We may not have exact dates, but we have a pretty narrow range. Assuming Alan himself told his interviewer that he was 47 in the interview I cited, he was born no later than June of 1966.
And your claim that they married when she was 15 contradicts everything I’ve seen on the subject, so a direct quote from the book would be nice. For example, this story, evidently based on direct input from the family, says “Phil Robertson met Miss Kay when she was 14, and married her two years later.”
But even if Kay really was 15 when the marriage occurred, that places it no earlier than Dec 21, 1965. That makes Alan a full three months premature if he wasn’t conceived before marriage, and I just don’t believe that they had access to the type of care he would need to survive without permanent disabilities.
Beats me; ask Bricker. IMO the cites I’ve offered make a very plausible case for Robertson having premarital sex with a 14-year old. I really wasn’t all that interested in it until Bricker’s belligerent post, and I certainly have no interest in prosecuting him for it, so I’m not going to make it a research project, I’ll just do some casual googling while I watch TV. But as far as I can see, you haven’t cited anything except a book you haven’t seen, and a chart you admit was wrong.
My comment about the judge was speculation, and was clearly labeled as such, so to claim it’s a bad cite is disingenuous, at best. And your claim that he would do it because the parents consented is ridiculous — the entire distinction between over and under 16 is that parental consent is not enough. If the judge just rubber-stamps the parents’ consent, why waste his time?
Or perhaps you missed that it is the judge presiding over juvenile criminal court of the county who must give the additional consent, and not just some justice of the peace (who has a financial incentive to perform the ceremony).
The LA law is (credit to Bricker) the best word we have on the subject, so if you don’t know for a fact that previous law was more forgiving, you are just flailing. To advance the theory that a criminal judge would simply go along with the parents, while simultaneously disparaging a much more likely scenario as “insinuation,” is more flailing.
This is not some random person we’re talking about; it’s a man who has publicly advocated marrying 15-year old girls as the preferred age. Given that, your “defense” of unsupported and unlikely hypotheticals is grossly inadequate.
I have to say that Bricker’s strategy is superior to yours. Better to say nothing, than to remind everyone how weak your case is.
Only one side of this argument is accusing the other of statutory rape, so I think it’s fair to call your side “insinuation” in the absence of better evidence. Stick to criticizing what we know about Robertson; it’s not like you’re short of ammunition without this ridiculous tangent.
First – the burden of proof rests with you – or with anyone who claims that a crime was committed. It’s not incumbent on me to disprove statutory rape, but on you to prove it.
The problem with your reasoning with respect to the various dates is that it treats approximations as exact. Does “…married him two years later…” mean that they married after her birthday, or does it simply mean that they married the same year she turned sixteen?
If these statements were made in the course of a criminal investigation, there would be follow-ups to ensure that the correct information was in play. But you treat the statements as if they were made with confidence and exactitude even though they are drawn from public biographies and not statements released for the purpose of providing specific information.
On what date, specifically, were Phil and Kay married? And on what date, specifically, was Alan born?
Aside from the legal analysis, what do you think of his statements that you have to marry a girl at 15 or 16, because she’ll just want your money if you wait until she’s 20?
Absolutely false, and you know it. In every post, I’ve preceded my conclusions with something along the lines of “unless the sources cited are wrong,” and the only date I’ve treated as exact is Kay’s birthday, which is given exactly in her bios. For everything else, I’ve noted the possible range of dates for the events under discussion — some ranges of a few months, others as much as two years or more.
And you also know how ridiculous it is to demand that I furnish proof that would result in a conviction, regarding events that occurred nearly 50 years ago. I’ve already said I have no interest in prosecuting him.
I don’t know why you would want to be an apologist for a man like this, but that’s how you’re coming off.
The ratings continue to slide. Last week’s viewership was less than any of Seasons 3 and 4, and apparently a huge drop in the younger demographic that people always want.
Apparently, Louisiana representative Vance McAlister has invited Willie Robertson to be his guest to attend the State of the Union tonight. Starfucker…
I think he’s so completely off base it’s hard to know where to begin a rebuttal. I’ll grant that a couple hundred years ago, marrying a girl at 15 or 16 was a fine idea. In today’s world, in the United States, it’s extraordinarily poor advice.
