Now they won't even let Christians hand out Bibles in Orange County, Florida.

Oct 2010
16,145
6,854
Well, if I were a Christian, faced with Satanism literature, I'd prefer that people found out more about:

- an infinitely wise God (who made mistakes)
- a perfect God (who was murderously jealous)
- an omniscient God (who couldn't predict that certain things would happen)
- a transcendentally moral God (who gave instructions on how to acquire slaves and unwilling female partners) and
- an infinitely merciful God (who killed millions of people in rage).

Hey - anything else would be anti-Christian!

So I hope that's clear.
A God the loves you and wants a personal relationship with you YET, you never meet or see while alive. One who never properly mentors you yet expects you to know his wishes, less ye spend a eternity in hell if you GUESS wrongly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Mar 2010
7,826
1,972
Texas
I can read the amendment for myself just fine. But according to U.S. Const. art. III, § 1 (which I've also read for myself), the judges - not I - are the people designated by the Constitution to decide what it means.


I've already given this analysis elsewhere. You need to start reading my posts instead of bitching about them.
I didn't think you could. You really should not boast about how learned you are in jurisprudence and court decisions if you can't even cite a single one to back up your BS claims about the 14th amendment and consent law.

Giving you the challenge again.


point to any legal decision by any federal judge that claimed the "persons" referenced to in the 14th amendment only referred to adults.
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
77,247
46,603
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
Why? You're challenge is meaningless. The law isn't tailored to your ideology. The 14th Amendment no more needs to mention children in the context of sex than it does homosexuals in any context. Shall I give you the whole analysis again, just because you didn't read it the first time?

*sigh* Here's the unannotated version (my citations are not on this computer and I'm away for a few days):

There are 5 criteria for determining a suspect classification for equal protection purposes:

1. The class characteristic does not affect the member's ability to participate in or contribute to society.
2. The characteristic is immutable.
3. The characteristic is not a matter of choice.
4. There is a history of discrimination against that class.
5. The class cannot protect itself through the political process.

Now, applied:

1. Age does affect children's ability to participate in and contribute to society. 0 points
2. Age is mutable. 0 points
3. Age is not a matter of choice. 1 point
4. It is arguable whether there is a history of discrimination against children. 1/2 point
5. Children cannot protect themselves through the political process - but there are advocacy organizations that do this for them. 1/2 point

Total: 2 points. That's not enough for children to be a protected class, which means discriminatory legislation can be passed so long as it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The burden, with rational basis scrutiny, is on the law's challenger to show that there is no legitimate government interest, and/or that the legislation is not rationally related to it.

So ... the challenge to you is whether you can meet the rational basis burden. I'm betting you can't.
 
Mar 2010
7,826
1,972
Texas
Why? You're challenge is meaningless. The law isn't tailored to your ideology. The 14th Amendment no more needs to mention children in the context of sex than it does homosexuals in any context. Shall I give you the whole analysis again, just because you didn't read it the first time?
Of course you would say that since you have nothing to back up your claim that the 14th amendment only applies to adults which is crucial to your argument that it can be used to only justifufy 2 person adult homosexual marriage.

You are starting to learn why it is so stupid to pretend an amendment written over a 100 years ago can be bastardized to include modern day issues like sexual preference.

*sigh* Here's the unannotated version (my citations are not on this computer and I'm away for a few days):

There are 5 criteria for determining a suspect classification for equal protection purposes:

1. The class characteristic does not affect the member's ability to participate in or contribute to society.
2. The characteristic is immutable.
3. The characteristic is not a matter of choice.
4. There is a history of discrimination against that class.
5. The class cannot protect itself through the political process.

Now, applied:

1. Age does affect children's ability to participate in and contribute to society. 0 points
2. Age is mutable. 0 points
3. Age is not a matter of choice. 1 point
4. It is arguable whether there is a history of discrimination against children. 1/2 point
5. Children cannot protect themselves through the political process - but there are advocacy organizations that do this for them. 1/2 point

Total: 2 points. That's not enough for children to be a protected class, which means discriminatory legislation can be passed so long as it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The burden, with rational basis scrutiny, is on the law's challenger to show that there is no legitimate government interest, and/or that the legislation is not rationally related to it.

So ... the challenge to you is whether you can meet the rational basis burden. I'm betting you can't.
I'm not interested in the criteria you make up to pretend I cannot read the 14th amendment and decide if children should be included when the only classification is person.

Can you point to anywhere the list of requirements you just fabricated are the rule for determining whether or not an amendment can be used to justify a sexual preference by any federal court?

Anywhere? Love to see it.
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
77,247
46,603
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
Of course you would say that since you have nothing to back up your claim that the 14th amendment only applies to adults which is crucial to your argument that it can be used to only justifufy 2 person adult homosexual marriage.
It's not crucial to my argument at all. You are the one making the baseless claim that marriage would have to apply to children, and you have provided absolutely no authority justifying your claim. My challenge to you - in addition to the one I already provided - is to provide an authority that justifies your claim. I know you can't, because it doesn't exist, but I'd love to see you try.

You are starting to learn why it is so stupid to pretend an amendment written over a 100 years ago can be bastardized to include modern day issues like sexual preference.
I'm "learning" no such thing, as I disagree. The Constitution is what it is, and is not being bastardized at all. You're just saying that because you disagree with all the jurisprudence on the matter, and every judge who has made a decision you don't like. You could at least provide some legal authority to back it up.

I'm not interested in the criteria you make up....
I didn't make anything up. Equality Foundation of Greater Cincinnati, Inc., et al. v. the City of Cincinnati, No. C-1-93-773 (United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division, 1994). If you scroll down enough, you will see the criteria I listed.

Now you answer the question: can you overcome the rational basis test to overturn laws prohibiting children under a given age from marrying?