Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

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 certainly hoped you continued reading. First, a parent may on behalf of a child under the age of five exercise a fundamental right in their interest. Such as but not limited to added security and dignity of the child through marriage. Second, a child is deemed to have informed consent in regards to a fundamental right at the age of 5 years or greater (unless suffering from developmental disabilities or evidence the child is not of sufficient maturity). This is even being argued by people in Oregon who want to give the child final say on whether they should be allowed to have assisted suicide. What can a child possibly know about life and death as to have informed consent

Furthermore a child may enter into a contract with an adult particularly in regards to necessaries (means of survival). The petitioners having won their case have redefined marriage as relationship and security centric and no longer procreation centric. As such the child may enter into a marriage contract to ensure the necessaries where the marriage is state recognition of the adult/child relationship conferring greater dignity and security to the parties involved (it is not related to sex anymore).

Argument to parental consent is possible, but runs afoul of the situation which is common with child weddings in which the parents do consent. Before the state could deny the marriage under the argument it was an implicit agreement to sexual relations and is barred by a rational basis prohibition. As a fundamental right efforts by the State to prohibit this marriage will now have to satisfy strict scrutiny where the State must give a compelling interest in denying the recognition of an adult child relationship that confers added security to the adult and child. (Remember it is not an implicit to sexual relations any more. I understand it is hard to let that idea out of our minds but this is what the ruling just did).

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.

No worries on the beastiality front. That is until PETA is successful in their efforts of having the courts recognize that animals have civil rights. Less we forget consent may be explicit or implicit by conduct. If it does not disagree than it agrees.

The law is slippery slope. Anyone familiar with precedential jurisprudence may attest to that. Is it really so hard to imagine? In the history of the nation can we not think of an example where a "mature" 13 year old girl wanted to marry her 18 year old boyfriend? Or where a 16 year old Courtney Stodden wanted to marry a 42 year old Doug Hutchinson? Or where a man named Warren Jeffs married any number of under aged girls to older men with the consent of their parents?

Do you think if or when these people are arrested for doing any of these things they will not use the ruling which states the marriage is not an implicit agreement to sex and is for the added dignity or security of the parties involved to avoid jail? So many are big on empathy on this site. So empathize. If you were them what would you do? I imagine you will save your ass any possible and make use of the law that could get you off rather than sit in prison.

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

Why would I wait for God to do that? What I am waiting for is the mountain of law suits which will be filed in order to gain moral equivalency by any number of groups including, but not limited to same sex persons. The polygamists are already at the appellat level so I do not imagine it will take long. When you say the law conveys dignity and security and people have a fundamental right to dignity and security you really do open yourself up to law suit by any group not granted legal recognition for any of their activities.