That would be what sole sovereign would mean, however hard drugs are illegal for her to take just like any other person.
Politics. People who might otherwise support this proposal will oppose it because of the implied legalization of incest.
Why would you want to do that? You construct it in a way such that marriage cannot be used as a tool for oppression, but I find it diffcult to see why, other than based on some religious aesthetic or personal squick factor, you would feel the need to restrict polyamourous bonding.
I don’t get it; don’t plenty of rights depend on, as you say, “the physical location”, or some such?
First, try to show a little respect to both sides by calling them by their chosen names; pro-choice and pro-life. Calling it the pro-abortion argument is like saying the other side is making the anti-freedom argument.
Second, the issue of physical location is a pretty significant one and can’t be lightly dismissed the way you do. The bodily autonomy issue is ridiculous if you apply it to punching another person. But it’s a real issue when a fetus is inside a woman.
First of all, there is no pro-abortion argument. There is an abortion rights argument, don’t poison the well.
Secondly, once the baby is born it has its own bodily autonomy with the parent acting in the best interest of the child. Beating a child is wrong.
This doesn’t make any sense. If it’s been born, it’s not “her body” anymore.
“What are you doing?”
“Uh, mowing the lawn.”
“You’re mowing your lawn?”
“Yep.”
“Are you going to mow the lawn over here?”
“No, that’s not my yard.”
“And therefore not allowed?
“Right.”
“So it depends on the physical location?”
“Yep.”
“Well, that’s a weakness of your argument!”
“It — really isn’t.”
ISTM that is part of the problem here. You need some basis upon the general from which to build the specific.
On the abortion/reproduction/general sexual condict front, a “natural” right to bodily autonomy is, to us today in 2022, a damn no-brainer.
But in reality for time immemorial it was not, it was “understood” that society could legislate on matters of personal morals and outlaw or refuse to recognize “abnormal” behaviors, and thus “originalists” will tell you it was not one of the unenumerated rights the framers meant in the 9th.
Plus as mentioned before it then raises the issue as to whether we can legally regulate self-injurious behavior.
I am reminded of the late Justice Ginsburg’s issue with Roe, which was that it should have rested on the constitutionally textual Equal Protection basis, rather than the then relatively recently interpreted Right to Privacy. To this very day, a very large segment of the population including people “learned in the Law”, stand by that the “Right of Privacy” is something that someone pulled out of their fundament, or at the very least, that society should be empowered to censure some private consenting behavior as malum per se, regardless of “victimless” nature, if not because of some sort of higher-power commandment, then because consent to it is intrinsecally invalid or is detrimental to social stability.
ISTM marriage could be the simpler matter to handle, but there the further issue is about how our culture and society privileges the state of marriage as something that is beyond any other “mere” civil contract in not just degree but nature – face it, if it were just seen as a “mere” contract about who makes decisions for whom and who shares in property, marriage equality would not have been as hard-fought.
I suppose you could seek language establishing that a right of civil marriage between competent consenting adults may not be abridged on the basis of race, color, sex, gender identity, origin, nationality, disability or economic condition, nor shall such category disparage any right, entitlement or privilege granted by marriage under the law; provided that, no person of whatever age may be compelled into marriage by any other party regardless of relation to the person – and leave to the state the matter of what is the age of adulthood and what are the degrees of consanguinity to exclude.
Yeah, really… once you are born, you are a distinct person. And in civilized legal systems, it then becomes the parents’ legal duty to protect the minor.
Yep, remember how the ERA was going to force women to serve in combat?
You don’t need it as a basis for an amendment, since the the amendment becomes the governing law. You are not trying to use common law or precedent, you are simply declaring the unfettered right of the gestational parent to terminate a pregnancy (possibly before some definition of viability) at their sole discretion. As long as there is no conflict with any other provision on the Constitution, you are done.
I’m confused by the wording. If it is to read “legally allowed to enter into contracts to marry” then it seems self-confirming. I would assume that you mean, that any two people who have the right to enter into a general contract, can further enter into a marriage contract/agreement/ceremony.
Contrary to popular belief, minors can enter into contracts, but those contracts, in some instances are voidable on reaching the age of majority. The ten year old kid who walks down to the corner store and picks up groceries has entered into a contract.
I think this proposal needs work unless you want to legalize a lot of the unseemly marriages mentioned above.
Then how would you word it?
I disagree with the idea as I have said many times before but if what you are wanting to do is legalize same sex marriage then you can say that “Persons of the same sex or gender have the identical right to marry as previously enjoyed only by those of the opposite sex or gender.” That seems to work.
As this thread seems to have backdoored into a prohibited subject, I’m closing it for review.
We’ll decide by tomorrow if it can be reopened or if it stays closed.
@Aspenglow & @raventhief, I’ll flag this and we’ll need to discuss it.
We had our discussion and the thread will be reopened.
Modnote: This thread is not for arguing Men’s Rights. That does include arguing over child support and a say in the mother have procedures of any sort done.
If I missed any of the Men’s rights postings, please flag it to let us know
I agree, but it is never going to happen because it is so difficult to amend the Constitution.
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.
The Republicans have shown time and time again that they will always vote as a block, so the democrats would actually need to have a 2/3 majority in the House and the Senate or a 2/3 majority of the states. It just isn’t politically feasible the way things stand in this nation.
There is also the possibility of an Article V convention for passing amendments.
Good point, but it still requires a 2/3 vote in Congress to initiate that.