Yes. We restrict the right to vote (and a few other things) for minors because of a belief that they cannot fully participate in those things (for reasons of maturity in this case). We also don't allow them to enter into binding contracts. But we don't strip them of their right to live, or right of free speech, or most other rights for that matter. So clearly it's about more than just age alone. And clearly it's not acceptable because one is in a temporary state.
No, it's 100% about age. I don't know why you'd try to argue otherwise.
Because you're simplifying the argument down to one easy to refute phrase. Since not all rights are infringed based on the age of the person, then age alone does not determine why we're doing it. Get it? If it was just about age, we would strip all rights from everyone until they reach the age 18. But we don't, do we? We infringe a set of rights. Not all of them.
The reason we deprive minors of their right to vote is ultimately the same reason we previously deprived women and minorities the right to vote: We don't think they're good enough and don't want their inconvenient votes to impact our election process.
Yup. So why did we decide that this was a wrong assessment for women and minorities, but not for minors?
The point I'm slowly and painfully trying to get you to grasp isn't about voting rights Joph. It's that it's possible for the same rationale for something to be correct when applied in one case, but incorrect when applied to another. In the same way that we can say it's wrong to deny women the right to vote, but ok to deny minors that right, we can say that it's wrong to deny marriage status to interracial couples, but ok to deny it to same *** couples. Obviously that doesn't prove that position. It merely disproves the argument that since it was wrong to deny that status to one group, it must be wrong to deny it to another.
I've presented arguments for my position, explaining how same *** couples are not the same with regard to marriage as interracial couples. But the counter position just repeats the same argument that since it was wrong for X, it must be wrong for Y as well.
Which is why I went this way. I'm showing that the logic being used for same *** marriage is flawed and hoping that someone might actually one day present something else. Hasn't happened yet though, so I'm not going to hold my breath.
In the same manner, you don't think homosexuals are good enough to get to marry ("No natural kids!") just as prior generations felt blacks weren't good enough to marry whites.
For radically different reasons though. And I wouldn't use the phrase "good enough to marry". More "there's no state interest in them marrying". Let's not forget that one of the key arguments made in Loving (on both sides) was that of children. The state argued that mixed race children would be at a disadvantage in society, so preventing interracial marriage was justified. The plaintiff argued that not allowing mixed race couples to marry would doom their children to illegitimacy (among other arguments). The point being that the issue of procreation has always been at the heart of decisions regarding the "right to marry".
I think it's relevant when discussing a set of couples who can't procreate (as a couple) to observe that perhaps the same arguments no longer apply. They are under no great burden if not granted that state recognition of their relationship as an interracial couple is. And the state is under no great burden or cost if they don't either. Which is ultimately the point here, isn't it?