Open thread: Federal judge’s ruling on Proposition 8 coming soon; Update: Prop 8 struck down
posted at 4:45 pm on August 4, 2010 by Allahpundit
It’s set to drop sometime between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. ET, and since it’s sure to be the story of the day, let’s get a thread up now for rapid reaction when it does. The suspense mounts: Will Judge Vaughn Walker hand conservatives a legal victory by upholding Prop 8 against Ted Olson’s and David Boies’s equal protection challenge? Or will he hand conservatives a political victory by striking the law down, thereby irritating the (decreasing) majority nationwide that opposes gay marriage and giving the GOP an irresistible midterm talking point about “activist judges”? Heads you win, tails they lose. Unless of course you’re noted gay-marriage opponent Barack Obama, who I’m betting will be oddly downbeat if Walker vindicates his ostensible position by upholding the law.
While we wait, you can read Olson’s opening statement at the trial here. The key line for legal purposes is “There is no rational justification for this unique pattern of discrimination.” In any equal protection case, there are three levels of scrutiny: (1) strict scrutiny, which applies to laws that discriminate based on race or religion; (2) intermediate scrutiny, which applies to laws that discriminate based on gender; and (3) rational-basis review, which applies to all other forms of discrimination, especially economic. Basically, a law that falls into the first category is always unconstitutional, a law that falls into the second is sometimes unconstitutional (it depends on the specifics), and a law that falls into the third is almost always constitutional. Because the Supreme Court has never held that gays are a “suspect class” and therefore deserving of the special protection of strict scrutiny, Olson had a choice of how to approach this. Either he could argue that they should be a suspect class, in which case Prop 8 would inevitably be struck down, or he could forget the suspect class stuff and argue that even under the lowest level of scrutiny — rational-basis review — Prop 8 should be struck down because denying marriage rights to gays serves no rational purpose. He apparently went the latter route, which is smart insofar as the Supremes will be reluctant to extend “suspect class” status any further than it already is and because Anthony Kennedy has already written two landmark decisions striking down anti-gay laws — one of which was explicitly based on rational-basis review. In other words, Olson already has his eye on this case landing in the high court and he’s playing for a 5-4 win with Kennedy as the deciding vote, figuring that if AK was willing to call discrimination against gays irrational once before, he’ll be willing to do so again.
So there’s the legal posture, and there’s your explanation why this case will assuredly be appealed to the (gulp) Ninth Circuit no matter which way it goes. Stand by for updates.
Update: My timing was perfect: Just as I hit publish on this post, the news broke that Walker has torpedoed Prop 8. No surprise. Waiting for the opinion.
Update: Okay, here’s the decision. The law was struck down on two grounds, both due process (page 109) and, as expected, equal protection (page 117). And as expected, the EP ruling is that there’s no rational basis for limiting marriage to straights.
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
Update: The LA Times notes that even the witnesses who testified on behalf of Prop 8 made important concessions:
Backers of Proposition 8 contended that the legal burden was on the challengers to prove there was no rational justification for voting for the measure. They cited as rational a view that children fare best with both a father and a mother.
But defense witnesses conceded in cross-examination that studies show children reared from birth by same-sex couples fared as well as those born to opposite-sex parents and that marriage would benefit the families of gays and lesbians.
Update: Gabe Malor has another key excerpt from the opinion the lack of compelling witness testimony in defense of the law.
Update: CNN has a handy dandy guide to how this will make its way up to the ladder to the Supreme Court. First comes the three-judge hearing in the Ninth Circuit, then comes an en banc hearing of the entire court, and then presumably the Supremes will grant cert. Possibly … just in time for the 2012 election?
Update: A good point by Marc Ambinder on why the evidentiary portions of the ruling are arguably more important than the legal conclusions. Appellate courts can overrule the latter but they’re usually bound by the trial court’s findings of fact. So Walker’s finding, based on the testimony, that “Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union” should in theory also guide the Supreme Court.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 11 12 13 14 Next »
we can always count on you to spout BS and garbage.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 10:57 AM
Interracial marriage is perfectly relevant. Just because the majority finds something immoral, as opposed to a powerful minority, doesn’t make it OK to act on that feeling through the law. The fact remains that there was no rational basis for denying interracial marriage, in the same way that there is no rational basis for denying gay marriage. The size of the population that finds it immoral is largely irrelevant, given the law.
ernesto on August 5, 2010 at 10:58 AM
I can’t be the only person who knows that children learn certain things — some of them quite subtle, yet important — from their mothers (female) and from their fathers (male).
I remember how differently my parents reacted when I was roughed up at the age of 10 by two neighborhood boys who were slightly younger. I made the mistake of saying “hello” to them as I rode by on my bike, and the next thing I knew, I was flat on the ground picking dirt and pine needles out of my mouth.
My mother’s reaction was to “mother” me, brushing away my angry tears and being sympathetic. My father’s reaction was to point out that even little boys can be real bastards sometimes, and that life can be unfair. He was advising me to shake off my surprise and anger, and learn something from that unpleasant experience.
Both of them reacted in ways that were different, but helpful.
That’s a very small example of what I mean. Mothers (female) and fathers (male) teach different things. A man can be many things, but never a mother. A woman can be many things, but never a father.
KyMouse on August 5, 2010 at 10:58 AM
I disagree. I think that to debate something you have to attempt to understand that rationales for it in the first place. Maybe the rationales have changed, maybe not, but understanding them leads to clear decision making and ultimately acceptance on the part of society as a whole.
txmomof6 on August 5, 2010 at 10:58 AM
what are you talking about? you libs always descend to idiocy.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 10:58 AM
then pedophilia and polygamy should be fine, right?
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 10:59 AM
While true, its irrelevant with regards to the law. Gay marriage does not prevent 2 people from forming a family, and raising children together. Marriage laws need not guarantee every child two opposite sex parents…if it did, divorce would be illegal.
ernesto on August 5, 2010 at 10:59 AM
So you’re not citing anything fact-based…just your assumption?
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 10:59 AM
no I just did a little research….I know thats beyond someone of your limited intelligence.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 11:00 AM
And I thought I could count on you just to be racist. Not surprised you’re sexist, as well. Way to denigrate the value of mothers, though!
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 11:00 AM
Doesn’t follow.
Count to 10 on August 5, 2010 at 11:00 AM
I’m not against polygamy at all. Pedophilia is of course a giant straw man, as minors are incapable of legally consenting to anything.
ernesto on August 5, 2010 at 11:01 AM
first of all gay couples cannot have children, without outside help. of course we’ve seen what the gays do to adoption in MA, driving the catholic charities out of the business of adoption because they wouldn’t supply children to gays…
but who cares about kids? its all about the gays, to fascists like you.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 11:01 AM
So you would act completely without foresight just because something is unprecedented?
Count to 10 on August 5, 2010 at 11:02 AM
no surprise there.
no straw man, homosexuality is just a form of sex, as is pedophilia, why protect one and not the other?
as far as age of consent…no problem, some judge will fix that!
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 11:02 AM
such stupidity has to hurt, you fat little fascist.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 11:03 AM
The guy just said a boy needs a father more than he needs a mother. Do the math.
If father > mother
Then (father + father) > (father + mother)
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 11:04 AM
and you’re just upset because you’re not man enough for a black woman…or any other color woman for that matter…
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 11:04 AM
pathetically stupid, but just what we expect from you.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 11:04 AM
I operate on looking at historical results of actions taken. Gay marriage has never been legal in this country, so what historical results are you operating upon?
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 11:05 AM
You never change.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 11:05 AM
You may not realize it, dumb as you are, but you’ve actually conceded my point. Have a good day!
ernesto on August 5, 2010 at 11:06 AM
in your dreams.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 11:10 AM
I knew it would bother you. *smirk*
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 11:10 AM
None. If you only look at historical results, you will never see the next thing coming. History is only informative when it repeats itself.
Look, I have seen the way that trying to equate homosexual relationships with marriages can tare lives apart. I have seen someone fall into depression and loose touch with her children because she somehow thought it was better to live a monogamous lifestyle with another woman than simply dally with her on the side (with her husband’s permission no less!). The “monogamous homosexual union” is not something we want to promote.
Count to 10 on August 5, 2010 at 11:12 AM
This thread is an example of why this issue will not be resolved by judicial fiat. The only way FORWARD is for both sides to calm down and debate this without resorting to name calling, violence, threats, intimidation etc. Judicial fiat is an exercise of the police power of the state, but the governed have to consent or chaos ensues. Sorry, sermonizing off/
txmomof6 on August 5, 2010 at 11:14 AM
I really hoped I’d get to see the racism first hand…thank you for not disappointing me.
Bee on August 5, 2010 at 11:14 AM
It’s interesting how frequently you throw it out there as if it was somehow relevant. Why is that?
DarkCurrent on August 5, 2010 at 11:15 AM
whats racist about that aunt bee?
seriously how stupid are you?
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 11:16 AM
The judges could have resolved the issue with a whimper if they had just said that the only resolution was that no marriage would be legally recognized.
Count to 10 on August 5, 2010 at 11:17 AM
One depressed person does not render the concept of monogamous homosexual union invalid, and either way, its not a function of marriage law to promote anything…especially the nuclear family. If that were the case, there would be no divorce. And besides, legal gay marriage doesn’t stop anyone from getting married and having kids the old fashioned way…there’s really no reason to ban it.
ernesto on August 5, 2010 at 11:19 AM
That you’re racist? Doesn’t bother me at all. Amuses me that you’re proud of it.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 11:20 AM
So wait…your argument against gay marriage involves a woman who broke her marriage to cheat? Huh?
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 11:21 AM
Clearly stupid enough to waste time talking to a backward race baiter like yourself. Yes, baiting:
Racist in that it pits one color against another. Racist in that one’s melanin determines character or worth at all. Elementary stuff. I wouldn’t expect you to understand, really.
Bee on August 5, 2010 at 11:22 AM
sorry Goebbels, repeating the same lie doesn’t make it so…
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 11:22 AM
yeah you are stupid, you can’t tell me why its racist, because its not. how is questioning the manhood of your hero madisonfascist racist??
moron.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 11:23 AM
Auto-pilot. I don’t even have to do anything.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 11:23 AM
no you don’t. your fascism and idiocy are well established facts.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 11:25 AM
how is questioning your manhood racist?
moron.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 11:26 AM
so mentioning a black person is racist?
really?
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 11:26 AM
It stops people in homosexual marriages from doing so — and it encourages the young to take it up as a valid lifestyle.
Aw, well. It will probably be a mute point once our children either become genderless computer programs or biological machines able to change gender at will, anyway.
Count to 10 on August 5, 2010 at 11:27 AM
I know, I know. But getting down close to your level is tough. Making cogent and reasoned argument intelligible to the close-minded is indeed a descent into idiocy.
trailboss on August 5, 2010 at 11:28 AM
Why are you so interested in MC’s manhood?
DarkCurrent on August 5, 2010 at 11:28 AM
He wonders what it’s like to have any.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 11:29 AM
And three fathers would be even better than two.
Good Solid B-Plus on August 5, 2010 at 11:30 AM
No, she renounced her wedding vows because she felt like what she was doing was cheating, even when her husband said it wasn’t — and she did it all with the assumption that her ex-husband would still be her best friend after the divorce.
He never really spoke to her again.
Count to 10 on August 5, 2010 at 11:30 AM
I just defined it for you:
Based on this comment:
Has nothing to do with MC and everything to do with your racially-tinged comment even you admitted you said to purposely bait him.
Nice qualification at the end, though. It’s good to see you corral all us different colored women into one pen, at least. Kudos.
Bee on August 5, 2010 at 11:30 AM
As to the “this is violating our first amendment freedom of religion!” argument: no, it is NOT. Civil marriage is a contract. This isn’t about religion. It’s about whether the government has to recognize that contract as valid if it is entered into by two same-sex individuals. The court ruled that the state cannot choose to deny that contract without violating equal protection and due process. Religions are free to not recognize gay marriage. They’re free to criticize it too, per their first amendment speech rights. This does not run afoul of the free exercise clause.
Vyce on August 5, 2010 at 11:32 AM
And yet you think this is an argument for gay marriage…..
tom on August 5, 2010 at 11:33 AM
I think he secretly desires you.
DarkCurrent on August 5, 2010 at 11:33 AM
So that wasn’t a monogamous marriage to begin with, considering the husband’s attitude. How does that speak to the expectant results of an actually monogamous gay marriage?
By the way, I’m not trying to be cold about the case you presented, just objective.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 11:34 AM
Well, there are genetic issues with potential children from the coupling of a father/daughter pair. But a father and his 18 year old son? Can anyone make a rational argument why that should be illegal? Or especially a brother/brother pair. Why exactly should there be incest laws against that coupling? Because some people find it abhorrent? Obviously that’s no longer relevant, so stop being such bigots and let brothers marry.
Good Solid B-Plus on August 5, 2010 at 11:36 AM
Lets get some UFO discussion. The recent release of formarlt classified material confirms what ufo-buffs have been saying for years about ‘why’ its all being kept secret.
johnnyU on August 5, 2010 at 11:36 AM
Hold on there, pard. You’re assuming that Prop 8 supporters understand the difference between religion and government. I would submit that they do not. As the infamous Huckleberry once said while running for Prez, “The laws of the land should be based on the laws of God.” (paraphrased, I think)
trailboss on August 5, 2010 at 11:36 AM
No. The assertion is that gay marriage will cause harm. The assertion needs to be proved, not disproven. I could say that Tonka trucks will rain from the sky tomorrow. Is it my responsibility to prove it, or your responsibility to disprove it?
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 11:36 AM
So by your own admission you have no historical results to go by. Again, you bring this up to support creating same-sex marriage. And with no sense of irony, either.
tom on August 5, 2010 at 11:37 AM
Or even four, for that matter! As right4life said, mothers are less than fathers!
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 11:37 AM
I’m not the one making the assertion that gay marriage will cause damage. Nothing to prove on my end. Logic doesn’t appear to be your strong suit.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 11:38 AM
Four? Just think of the inheritance money!
trailboss on August 5, 2010 at 11:39 AM
If UFOs are allowed to land, aliens will come out and kill us all.
Now you have to prove me wrong. I don’t have to prove that my assertion is right.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 11:39 AM
What if all aliens are GAY? No wonder they are being kept in the closet.
trailboss on August 5, 2010 at 11:41 AM
I’m trying my best to follow along, but what the fuuuuu*k?
Gang-of-One on August 5, 2010 at 11:45 AM
He’s a racist. It’s far from the first time he’s started making assertions about women based on their skin color on this site.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 11:47 AM
Prop 8 is a distraction from issues that really matter to Californians, like THIS.
Mutnodjmet on August 5, 2010 at 11:51 AM
I find it interesting when some lily-white liberals who have never even dated outside their own race accuse someone who is in an interracial marraige of racism.
but its par for the course for liberal fascists to accuse their opponents of racism.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 12:11 PM
aunt Bee another lilly-white liberal…nice try but your accusation is BS…and just proves you’re full of sh**
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 12:13 PM
nice lie. but its what comes naturally for you.
right4life on August 5, 2010 at 12:15 PM
You’re the one proposing change. You’re the one with the burden of proving it will cause no harm. Quit trying to weasel out of the fact that you can do no such thing.
tom on August 5, 2010 at 12:28 PM
How do you prove that something will not happen if you’re doing something that’s never been done before?
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 12:30 PM
Recognizing when you make a fool of yourself doesn’t seem to be your strong suit.
But I’ll say it again for the learning-impaired: The burden of proof is on the one proposing change.
tom on August 5, 2010 at 12:31 PM
It’s not strawman, you idiot.
Age of consent laws are arbitrarily bigoted.
blink on August 5, 2010 at 12:34 PM
And I find it interesting that someone that has dated someone outside their race or is in an interracial marriage will presume that makes people “like them” immune from bias or racism.
Bradky on August 5, 2010 at 12:35 PM
It was monogamous, as far as sex involving any males go (which is really the point of monogamy). The problem is the promotion of homosexual relationships as equivalently good goals as marriages for individuals to look for.
Count to 10 on August 5, 2010 at 12:36 PM
Actually, I’ve developed a nice peachy glow over the summer. Not sure how that’s relevant, but I’m sure you have your reasons.
You’re really outdoing yourself here so don’t let me stop you! Please…continue.
Bee on August 5, 2010 at 12:37 PM
Burden of proof has nothing to do with change, and everything to do with the person making a statement requiring proof.
A will happen if B occurs. <- requires proof
No, it won't. <- does not require proof, since negatives can't be proven
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 12:38 PM
Really. Interesting.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 12:39 PM
I find it interesting that you think you know the first thing about who I’ve dated and the color of their skin.
Bee on August 5, 2010 at 12:39 PM
Wait…the point of monogamy is for there to be only one male, but not one female? Tell me I’m reading that wrong.
If a person is attracted to the same sex, what is your proposal? That they not try to be monogamous? That they marry someone they’re not attracted to?
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 12:41 PM
Funny, isn’t it? As Reagan said, it’s not that he’s ignorant, it’s that he knows so much that isn’t so.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 12:42 PM
Meh. Arbitrary, for certain.
Dark-Star on August 5, 2010 at 12:43 PM
Marriage is defined as a formal union between a husband and a wife.
This judge and the supporters of ‘Gay Marriage’ want to change the definition of Marriage as its been known for thousands of years.
Call it what you want, but it ain’t Marriage.
RedbonePro on August 5, 2010 at 12:44 PM
Please, God…don’t make me have to remind people what the word arbitrary really means again…please. I’m too tired.
Bee on August 5, 2010 at 12:47 PM
People still arguing with right4life? No one’s realized hes just a bigoted homophobe of the worst stripe yet?
triple on August 5, 2010 at 12:48 PM
And to think he said I was full of shite. ha.
“Shut up! Reagan said YOU’RE full of it, right4life!”
Bee on August 5, 2010 at 12:50 PM
Just for the record, ill respect your position (but disagree with it) if it’s on religious grounds. But R4L is just a hater. He’s probably going to round up a couple “gay fascists” tonight and drag them behind his pickup.
triple on August 5, 2010 at 12:51 PM
You can’t, obviously. So why do you demand same-sex opponents prove their position when you have to admit you can’t prove yours? Why not just admit that proof is nonexistent, and that uncertainty favors leaving things as they are?
tom on August 5, 2010 at 12:52 PM
Yet you’ve demanded it. Ooookay.
Because they’re making the assertion, not same-sex proponents. You can’t prove that anything will NOT happen. You can only prove that it WILL happen.
Proof that bad things will happen to marriage if gay marriage is legalized is nonexistent, sure. You’re saying that’s a reason not to allow it to happen?
Try this: bad things will happen to other people’s computers if you are allowed to keep using one. I’ve got no proof, but the uncertainty is enough to prevent you from using a computer ever again.
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 1:00 PM
He called you “Aunt Bee”?!? Another name change in order? :)
Dire Straits on August 5, 2010 at 1:06 PM
Can you give a formula to derive the age of consent? Can you explain how a different formula is used in Nigeria as opposed to Brazil as opposed to any other nation? Or why even in the same nation the age of consent can vary from Alabama to Mississippi?
Age of consent is a perfect example of arbitrary. It does not mean that any number in the world will work, just that ultimately someone has to just pick a number. In this country, it’s usually 18, but not always. In many other countries, you’re expected to be married by that time. In fact, under Sharia law, an unmarried girl above the age of 13 can be charged as a prostitute. There was at least one case where a Muslim judge in a half-Christian, half-Muslim nation had several girls on trial for prostitution for the simple reason that they were over 13 and unmarried, and told them if they didn’t want to be convicted, there were a number of young Muslim men in the back of the courtroom that they could marry.
I think we all realize that a 2-year old has no business getting married and that a 25-year old does. Somewhere between those ages, you have to draw a line. And there is no formula to draw that line.
It’s even been pointed out that adolescence as a stage of childhood is a fairly recent invention, since historically people were expected to start working by that age.
tom on August 5, 2010 at 1:09 PM
What is with a small contingent of gay marriage opponents who are vehemently opposed to age of consent laws?
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 1:12 PM
I’ve been to frat parties and I have never seen the degenerate sexual acts that are going on in the photos, in public.
I have had friends in Mardi Gras who have never seen the degenerate acts in those photos. I’ve even had homosexuals who have seen the photos who admitted that the acts are extremely degenerate.
Tim Burton on August 5, 2010 at 1:20 PM
Rhetorical questions are too difficult a concept for you?
You can’t prove anything WILL happen, unless you can identify some scientific laws that clearly show that the action A will necessarily lead to the action B. Feel free to introduce me to them if you can find them.
You argue for sweeping social change based on no evidence at all, and you get offended when people call you a liberal.
This is not an exercise in logic. It is a question whether to redefine marriage, the most fundamental social institution in existence bar none — and that includes all forms of government — to which you bring the impossible demand to “prove it will hurt anything.”
If we leave the institution of marriage alone, there’s no need to prove anything. If you want to change it, then you’ve necessarily taken on the burden of proof that it will do no harm. The fact that this is impossible to prove is your problem as a same-sex marriage proponent, not mine.
tom on August 5, 2010 at 1:22 PM
Truly, Bummer Summer.
sigh
pambi on August 5, 2010 at 1:25 PM
Already argued with right4life in about this issue until my brain exploded from the inanity. Here it is:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/28/video-university-makes-diploma-contingent-on-supporting-gay-rights/
Bee on August 5, 2010 at 1:26 PM
You can provide evidence that something will happen, up to the point of 100% proof. Provide evidence that gay marriage becoming legal in the United States will harm straight marriages.
I want to change the law in Wisconsin to allow people to carry concealed firearms. You’re saying I’m required to prove nothing bad will happen? Or are opponents required to prove that bad things will happen?
MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 1:29 PM
Straw man argument. Then again, you weren’t doing so well on a real argument. Better start throwing around ad hominems.
I’m pointing out what arbitrary means. I said nothing about opposing age of consent or even adjusting age of consent.
tom on August 5, 2010 at 1:30 PM
No, you aren’t. You’re pointing out that the age of consent differs (and slightly), not that it’s arbitrarily determined. It isn’t decided on a whim, devoid of any logical system of measurement or reason. Since it’s determined by biological/emotional readiness, that itself is a system of measurement. Otherwise you would see truly wild differences state by state, county by county with ages ranging from 1 1/2 to 35.
Bee on August 5, 2010 at 1:43 PM
You and he were talking about different definitions of arbitrary. We know that the age of consent varies mostly between 13 and 18, depending on part of the world and time in history. Essentially, he said it was arbitrary because it varied without a reference or standard, and you said it was not arbitrary because it would be absurd to claim that a very young girl, such as a 4-year old, could be old enough for the age of consent.
Ultimately, the age of consent is a matter of judgement. We judge that a 15-year-old is not really mature enough to consent to sex, while some other nations consider a 14-year-old to be a suitable wife and mother.
I think 18 makes more sense as an age of consent, but it’s ultimately a matter of judgement, not some standard that everyone can point to. And not some obviously cut-and-dried observable physical characteristic as, say, being male or female.
tom on August 5, 2010 at 1:43 PM
Arbitrary does not mean decided on a whim. It just means decided without a clear standard or determination.
How do you measure biological/emotional readiness?
tom on August 5, 2010 at 1:46 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 11 12 13 14 Next »