True, but with rare exceptions we’re not in one of those parts of the world.

Dan Savage has a great video where he makes the point that same-sex marriage is a natural consequences of marriage redefinitions made by STRAIGHT people in the West (especially the easing up of legally-imposed gender roles).

If one can “marry the person I love” that turn of phrase presumes that it is “I” who does the marrying. Consent is not present (with or without saying) in that phrase.

And the whole question of children is still present in that presumption. “Well, you can’t marry a child even if you love her!!” presumes that the will of the adult is the only thing in question.

Similarly “you can’t marry your horse” or “you can’t marry your desk” or “you can’t marry your box turtle” ignore that marriage is not a singular decision.

All of these arguments are predicated on the presumption that a person (usually a man) marries something. That is a false presumption.

We would never say that in business “I can partner anyone I want”. That makes no sense. A partnership requires an agreement between more than one party.

So too with marriage.

When we take “I” to “we”, then all those child/animal/inanimate object issues are illustrated as being just as silly as they are.

But you may now have the last word.

Miles Standish did not have the right to marry Priscilla Mullen. John Hinkley did not have the right to marry Jody Foster. And none of the truly tacky contestants on The Bachelor have the right to marry the man they, well, whatever.

The right to marry who you love implies slavery, ownership. We do not have that right.

To marry, we must have consent. A man does not “marry the person I love”, but rather they marry each other. Vows are made on both sides. They form a legal unity from what each brings.

And that is one reason why children cannot marry. They cannot consent. We recognize that a child lacks adequate cognition and so a child cannot enter an enforceable legal contract.

Pretty funny that he responds to a catchy-but-overbroad characterization of our argument for the right to marriage with an almost identical catchy-but-overbroad characterization of the right to a romantic relationship. Wait a minute, Mr. Vogt — pedophiles are not, and should not be, free to enter into private relationships with whomever they choose! I guess any argument Mr. Vogt might choose to make in defense of any particular romantic relationship is now invalid.