XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns
XPost: alt.survival
From: fmhlaw@comcast.net
On 9/25/2014 2:38 AM, Alex W. wrote:
> On 24/09/2014 23:44, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 9/24/2014 11:28 AM, deep wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 11:15:11 -0600, Just Wondering
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/24/2014 11:00 AM, deep wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:12:30 -0700, "Wayne"
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Assume that man A has the right to marry a woman, and man B has the
>>>>>> right to
>>>>>> marry a woman.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In what weird world of logic does that mean that man A has a right
>>>>>> to marry
>>>>>> man B?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Because they are still people. And the law says we have the
>>>>> responsibility to treat all people equally.
>>>>>
>>>> We already do. All people have always had the right to marry.
>>>> Marriage
>>>> by definition is between a man and a woman. There has never been a law
>>>> against a homosexual man or woman marrying. Just like anyone else,
>>>> if a
>>>> homosexual man wants to marry, he has to find a woman to do it with.
>>>> And if a homosexual woman wants to marry, she has to find a man to
>>>> do it
>>>> with. There of any number of examples of homosexuals marrying that
>>>> way.
>>>> Similarly, a heterosexual man has never had a right to "marry"
>>>> another
>>>> man, and a heterosexual woman has never had a right to "marry" another
>>>> woman. By definition, a man-man relationship, and a woman-woman
>>>> relationship, is not marriage.
>>>
>>> No it's not. You're wrong. The 14th amendment says all people have
>>> equal rights under the law. You have no right to decide what the
>>> conditions are for someone else to marry.
>>>
>> States have the right, 10th Amendment, to enact laws regulating
>> state-sanctioned marriages. If a state has " no right to decide what the
>> > conditions are for someone else to marry," then all laws against
>> bigamous, underage and incestuous marriages are also unconstitutional.
>>
>
> States may claim that right -- that's different to actually having such
> a right.
>
> In legal terms, a marriage is a contract between consenting and informed
> adults. No more and no less.
>
Wrong. States define what, in legal terms, is a marriage. They
universally define marriage as between a man and a woman, not between
any two "consenting adults". Some states define and recognize legal
marriages involving people as young as 13 and 14.
> To ban people from entering into certain
> contracts is a clear restriction on their rights, and will in due course
> be rectified.
>
> As for bigamy or underage spouses, there are clear and justifiable
> reasons for banning such: these contracts were not entered into with
> informed consent.
>
That's unadulterated bullshit, borne of your own biased preceived notions.
> A child cannot give such consent,
>
Some states already allow marriages involving 13 and 14 year olds. The
very notion that a child can't give consent isn't a reality, it's a
legal fiction implemented to guard against undue influence. And it
certainly does not implicate any constitutional issues. I agree, it's
poor public policy to allow child marriages. But if what deep guano said
was true, that a state has no right to decide what the conditions are
for someone else to marry, then it naturally follows that a state has no
right to ban child marriages.
> and a second spouse is ignorant of a fundamental fact about the proposed
contract.
>
That's only true in some cases. It definitely isn't a universal truth.
If a single woman wants to marry a married man, and all three are
adults and the man and his wife give their informed consent, then all of
your conditions for marriage are met and the state has no right to say no.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
