XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns
XPost: alt.survival
From: davidjhughes.tx@netzero.com
On 9/25/2014 12:03 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote in
> news:5423e152$0$16374$882e7ee2@usenet-news.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.
>
> Within that state. Colorado does not decide what is recognized as a
> marriage in New Jersey.
>
> They
>> universally define marriage as between a man and a woman, not between
>> any two "consenting adults".
>
> Not true. Some states also define marriage as between two consenting
> adults regardless of sex.
>
> Some states define and recognize legal
>> marriages involving people as young as 13 and 14.
>
> Yes, although I don't think it is that low anymore.
>
>>> 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.
>
> Can you name a couple?
Massachusetts: 18 for first marriage, 14 (male) 12 (female) with
parental and judicial consent (both are required)
Michigan: 18, 16 with parental consent, 15 and under with parental
consent and probate judge approval.
New Hampshire: 18, 14 for males and 13 for females, in cases of "special
cause" with parental consent and court permission.
North Carolina: 18, 16 with parental consent, unlimited in case of
pregnancy or birth of child with parental consent.
Washington: 18, 17 with parental consent. May be waived by superior
court judge.
West Virginia: 18, 16 with parental consent, under 16 (unspecified
limit) with parental and judicial consent
>
>> 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,
>
> Dudu is wrong. Some states recognize same sex marriages (19, including
> DC), other states do not. See DOMA
>
>
> 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.
>
> Again, that depends on the state. Yes, there are religious exceptions
> like Mormonism and a couple of others that are based on Mormonism.
>
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
