flying_mollusk wrote:
This is incorrect. Just because law 1 defines something a specific way, or was passed first, does not mean it trumps law 2.
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the law defines certain things in certain ways, and and laws that are logically subsequent to those definitions MUST agree with them, or you have a logically nonsensical premise.
12-year-olds are regarded by the law as CHILDREN, and the laws says that CHILDREN cannot marry, which is why you don't see 12-year-olds getting married. There is, however, an exception to what the law says about this: parental/guardian consent.
flying_mollusk wrote:Her parents were ok with it.
And THIS is why Jeffs was able to marry children- not because the law determined that his religious freedom overrode the law on children marrying, but because the law recognizes parental/guardian consent in place of personal consent (which a child cannot give).
flying_mollusk wrote:The religious freedom law, which specifically says it applies to every single law, including marriage defining laws, says you cant do that.
That's correct, but what it DOESN'T do is change the legal definition of what marriage IS. Marriage is defined legally as a civil union between two consenting persons. Because a child cannot GIVE consult, a child cannot, by definition, partake in any union that requires consent (the exception I noted earlier imparts consenting-person status to the child in those cases).
flying_mollusk wrote:Without upsetting you, I can tell you that your viewpoint on how one law affects another law is incorrect. The religious laws gives Warren Jeffs a defense to his actions, whether it might marriage or raping a child.
No; Jeffs was able to do what he did because of parental-consent exceptions to consent laws, not because of religious laws. Your comment about rape says it all; why do you think rapists don't get off on religious grounds?
— Mags