That’s easy. Change the age-of-consent laws — which should be unconstitutional anyway by your logic, since they were passed by a majority to restrict the rights of other citizens.

Indeed.

A State cannot confer separate and unequal rights on socially disfavored groups because excluding a disfavored group from the rights enjoyed by all other members of society brands the disfavored group with an indelible mark of inferiority and that stigmatic harm is itself a judicially cognizable and remediable injury.

So being branded with a mark of inferiority is sufficient reason for pedophiles to be granted marriage rights.

And it gets even better.

Neither tradition nor moral disapproval is a sufficient basis for a State to impair a person’s constitutionally protected right to marry.

So the fact that there is a significant amount of tradition and moral disapproval against having sex with and marrying underage children is irrelevant and does not abrogate the absolute constitutional “right” to marry.

You realize when you look at this filing just how loopy these people are. They are willing to literally undermine anything and everything to get gay-sex marriage, no matter what happens after the fact.

Now watch and see how John flip-flops and decides it’s a good argument.

No need to flip or flop, NDT, because your argument still remains a poor one. Your analogy is flawed in its premise.

Unless you can explain to me, in the context of judicial review, the difference between a “compelling” reason for discrimination and a “very compelling” reason, such that the latter would be OK for a State to do and the former not OK… then your use of the adverb “very” was silly.

Oh please, surely you jest with this inane BS? Strike the word “very” if you like because other than its use as an adverb I never used the word as distinguishing a difference with the term “compelling reason”. Do you have other grammatical gnats you’d care to strain as the centerpiece of your argument?

Here’s a hint: the two statement are at variance. They’re saying two different things. Only one is correct (and it’s mine).

*Sigh*… You really do wish to major in the minors. Tell you what, if you really want to see my arguments outlined completely feel free to take a gander at this filing by Olson/Boies because it should seem quite familiar, only of course given their expertise much superior to what I’ve articulated. Pay special attention to pp. 261-285.

Parking privileges are not a “right”. Marriage licenses are not a “right”. You can try to warp “equal protection” to demand them, but that then requires that EVERYONE receive them.

… which would then be the poor argument. NDT, exactly.

People who treat a State marriage license as a “right” do not understand the institution of State licensing. It’s unfortunate that certain Court decisions on State licensing, doubtless under the influence of Left ideology, have used the language of “rights” at times. But, betraying their own well-justified uncertainty about it, courts have by no means used that lagnuage consistently. Even the _Loving_ decision speaks of a “freedom”, “liberty” or “choice” to marry more often than it speaks of a “right” to marry. That is why one of the marriage gay marriage groups named itself Freedom to Marry (rather than Right to Marry).

Now watch and see how John flip-flops and decides it’s a good argument.

– The state gives marriage licenses to male-female couples, which provides them with a clear benefit.

– By both statutory and case law, the state cannot discriminate on the basis of gender.

– Preventing me from having a marriage license because I and my chosen sexual partners are not of a certain gender or a couple is a violation of equal protection and denies me privileges and benefits given to others simply because of my gender or my choice to have relationships with multiple individuals.

– Even though the right to a marriage license is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, the Ninth Amendment makes it clear that I have constitutional rights outside the Constitution, one of which could certainly be marriage licenses.

So the entire gay-sex marriage movement is based on the structure of that “poor argument”, John.

The simpler and more consistent answer is the one I give. Parking privileges are not a “right”. Marriage licenses are not a “right”. You can try to warp “equal protection” to demand them, but that then requires that EVERYONE receive them.

- Unless you can explain to me, in the context of judicial review, the difference between a “compelling” reason for discrimination and a “very compelling” reason, such that the latter would be OK for a State to do and the former not OK… then your use of the adverb “very” was silly.

- You say “the State cannot require such licenses to engage in an activity and then block equal access to such licenses without a very [sic] compelling reason.” By contrast, I say “the whole point of a licensing scheme is precisely to block access [to something]… The question for the courts to review is whether [that kind of] discrimination rises to the level of being ‘invidious’”. Here’s a hint: the two statement are at variance. They’re saying two different things. Only one is correct (and it’s mine).

“Very”? What would “very” mean, in this context?

–adverb
[...] 2.(used as an intensive emphasizing superlatives or stressing identity or oppositeness): the very best thing; in the very same place as before.

Again, the whole point of a licensing scheme is precisely to block access for those who don’t meet the qualifications for the license. To be clear: anyone can apply for the license… and be rejected, i.e. discriminated against, when it’s clear that they don’t meet the qualifications. The question for the courts to review is whether said discrimination rises to the level of being “invidious” (the word they used in the _Loving_ decision).

You may wish to re-read what you wrote here because you just answered your own question.

So here’s an argument.

– The state gives premium parking passes to disabled individuals, which provides them with a clear benefit.

– By both statutory and case law, the state cannot discriminate on the basis of disability.

– Preventing me from having a premium parking pass because I am not disabled is a violation of equal protection and denies me privileges and benefits given to others simply because of my lack of a disability.

– Even though premium parking is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, the Ninth Amendment makes it clear that I have constitutional rights outside the Constitution, one of which could certainly be privileged parking.

I’ve argued… that the State cannot require such licenses to engage in an activity and then block equal access to such licenses without a very compelling reason.

“Very”? What would “very” mean, in this context?

Again, the whole point of a licensing scheme is precisely to block access for those who don’t meet the qualifications for the license. To be clear: anyone can apply for the license… and be rejected, i.e. discriminated against, when it’s clear that they don’t meet the qualifications. The question for the courts to review is whether said discrimination rises to the level of being “invidious” (the word they used in the _Loving_ decision).

John, I hope you don’t think that a State license for anything – marriage, driving, professional practice, fishing or anything – is a *right*. It’s not, it’s a privilege legislated (i.e. created) by the State.

Of course not. I’ve argued, and continue to do so, that the State cannot require such licenses to engage in an activity and then block equal access to such licenses without a very compelling reason. Hence the 14th Amendment argument rightly championed by such conservatives as Ted Olson.

We also have a 14th Amendment which guarantees fundamental rights that no majority is entitled to deny.

John, I hope you don’t think that a State license for anything – marriage, driving, professional practice, fishing or anything – is a *right*. It’s not, it’s a privilege legislated (i.e. created) by the State.

Some people (particularly leftists) have gotten fast and loose with the language and lost sight of that, but that doesn’t change the underlying fact, which is that fundamental genuine rights exist above and logically prior to the State and just laws / just States therefore merely recognize them; while State licenses, by contrast, are legislative creations and as such, are inherently discriminatory.

The People get to legislate the qualifications for license X. There is judicial review as regards possible infringements on (real) rights, on equal protection, etc., but clearly the qualifications must and will discriminate against somebody, or they would be meaningless. For example, the qualifications for a medical license discriminate against all those who have not been to medical school.

Courts have never held that governments can’t discriminate in setting the qualifications for licenses, they have simply stopped particularly irrelevant and invidious examples of discrimination, e.g. racial. If the discrimination is rational and relevant – e.g., you must actually be qualified in medicine to get the doctor’s license, or you must actually be a human couple to get the human married couple’s license – then it’s cool.

If you want to argue that the way marriage licensing discriminates against group X is unconstitutional, or a violation of Equal Protection, go right ahead. But please don’t pretend that the license as such is some sort of right.

1. Plural marriages. The burden is upon the state to give compelling reasons why folks desiring plural marriages should have their rights abridged under the 1st & 14th Amendments. Religious or personal bias against such marriages is not enough.
2. Incestuous marriages. Same as #1.

No. If the People say “We want to create a licensing scheme for unmarried, unrelated human -couples- to easily become recognized as couples, having privileges and obligations that we are hereby packaging into that license”, the People can. Exluding related couples and/or non-couples (i.e. excluding plural situations) from it is not violating anybody’s actual *rights*. No more than excluding the medically unqualified from the medical license violate’s anyone’s rights. The burden either isn’t, or at least it shouldn’t be, on the State to show a compelling reason to exclude the medically unqualified from the medical license, non-couples from the couples’ license, etc.

I’ve made that exact point quite often with my many liberal (and gay friends), over and over again – pointing out my belief in small government.. one that stays out of my wallet, my house, and especially my (and their) bedroom.

I’ve yet to actually make any connection with any of them on that, though… apparently reason is lost with them.

No. The “State” and the electorate cannot be separated. The Constitution itself begins with “We the People”, making it clear that the electorate is the ultimate authority in our system of government. You seem to believe that the government itself is superior to the electorate and need not pay any attention to it.

Not my problem if reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit. Personally I think you do this deliberately but since I can’t read your mind, unlike your “uncanny ability” to do so, perhaps I should be more charitable. Naaaah, I’m feeling curmudgeonly and it’s a bit of a tradition in blog comments to assume the worst so in this case why fight it?

The reason minors are unable to give consent in any contractual arrangement is because of laws passed by the majority to deny them that “equal protection” — which, according to your logic, is again unconstitutional.

Nope, but I’m not surprised that you continue to insist otherwise. I’m used to this from you.
The Founders’ intent was not to conjure rights out of thin air, as you are advocating.
Indeed, nor was it their intent for us to abide by a sola scriptura mentality when it came to the Constitution and our rights. Instead, limits were placed upon the State and the burden of proof was shifted to the State in everything regarding our rights. Hence why all of our rights, inalienable or otherwise, are not enumerated in the Constitution as the 9th Amendment quite clearly states.