Too bad it’s true, then.
Knock it off.
He did not accuse you of lying. He said that your statement was wrong. He did not attribute his perception of your error to deceit, ignorance, or malevolence; he merely claimed it was wrong.
Do not drag claims of “lying” into this thread.
[ /Moderating ]
I vaguely heard about it, but didn’t really know about them. Now I do. So do you. So do millions of other people. Great publicity for the show, isn’t it?
Yep. Who knew bigotry still had so many undiscovered fans?
A couple months ago I started seeing their gear in stores before even hearing about them. I was vaguely irritated by their sudden ubiquity, so this stunt or slip up or whatever it is didn’t really change anything for me since I was actively avoiding them anyway.
I’m not sure that exposing bigotry is ever a bad thing in the long run. In the short run, bigots show their colors by “supporting” their fellow bigots, but society will in due course turn away in disgust and eventually the bigotry will no longer be tolerated.
“They” are mistaken.
Louisiana’s Children Code, Article 1545, clearly provides as follows:
So a marriage in Louisiana is legal for a sixteen year old when both his (or her) parents consent. Indeed, the marriage of a fourteen year old appears to be legal if permission is also obtain from the judge of the court exercising juvenile jurisdiction in the parish in which the minor resides.
So can you explain the comment – which, TonySinclair, you appear to have quoted with approval – accusing Robertson of statutory rape? Are you alleging that they had sex before they were married?
If not – and the site is careful to note that there’s no proof of this – then you may be confused about what “statutory rape” is. The term describes an act of sexual intercourse in which at least one of the partners is too young to legally give affirmative consent to the act…as distinguished from sexual intercourse without actual consent.
In other words, the term statutory rape depends on the existence of a statute to give it life.
Certainly in 1966, there was a legal presumption that sex between a husband and wife was consensual – that is, if a couple were legally married, statutory rape was not possible. (Indeed, at common law, marital rape was a legal impossibility – see, e.g., Sir Matthew Hale’s 1736 treatise Historia Placitorum Coronæ.) Although not a common law state, as far as I can tell, Louisiana did not abolish the marital defense to rape until 2002. (See La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:43.)
I don’t think there’s the slightest chance you can defend this claim of statutory rape, but I am curious to see what tactic you use to back away from it.
How were they able to legally get married then? 
Edit: oops, missed Bricker’s post.
I have no idea why you mention “approval” in any context about my attitude toward statutory rape, either actual or speculative. But your lecture was quite unnecessary — I know what it means, and as I thought the article made clear, they were speculating about Robertson having premarital sex with a 14- or 15-year-old, not sex within marriage with a 16-year old. As you and I both noted, they admit there is no proof of this, but come on, few 18-year-old men date 14-year-old girls for their minds.
Let’s do a little detective work, shall we? Every article about Robertson I’ve seen says he married his wife, Kay, on an unspecified date in 1966. According to Wikipedia, Kay was born on December 21, 1950, so if she was 16 when they were married, and they were married in 1966, they must have been married between Dec 21 and Dec 31 of that year. That date range is supported by this article about Phil giving Kay a new wedding ring as an anniversary present late in December of last year.
Numerous articles, like this one, say that their oldest son was 47 in June of 2013 – not that he had just turned 47, but that he was 47, maybe for a while. So he was evidently born no later than June of 1966, some six months before his parents were married, and possibly some months even before that.
All of those articles could be wrong, of course, but it seems like there is at least reason to suspect premarital sex occurred.
I also note that you quote a Louisiana statute, when the website alleged that what Robertson proposed to his listeners would be a crime in Georgia, where he was speaking – they even put “Georgia” in boldface. If they’re wrong, they’re wrong, but you certainly haven’t shown it.
If a woman was forced to have sex by her husband forced 2001 in Louisiana, would you scold her and tell her she’s wrong if she used the term “rape”? Because as-is, your “if it’s legal you can’t call it rape” attitude is a little bit disgusting.
Given that his statement was specifically addressing statutory rape, your purported disgust is misplaced. Statutory rape is not identical to rape. The failure of the legal system to recognize marital rape as rape is not the same thing as noting that statutory rape–which may well be consensual while rape never is–is a situation created by statute.
Statutory rape has been created to protect parties that society does not deem to have sufficient competence to give informed consent, but your attempt to link such laws to marital rape demonstrate either a failure to understand what was said or simply an opportunity to display recreational outrage.
No, I’m merely trying to suggest that “well, it’s legal, so it’s morally OK” isn’t a great thing to apply in these situations, especially with laws that were then removed. While I understand what Bricker is trying to say, the fact that he applies his “It’s legal, haha” attitude to everything is problematic.
Where did he say it was “OK”, much less “morally OK”? Can you quote the specific part of his post you are referring to? All he said is that a claim of statutory rape, which is a legal claim, is incorrect.
Fair enough, my bad, although I’m sure that’s what bricker meant as he usually does I know that isn’t really good enough, and I’ll withdraw the question and claim, and remove myself from the conversation, at least until he properly disputes or or agrees to TonySinclair’s presentation of the facts.
An otherwise void marriage can become valid through a process called condonation. In the case of one that’s void because one party is a minor, that person can essentially “ratify” the marriage by not seeking annulment once he/she reaches the age of majority. This is not a comment on whether Robertson’s marriage was valid when contracted or now, blah blah blah; I don’t know and don’t much care.
FWIW…
“Duck Dynasty” returns to BIG ratings drop.
Now, while the numbers are still healthy, and we’re a long way from cancellation… this could be the beginning of the end. YMMV.
Regardless of the legality, what I find disgusting is his expressed opinion that if you don’t marry them at 15 or 16, they’ll just be gold diggers at 20. The misogyny is incredible.
Quote:
*The Season 5 premiere on Wednesday of the A&E reality show drew 8.5 million viewers, down sharply from the nearly 12 million that tuned in for the Season 4 opener in August. Despite the decline, that’s still a healthy number, but industry experts expected to see the same viewership as before, if not better. To be fair, last winter’s premiere of the show drew 8.6 million viewers.
…Duck Dynasty is ranked as the No. 2 series on cable TV, behind The Walking Dead, with an average of 13.4 million viewers.*
Last winter’s premiere of the show drew 8.6 million viewers. The Season 5 premiere drew 8.5 million. That doesn’t look like a BIG drop???
I guess it depends on what the difference is between the season premiere and the “winter premiere” (I have no idea.)
Some cable shows (The Walking Dead is another one) operate on a schedule similar to broadcast networks, where half the season is aired (For TWD, this is Oct-Dec), then there’s a hiatus, then the second half is aired (Feb-March).
The “winter premiere”, as opposed to the season premiere, would refer to the first episode of this second half.