There were 163 13-15 year-old marriages in NJ alone in an eight-year period. That’s small compared to all marriages, but maybe not as small as some would expect. They involve children from many different cultural backgrounds. Obviously, “cultural background[s] where these are accepted” includes both cultures primarily based in other countries as well as cultures primarily based in the U.S., including in particular certain Christian and Jewish communities.
I’m going to take the controversial position against child marriage. I’m against any marriage until the age of majority or emancipation. Not cool at all.
My wife has already offered up dire prophecies about the unlikelihood of such a meeting.
Maturity is very much affected by cultural expectations. In a culture where people are expected to mature earlier, they will. In a culture where they’re expected to remain children for longer, they will do that too.
Obviously there are limits. But you can’t extrapolate from the maturity level of someone from one culture to someone from a very different culture where the maturity expectations are very different.
Yes there are limits. I once heard a story about an 11 year old who stayed in her marriage for candy. Pretty sure she hadn’t matured enough for marriage.
Anyways, if anyone is interested here’s a short BBC article discussing the issue Europe is facing:
Migrant child brides put Europe in a spin
I don’t think that follows.
It’s worth noting that marriage itself means different things in different cultures. In contemporary Western culture it implies a great degree of independence and self-sufficiency, which is not necessarily the case in other cultures (possibly including early 20th century Morocco :)).
Oh, it follows all right but I don’t feel like debating the merits of child marriage. It feels pretty gross and I’d only do it in a situation where I thought it’d make a difference which is certainly not here.
Bricker, you disappoint me, since normally you seem to actually read up on laws of the area before giving examples, in this one a German court ordinarily would have no problem; since the age of marriage in Syria is 17, the “marriage” would have been invalid where it was celebrated, there would be no question of “recognizing” it. (and FYI, Syrian marriage law is governed by a 1953 Statute, not “Shariah law”.).
In this case there are other considerations, including the fact that its not always easy to determine the actual ages of the persons in refugee camps, and said persons have motivations to mislead and lie; and little chance of being caught, not like Aleppo Town Hall can easily provide records and birth certificates.
I am very sympathetic to the idea that laws should be applied as written, even if they lead to a result you dislike, but you alway have to look at the circumstances of the particular case.
My understanding (which admittedly derives from press reports, since my facility in German is non-existant) is that the court found as fact that the girl was 14 and the husband 20, and they were cousins.
If they had a motive to lie, it’s unclear to me what motive they would have to lower their ages. In other words, to make the marriage legal under German law, they might lie to age themselves.
So what are you contending that I missed, here?
They are refugees and the “marriage” was infact contracted in a refugee camp. Refugees living, in camps often have motivations to lie, and give different lies in different circumstances. Sometimes a person has reason to give their age as younger than they are; under 16 females often receive help and aid not available to others or older than they are; men above 21 might be able to find work more easily, lie about family relationships, family groups find support more easily.
I have spent several years working with an NGO which helps vulnerable women and children and some of them are Afghan refugees here in Pakistan. Especially with young persons, under 25’s, who will have no record of age or birth, it can be surprisingly difficult to acertain age and relationship. Famously, the Afghan Girl on National Geographic cover was arrested for obtaining documents fraudulently; claiming two men were her sons.claims which were accepted since they had no way of disproving it and if she had not been famous, she might have gotten away with it.
Like you, I can only speculate as to the German Courts reasoning. But, the fact they upheld the marriage, despite it being prima facie invalid in Syria suggests that their findings on age and family relationship was based upon the parties own claims and they themselves doubted their veracity.
Thanks AK84, I’ve been following along and like Bricker trying to figure out what reason they might have had for falsely claiming a younger age for the wife. But the above makes it a lot clearer.
AK84, do you happen to know if Syrian law also allows judicially approved under-aged marriage?
I could not have predicted the turn this thread has taken. Good job, SDMB, you never disappoint. heh.
Which are also legal constructs.
My mom got married to my brother’s dad when she was 13 or 14. We honestly aren’t sure, she can’t remember how old. My brother’s dad is dead and all of his family is dead, so we don’t have anyone to ask. I think it was 14 because she had my brother after she just turned 15.
This was the 60s in East Texas.
Not cool. I’m not looking for a mod instruction, just asking for a modicum of respect. You wouldn’t say such a thing about blacks or jews, so I would just respectfully ask you not to stereotype people of an entire state based upon your preconceived prejudices.
In response to the trucker being told to kill orphans and war widows, Scalia’s opinions are instructive. Do we really need to have a legal system that guards against things which will never happen? I cannot remember the case, but Scalia was responding to another Justice’s argument that a state legislature might make overtime parking punishable by life imprisonment. Scalia responded that it was a ludicrous argument as no legislature would do such a thing. If it did, then it would have the public support for such a punishment for some reason.
IOW, we have no reason to believe that trucking companies would order the execution of orphans. If we became aware of trucking companies doing such a thing, then Congress could pass a law to stop it. The Legislature passes laws in response to current evils to be curtailed. In the case of trucking companies, it forbid them from firing guys who refused to operate their vehicles in unsafe conditions. It failed to forbid them from firing guys who refused to stay with their vehicles at all times.
As Gorsuch correctly held, that should have been the end of it. The courts are not my mommy to help me when people are mean to me: only when they break the law.
As McHugh and Murphy correctly held, Transam trucking did break the law. Case closed.
And now Gorsuch will be seated on the Supreme Court. Case closed.
I can live with that trade-off.
Well, that’s reality whether you can live with it or not.
If that is the case (and I am not at all familiar with German law) then the courts have wrested the right of self control from the people. Such a statement about “respect” and “inherent value” of human beings is so broad as to mean what is in the mind of individual judges.
Take an issue like abortion. If a conservative judge looks at the issue he might say that the unborn child’s right to life over the convenience of the mother is consistent with respecting and protecting the inherent value of human beings.
A liberal judge might entirely discount the unborn child’s right as not one of a human being and cloak it in the mother’s freedom to control her own body.
There is nothing principled about that type of system. You have judges making bald declarations about what is best for human beings without being grounded by anything substantive in law. That is the job of a legislature elected by the people.