If a girl’s seventeen, what’s so hard about waiting less than a year? Why all the drama? And why doesn’t this apply to boys, too?
I was wondering that myself. If what they are saying is, “You’re too immature to decide for yourself to get married, so you’ll have to get your mommy or daddy to agree” then maybe they should just say seventeen year olds are too immature to get married.
I suspect though they think it’s better to stick a girl in a marriage she’s not ready for than to have her be a single mother.
Wife and I were talking about this last night. We came to the conclusion that they should just make the age requirement 18. If they’re too young to smoke, drink, buy weapons, vote, etc, then they’re too young for marriage too. I’d apply this to emancipated minors as well.
Yes, this, and also, wasn’t the proposal to make the changes introduced by a republican? If I’m right about that, than why the outrage and generalization that republicans don’t care about these kids?
Because REPUBLICANS! And TRUMP!
ETA: Oh. And CONSERVATIVES!!! And CHRISTIANS!!!
ETA: ETA: And TRUMP!!!
REPUBLICANS! And TRUMP! supported a child molester running for Senate. People are now understandably a little concerned about their motivations when they comment on laws around child molestation.
I guess I’d read this as saying “under 18 is generally too young to get married, but if you can convince a judge and at least one parent, we’ll make an exception for you”.
The judge hopefully fends off most of the arranged marriages between 14 year olds and elders of the church, and the parent is there so the kid is less likely to be able to snow the judge with their apparent maturity when they can’t actually cook or do their own laundry.
The ignorance and retardation in this thread is staggering.
Look at all the states with sub 18 age of marriage when exceptions are taken into account. It has been this way for a very long time. Yet, the selective outrage manifests now. Clowns.
If only it were that simple. We can’t keep kids under 18 from having sex, so pregnancies are going to ensue. Do we say: you’re old enough to get pregnant, but not old enough to marry? I don’t think the answer to that is always: Yes, we do want to say that. It might often be the right answer, but I don’t think it’s always the right answer.
The point of the outrage is that the bill appeared to be removing the presumably impartial judgement of a judge and replacing it with the judgement of the parents. Latterly, it appears that the change being looked at is both judge and parent, which most in the thread don’t seem to have a lot of problems with.
Conservatives enjoy abusing her, too.
Actually, it didn’t appear that way. It was only portrayed that way by some in an effort to artificially create outrage in the masses that couldn’t be bothered to do their own research.
Sadly, this the the M.O. of every political entity in the era of 30 second news bites.
Oh for Jesus/Ford/Og’s sake … as pointed out, the proposal as currently stands is no different from the laws** as they exist in many states right now** and have for years. And from this reference may I observe such a conservative fundamentalist bastion, California, has NO fixed minimum legal marriage age with parental or court approval, or that redneck backwater Massachussetts has the bottom age at 12.
Seriously, you all did not just find out now that in most of the US legal minors can get married with parental consent. So, help me here, if that is to be changed, should it be in the direction of no marriage whatsoever of minors, ever, no matter the circumstance? Or that there must be no marriage that is subject to permission from someone in a position of authority over the individual (which would carry the former as a necessary corollary)? Because I can get behind either if so formulated clearly (there is no real reason anyone must marry at 16 – no, babies don’t count for a “must” IMO, but it may count for a legitimate “want to”). Or is it that if there must be, it should be the court but not the parents?
I had a boss years ago (way too many years ago) who married his wife in Maryland when she was 14 and he was 18.
I read in a newspaper years ago about an indian couple that were in an arranged marriage at 13 and came over here at 16 and were remarried here to make sure it was legal
I went to high school with a married couple (both 16). They’d known each other since they were kids and their parents didn’t fight them on it. Rural areas, though - we’ve got TWO married couples at work where all parties are still teens.
Anyone else feel we are not talking about children here but later post pubescent teenagers and the issue is more along the lines of ‘can one rape their spouse’ and spousal abuse issues then can people who can (usually depending on state) legally consent to have sex also be able to to marry? And this should be handled by educational campaigns as to what is abuse and that marriage is not a shield for the abuser, nor a prison for the abused and enforced abuse laws?
Yep, fuck ALL them guys.
I keep reading the thread title as '. . .abusing chicken. . ." and was looking forward to seeing who on the right was a chicken fucker.
Massachusetts and California might currently allow a twelve-year-old to marry with approval from parents and a judge, but you can just bet that if any judge did give approval for a twelve-year-old to marry, the law would be changed within a week, and that judge would be out of a job at the next opportunity. Laws are passed when they’re needed.