XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns
XPost: alt.survival
From: ingilt@yahoo.co.uk
On 25/09/2014 19:03, 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.
Are not states also obliged to acknowledge and respect the validity of
contracts from other states?
See Article IV, section one of the US constitution:
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts,
Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress
may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and
Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
>
> 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.
The point with these underage marriages is not the age but the legal
requirement for parental and/or judicial consent. Parents already have
a legal right (obligation even) to exercise their power of consent in
matters regarding their children, so it is a mere extension to do so
with marriage. The principle of "marriage only with informed consent"
is thus maintained.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
