I asked for the reason, not a list of other consequences you think that reason might entail.
What is the reason?
Because a 9 year old is not an adult, cannot make adult decisions, and putting her(or him) in that situation would almost inevitably be child abuse.
How is that in any way comparable to SSM?
It’s the same reason a 10 year-old can’t get a driver’s license.
C’mon, connect the dot.
I may be wrong but Bricker is asking if there is something in the 14th amendment that allows for ageism?
Probably the former. People who are close to someone will become accustomed to his face and are more likely to see it in a more positive light than someone who is not. An average of their guesses, I would suspect, would be closer to the population average than to the real person. A large enough group of strangers, though, will have the benefit of the wisdom of the crowd, without the rose-tinted spectacles.
I am asking about the principle. What is the principle in the Constitution that allows the government to forbid nine year olds from marrying?
Is it adulthood? Where in the Constitution does it say that equal protection applies to adults, but only adults?
I have no idea. Why can’t you just say it, instead of exhorting me to connect the dots? Perhaps my dots are flawed. I wish to understand what you say the dots are.
Bolding mine.
I don’t really have anything else to add to that, I just feel like it ought to be highlighted, for the sake of the people who missed it on the first go around.
Wow.
Are activist judges to blame for the current acceptance of ageism?
That was a feature of the Thomas confirmation hearings, as I see it.
Can you see any relevant differences between a person’s sex and a person’s age when it comes to the rights and privileges they may have? Any at all? If not, I don’t think I want you watching children, lest you do something like try to give them alcohol.
Their into opposition no matter what.
Irrelevant to my current line of inquiry. The claim was:
I want to understand the “idea” of equal protection, and who gets to define it, and on what they are permitted to base their understanding.
My idea of “relevant” is not yours. So why can’t you tell me what you believe the answer is, and where you learned it.
I guess I missed the part where it was confirmed that Anita Hill lied. But, you know, what do I know? It’s just the word of a woman against the word of a man on the subject of sexual assault. Bitches lie all the time about that shit, am I right? It’s way more likely that someone get falsely accused of rape than commit rape. Just like all those shallow, fame-seeking sluts who tried to sue our great and powerful leader and am I laying it on thick enough to successfully display my sarcasm and disdain for this line of reasoning yet?!
Yeah, no, I’m sorry. If you can’t figure this one out, even after the big-ass hint I gave you (why is it okay for me to drink alcohol but not a 5-year-old?) I’m not helping you. You’re on your own. Sorry buddy.
Did Juanita Broaderick lie?
When come back, please bring question of even remote relevance. I’m not interested in yet another “liberal hypocrisy trap”.
You seem to be hinting that age is somehow involved. But where is marriage age listed in the Constitution? No, that can’t be it.
Must be just a rule you made up because you thought that’s how things should be done.
Your prior post seemed to hint that you thought it was wrong to question a woman’s accusation of rape. But since you’re reluctant to do more than hint at your underlying arguments, I can’t really tell.
You said: