>>>>Can 3-year old marry or it is a blatant case of age discrimination?
>>>
>>>I respect both your intellect and your right to religious conviction, but adult rights are a different category and this should be seen in that context. Surely as a conservative you would agree that contract law should have only as much government stricture as is necessary. Civil marriage is a contract, not a religious covenant.
>>>
>>I fail to see why my message should be linked to religious conviction (not even mentioning intellect issues). Contract law does not say that every contract is identical, and there are legal guidelines prescribing various kinds of contarcts in different circumstances. One should also use the rule of precedent. If certain kind of the contract was created with specific limitations then these limitations become part of the contract, and, by very general rule of the contract law, one cannot uphold one part of the contract and reject another, unless it is specifically stipulated.
>>As you see, an attempt to present it as a legal dispute may not fly. Also, there are no legal obstacles for an individual to acquire/delegate any right inherent to married person; therefore, any talk about discrimination is very weak. If some person cannot get marriage certificate, because he/she does not want to comply with conditions, this is not a discrimination. There are zillion life situations when reasonable conditions applied. Marriage is one of these situations, btw it was/is more about responsibilities than privileges (it is already about ethical side of the issue).
>
>But why is heterosexual orientation a "reasonable condition"? If one is capable of fulfilling the responsibilities, it would seem arguments against are based on tribal custom and religious stricture - not exactly compelling against an individual's right of free consensual association.
>
>I understand the cloaking of the argument, but I object to the state enforcing religious laws. There are many precedents based on tribal custom that have certainly lost their relevance. The argument I make is a libertarian one, in limiting the state's ability to regulate agreements. I get what you are saying that there is the option of contracts granting similar rights, but as long as "marriage" has any special legal status I think it is incumbent on the state to say why a whole group of citizens are excluded.
>
>I just don't see that heterosexual marriage - or the fabric of society - is threatened by allowing other parties to have access to the same contract. My wife was not a "second choice" based on limited legal options <bg> I will grant you there are large numbers of people who should not marry, reproduce, vote or have a Neilsen box. But that my own judgment, unfortunately not the basis for law. <s>

Every contract allows 'privacy', i.e. it gives contactual rights only to those who signed to it, not to every stranger feeling that it is unfair that someone has it and 'me' not. Also, I don't think that 'tribal ancestry' is a strong argument to reduce marriage conditions. First of all, marriage is not a tribal institute; tribes existed before the marriage. Marriage is a family institute, and so far, 'family' is not considered obsoletely ancient. In regard to threatening, every group has right to be exclusive, e.g. some churchgoers have right to have their space for their own. The same way, marriage holders have right to have marriage institute for themselves. It is perfectly fine and legal as long as it does not discriminates against other people in terms of basic rights. Marriage is not obligatory, it is a choice, and every choice comes with responsibilities. If one is willing to accept these responsibilities then he/she gets married, if not, it is Ok too, but this is not a marriage. It is something else and some conveniently looking name can be applied to it.