Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,494
|
Post by Tiny on Jun 12, 2017 14:29:27 GMT -5
What about looking at the law from a different angle - how does it affect old guys marrying girls (under 18)? how does it affect old guys when they "religiously" marry multiple girls (under age 18)? How does this law affect Americans from cultures where it's ok for old guys to wed girls (under 18)?
From a tax/welfare stand point how does this effect young men and women? Can married, jobless 16yos collect some sort of government benny just because they are married? How does this effect rape laws?
l strongly suspect this law isn't being put on the books solely to keep two under 18yo's from marrying.
Meant to add - does this law simply help us (America) when dealing with foreign countries - ie - does it give us bragging rights "We don't allow child marriage - if you want to work with us - you need to stop doing it too". I know we're "making America great again" and we're not really interested in telling/leading the other countries so maybe this isn't a thing.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,257
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 12, 2017 14:50:02 GMT -5
What about looking at the law from a different angle - how does it affect old guys marrying girls (under 18)? how does it affect old guys when they "religiously" marry multiple girls (under age 18)? How does this law affect Americans from cultures where it's ok for old guys to wed girls (under 18)? From a tax/welfare stand point how does this effect young men and women? Can married, jobless 16yos collect some sort of government benny just because they are married? How does this effect rape laws? ... It would prevent any person 16 and younger from marrying anyone of any age. It would require a judge to sign off on a marriage of anyone 17 years old (while also requiring parental consent). It would not impact laws against multiple concurrent marriages. Laws apply equally without regard to a person's cultural background. I hear that welfare benefits are a disincentive for marriage. All married couples benefit from certain tax provisions and those would be no different based on the fact that one or both are under 18.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 12, 2017 14:53:20 GMT -5
Also think that emotionally mature 14 and 15 year olds wouldn't seek to be married at that age. My guess is that they'd do it and simply not register it with the state until they were legally allowed to do so. Likewise with a 14-year-old and a 30-year-old, BTW. But that doesn't mean the law is useless.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 15, 2024 3:21:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2017 14:54:40 GMT -5
Ok. A 16 year old minor in college would get more aide if married.But I think doing it FOR that reason would be fraud?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,257
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 12, 2017 15:35:15 GMT -5
Also think that emotionally mature 14 and 15 year olds wouldn't seek to be married at that age. My guess is that they'd do it and simply not register it with the state until they were legally allowed to do so. Likewise with a 14-year-old and a 30-year-old, BTW. But that doesn't mean the law is useless. If two youngsters are going to play house anyway, why not give them the opportunity to go before a judge and explain why they should be allowed to marry? Your 14 year old and 30 year old example: If they are going to live together, I support them getting married. That way if she or he ends up kicks the kid to the curb for a new teen toy, there would have to be a divorce. I see the law as more likely to create problems than to solve them.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 12, 2017 15:41:28 GMT -5
My guess is that they'd do it and simply not register it with the state until they were legally allowed to do so. Likewise with a 14-year-old and a 30-year-old, BTW. But that doesn't mean the law is useless. If two youngsters are going to play house anyway, why not give them the opportunity to go before a judge and explain why they should be allowed to marry? Your 14 year old and 30 year old example: If they are going to live together, I support them getting married. That way if she or he ends up kicks the kid to the curb for a new teen toy, there would have to be a divorce. I see the law as more likely to create problems than to solve them. That may be. At the same time, the article states that only 40 of the marriages involved 14- or 15-year-olds, and this was over an entire decade. One more reason to consider the law a bit of window dressing.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,257
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 12, 2017 16:28:12 GMT -5
... One more reason to consider the law a bit of window dressing. There are a few articles linked in postings on this thread that do a great job of highlighting issues that young people who are exploited face. I just don't see this law ending exploitation. At least with registering it with the state, it is harder to hide it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 15, 2024 3:21:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2017 16:35:30 GMT -5
Ok. A 16 year old minor in college would get more aide if married.But I think doing it FOR that reason would be fraud? There really aren't that many sixteen-year-olds in college. I doubt if they get married for the financial aid. If you are that smart, you are going to be getting academic aid. My cousin was a National Merit finalist at 16. She got no financial aid back in the 1960s. Her parents paid for her education as well as her then-husband's.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 15, 2024 3:21:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2017 17:07:24 GMT -5
Agreed, the 16 year old I know got lots of merit.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,788
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 12, 2017 18:11:57 GMT -5
We don't need the gobment telling us when we can get married. It is none of their businees.
Unless you are gay, then the government must stop that at all costs.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Jun 12, 2017 18:27:23 GMT -5
We don't need the no dang gobment tellin' us when we's canna git married. It is be none-a they bizness. Unless you's are be one a them gays, then the gobmint must stop it at all costs. MAGA, dag nab it! They be ruinin' our country anda corruptin' ours youngin's . . .
There, fixed it for you
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,788
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 12, 2017 18:38:46 GMT -5
Lol.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 12, 2017 18:43:26 GMT -5
Do you think it's going to stop cult perverts coveting young girls or religions that preach raping little girls, by making it illegal, be my guest.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,622
|
Post by swamp on Jun 12, 2017 19:11:27 GMT -5
No but we can stop making it legal.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 15, 2017 8:44:53 GMT -5
I can't imagine the specifics of a case where a judge would approve a marriage of a 14 or 15 year. But I am not sure that my lack of imagination should override the decision of a judge who does know the details. I think that 16 year old should have to have a judge's objective approval as well. I don't think it is worth the effort with 17 year olds. Some people are as emotionally mature at age 12 as the average person is at 21. Few, granted, at the tail end of a normal distribution, but they do exist. A 14-year-old can legally work, and have sexual relations with a 13-, 14-, or 15-year-old. Hence I could see a judge approving the marriage of a 14-year-old and a 15-year-old if it was legal and their parents approved. What I have trouble imagining is a couple giving a toot whether the state recognizes their marriage during its first 2-4 years, unless the marriage is being used to circumvent statutory rape laws. Even in that case, the law is only as useful to the extent that statutory rape is reported. And I suppose if the minor changes his/her mind in the first 2-4 years, (s)he won't have the hassle of filing for divorce.This would be my argument for no marriage before 18. It's a legal contract. Marriage isn't/shouldn't be a "I get to have sex with you now" card. I also see no good reason for those under 18 to get married outside of "but I want to". When you're old enough to enter into contracts, you can enter into contracts. I don't want judges deciding if people are "in love enough" to get married. I'd rather see other laws changed to accommodate more legitimate reasons (someone mentioned having kids with that person already)...I don't want the contract of marriage to impact existing children...there's no real reason that the relationship between 1 parent and the other should impact resources a child has access to (and to me, this really goes back into religious ideology that I'd like to see removed anyways).
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,257
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 15, 2017 9:13:45 GMT -5
... And I suppose if the minor changes his/her mind in the first 2-4 years, (s)he won't have the hassle of filing for divorce.This would be my argument for no marriage before 18. It's a legal contract. ... And it is my argument for allowing it. Divorce might be a "hassle", but it could benefit the younger person if it is the older person who wishes to end it without losing assets.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 15, 2017 9:28:42 GMT -5
Some people are as emotionally mature at age 12 as the average person is at 21. Few, granted, at the tail end of a normal distribution, but they do exist. A 14-year-old can legally work, and have sexual relations with a 13-, 14-, or 15-year-old. Hence I could see a judge approving the marriage of a 14-year-old and a 15-year-old if it was legal and their parents approved. What I have trouble imagining is a couple giving a toot whether the state recognizes their marriage during its first 2-4 years, unless the marriage is being used to circumvent statutory rape laws. Even in that case, the law is only as useful to the extent that statutory rape is reported. And I suppose if the minor changes his/her mind in the first 2-4 years, (s)he won't have the hassle of filing for divorce.This would be my argument for no marriage before 18. It's a legal contract. Marriage isn't/shouldn't be a "I get to have sex with you now" card. I also see no good reason for those under 18 to get married outside of "but I want to". When you're old enough to enter into contracts, you can enter into contracts. I don't want judges deciding if people are "in love enough" to get married. I'd rather see other laws changed to accommodate more legitimate reasons (someone mentioned having kids with that person already)...I don't want the contract of marriage to impact existing children...there's no real reason that the relationship between 1 parent and the other should impact resources a child has access to (and to me, this really goes back into religious ideology that I'd like to see removed anyways). You're talking to man who takes sex outside of marriage as seriously as the Bible does, hence I'd obviously prefer that sex was legally contingent on marriage. Having said this, marriage, to a Christian, is a covenant--an unbreakable contract--between a man, a woman, and God, in front of witnesses. Whether the state acknowledges the marriage is more or less irrelevant except for tax purposes.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 15, 2017 11:55:06 GMT -5
This would be my argument for no marriage before 18. It's a legal contract. Marriage isn't/shouldn't be a "I get to have sex with you now" card. I also see no good reason for those under 18 to get married outside of "but I want to". When you're old enough to enter into contracts, you can enter into contracts. I don't want judges deciding if people are "in love enough" to get married. I'd rather see other laws changed to accommodate more legitimate reasons (someone mentioned having kids with that person already)...I don't want the contract of marriage to impact existing children...there's no real reason that the relationship between 1 parent and the other should impact resources a child has access to (and to me, this really goes back into religious ideology that I'd like to see removed anyways). You're talking to man who takes sex outside of marriage as seriously as the Bible does, hence I'd obviously prefer that sex was legally contingent on marriage. Having said this, marriage, to a Christian, is a covenant--an unbreakable contract--between a man, a woman, and God, in front of witnesses. Whether the state acknowledges the marriage is more or less irrelevant except for tax purposes. To the point about Christian marriage...that's actually part of the reason I dislike the term "marriage" from a legal standpoint. I think we get a lot of issues purely because we use a religious term for government purposes. Frankly, I think we'd resolve a lot of issues by using a different term to describe the government-recognized union.
I'd like to keep the state out of it and irrelevant "except for tax purposes"...and a few other things that marriage does legally. If a couple of 6-year olds want to get married religiously...that's fine, as long as they aren't breaking any secular laws.
To your first point about sex contingent on marriage...my point was more to the "loophole" of statutory rape age restrictions being skirted via marriage.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,622
|
Post by swamp on Jun 15, 2017 11:55:45 GMT -5
This would be my argument for no marriage before 18. It's a legal contract. Marriage isn't/shouldn't be a "I get to have sex with you now" card. I also see no good reason for those under 18 to get married outside of "but I want to". When you're old enough to enter into contracts, you can enter into contracts. I don't want judges deciding if people are "in love enough" to get married. I'd rather see other laws changed to accommodate more legitimate reasons (someone mentioned having kids with that person already)...I don't want the contract of marriage to impact existing children...there's no real reason that the relationship between 1 parent and the other should impact resources a child has access to (and to me, this really goes back into religious ideology that I'd like to see removed anyways). You're talking to man who takes sex outside of marriage as seriously as the Bible does, hence I'd obviously prefer that sex was legally contingent on marriage. Having said this, marriage, to a Christian, is a covenant--an unbreakable contract--between a man, a woman, and God, in front of witnesses. Whether the state acknowledges the marriage is more or less irrelevant except for tax purposes. exactly. And children aren't men and women.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 15, 2017 11:58:35 GMT -5
This would be my argument for no marriage before 18. It's a legal contract. ... And it is my argument for allowing it. Divorce might be a "hassle", but it could benefit the younger person if it is the older person who wishes to end it without losing assets. Yes, but in the scenario we're primarily describing (or at least the one I'm most concerned about) which is children being "sold off" or "given away" by parents to an older partner...it's typically the younger partner who'd like to get away. In general, I don't like the idea of parents being able to contract for their kids for something like this...specifically in that I see little/no real value in forcing it to happen immediately rather than waiting until the child can contract for themselves. There just aren't many advantages I can think of to ensuring a child gets married at 15 rather than waiting until 18.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 15, 2017 12:01:05 GMT -5
You're talking to man who takes sex outside of marriage as seriously as the Bible does, hence I'd obviously prefer that sex was legally contingent on marriage. Having said this, marriage, to a Christian, is a covenant--an unbreakable contract--between a man, a woman, and God, in front of witnesses. Whether the state acknowledges the marriage is more or less irrelevant except for tax purposes. exactly. And children aren't men and women. meh, I think when you start talking about religion then the societal/legal definition of "man" and "woman" aren't quite so relevant. Particularly given how they change so much over time. Religious definitions of when one becomes a man or woman are different than legal definitions...which is again part of the problem I see in using the same terms for both a religious and secular contract even though the 2 things mean significantly different things in some cases.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,257
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 15, 2017 12:12:49 GMT -5
And it is my argument for allowing it. Divorce might be a "hassle", but it could benefit the younger person if it is the older person who wishes to end it without losing assets. Yes, but in the scenario we're primarily describing (or at least the one I'm most concerned about) which is children being "sold off" or "given away" by parents to an older partner...it's typically the younger partner who'd like to get away. In general, I don't like the idea of parents being able to contract for their kids for something like this...specifically in that I see little/no real value in forcing it to happen immediately rather than waiting until the child can contract for themselves. There just aren't many advantages I can think of to ensuring a child gets married at 15 rather than waiting until 18. Will the parents say, "Dang, I got offered X amount of dollars for my daughter but I can't get the state to sign off on it so it isn't going to happen"? Or will they just sell them off without a piece of paper from the state?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 15, 2024 3:21:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2017 12:15:45 GMT -5
Yes, but in the scenario we're primarily describing (or at least the one I'm most concerned about) which is children being "sold off" or "given away" by parents to an older partner...it's typically the younger partner who'd like to get away. In general, I don't like the idea of parents being able to contract for their kids for something like this...specifically in that I see little/no real value in forcing it to happen immediately rather than waiting until the child can contract for themselves. There just aren't many advantages I can think of to ensuring a child gets married at 15 rather than waiting until 18. Will the parents say, "Dang, I got offered X amount of dollars for my daughter but I can't get the state to sign off on it so it isn't going to happen"? Or will they just sell them off without a piece of paper from the state? If they do it without the paper they are criminally responsible on multiple levels. That acts as a deterant to some.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 15, 2017 12:20:10 GMT -5
Yes, but in the scenario we're primarily describing (or at least the one I'm most concerned about) which is children being "sold off" or "given away" by parents to an older partner...it's typically the younger partner who'd like to get away. In general, I don't like the idea of parents being able to contract for their kids for something like this...specifically in that I see little/no real value in forcing it to happen immediately rather than waiting until the child can contract for themselves. There just aren't many advantages I can think of to ensuring a child gets married at 15 rather than waiting until 18. Will the parents say, "Dang, I got offered X amount of dollars for my daughter but I can't get the state to sign off on it so it isn't going to happen"? Or will they just sell them off without a piece of paper from the state? If they're going to do it anyways...I'd rather have them potentially found guilty of a criminal act, plus the new spouse also potentially guilty of a criminal act, rather than just say "they're going to break the law, so we might as well make it legal in the first place".
In many of these cases, it's a religious/cultish circumstance as well..so it's not like the kids are just missing...everyone knows where they are, they just can't do anything about it because it's been legalized. I really just keep going back to the same question...what's the benefit of getting married at 15? And whatever benefits there are...aren't there better ways to accommodate for legitimate circumstances than legalizing underage marriage (folks brought up having children with someone earlier...to me it makes more sense to not have marriage play into children from a strictly government standpoint).
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 15, 2017 12:30:48 GMT -5
So let's take the most "acceptable" scenario...which is typically both people the same age (so no creepy 40 year old and 15 year old). A pair of 15 year olds want to get married, both sets of parents think it's fine. What are the advantages of granting them a government-recognized marriage as opposed to telling them to wait 3 years?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,257
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 15, 2017 12:35:33 GMT -5
Will the parents say, "Dang, I got offered X amount of dollars for my daughter but I can't get the state to sign off on it so it isn't going to happen"? Or will they just sell them off without a piece of paper from the state? If they do it without the paper they are criminally responsible on multiple levels. That acts as a deterant to some. Judges don't have to sign off on it so it would still be a crime. I am still wanting to see the details of why a judge signed off on it 40 times in a decade.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,257
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 15, 2017 12:37:35 GMT -5
So let's take the most "acceptable" scenario...which is typically both people the same age (so no creepy 40 year old and 15 year old). A pair of 15 year olds want to get married, both sets of parents think it's fine. What are the advantages of granting them a government-recognized marriage as opposed to telling them to wait 3 years? If I were the judge, I would most likely tell them to wait unless there was a good reason for them not to do so (which I can't think of what it would be).
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 15, 2017 12:43:58 GMT -5
So let's take the most "acceptable" scenario...which is typically both people the same age (so no creepy 40 year old and 15 year old). A pair of 15 year olds want to get married, both sets of parents think it's fine. What are the advantages of granting them a government-recognized marriage as opposed to telling them to wait 3 years? If I were the judge, I would most likely tell them to wait unless there was a good reason for them not to do so (which I can't think of what it would be). Fair enough. In general I don't like the idea of judges actually having that power to begin with. I think that lends itself to a lot of subjective interpretation that nobody is ever held responsible for (I realize judges do this a lot because they have to, I just think it's different when one party is a minor who may not actually have much representation for their own true best interests). I have some of the same feelings about how we investigate immigration-related marriages, and people trying to figure out if 2 other people really love one another. I don't want judges/investigators making legal decisions based on their interpretation of other people's feelings.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,494
|
Post by Tiny on Jun 15, 2017 12:53:25 GMT -5
As for the two teens in love thing- so what if they can't get a marriage license.
My 20 year old brother started dating a 15yo girl he met at work. It was love. True Love. No one approved of this relationship - but they kept at it. They were pretty much living together by the time she was 18. They had their official marriage ceremony (full Catholic Mass I might add) just after her 20th b-day (she could not drink at her own wedding ) Yeah, it was a lot of "lies" and looking the other way for YEARS until they were officially married but everyone pretty much accepted that they were a couple before they were wed (and if you needed to believe there was no sex going on... you could do that). they didn't have kids until a few years after their wedding (they got settled into careers/jobs). They've been married over 30 years (and they still kiss and hold hands in public.)
Surely in this day and age, "modern" teens in True Love can manage the "lie" of "celibacy", get and correctly use BC, and navigate their family/work/whatever other relationships they have - until they are indeed "old enough" to marry.
I guess I'm saying that teens in True Love - can just keep doing what they are doing until they are old enough to sign a Marriage Certificate. The law against child brides shouldn't really effect them.
(heck, I know 40 yo smokers who still think their parents don't know they smoke...they just keep 'hiding' their smokes/smoking and their parents just keep looking the other way. And viola! the lie stays alive. )
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,257
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 15, 2017 13:18:24 GMT -5
If I were the judge, I would most likely tell them to wait unless there was a good reason for them not to do so (which I can't think of what it would be). Fair enough. In general I don't like the idea of judges actually having that power to begin with. I think that lends itself to a lot of subjective interpretation that nobody is ever held responsible for (I realize judges do this a lot because they have to, I just think it's different when one party is a minor who may not actually have much representation for their own true best interests). I have some of the same feelings about how we investigate immigration-related marriages, and people trying to figure out if 2 other people really love one another. I don't want judges/investigators making legal decisions based on their interpretation of other people's feelings. And for me it is a matter of in 999,999,999 cases out of 1,000,000,000 is shouldn't happen but having it as a possibility for that one case makes it worth not outlawing.
|
|