XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.survival   
   From: ingilt@yahoo.co.uk   
      
   On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 10:28:18 -0500, RD Sandman wrote:   
      
   > "Alex W."  wrote in news:c8kq68F4b5gU1   
   > @mid.individual.net:   
   >   
   >> On 25/09/2014 19:03, RD Sandman wrote:   
   >>> Just Wondering  wrote in   
   >>> news:5423e152$0$16374$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net:   
      
      
   >>>>> 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."   
   >   
   > One would think that all marriages were recognized in all the states but   
   > then the definition of marriage was a man and a woman.  Such is no longer   
   > the case.   
      
   Did problems arise when states had differing ages of   
   consent?  I don't think so.  I'm not a constitutional   
   lawyer, but this particular point seems to be clear: a form   
   of marriage legal in one state must be respected in other   
   states whether their state laws support it or not.   
      
      
   >   
   >>>   
   >>>    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.   
   >   
   > Which has to do with the maturity that comes with age.  I doubt that many   
   > 13 year olds are properly prepared (any more....they used to be decades   
   > ago) for the rigors of modern life as a couple.   
      
   You want to talk maturity?  Speaking as a youthful 48 year   
   old, if I were emperor of the world I would raise the age of   
   marriage to 30.  At least.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)