Just to quote myself. I looked up parental consent in Utah (google, of course) with the following results:
[quote]
**WHAT IS THE AGE WITH PARENTAL CONSENT IN UTAH?
Male: 14 – parental consent not required if minor was previously married.
Female: 14 – parental consent not required if minor was previously married.**
[/quote/
I’m not quite sure how the kid could have been previously married without parental consent, but, maybe in another state.
Always preview before you post.
It’s amazing how prejudice clouds issues. People here are arguing why an adult man should not marry a 14 year old girl. That is fine and well but it is not the issue. An adult man can legally marry a 14 year old girl and you might not like it but you can’t punish a man for something which is legal. If you do not like it, then work to have the law changed but as long as it is legal it is not wrong.
Personally I would probably raise the marriage age and repeal bigamy laws but that is just me. For now the man has broken one law (bigamy) and should be punished for that and that only. The rest is injecting personal prejudice into the situation.
Yosemitebabe:
Boy, you can say that again. “Falling prey” is exactly what it is, ofttimes.
Quite true; social norms certainly run the gamut. All the more reason, IMO, to keep in mind that they are only that. It may be social norm to stone women of the Taliban for showing their hair in public, but I wouldn’t feel too obligated personally, social norm or not. Likewise, it may be social norm for adults not to marry minors, but that doesn’t necessarily make it inherently evil. Unpopular, maybe; illegal even in some circumstances; but not necessarily “wrong” in and of itself. The sanctions against it are largely imposed by society, not generated by the act itself.
Certainly not to most people; but we’re not the ones in the relationship, they are. If this is indeed how they wish to live their lives and they are happy together (I did say IF), I can’t find a justification for any objection on my part. I might not feel it is in the 13yo’s best interest, but that doesn’t make me right. I might feel her life would be better spent otherwise, but it’s her life, not mine. Too young to know what’s good for her? Possibly, I’m not in a position to say, but more importantly, I don’t feel it’s my place to say, either.
As a sort of parallel, the idea of having sex with men seems pretty oogy to me, but my sisters seem to enjoy it. To consider them perverts just because it turns my stomach a bit is a little too egocentric for me. Sure, I can think it’s Major Icks, but that doesn’t make them at fault. Should I condemn them for it and try to persuade them to stop just for my own comfort? I don’t think so, because my comfort is not the main priority in their relationships. Theirs is. Likewise with this guy and his wives: my comfort is not their priority. (Plus, I can kind of see where he’s coming from. When I’m an old coot, I probably wouldn’t kick a pair of snuggly 13yo’s out of my bed…of course I’ve been of that opinion since I was 13, so I’m not sure if that counts…
Don’t have much confidence in the opportunity arising, however :()
Hi, doreen. Good points.
IzzyR: You’re welcome.
Almost forgot:
My guess is that the first marriage would have been with parental consent, which means that s/he doesn’t have to get it again to remarry before the minimum age. Can you imagine being on your second marriage before your 14th birthday? That’s a lot of alimony payments.
“Inherently evil”? Every time? No, certainly not.
I think “sad” or “unwise” might be more better. It really depends on the 13 year old girl, and how she’s been raised. As others have pointed out, too few are really emotionally ready these days. WAY too few - like probably almost none. But since there are probably a few - you can’t say it is inherently evil every time.
Same with the sanctions against incest - usually there is a reason behind it. Sometimes society can get a little bull-headed about these taboos, but in many cases, there is a real reason for them.
And that’s a BIG “IF”.
Yeah, but then where do we draw the line? Should there be a thing such as “too young to fight in a war”? “Too young to drive”? “Too young to have a full-time job”? “Too young to quit school”? I think there are exceptions to everything, but I also see a parallel - some things are age-appropriate in our society, in the here and now. I don’t want to see the average 13 year old driving (even though I know some can) because I think that skill takes some time to learn. We all know that young drivers have higher insurance, and there’s a reason for that. Our society feels obligated to insure that kids don’t get pushed into things before they are ready, like full-time labor, or pushed out of things before they should, like school. (Though I know that there are a lot of drop-outs, but is it usually a good thing? Most of the time, no.) I don’t think marriage for all 13 year olds is just evil, (I am thinking of Loretta Lynn here) but it seems like it would be rare for it truly to be the best thing for a 13 year old. Too often, it almost seems like the kid’s youth is being stolen from them. Just like if a kid were having to work full-time at age 13, or join the military at age 13. There’s a reason our society frowns on that.
It’s not just about aesthetics here - we have pretty much agreed - being attracted to the beauty of a 13 year old isn’t all that “icky”. But wanting a relationship with them is a different kettle of fish, when the other party is much older, with more mature expectations. And in our society, as others have pointed out, 13 is usually pretty damned YOUNG, at least when it comes to having the practical skills (and emotional maturity) that one would need for marriage. So for most (or almost all) of the 13 year olds in the US, it doesn’t sound like a good thing at all.
It’s not?
There are many things that are perfectly legal that I think are wrong. For that matter there are many thing that are illegal that I don’t think are wrong. And there are certainly many things I think are wrong which I still don’t think should be made illegal. Going around claiming one race is inherantly superior to another. Sleeping with someone and not calling the next day. Legal, should be, but I’m still willing to argue, wrong.
And it seems to me people here were saying that what the guy did was, well, wrong, but no one is saying he should be legally punished for something that is not a crime.
Not to mention, if anybody really wants to see the law change, how would they go about that except by arguing it’s rightness or wrongness in advance?
This is what I get from editing my posts too much (I don’t always delete the proper words). Example:
Sigh. I usually just try to blow my misspellings, mistakes and typos off, but this one bugged me.
betenoir, the point of the article linked in the OP is that the judge said he believes bigamy can be seen as a sex crime. The answer is NO. My point was that while the discussion in this thread about whether 4 year olds should be able to marry is perfectly valid, it is not addressing the issue raised in the OP which is if this guy should be treated by the judge as a sexual perverted criminal. The answer is that he should be treated like a bigamist.
We could also discuss if sleeping with someone and not calling the next day should be made a crime but as long as it is not a crime a judge should not treat me like it is.
I said pretty much the same thing in another post, but I can’t seem to find it, basically if society defines a certain age as being the age where you are an adult and doesn’t treat you as one until you get to it, a person under that age is going to be unprepared for all the consequences of a sexual relationship if they are much younger than that age. If the age of majority was 25, and society treated you as less-than-adult until you reached that age (limited where you could work, didn’t allow you to drink or sign contracts, kept you in school and/or at home) most 23 year-olds would be too immature for a sexual relationship, despite their physical development.
betenoir makes a good point. sailor’s statement, IMHO, should read:
Sounds like a glaringly obvious statement at that point, but it’s more accurate. Legality is a matter of objective record (or so we’d hope), whereas Right/Wrong is a moral judgment. Since different people have different morals, most arguments of whether something is right or wrong never truly get resolved because the answer isn’t an objectively determinable fact. It can only, I think, be an objectively (?) determinable consensus (if that). We’d all like laws and morals to coincide, and there’s even the belief propogated that they do (“It’s wrong to break the law, period.”), but while we can have one set of laws for everybody, we will never reach one set of morals for everybody. The question is, which do we adjust to fit the other?
The bottom line for me in this case is that it really should depend on the girls in question, rather than some arbitrary law coupled by a huge dose of social prejudice. While girls who are ready for marriage at this age are probably quite rare (as has been acknowledged), they still can (and therefore presumably do) exist. Their rarity IMO does not justify tearing apart their relationships (or forbidding them outright) just because most other girls that age aren’t ready for one. So if (BIG “IF” for yosemitebabe :)) the girls are happy in this marriage, and they are well taken care of, then who is benefitting from the destruction of their family? Certainly not them, who should be the priority here. It’s almost like it’s just being done to appease all the people who find the relationship objectionable…none of whom, needless to say, are actually in the relationship themselves, and probably mostly total strangers to the girls in question. How did those people all the sudden become the most important ones here?
(Also, if they’re happy and well cared for, I don’t really see anything to be sad about. The only drawback at that point is the social prejudice, and that isn’t their fault. Catering to intolerance isn’t something to be encouraged, in my opinion; and they certainly shouldn’t be faulted for standing up to it.)
Don’t worry, I knew you meant “more betterer.” 
Biologically, it is better for teenagers to have kids than it is for adults. Teens have more energy, and are generally healthier. But, it is not excepted in modern society for many reasons. In ages long past, people would start having kids while they would still be considered teens. So, biologically, there is nothing wrong with it.
But this is about bigamy, so i’ll stop ranting now.
Dug up an old interview with photographer Jock Sturges, who has some (IMO) intelligent things to say about youth, sexuality, and prejudice. You can check the entire article at this link, if you’re so inclined (recommended if you don’t know who he is, and it’s a good read). Some excerpts:
Food for thought.
Practical age of consent in Holland is 16. Technically a minor of the ages 12-15 can have sex with an adult legally, but the child or the child’s parents can press charges. That’s not so different from the U.S., though the age of consent is 17 in Texas nobody is going to prosecute a guy for screwing a 14 year old unless the parents or the kid complains, and you can get married even younger with parental consent.
No it isn’t. It is not healthy for a woman to give birth until she has reached full physical maturity. As elfkin477 pointed out, puberty takes a long time. A girl is capable of becoming pregnant with the onset of menstruation (the current average age for this in America is 12, and it may occur as early as 7 or 8), but pregnancy at that point would be unhealthy for her as she is not yet be at her full adult size. Perhaps most importantly, her hip bones have finished spreading yet. This process usually does not conclude until a woman has reached her twenties.
Like it being unhealthy, not only for the mother but for the baby. Babies born to teen mothers are far more likely to suffer from low birth weight and other health problems than babies born to adult women.
There’s also the question of providing for the baby, something that few teenagers in this day and age are equipped to do well.
And many of those young women died in childbirth. There is, biologically, nothing wrong with death, but I think most people would prefer to avoid it at least until they reach adulthood.
It is also worth nothing that “in ages long past” girls could not become pregnant at as early an age as they can today, because they reached puberty later. Just a century ago it was rare for a girl to begin menstruating before she had reached her mid teens. The first American women’s colleges were being founded during this same era, and the health staff at these schools often found themselves having to help students through their first period.
I usually don’t bother correcting typos like this, but since it does make a difference as to the meaning I will say that the “nothing” above should be “noting”.
Now…this is the way I look at this. In this country, bigamy is illegal. If a first marriage is not dissolved, a second marriage would not be valid. Only the first marriage is technically recognized by the law as legitimate. So…if Mr Green is having sex with his 13 year old second (or third, or fourth) wife, he is having sexual relations with a minor under the age of 16 without the benefit of a valid marriage certificate…Therefore, he is guilty of statutory rape at the very least.
The age of consent to marriage in Utah is currently 18 without parental consent, 16 with parental consent, or 15 if you have both parental consent and judicial approval. Utah Code sec. 30-1-9. It’s been that way fow two years now, so don’t go marrying any 14-year-olds in Utah.
Carry on.
The Mary-Kate and Ashley Olson Jailbait Countdown is only a click away. They have 1090 days to go before they turn 18.
Or, as Colin Quinn on SNL’s Weekend Update put it, “I say, hey, if there’s grass on the field, play ball!”