XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.survival   
   From: ingilt@yahoo.co.uk   
      
   On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 14:15:16 -0500, RD Sandman wrote:   
      
   > "Alex W."  wrote in   
   > news:t6emsshh1mj8.35d72kjr3mqm.dlg@40tude.net:   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > Then why don't all states recognize same-sex marriages?   
      
   Good question.   
      
   Thinking about it, it seems to me they do not even need to   
   make their own legal provisions for same-sex marriages.   
   They only need to accept the validity and equal status of   
   such marriages contracted in states where they are legal.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)