Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Redbeard The Pink]

Okay;

First, lets deal with Scalia's statement that so long as the State legislates it may be tailored.  If marriage is ruled to be a fundamental right than it becomes akin to the 2nd amendment and may not be abridged or withheld.

As such, it would be illegal to place an age restriction upon the age of marriage.  Now if we assume the age restriction placed on the 2nd amendment (a child under the age of four does not have the right to bear arms as they lack sufficient development of person to understand the right in anyway) there may be a restriction placed on children under the age of 5 (though not likely as the restriction for the second is predicated on the inherent dangerous nature of a firearm).

This would thereby make adult to child weddings legal (likely with parental consent).

Are you stupid?

Informed. Consent. Informed consent is what makes child marriage not ok.

Take your 2nd Amendment example, for instance. That line is NOT predicated on the danger of the firearm. Read it again. That line is predicated on the child's ability to understand that danger. It is possible to teach a 5-year-old to more or less understand the dangers of a firearm. It is not possible to make an informed decision about choosing a marriage partner until late adolescence to early adulthood at the earliest, if we're going by western standards (and most of the evidence I've seen). Because a child below this age cannot be expected to have the ability to understand marriage relationships properly, it makes perfect sense for the "legal age" in this instance to be much higher than, say, the right to have a gun.

I do find it interesting that the Catholic was the one who jumped straight to the "Slippery Slope to Pedophilia" argument. You gonna talk about bestiality next? That always gets people nice and emotional.

Actually I recognize the lack of legal support of the ruling as well as many of the consequence which will follow that will unltimately result in it being overturned.

Furthermore, I await a logic argument in their favor that is not predicated upon a fallacy.

So are you crossing your fingers and waiting for Gaud to overturn it? Could you hold your breath while your'e doing that, please?