Child Marriage - Is this really a party thing?

#3
#3
11-Year-Old in Florida Forced to Marry Her Rapist - And It's Legal

I find it hard to believe that Republicans support allowing children to marriage.

Anyone that supports such laws is sick.

I don’t think many people support child rape and forced marriage.

The article was very poorly written.

Edit: How does a 10 year old get pregnant and married to an adult without DHS being notified and involved? When did it happen to the girl in the article, 50 years or more ago? Also what sick in the head judge (lawyer) approved that marriage?
 
Last edited:
#8
#8
I don’t think many people support child rape and forced marriage.

The article was very poorly written.

Edit: How does a 10 year old get pregnant and married to an adult without DHS being notified and involved? When did it happen to the girl in the article, 50 years or more ago? Also what sick in the head judge (lawyer) approved that marriage?


.
 
#11
#11
Republicans in NH voted against it and Christie apparently vetoed a bill that had already passed.

Here is a little more on Sherry Johnson.

It is still legal and still happens is the point. What are the reasons to oppose such a law?

Related: An interesting article about the balance between the religious right and it's now apparent direct effects on the tanking numbers of religion in general.

Is the Religious Right to Blame for Christianity’s Decline? | The American Conservative
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#14
#14
Republicans in NH voted against it and Christie apparently vetoed a bill that had already passed.

Here is a little more on Sherry Johnson.

It is still legal and still happens is the point. What are the reasons to oppose such a law?

Two things.

First, her incident was 40 years ago as she's now 58 according to that article. So, your first link omitted that fact (thanks to CNN for pointing that out...that sounded weird) and is trying to enrage people without the facts.

Would that really happen today? At 10 years old? Extremely doubtful.

Second, here's a bit more insight on Christie's decision:

Ban on child marriages conditionally vetoed by Christie

Gov. Chris Christie on Thursday conditionally vetoed a bill (A3091) that would have banned outright all marriages for minors in New Jersey.

Instead, the governor proposed putting more restrictions on New Jersey’s current law, which allows 16- and 17-year-olds to obtain marriage licenses with parental consent, and grants them to those under 16 with a family court judge’s permission.

“I agree that protecting the well-being, dignity, and freedom of minors is vital, but the severe bar this bill creates is not necessary to address the concerns voiced by the bill’s proponents and does not comport with the sensibilities and, in some cases, the religious customs, of the people of this State,” Christie said in his veto message.

The top sponsor of the measure was Republican Assemblywoman Nancy Munoz,

And the second New Hampshire thing:

Republican refuses to repeal child marriage law allowing girls aged 13 to wed | The Independent

Sununu sides with child marriage crusader, calls N.H. law ‘unconscionable’

It's a real tricky slope of banning it entirely under the age of 18. You won't find many people that will agree to a marriage at 11 years old. Don't be a simpleton about it.

So, to answer your question in the thread title, no, it's not a party thing. It's a badly written law thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#16
#16
Forcing children to marry is wrong.

Again, I say, forcing children to marry is wrong.

That said, we need to look at where and why such laws came into being in the first place. How could they become acceptable as law in their beginnings.

One reason is that up until about the middle of the 1800s average life expectancy around the globe was 32 years +/-.

Thats incredible to us now, isn't it.

A 12 year old had already lived just a little bit more than 1/3 of the life span they could reasonably believe they were going to have. Reproductive growth was important to everyone. From families to communities to nations. A female coming into menses was considered 'a marriageable woman now' in many cultures.

Now, of course, there is no need, or excuse for forcing children to wed, and old laws in place that recognized previous exigencies that no longer exist should be changed as quickly as possible.

LG and cohorts trying to make political hay out of it now are just abjectly ignorant liberal hacks looking for anything they can possibly construe as detrimental to those they oppose.
 
#20
#20
Forcing children to marry is wrong.

Again, I say, forcing children to marry is wrong.

That said, we need to look at where and why such laws came into being in the first place. How could they become acceptable as law in their beginnings.

One reason is that up until about the middle of the 1800s average life expectancy around the globe was 32 years +/-.

Thats incredible to us now, isn't it.

A 12 year old had already lived just a little bit more than 1/3 of the life span they could reasonably believe they were going to have. Reproductive growth was important to everyone. From families to communities to nations. A female coming into menses was considered 'a marriageable woman now' in many cultures.

Now, of course, there is no need, or excuse for forcing children to wed, and old laws in place that recognized previous exigencies that no longer exist should be changed as quickly as possible.

LG and cohorts trying to make political hay out of it now are just abjectly ignorant liberal hacks looking for anything they can possibly construe as detrimental to those they oppose.

hmm. interesting. The "Mary was 13" thing was always interesting to me.

I think this plays into our cultures lack of a right to adult hood. now its just, you're 18 welcome to adulthood.
 
#21
#21
.Got it... So laws were enacted early in various states dealing with legal marriage age and age of consent. Some states are beginning to address modern expectations of culture.
 

Attachments

  • life-expectancy-globally-since-1770.jpg
    life-expectancy-globally-since-1770.jpg
    41.7 KB · Views: 4
Last edited:
#23
#23
Forcing children to marry is wrong.

Again, I say, forcing children to marry is wrong.

That said, we need to look at where and why such laws came into being in the first place. How could they become acceptable as law in their beginnings.

One reason is that up until about the middle of the 1800s average life expectancy around the globe was 32 years +/-.

Thats incredible to us now, isn't it.

A 12 year old had already lived just a little bit more than 1/3 of the life span they could reasonably believe they were going to have. Reproductive growth was important to everyone. From families to communities to nations. A female coming into menses was considered 'a marriageable woman now' in many cultures.

Now, of course, there is no need, or excuse for forcing children to wed, and old laws in place that recognized previous exigencies that no longer exist should be changed as quickly as possible.

LG and cohorts trying to make political hay out of it now are just abjectly ignorant liberal hacks looking for anything they can possibly construe as detrimental to those they oppose.

That is a little bit of a misconception. The average life span hasn't really change in 2000 years. What has changed is infant mortality rates.
 
#24
#24
That is a little bit of a misconception. The average life span hasn't really change in 2000 years. What has changed is infant mortality rates.

Also mother's dying in childbirth. I dont want to spread misinformation...but IIRC late 1800s and maybe later, moms died at crazy high rates from childbirth. Like 1 in 3? Or 1 in 4...
 

VN Store



Back
Top