Proposed solution to the "who can marry" thing.

[umop_ap_sdn]

Poor choice of words on my part. Sorry.

[Mangetout]

*Originally posted by In Conceivable *
**Half a decade? Where do you live?

**The UK

**I have never lived anywhere that didn’t have local elections at least once a year. More often if you count the primaries and runoffs. Why do people only ever think of the presidential elections when they talk about voting.

**We don’t have presidential elections here, but here are the figures:

A person can be legally married (with parental consent) at the age of 16 (or 18 regardless of parental consent).
A person can vote at the age of 18.
Elections take place typically approximately every four years, but local and national elections can be staggered somewhat, however, it is not inconcievable that circumstances might conspire to create an interval of nearly five years between a person’s sixteenth birthday and the date of the next local or national election in which they were eligible to vote.

[In_Conceivable]

Wow! I had no idea it was like that in the UK. In the US the presidental election is every four years but in every area I have ever seen there is at least one local election a year.

[elfkin477]

*Originally posted by Dogface *
**Okay, here’s my solution:

Only those people who have voted in the most recent election are eligible to marry in the USA. This proves that the would-be marrieds are truly responsible citizens, worthy of all the priviliges our society can extend.
For furriners, they can show proof of having voted in the most recent election of their own country. If they come from countries without elections, they can get a waiver. **

Instead, how about rewording the definition of marriage as “A union between two adults”? Then the people who complain that it would open the door to poligomy, bestiality or marrying children :rolleyes: would have less to worry about.

[Bryan_Ekers]

I’m just waiting for the half-starved POW/MIA to stagger home from Vietnam after 30+ years in a jungle prison:

POW: I just want to marry my high-school sweetheart.
High-School Sweetheart: I’ve waited for him all this time.
Beaurocrat: Wait a minute, according to our records, you’ve never voted!
POW: Well, I enlisted in early 1970 when I was 18, so I was too young to vote, and I was captured in the spring of 1971 and turned into a slave-laborer in a rice factory, so even after the 26th Amendment passed, I was kind of out-of-touch.
Beaurocrat: Don’t give me your excuses. Irresponsible citizens like YOU are destroying the nation! Show me a Voter Receipt after November 2004 and maybe we’ll review your case. NEXT!

Any “solution” that requires more regulation and governmental control deserves to be challenged on its face.

[umop_ap_sdn]

*Originally posted by elfkin477 *
**Instead, how about rewording the definition of marriage as “A union between two adults”? Then the people who complain that it would open the door to poligomy, bestiality or marrying children :rolleyes: would have less to worry about. **

Actually, I think polygamy should be allowed too.

Before I read this thread I had no idea that the government was explicitly permitting (sanctioning) a specific type of marriage. This to me is wrong. It would make more sense IMO to declare marriage an inalienable right and then enforce the age limit.

*Originally posted by Bryan Ekers *
**Any “solution” that requires more regulation and governmental control deserves to be challenged on its face. **

Agreed. There’s too much government regulation as it is.