From: stephen@sprunk.org   
      
   On 22-May-14 18:57, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   > Stephen Sprunk   wrote:   
   >> On 22-May-14 17:38, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >>> Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >>>> On 22-May-14 13:44, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >>>>> What about marriage between children? What about marriage to   
   >>>>>  animals or dead people   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Such entities lack the ability to consent, so it's moot.   
   >>>   
   >>> What does marriage have to do with consent?   
   >>   
   >> Marriage is a contract, and contracts require consent.   
   >   
   > Not when people change what marriage means so that it doesn't   
   > require consent.   
      
   I'm not aware of anyone proposing that, and since it violates such a   
   basic tenet of contract law, I don't see the courts allowing it even if   
   someone actually did try it.   
      
   (Some of the more extreme religious nutjobs think this is _already_   
   legal because they don't recognize our govt in the first place, so I   
   don't consider that to count as a proposed change.)   
      
   > You've never heard of chattel,   
      
   That's called slavery, and it was outlawed in the US long ago.   
      
   OTOH, the traditional definition of marriage _does_ allow an owner to   
   assign slaves to each other and require them to have sex, in addition to   
   the owner being able to rape them, of course.  Are you proposing to   
   bring that back?   
      
   > dowries,   
      
   That has nothing to do with consent.   
      
   > arrangements?   
      
   In the US, at least, there is no such thing; the families may suggest a   
   marriage and tie various incentives to accepting it, but the bride and   
   groom must still consent to be married.  If not, it's void.   
      
   >>> In parts of the world, pre-pubescent girls can marry, which   
   >>> doesn't even make it an argument that "marriage is about   
   >>> procreation.   
   >>   
   >> That's one of the arguments that religious nutjobs use to support   
   >> _your_ position, not mine.   
   >   
   > 'Tain't my position, but a legal and social concept many centuries   
   > old.   
      
   You're the one arguing for the "traditional definition of marriage" as   
   an excuse to discriminate against gays, just as your predecessors used   
   it as an excuse to discriminate against blacks.   
      
   >>> Don't screw around with definitions.   
   >   
   >> Our definitions have changed over time as society has changed,   
   >> something that _anyone_ using the "traditional definition" argument   
   >> must willfully ignore.   
   >   
   > That's hand waiving.   
      
   It's a fact.   
      
   >>>>> Various federal trial court judges have moved well beyond   
   >>>>> DOMA, and they don't have the power to do that, I thought.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Courts can rule however they want if there isn't a precedent   
   >>>> from a higher court.   
   >>>   
   >>> That's not what they're doing.   
   >>   
   >> That's exactly what they're doing.   
   >   
   > Sorry, you're still wrong. There isn't precedent; it's all new law.   
      
   That's what I said, Adam.  If there is no precedent from a higher court,   
   they can rule however they want--and that includes what you call   
   "creating new law".   
      
   Technically, they can even contradict precedent; they'll just get   
   overturned on appeal, and that looks bad on their record.   
      
   S   
      
   --   
   Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein   
   CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the   
   K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)