Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

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.

The Petitioners argument is that there is a fundamental right to marriage and that the definition of marriage should be not be procreation centric, but rather recognition or security centric. That is why we discussed it as a fundamental right. The Supreme Court has stated that a child is of sufficient age and capacity to exercise a fundamental right above the age of 5. That is why a 5 year old may own a gun, which is a lethal weapon (where consent requirement does pass strict scrutiny due to the inherently dangerous or lethal nature of firearms. The same may not necessarily be said of no procreative centric marriage.)

Did you read the previous posts? I have covered most of this stuff already?

Children can legally enter into contracts so long as it is deemed they have sufficient capacity to do so. However, the contract is voidable at will for the child while not being voidable at will for the adult. Feel free to look it up or follow this link:
http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_docu...tracts.asp

"As with contracts entered into by adults, minors have to fulfill certain prerequisites before a contract is considered enforceable. The primary requirement is having the capacity to contract. Capacity to contract is questionable when dealing with minors because the rationale is that a minor is regarded as not having sufficient capacity to understand and pass upon questions involving contractual rights. Accordingly, a person dealing with a minor does so at his or her peril and subject to the right of the minor to avoid the contract.

Yet, some contracts cannot be voided. Specifically, a minor remains liable for certain contractual obligations:

Taxes
Penalties
Bank regulations
Military
Necessaries

For instance, perhaps the biggest area of enforceable minor contracts deals with necessaries, which consist of goods reasonably necessary for subsistence, health, comfort or education. As such, contracts furnishing these items to a minor cannot be disaffirmed."

Interesting. I did not know that the child could not void those specific contracts. I bet security would fall under necessaries, in which case it may be argued that a child who enters into a no procreative centric marriage for recognition of the adult/child relationship to gain additional security may not void that contract at will. Hmm...

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.

Sorry I am not following your strict scrutiny analysis. As I asked before I will do so again in hope of an answer (remember we are going with petitioners definitions by which marriage is a fundamental right and is not procreation centric. It is now recognition and dignity/security centric and agreement does not constitute an agreement to engage in any intimate conduct):

What is the states compelling interest in denying children recognition of their adult/child relationships bestowing additional dignity and security to the child?

We cannot say security of the child as the recognition of the relationship as marriage will convey additional dignity and security. So what is the answer?