RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
June 3, 2015 at 10:18 pm
(This post was last modified: June 3, 2015 at 10:20 pm by Thumpalumpacus.)
(June 3, 2015 at 5:35 pm)Anima Wrote:(June 3, 2015 at 5:32 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Flawed logic. Children do not enjoy the full panoply of right enjoyed by adults.
They do in regards to Fundamental human rights and even have a bonus over adults in contractual rights. Both of which are the rights we are talking about here.
Except that marriage is not a fundamental human right (whatever you mean by that), but rather, a legal right.
Children lack many legal rights. If you'd like, I'll be happy to supply an admittedly incomplete list, at your request.
Marriage is not a fundamental human right. It is a legal agreement between two consenting adults recognized by the state or federal government.
As for children entering into contracts, I'd like to see your reasoning, with legal source materials, because I think you're mistaken. Children in America cannot legally enter into contracts.
(June 3, 2015 at 5:45 pm)TRJF Wrote:(June 3, 2015 at 5:32 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Flawed logic. Children do not enjoy the full panoply of right enjoyed by adults.
We've kind of been over this. The argument's gone:
1. Children have limited rights.
>Response: Yes, but if it's a fundamental right, strict scrutiny is invoked and you can't restrict it unless you have a compelling reason and the restriction is the least restrictive means.
2. This is a true statement of the law, but a) strict scrutiny doesn't really mean strict scrutiny when it comes to children, b) there is a compelling interest here, and c) the imposition of an age limit would satisfy a least restrictive means test.
>Response: a) false b) false c) false.
Now, I mean, I've obviously argued that, charitably granting both the declaration of marriage as a fundamental right and taking this out of the equal protection realm (which I still think gets the job done), the overlay of youth-related diminished capacity to consent provides the compelling interest and that a structure such as "age of marriage 18, or 16 with parents' consent" will satisfy the least-restrictive means test in every court of law in this country. If it didn't, there could never be any age-based restriction on any fundamental right; the argument "you can always push the age a day younger, so no single restriction will be the least restrictive" is a sort of legal xeno's paradox that you have to get around by choosing a reasonable cut-off. This is permissible because, supposing some people have the mental capacity to avoid exploitation at the age of 12 and some will still lack it at age 16, the state's goal is to protect minors (or U16s or whatnot) as a class as well as individually. Leaving consent aside, it's clear that even though an 18/16 age cut-off would certainly infringe on the rights of those rare 14-year-olds who are more mature than most adults, this fact alone will not prevent the state from doing what it has to to protect minors as a class.
Yes, and the upshot of what you posted is that children do not have the full panoply of legal rights, which was my point.