jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (9 posts)

If marriage laws were discriminatory, is the presidential age restriction also d

67
nicompposted 2 years ago
If marriage laws were discriminatory, is the presidential age restriction also discriminatory?

In the US you must be at least 35 to be President. Is that discriminatory? It's not 'for your own good' like the minimum age for alcohol consumption. It's not a safety issue like the minimum driving age.

reply report
88
dashingscorpioposted 2 years ago

All laws have some semblance of discrimination by forbidding people to do something or having mandatory requirements!
Most laws apply to all people regardless of their race, religion, or sexual orientation. Legally you can't sign most binding contracts under the age of 18. However it's also important to realize no law is "written in stone". A government for the people by the people.
If the (will of the people) decide they want an amendment to change the presidential age requirement to 25 or 30 it could happen.
At one time you had to be age 21 to vote but could be forced to go to war at age 18. Sixty percent of Americans now support same-sex marriage according to a recent Gallup Poll and the number is much higher for younger generations.
Every law that has been struck down for discriminatory reasons has been the result of people standing up to fight, protest, and even die to point out the inherit inequity of an existing law.
All laws forbid something that others may want to partake in.
Nevertheless no one would suggest abolishing (all laws).
The constitution has been and can be amended.
It wasn't until {1967} that the Supreme Court struck down all laws that forbid "interracial marriage" in Loving v. Virginia.
The case was brought by Mildred Loving, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, who had been sentenced to a year in prison in Virginia for marrying each other. Their marriage violated the state's anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924.
Even now I imagine there are some people who are oppose to interracial dating/marriage and they themselves would never consider dating another race. Life is a (personal) journey.
However just like "marriage equality" laws it's not mandatory to marry someone of a different race or the same gender! The law just makes it legal for those who want to do so without government intervention on state or federal level. It's been less than 50 years since the Supreme Court made it's decision on the Loving VS Virginia case.
Today interracial marriage is no big deal to most people. They see someone like Michael Jordan with his wife Yvette Prieto and can't imagine not that long ago it would have been illegal for them to get married in certain states. They could have been jailed!
I believe fifty years from now the children of today will view "same sex" marriage that way. Laws and attitudes change over time.
reply report
89
RTalloniposted 2 years ago
Well, in a sense, it is a safety issue. Studying the development of the human brain, particularly at what ages it reaches maturity is a useful exercise when considering how old someone needs to be in order to be president.

The brain does not reach maturity until mid to late 20s. It stands to reason that once a brain is mature time is needed for it to sensibly and completely process knowledge it has gained.

With that said, keep in mind that this question is about politicians, which we must be very careful about. Power easily corrupts, including corruption of thinking, and from all indications that corruption causes a serious regression of mature thinking.

Making many politicians blind to the consequences of what they are doing and deaf to the realities of their own words, this regression is often impossible to overcome. Corrupt thinking is not mature, though it may be skilled in its foolishness.

Whew, that's a lot of thunkin', but the bottom line is that mature thinking is the goal behind the law. Discrimination is word that is indiscriminately thrown about in order to get a populace's passions raging, but it is crucial to base our thinking on facts and rationally think issues through from every angle no matter what issues we face.
reply report
30
bradmasterOCcalposted 2 years ago
It is not discrimination when there is a valid reason for restrictions.

With age should come some semblance of maturity, and by thirty five years of age, there will either be maturity or not. Then it is up to the voters to decide on whether the candidate is mature enough to be president.

Many rich parents put a spendthrift clause in the estate planning that puts an age at which their children can have the unrestricted use of their inherited fortune. Some do it at 21 and some do it at 30. I think that the 35 years of age for the president falls into this kind of thinking. The fortune here is the USA.
reply report
1. 67
  nicompposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  It's discrimination regardless of the motive or reason.
  reply report
2. 75
  Gordon Wrightposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  But people won't all agree on what constitutes a valid reason. So the real question is: what's a valid reason?
  
  There was a time when a 'discriminating' person was someone with taste and/or good judgement. Someone who had standards
  .
  reply report
3. 30
  bradmasterOCcalposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Do all acts of discrimination require a remedy or an action?
  reply report
80
Shyron E Shenkoposted 2 years ago
I don't think marriage laws are discriminatory, I know that children as young as 14 for girls can get married with parental consent.
It is discriminatory as far as the presidential age is concerned. I think maybe that is to give the person running for that office to sow his/her wild oats, get an education and learn about our government, I think it would be harder to do if the age were lower.
reply report
1. 30
  bradmasterOCcalposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with you.
  reply report