Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[TheRealJoeFish]

We have in this envelope another change to marriage which a randomly chosen member of the audience wrote down. We haven't seen it.

If you accept gay marriage, we will open this up and you must also accept whatever gibberish this person has written.

Will you take that chance? Can you, in good conscience? Just think what they might have written...

My submission was "Everyone with social security number [TRJF's social security number] has automatic infinite right to snuggle and/or marry any movie star and/or voice actor."

[Anima]

Have we got to the "icky" argument yet? I think we should cover that next.

I mean, come on! It's icky, right? Open and shut case.

If there's any more arguments let's hear them, I think we've beaten this age thing way past death.

Let's get into some shit about it being unnatural or gays being worse parents or something. My chainsaw needs blood.

The icky argument is not covered in the oral arguments (which is what we are covering).

Actually we were still talking about the age thing as it has yet to be beaten (I am still waiting to hear what right the state will have to deny a child a more secure adult/child relationship).


=========================
So next up on the argument docket was by Alito in regards to polygamy.

Stipulated by Alito, if four lawyers, 2 men and 2 women, were to want to enter into a marriage what is to keep them out? How may we say that marriage should be between two consenting adults as the petitioners emphasize?

Petitioners response, the states would rush forward and say that is not the historic or current definition of marriage and would further prohibit those marriages due to the confusion they engender such as parental rights over children.

Courts general reaction, what kind of answer is that? The same is being said to petitioners in regards to same sex marriage where it is not the historic or current definition of marriage and marriages of those type engender confusion over parental rights to children.

Petitioners response, well that is my response so...

---

Uh...NO!!  

The law is not going to permit ritualistic human sacrifice no matter how much the sacrificer and the sacrificed want to do it.

I'm obviously talking about marriage contracts, asshole.  But way to jump to human sacrifice from a gay marriage discussion.  Typical Christian tactics.  Are you going to bring up besitality and pedophilia yet, or have you already done that?

We have determined my theory is sound in principle and now we are just haggling over price.

However, the issue is not what you do in the privacy but is in regard to compelling public recognition of what is done in private by the state. Meaning it is no longer private.

The pedophilia one is sort of being done with the underage kids. Though it is not pedophilia as petitioners would have marriage defined in a nonsexual way. Beastiality is not on the docket because animals do not have civic rights (yet).

---

Furthermore, the change in definition you initial purposed would no prohibit polygamy, bigamy, or incest marriages.

As they should not be allowed to do. The government has no business prohibiting the marriage of consenting adults regardless of how icky someone might think they are.

On this point you may indeed make an argument (Roe V Wade)

But if the government has no say in the relationship than the government has no obligation to recognize or subsidize that relationship (Maher V Roe)

[Thumpalumpacus]

As such, it would be illegal to place an age restriction upon the age of marriage.  

Flawed logic. Children do not enjoy the full panoply of right enjoyed by adults.

[Anima]

As such, it would be illegal to place an age restriction upon the age of marriage.  

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.

[TheRealJoeFish]

As such, it would be illegal to place an age restriction upon the age of marriage.  

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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

---

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.

[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?

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

It is not a fundamental right, it is a legal right. And furthermore, here in America, it isn't even listed in the Bill of Rights; in other words, the ability to marry is not an enumerated right. It could be argued that it should fall under the 10th Amendment, but at that point, its status as "fundamental" would seem to be severely undermined. Certainly a fundamental right would have an Amendment devoted to it, no?

Simply because a minor can void a contract in a more lax manner than an adult doesn't mean that the minor has the same -- or as you're insinuating, more -- rights as an adult. Firstly, the ability to more easily void a contract is only one specific privilege; but minors don't have the same rights to privacy or speech that an adult enjoys. Secondly, there must be court approval in most cases of a minor entering into a contract at all -- which fact in itself is a significant derogation of a minor's rights.

And none of this addresses my point, which is that minors aren't free to engage in marriage before specific, stipulated years, which fact means that minors do not enjoy the full panoply of rights that adults do, which was my point.

Can a five-year-old marry a three-year-old without parental input? Can a ten-year-old consent to sex with an adult? Can a twelve-year-old take out a car loan, legally?

Minors don't have the same rights as adults. This aspect of your argument is flawed.

[paulpablo]

As argued by respondents, the procreation centric definition of marriage was never meant to be discriminatory towards homosexuals. It arose in response to a basic biological reality that the intimate relations between opposite genders (regardless of sexual orientation) could and commonly would have extenuating repercussions which must be dealt with.



As argued by Alito, there been various societies which had marriage and did not frown upon homosexuality. Those same societies while having the presence and acceptance of both did not consider it discriminatory to not include homosexuals within the definition of marriage. It does not then stand to reason that this particular society, which has had a specific definition of marriage for hundreds of years, is suddenly discriminatory.

So can I ask what is the procreation centric definition of marriage?

[robvalue]

OK, even with my limited knowledge I can smell a rat. Children cannot enter into legal contracts. I know this to be the case in England, and I assume since Parkers has said the same it is the case in America.

Even if you give them the "right to enter into the contract" they still cannot do so. Such a contract is invalid.

So you'd have to change the law to allow them to enter into this contract, just to allow for this "consequence". I'm a little confused, is this argument actually being put forward in the courts, or is this a hypothetical? I'm not clear what is opinion and what is a report of current events. If they are resorting to arguments in the court that even I know are bogus they must be getting pretty desperate.