This should be a no-brainer: pass a law to protect children against sexual assault dressed up as “marriage”. And yet, here we have conservatives stalling on what ought to be common sense. What the actual fuck?! I never want to hear conservatives talk about sexual misconduct ever again - they are the original sinners in the eyes of the lord.
Remember: child molestation is OK in the eyes of Republicans if it’s a Good Christian Man doing it.
cf. Moore, Roy.
You know I have little patience with a lot of Christian conservatives, but this article buries the lede:
So what they’re asking for is a stricter bill, not a looser one.
Holy crap, I thought that went out in the early 1900s. Thank god it’s not Arkansas, we are usually the worst at everything. Of course we still have a high teen pregnancy rate, they just dont get hitched I guess.
Man, oh, man shame on Kentucky for not throwing that out.
You folks may have been reading different versions of the article. The paragraphs explaining that conservative groups want to add a requirement for parental consent, in addition to consent from a judge, was added after the article was first posted.
So calm the outrage. If the conservative groups’ proposed addition is accepted, 17 year old who wants to get married will need to convince their parents and a judge, which should make such marriages harder, not easier.
Sigh Huffington Post. You can’t even look beyond the angle with that site.
I’m really not seeing the problem here:
I thought that was Hillary!? Damn, I can never keep up with these things…
A parent ? Is she really saying that this is problem only for children of single-parents ?
IF you believe them. Funny that the right-wingers didn’t move on this for decades but are dragging their feet now. Surely they’ll segue into “With parents’ OK, what do we need the judge for?”; but by then those believing the “stricter not looser” apology will have forgotten about the bill.
When that happens you or asahi might have a point. Right now it appears they’re pushing for additional requirements though.
Did you not read the part about the child who was forced by her parents to marry her abuser? This isn’t about parents protecting their children-This is about parents owning their children.
If you can’t trust a judge from the southern U.S. to have your child’s best interests at heart, who can you trust?
In the language that they are pushing, if the judge says no, and the parents say yes, who wins?
The child’s owners.
How about if the judge says yes, the parents say yes, but the bride says no. Who wins ?
I’m almost certain you’re wrong there: the group asked that “a parent must also agree to the marriage.”
“Also” is not an ambiguous word: it means both things must be true. If the parents say yes, and the judge says no, the marriage doesn’t proceed.
Unless there’s an error in the article, the conservative group is 100% pushing for more, not less, restrictive language. In this case they’re doing the right thing.
The child’s owners.
I think you are correct. I usually like to go the source article in stories from places like HuffPo, and if you do, you will find:
Best, though, to wait until we can actually see the language of the bill. There are probably good ways to “blend” consent and bad ways to do so. The devil is in the details, which should not be surprising.
I don’t know how you managed to conclude that.