# Resolved: We need a constitutional amendment guaranteeing marriage/reproductive rights **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 30, 2022, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-we-need-a-constitutional-amendment-guaranteeing-marriage-reproductive-rights/974014 "2022-10-30T12:24:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![DesertDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desertdog/32/11503_2.png) [@DesertDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesertDog)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2022, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-we-need-a-constitutional-amendment-guaranteeing-marriage-reproductive-rights/974014/62 "2022-11-08T12:14:08Z")
Surgical vasectomies have been reversible for some years now. The problem is that the blocked sperm get reabsorbed by the body and, being haploid, are recognized as “not self.” The immune system attacks them and weakens them to the point of not being able to make the long swim even when the road has been cleared. After some years vasectomied. successful conception can drop to as low as 30%. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2022, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-we-need-a-constitutional-amendment-guaranteeing-marriage-reproductive-rights/974014/63 "2022-11-08T15:37:56Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > This however does not address **UltraVires** ’s second criticism, which is that the words “legally allowed to enter into contracts” encompass minors. A contract entered into with a minor is not void on its face, although it is not enforceable. Presumably you do not want to prohibit the States from outlawing child marriages. Yes but my original idea was to emphasize that marriage in the United States is a civil contract so that YOUR position of, “My religion states …” affects YOU and not everyone else. Of course using the generic YOU not specifically Max\_S. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2022, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-we-need-a-constitutional-amendment-guaranteeing-marriage-reproductive-rights/974014/64 "2022-11-08T17:21:20Z")
I’m not sure I follow. Religion has nothing to do with what I wrote. As a matter of construction, “legally allowed to enter into contracts” is practically an _empty phrase_. It covers nearly everyone, even children. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2022, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-we-need-a-constitutional-amendment-guaranteeing-marriage-reproductive-rights/974014/65 "2022-11-08T17:24:55Z")
I know you didn’t. I was just using your observation to point out why I felt we have to have the amendment have marriage qua contract and not religion, tradition, et alii arguments of marriage is only a (biological? birth?) man and woman. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2022, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-we-need-a-constitutional-amendment-guaranteeing-marriage-reproductive-rights/974014/66 "2022-11-09T00:49:36Z")
If the concern is that you don’t want to constitutionalise child marriages, just borrow the language of the 26th amendment: > Neither the United States nor any State shall deny or abridge the right of two unmarried persons who are eighteen years of age or older to marry, provided they are competent to enter into contracts. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2022, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-we-need-a-constitutional-amendment-guaranteeing-marriage-reproductive-rights/974014/67 "2022-11-09T01:15:13Z")
Well, historically ('70s) most states required men to be 21 and women to be 18 (without parental consent). I think Nebraska still requires people to be 19 or have parental consent. I had thought “competent” excludes most minors on its own - was I wrong? ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2022, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-we-need-a-constitutional-amendment-guaranteeing-marriage-reproductive-rights/974014/68 "2022-11-09T01:22:30Z")
It will vary with the state’s laws. What if a state says that anyone aged 14 and over is competent to contract? Then they would be eligible to marry, if that is the test. There is no one standard of competency to contract. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2022, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-we-need-a-constitutional-amendment-guaranteeing-marriage-reproductive-rights/974014/69 "2022-11-09T17:56:38Z")
I mean yes, but if a state declares a 14 year old competent to contract then it applies across the board. So I originally suggested the word “competent” because it keeps the status quo with regard to child marriage and age of majority, while also meeting **Saint\_Cad** ’s goal of tying the right to marriage to the general right to enter into contracts that are enforceable in court. ~Max [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-we-need-a-constitutional-amendment-guaranteeing-marriage-reproductive-rights/974014.md?page=3)