right to make parenting decisions (strict scrutiny)
•Right to custody of your kids
•Right to refuse medical treatment

Sexual orientation: Right to engage in consensual homosexual activities



So, if allowing interacial marriages didn't force us to allow child marriage, how would allowing same sex marriage be any different?

Sorry if someone already said this. 

(June 2, 2015 at 7:09 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Loss of Consortium is for suing another party if a spouse is denied marital relations because of injury by that party.  Married people aren't suing each other because they aren't getting laid, dude.  Divorced, maybe, but no one has any obligation ever to have sex without consent.

I am aware of that as I said it several posts ago.  I did not say that married people are suing one another for lack of sex.  (Loss of consortium does not simply cover sex.  It covers the loss of the spouse to perform their spousal duties which also includes providing for the family, cleaning of the domicile, and child care.)  I was pointing out that only married couples may sue for loss of consortium.

(June 2, 2015 at 7:09 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(June 2, 2015 at 7:09 pm)Anima Wrote: At common law spouses could not legally refuse sexual activity with their partners.  The laws on this have changed such that while general sexual consent is still granted upon marriage particular legal consent is not given such that any particular engagement in sexual activity need a present expression of consent or (you are going to love this) a perceived expression of consent.  That is right it is not rape if the person believes you consent even when you did not.

That's not true.

Which part? The rape part? Rape is an aggravated form of battery defined as unlawful sexual intercourse without consent or consent acquired by threat, force, coercion, or wrongly implied by victims silence. It is considered a general intent crime (meaning the prosecution does not have to prove that you intended to specifically rape). Defense to general intent crimes include but are not limited to a mistake of fact (not a reasonable mistake of fact. Just a mistake of fact) where that mistake of fact can be whether the victim consented or not. So if the person can prove they were mistaken as to your consent

There are a handful of states that do not accept mistake of fact as a defense for rape. There are also a few states who legally define rape as unwanted or forced sexual intercourse with a person who is not your spouse (which I think is pretty fucked up).

I am lazy, can someone please tell me why we are talking about marital rape now?

(June 2, 2015 at 7:57 pm)Losty Wrote: Marriage is already a fundamental right, as it is included as part of our fundamental right to privacy. I'm sorry if I've gone completely out of line here but this is what if remember from high school government class. 

Marriage is not defined as a fundamental right under the 4th amendment right to privacy. As determined by the Supreme Court, A person has a fundamental right to privacy where they may have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as in a phone booth, in there private residence, the doctors office, and in the spousal bedroom.

The case regarding the ban on interracial marriage was about miscegenation and not about marriage per se. More than 640 interracial marriages were performed in Virginia the same year the Lovings were married. However the laws of against Miscegenation denied interracial couples the right to engage in intimacy and general laws made intimacy outside the confines of marriage illegal, which was violation of the right to privacy in the spousal bedroom which was reaffirmed in Lawrence V. Texas.

As stated by Scalia, the prohibitions on marriage are present because it is not a fundamental right. This current cases wants us to define a fundamental right to marriage which does not presently exist. Once marriage is defined constitutionally states may no longer tailor marriage beyond the range of strict scrutiny.

As state by respondents, In Roe V Wade the Court said the state may not interfere in private choice as a violation of the fundamental right to privacy. However, in Maher V. Roe the Court said a woman may not force the state to participate in that choice by paying for it. Same here, in Lawrence V. Texas the court said the state cannot interfere in private intimate conduct as a violation of the fundamental right to privacy. Repondent's position is, just as in Maher V. Roe, that the parties cannot then force the state to participate by forcing them to recognize and give benefits.

There is absolutely no way you typed all of that so fast. Can I get a link to your copypasta?

(June 2, 2015 at 8:44 pm)Losty Wrote: There are a handful of states that do not accept mistake of fact as a defense for rape. There are also a few states who legally define rape as unwanted or forced sexual intercourse with a person who is not your spouse (which I think is pretty fucked up).

I am lazy, can someone please tell me why we are talking about marital rape now?

The majority position (that would be the majority of states) will accept mistake of fact as a defense to rape.

We got on the subject of marital rape because it was not possible at common law due to marriage being an implicit agreement to intimacy. However under the petitioners desired change to marriage the definition will become recognition and security centric such that marriage will not constitute and implicit agreement to intimacy. General opposition to child/adult marriage is based on opposition to the idea of child/adult intimate relations. If the definition is change than marriage will not imply intimacy and there is no reason under strict scrutiny to deny a child over the age of 5 years from engaging in a marriage.