>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>I might be missing something, but you state that marriage is a choice. Apparently it is only a choice for some people, not for all. As far as 'responsibilities', are you contending then that heterosexuality is a 'responsibility'? If so, then for some it is a responsibility that simply cannot be met regardless of their wishes. Should responsibilties be exclusive?
>>>
>>>It is a choice for everyone. Nobody forbids a person to enter a marriage contract, and government does not care what he/she will do next (i.e. in sexual terms). In regard to responsibilities, you got badly mistaken. I meant spousal responsibility, i.e. one should care for his/her spouse/kids whole life, etc; i.e. it is ethical things. I meant that marriage is primarily great responsibility, not a great privilege as some may argue, and, accordingly, if someone chose to not have the marriage then it is not a punishment.
>>
>>Ok, I misunderstood what you were saying. Although, in California, marriage is not really a choice for everyone, unless one has to also choose (along with getting married), to be dishonest. It's still a choice, even for homosexuals, but it's no longer an honest choice. In California, a homosexual may not choose to marry the person he/she would really want to marry.
>>
>>Afaic, the whole thing is utter nonsense. It revolves entirely around two things - religion, and the desire to have something that others with whom one disagrees, cannot have. A sad commentary on Californian priorities.
>
>I agree with you. The whole thing is fed by professional protesters who care about their or someone else right to 'marry' his/her partner much less than about own ego and/or political gain. Some people just cannot stand someone else clinging to traditional values like going to church or marrying the opposite sex. It is not enough to them that their behavior is accepted and protected by law. They want anyone else to behave like them.

Nice try, but the 'protesters' do not care at all about "someone else clinging to traditional values like going to church or marrying the opposite sex". As far as they're concerned, those people can go on doing what they've always done - no sweat. They'd merely like the privilege of doing the same. you feel it's fair to bar them, so in fact, you are the one who can't stand others not behaving like you (ie - be heterosexual if they want to get married).