Deemed by whom? Has it always been thus? If they have the parts (naturally) why can't they use them at will with whom ever they choose?
Deemed by the government.
Nope, its not always been that way. There's been times in history where 14 or 15 could easily be considered an adult.
They can't use their parts "at will" with whomever they choose for the same reason we can't choose to use our hands to choke people whenever we choose simply because we "naturally" have them. In the case of the 14 and 35 year old, the 35 year old is violating the rights of minor who is not empowered to be able to agree to engage in such acts with an adult.
Why is 17 a minor and 18 is not?
Its how the laws been set. A line must be set at a certain age. If you have an argument on why it should be 17 instead of 18, I'm happy to hear it.
I agree that a minor needs protection, by how do we define who is a minior and who isn't? What science is that based on?
Never heavily researched it. Do you know? Or are you just saying things hoping they'll make a point without actually knowing what it is you're talking about?
My point is there is an awful lot of interpretation in the constitution.
Well yeah, are you going to tell me the sky is blue next. What I can tell you though from accepted and long standing constitutional law is this. There's this thing called the Equal Protection Clause. It has three teirs of protection in regards to the state discriminating against people.
There's the bottom teir, middle, and top. As you go higher up in teirs the state not only has to have a more important interest in enacting the discrimination but also needs more evidence that the discrimination is needed to reach that interest.
See, that's the thing. The government absolutely CAN discriminate. There's nothing wrong with the government discriminating. As long as it can make the necessary argument.
In the case of age discrimination, its the bottom teir. That means to discriminate against age the government only needs to show a rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest.
Gender on the other hand is middle teir, requiring an IMPORTANT state interest rather than simply a legitimate one and that the discrimination is substantially needed to serve said interest.
State has an interest in preserving tradition? Can't be that important, part of the traditional marriage definition in this country changed once already. State has an interest in pushing for family? Can't be that important since they don't require you to agree to start a family when you get married, they allow infertile individuals to get married, and same sex couples are able to start a family. Reduce work load on the tax system by allowing some people to co-submit? Same sex couples can live together too.
You're attempting to discredit my argument by pointing out that the government discriminates, but its never been my stance that it doesn't do that. It does, and it absolutely can. As long as it can meet the standards of the EPC.
I can specifiy why I think our marriage laws don't. Can you tell me what IMPORTANT state interest in gained substantially through the discrimination of men and women regarding marriage?
Whether it does or does not is often up for interpretation.
Indeed it does. I've made my argument multiple times, and again just now, as to why it doesn't meet the level necessary to be constitutional. Please, make your argument why it is constitutional.
I don't care about gun ownership.
So you're fine with guns being banned?
I disagree with that interpretation.
So a man can do something a woman can't........but that's not gender discrimination. So you're saying that's not making a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person belongs rather than according to any actual merit? A woman can't marry women, but a man can, because she's a woman and somehow that's not discriminating against her because she's a woman due to..........?