Kentucky Bill To Outlaw Child Marriage Stalled Amid Conservative Concerns
A bill to stop child marriage in Kentucky was stalled by a conservative group this week, leaving some state lawmakers furious. But the group said they just want to protect parents’ rights in the process.
State Sen. Julie Raque Adams (R-Louisville) introduced Senate Bill 48 after she learned that Kentucky has the third-highest rate of child marriage in the country, just below Texas and Florida, according to Insider Louisville. From 2000 to 2015, more than 10,000 children were married in Kentucky, according to the Tahirih Justice Center .
Donna Pollard, a leading advocate for the bill, told the Courier Journal that she was married at 16 to an older man who had sexually abused her since she was just 14. She said she was encouraged to marry by her mother, who had been wed at just 13 years old herself.
She described her former husband as a “perpetrator” who regularly abused her.
“I felt just completely and totally trapped,” said Pollard, who is now divorced.
The so-called “child bride” legislation would bar marriage for anyone under age 17 and require judicial approval for a 17-year-old to wed. Under current law, 16- and 17-year-olds can marry with parental permission, and children can marry even younger when there’s a pregnancy involved, Insider Louisville explains .
Passage of the bill would seem easy enough. But late Wednesday, Adams tweeted that a vote on the legislation had been stalled. She told Insider Louisville that the Family Foundation of Kentucky, a conservative group that lobbies on social issues, was behind the delay.
Tags
Who is online
456 visitors
Eileen Recktenwald, the executive director of the Kentucky Association of Sexual Assault Programs, also expressed her disgust.
“This is legalized rape of children,” Recktenwald told the Courier Journal. “We cannot allow that to continue in Kentucky, and I cannot believe we are even debating this in the year 2018 in the United States.”
Mary Kunze, a spokeswoman for the Family Foundation of Kentucky, told HuffPost that the group supports the bill overall, but wanted changes to the provision allowing a 17-year-old to get married with a judge’s consent. Kunze said they wanted it to make clear that a parent must also agree to the marriage.
“We just want the language cleaned up,” Kunze said. “The compromises have all been made. We’re hoping the bill can come back this next week.”
Adams told Insider Louisville that the bill is being adjusted, but she had one caveat: “Many times the parents are the problem,” pushing their kids “into the arms of a predator.”
Exactly.
Child marriage is legalized rape.
(Well, unless you believe that 11 year old kids are giving their "consent" to intercourse with old men...)
Blue,
I think I see a conflict in the law here. If, in order to marry a girl under 16, a male admits to being the expectant father, he has also admitted to having sex with a girl under the age of consent. That's called statutory rape and is good for between 5 and 15years, depending on the State. If he admits to statutory rape, the only person he'll be marrying is his cellmate, Bubba.
If KY is allowing a child under the age of 16 to marry, they are turning a blind eye to the statutory rape of that child.
If they can't remember Woodstock, they are too young for me.
1969 or 1999?
Would it help more if he made it capitalized too?
"Depending on the State" referred to how much time he would spend married to Bubba, not whether or not statutory rape was illegal. It's illegal in all 50 States and the minimum age of consent is 16, in some States it's 18.
Sorry, just don't see the connection.
Huff Post article:
The so-called “child bride” legislation would bar marriage for anyone under age 17 and require judicial approval for a 17-year-old to wed. Under current law, 16- and 17-year-olds can marry with parental permission, and children can marry even younger when there’s a pregnancy involved, Insider Louisville explains .
(Note: Huff Post was being deceitful by not telling you...
No one under the age of 16 may be issued a license unless they are pregnant and have a District Court Judge issue a court order directing the Clerk to do so.
From Insider Louisville:
Under the current law in Kentucky, 16 and 17-year-olds can marry with their parents’ permission, and a girl of any age under 16 can marry as long as they are pregnant and marrying the expectant father. Likewise, a boy of any age can marry a woman that he impregnates under the current law.
The Insider Louisville article didn't have their facts right either.
So no, the article didn't say:
"Under the current law in Kentucky, 16 and 17-year-olds can marry with their parents’ permission, and a girl of any age under 16 can marry as long as they are pregnant and marrying the expectant father "
but Old School Marine had enough sense to realize that.
Now pick your state and get your friends who obviously don't know either to do the same. Here's two ways of doing it.
Marriage License
Pick your state and then your county. What surprised me is Kentucky doesn't allow 1st and 2nd cousins to marry, but California does.
Goes back to my point, the Huff Post knew their opportunity to feed their readers the lie wouldn't last very long, so they had to jump on this right away and provide just enough information, but not too much in order to push the lie before it was no longer beneficial to write the article. You can bet next week when this bill is passed, Huff Post will not mention it. I know it happens to all of us. I just wanted everyone to see what they were doing and it seems, even with all the evidence and time I've put into it, it has been a futile attempt to do so. After reading comments that were posted afterwards, I see Krishna who once said 'people don't read the title', but the last comment they read. If you could look back at all the articles put on this site including mine, I am the only one I can remember who has ever admitted you got me on that one.
Sorry but you're obviously just not familiar with the long tradition of judges and parents forcing pregnant girls to marry their rapists , as bible-babble mandates. Florida has recently been addressing the same problem in their laws:
.
No surprise that the only opposition came from conservatives like this guy:
IMO, any child under the age of 18 should not get married, even if pregnant. A pregnant teen is bad enough, but let's force her to get married and compound the problem.
Kentucky Senate passed legislation that would ban any marriage under the age of 18, except for marriages at 17 with the consent of a judge. This legislation now goes to the state House of representatives.
The legislation was previously sheved by the Senate when they thought that trying to overrule the SCOTUS decision of Obergfell v. Hodges was more important than prohibiting child marriages. There were a few Republicans who voted against it.
This is disgusting. In what twisted religious belief view does a parent have the right to marry a teenager to an adult? Any parent that even hints at support of their perversion should lose their parental rights and be locked in a cage until they get psychological treatment.
Yet it's totally cool to the left to pass out condoms to 12 year olds and accompany them to abortion clinics on a regular basis.
Nice Strawman argument. But then, I suppose it's ok to let 12+ year olds to become parents themselves, right? Heaven forbid we teach teenagers about safe sex and pregnancy, Right? >sarc<
So teach them how to stay married in a relationship while they're learning not to get pregnant- not that liberals believe in straight marriage anymore anyway.
We're talking about teenagers here. Based on your statement, I take it you're in favor of marrying off tens (i.e. kids)?
Since you clearly want to demonstrate your bias and strawman arguments, nothing you say after that statement is worthy of any serious consideration.
If we can teach teens future life skills (or should be anyway) they can learn things like self control and not marrying someone after only knowing them for two weeks. And just like sex Ed that doesn't mean it has to be applied immediately.
And there's always room for liberal bashing.
Why are you trying to change the subject?
What is it with the line of reasoning, "If Joe does something wrong, then John is justified in doing something else (more or less related) equally wrong"?
The topic here is child marriage, not condoms for teens. Why don't you tell us what you think about the subject at hand? What do you think about arranged child marriages?
Obviously I don't agree with child marriages, though I'd argue if 16 is actually a child. A better question is if liberals can stay focused on the question and not start equating conservatives with hillbillies.
Once again you try to change the subject. Or you simply don't know what the subject is. Or both.
Only when you have no valid argument or point to make. But then, I expect nothing less from you.
How ironic, considering you're the one who went off topic.
This time, you try to change the subject... twice.
Feel free to post your own article on whatever subject you like.
Apparently you confuse a "discussion" with "tunnel vision".
Neither do I.
In many northern and/or blue states, 16 is the age of consent. I don't consider the following states/territory/federal district to have very many "hillbillies", but they have millions of Conservatives. Here are some of them:
ME, CT, MD, MA, MI, NH, OH, PA, VT WA, HI ... Washington, DC, Puerto Rico.
Why are you always telling us what liberals / leftists think? Why do you never tell us what conservatives / rightists think?
Do you not know what conservatives / rightists think?
Or... do conservatives / rightists not think?
Liberal "sex education" classes teach young kids how to put condoms on bananas, among other cool sex ed activities:
While the right makes a hero out of a bible-thumping pedophile* who's brain is stuck in 5,000 B.C.
*I refer, of course, to Roy Sick-Fuck Moore.
I don't recall anybody making a hero out of Moore. In fact the only people outside of the Alabama GOP who showed any support for him did reluctantly.
Teaching abstinence does not stop teens from having sex because they don't block hormones. Those condoms are cheap and they prevent disease.
A woman or even a teen has the right to make those reproductive decisons about her body. Your church, the Bible and your religious beliefs do not give you the power to make the medical decisions about anyone but yourself.
agree with you on that
Apparently, you don't even know what the "discussion" is.
If a teen has the power to make choices about her body then she should have the responsibility to pay for whatever comes out of it.
"Apparently, you don't even know what the "discussion" is."
This coming from the side who's idea of dissent is rioting and wearing masks while throwing bottles of pee at reporters.
Frankly, I hope that kids not proficient in math and reading are proficient in condom use. They're the ones whose kids society ends up supporting.
So you'd rather they didn't learn how to use condoms?
Seems counterproductive.
Yep I actually do equate ignorant conservatives with ignorant hillbillies.
I have to agree with you Sandy.
Well, it has only been 10 minutes since you wrote that. I'll give you a couple of hours and maybe you'll come to realize what a bigoted and ignorant statement that was.
Go easy on the inbred, right wing morons, CJ, it's not their fault they're so stupid. Their hillbilly sister/mamas dropped them on their heads too many times when they were babies...damn moonshine!
Do you plan to jail 12-year-olds? Just say no has never worked for drugs or sex because it doesn't address the issue intelligently.
How do you expect a 12-year-old to raise a child when she is barely a teen? Where is your intelligence? Condoms exist for a reason or do you want to punish a teen girl because of your conservative religious beliefs.
Apparently, many males aren't "proficient in condom use". I wonder how proficient they were in math and reading. Among them ...
Would you rather they teach the child to pray instead? Abstinence-only education programs have failed every time they have been implemented because they ignore the reality of human hormones and biology.
Then let your own daughter(s) if you have them marry while underaged.
So teach them how to stay married in a relationship
Someone should teach Donald Trump that skill.
What about the poor women though ?
There’s no accounting for taste. That burden is on them.
I'm an acquired taste,
for persons,
without n e
What "side" would that be? You make no sense. And still off topic too.
Do you want poorly educated children having children while still minors themselves? Because I can see no other reason for you to object to tweens and teens learning about contraception.
They're having sex. Not all of them, but enough of them that some end up pregnant, and some end up with STIs. We can either bury our heads in the sand because we don't like the thought of daddy's little girl having sex, or we can be pragmatic and make sure they know how to protect themselves from pregnancy and STIs, and have the tools to do so.
an ounce of prevention saves a ton of cure
Yup.
I don't get the opposition to sex ed. I don't know of any sex ed courses for teens in which the kids are advised to go out and have sex. I'm fairly sure they're told, as I was, that the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and STIs is abstinence.
Bible-babblers are afraid that some folks might have sex without the approval of an invisible sky fairy, and they think the risk of pregnancy will dissuade them from doing so.......despite all available data on that issue.
It's punitive "faith-based science."
that never seems to evolve
No, and I never said that I did.
I did not "object to tweens and teens learning about contraception".
It seems that you should have read comment 2.1.32 more carefully.
Good parenting alone is no guarantee. I'm sure your own kids surprised you often, and not always in ways you would have preferred despite your good parenting.
Which has what to do with this thread and allowing rapists to marry the children that they rape and impregnate? FFS!
Please see comment 2.1.23 , because that is the comment and sub-topic to which I replied. You're welcome.
How about you stop these old perverts from raping children? and stop them from making them marry their rapists?
I'm going to push back on this a bit. The man was blind - he had no idea they weren't the same woman.
It's still nonsense.
Nothing like blaming the FEMALE CHILD.
So what was the point of your post about kids learning to put condoms on bananas? Was it commendation of liberals?
Nobody here wants 12-year-olds to have a "license to have promiscuous sex". I'd say that pretty much everybody here thinks that sex at 12 is an unwise decision. But we recognize that kids make unwise decisions all the time, because they're kids. So if they're going to make that decision, we want them to have the tools to protect themselves from the consequences.
We object to teen marriage because it is a legal arrangement that puts some teens at risk of abuse because they are now bound to someone who just happened to be a sexual partner, and may not be a good choice of life partner. A married teen will likely have little in the way of financial resources to allow him or her to escape from an abusive or just unhappy marriage easily. Especially in cases of large age differences, the younger partner is vulnerable to emotional manipulation.
Rather than see teen marriage as a solution to teen sex, I see it as a compounding of the problem.
right on, Sandy!
My own family is a prime example of this
Not my immediate family, but my extended family is an example of this, too. My uncle had 8 kids from 2 marriages, all raised on public assistance. He graduated high school, but his second wife did not. She couldn't get a driver's license, because she couldn't pass the written exam, and therefore couldn't work outside the home. As his intermittent wages wouldn't support that many kids, you and I did.
Yep.
My brother has 2 grandchildren and his kids are all younger than mine. He never married the mother of his children and she got assistance until they all turned 18. She's probably still getting it, tho, because she's as dumb as a rock and can't hold down a job.
None of those 3 kids graduated high school. The middle kid even said she was going to get pregnant and quit school which is exactly what she did. Now she's working some minimum wage job and trying to feed her kid. The youngest got a girl knocked up and they didn't get married, either.
My story above is a fine example of bad parenting. My brother is lucky I live far away from him and his kids. Thanksgiving would not be a happy holiday
Telling kids to pray and to try to ignore natural urges just doesn't work. That is a proven fact because every time the public schools give in to religious pressure and attempts to teach abstinence as a sexual policy the rate both of teen pregnancy and STDs goes up.
Condoms, masturbation, as well as teaching both oral and anal, are ways to limit teen pregnancy, despite the fact that you vehemently disagree. Distributing and teaching how to use birth control should be the default policy, both for health and to limit the current overpopulation of Earth that we are now ignoring.
Humans are innately sexual creatures and 5000 years ago we started to reproduce at 14+ because our lifespan was not as long as it is today, so we cannot ignore evolution because of your conservative social beliefs. We developed birth control as a way to prevent pregnancy as well as the spread of STDs, so use it and stop trying to push either religious belief and shame that doesn't work. Just saying no to sex is unnatural, unhealthy and doesn't work as a public policy.
I'm not sure where you grew up but where I grew up the kids of preachers were the hellions of the school, despite the fact that daddy was a pulpit pounder and mommy was seen as a saint. A friend of mine would be alive if he didn't go drinking with a preachers kid 3 day after graduation and littery had had of his skull removed when the car went off the road at 70mph and into a tree. The preacher's kid survived, even though he spent a week in the ICU.
Abstinence doesn't work as a public policy.
Which particular rightwing pukefunnel do you get this scurrilous BS from or is it all of the or does it just come from your warped imagination. Wherever it's coming from we know what triggered it and here are the facts (which, of course, fly against everything you've been saying):
OSM, stop spreading lies.
How about poorly educated inbred pedophiles?
Does the truth hurt?
Tessy, you replied to my comment by using someone else's words which I block quoted in 2.1.10. I cannot answer your questions, but if are you trying to accuse me of having intimate knowledge of "uninformed inbred morons", you are grossly mistaken. It seems that you don't understand my comment to Rmando (2.1.6) or the entire thread and are merely trying to sling personal insults again.
Abstinence and supposed good parenting are not going to stop teens from having sex. You want people to stick their head in the sand because it is your emotionally driven choice, but your ideas do not work. Just telling a kid not to have sex doesn't work. We have tried those ideas and they have failed.
I am not OK with statutory rape, so stop trying to say that I am.
Or, in what twisted view would a parent even consider marrying a teenager to an adult? The fact that the bill to stop child marriage (unbelievable that such a thing occurs in this day and age) was stalled only shows there are those who support child marriage. Such a bill should be met with unanimous approval.
You forgot something Gordy. Check your baggage to see if you can figure what it is. Well, OK, I'll tell you. You forgot to know all the facts of the matter. Come back when you have all of them and have assimilated them into an understanding of what happened concerning this bill.
I'm well aware of the facts. It doesn't change anything I said.
No you don't. Why did they not pass this bill as it is?
But a lot of people other than you don't know shit either, but Huff Post will tell you what to believe and it ain't facts.
Because they wanted to protect "parents rights." It's right there in the 1st paragraph. Of course, that excuse is total BS! What parent would marry off their child?
Ill picksix
lottery off that
This legislation should have been a bipartisan rubber stamp with no discussion needed.
Islam.
(It happens with some extremist Christians-- although they are the minority. And of course its common in much of the Muslim world).
Islam
Mormon as well.
FLDS - yes. LDS - no. Learn the difference.
It's just as much a Christian tradition particularly in this country, and it's not Christian extremists per se but conservative states in general which historically have permitted the practice and even encouraged it if the girl is pregnant.
But, still right here in the USofA.
There are some cultures back in the hills that believe that it is normal for a girl to be married by the age of 13 or 14. I don't believe that it is. That said it is a deeply ingrained culturally issue that is going to be very difficult to uproot. Many of these people have followed this belief for many generations back and not only do not see this as perverse, but see it as completely normal. Just going in, calling them perverts, attacking their religion and imposing an unfamiliar law on them is certainty not the right way to approach them. They will fight back.
Remember Loretta Lynn was married just after turning 15 and Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old Cousin. Of course it caused a lot of problems when it became known to the general public, but where they came from it was not all that unusual as Lynn's mother was married at 13, as were lot of the people in the area where both of them were raised.
While they may 'fight back', they need to change none the less. There is NO question of that necessity for cultures that encourage genital mutilation, honor killings or forced marriages and there should be no question about their 'cultural practice' of marrying off young girls to older men just because mom and dad want to be unburdened.
I don't know if their way is good, bad, or indifferent but who are you to declare it wrong and demand they change?
Are you defending the notion of child marriage as acceptable?
Just curious-- why are you advocating forced rape of young children remaining to be legal. in the U.S.?
Yes-- indeed hen is!
A child is not a possession to be sold off by the parents because of their religious beliefs. Every person has the right to make the decision about their life partner and even the age of 18 is too young because the brain is still developing at that age.
Who said children are possessions? I did not! I don't think someone 12 or 13 or so can make that decision. Then again I don't think anyone below the age of 18 should be able to decide that they don't want to be their biological sex. I'll bet you think that is OK don't you.
I agree arkpdx. They are making that decision now as low as 3 years old and you can bet it is a Progressive idea to promote this. One parent I read said their little girl at the age of one and a half said she was a boy and ever since then they are treating her as a him and even the doctors are working with them to do the puberty thing when she starts to go through it.
In this article none of us including you are promoting child marriages. See how the propaganda works. People discussing 12 year old children getting married when neither of us can stand the thought of it. But they are hillbillies, less informed, voted for Trump, deplorable and such. Their not from the big city, not as smart or educated.
epistte, what age do you think the state should decide a person is old enough to get married? At what age do you think the state should decide they should be allowed to have children, because having children should require the State's approval, shouldn't it?
I'm the one with the moral compass.
You do not understand gender identity and somehow think the child or their parent makes the decision without medical/psychological professionals. If there is a problem with their gender identity then they need to be seen by a psychological professional who will make the decision. The outcome if better if they are able to deal with the situation when they are younger then waiting for them to mature in the wrong gender identity.
The problem is not the child but your ignorance of human sexuality and the process of gender identity reassignment. The cure is for you to learn from a medical source and not Fox News or the conservative echo chamber.
I didn't want to give the state more power into life decisions, but I would rather the couple is compatible before they marry, and that the woman is emotionally ready for pregnancy and raising a child.
I think that the cure is more education. Education before is much cheaper than the cost of the cleaning up what something bad happens, either divorce or child abuse/neglect.
Nope .I learned all I need to know in biology class.
XX chromosomes = female
XY chromosomes = male
Sex organs = uterus, ovaries, vagina = female
Sex organs = restocked, penis = males
If you are one and think you are another mentally ill.
You just conclusively proved my previous statement that you do not understand human sexuality or gender identity. Biology class didn't touch on human psychology. Ignorance is your problem.
This is from the American Psychological Assoc'
Why do you care so much about the gender identity of other people? Do it make it your life's work to ask people that you meet to disrobe in public so you can determine if they are transgendered?
Gender identity is the persons sense of who they are and is in the brain and it irrelevant to a person's physical gender. For most people, the physical gender and their psychological gender identity align but in 1% +/- of people they are incongruent and the problem must be addressed if the person is to survive and thrive.
A person's chromosomes do not always determine a person's psychological gender identity. If the chromones did determine gender identity then trans people would not exist but they do and they always have. Our biology not is always male or female because of the existence of intersexed people so why do you think that a person's gender identity is always male or female in a corresponding male or female body?
Another Strawman argument I see.
Really? You can't decide whether marrying off a 12 y.o. girl to someone of any age is "good, bad, or indifferent" (meaning neither, I guess)? That's a remarkable statement and I don't mean that as a compliment.
I can respect your comment Randy and we both know what you said it true. I don't like it when media presents things like this even when it was a Republican who brought this proposed bill to the legislature, somehow the average person who has read it will have a take on it as you can see by the comments in this article and the real prejudices will become apparent.
Tracking
Who thinks a person under 18 should not be allowed to marry?
What about under 17 years of age?
What about 12 years of age?
Oh I did. What do you think I didn't get about it?
Just asking a question. Do you have an answer to my question?
Do you think they're just a bunch of hillbillies far below the standards the more enlightened have set for themselves?
I'm a little disturbed by this vigorous defense of child molesters. I've seen a complete change in some people and I'm not sure whether they are emboldened by the raunchiness that was unleashed during the past election or if I was just blind to the reality of it's existence before.
Maybe there does need to be a standard set for the very reason we are reading in this article. There seems to be a proactive campaign to protect child perverts and rapists. What is happening to our country.........(pj shakes her head and grimaces)
You tell me. We need to do more for education and economic opportunities. Cutting the social safety net and telling people to get a job isn't an effective solution.
PJ, where do you see this vigorous defense of child molesters? I don't see anyone on this article defending child molesters. I was only defending the Republicans for not wanting the state to tell them their 17 year old can't get married unless the State agreed to it. Nothing more, nothing less. Read my comment below. The projection of the Huff Post article would lead someone to believe just what you have come away with in your comment, in my opinion.
Now I do agree there should be vigorous defense for children against child molesters. This bill addresses that. The information is in my long comment.
I'm not speaking of you personally so don't take it that way. My position is that anyone who is against bringing this up for a vote is nothing more than an advocate for child molestation and rape. I'm tired of circle jerk talk. It's really not that complicated. Either a person is for child rape and molestation or against it. There is no in between or what if's. Introducing other variables into the argument is just an attempt to muddy the discussion. It's the republican's version of PC, imo.
Every state has its poorest county. Everything is relative. The poorest in San Francisco would be kings in some of North Carolina's most prestigious counties, but the reason why is the cost of living. A person doesn't have to make 100 thousand dollars a year to have a nice home and all the things that go with it, but in some of the richest counties in this country it would be impossible to live the same lifestyle with the same money.
You take some people who live in a high cost part of the country and say they have a 900 thousand dollar home which isn't really anything special. In other parts of the country, the same home, with a bigger lot would cost 60 to 75% less. Everything is the same except the cost of living.
PJ, you are much smarter than that. Please read the entire comment and look at any links.
Think of it like this. There is only one thing holding this bill up and it is giving the court the authority to decide whether a 17 year old can marry, taking away the parent's authority to make that decision. It's not dead in the legislature. Some minor changes and it will pass with flying colors. We aren't talking about 12 year old children here. And neither is anyone else. Read my whole comment, link provided, and you will find some of your most Progressive states have as bad or worse marriage laws than Kentucky. Up until last year, even in NY they basically had the same laws down to 14 years old. Still took some court action as it does in Kentucky, but a 17 year old is a far cry from a 12 year old.
As I can see from your response Huff Post obtained the desired effect.
List of lowest-income counties in the United States
List of lowest-income counties in the United States #2
Or we could go here.
Six - You are trying to make this about Red and Blue States. It's not. It's about the issue.
Although, the lists he posted show that the red states have the lowest personal and median household incomes. Not sure how that proves his point.
Any grown man who marries a child is a white trash pedophile IMO.
When more than 3/4 of the citizens of a state such as Kentucky are on public assistance of some sort there is a serious problem that must be immediately addressed. I'd start with public education, pre and post 18 years, universal healthcare and economic opportunities.
Most of these rural areas are lacking in modern infrastructure and a $3 trillion national investment in that area would jumpstart the economy of the entire country far more than any tax cut will because that investment will ripple through society with jobs and the money of the equipment and materials. The rich and corporations will get theirs end the end because money always trickles up, but the money will pass through the hands of many people before it gets there.
Excuse me, your slip is showing.
Probably because it's 4 whole quarters in one of them rubber machines over at the fillin' station down by the interstate.
Why are you defending underage marriage between an adult and a teen? Is this based on your religious beliefs?
I wasn't and no.
I can tell you still haven't looked at and read the comment link I gave you. My only point was Huff Post has all you people believing the poor children are at the mercy of the mean old Republicans would don't want to protect them from adults who want to marry them. Tell me this isn't so. I don't know what else to say.
One more time. A Republican cam up with the proposed bill to bring the marriage law into the 21st century and the only thing that kept it from being passed this time was the court removing the authority of the parents over whether a 17 year old could get married and taking it upon themselves to make that decision without the parents. The Conservative Legislature isn't going for that. Unlike the Liberals, the Conservatives want less government in their lives and will pass this bill when that is changed.
The only reason Huff Post wrote this article like they did was to make it appear the Democrats wanted to protect the children and the Republicans didn't. The Republicans were the one to bring up the bill to protect the children, not the Democrats. If the Republican had not brought it up it would still be like it was because no Democrat had done anything about it.
Those who read the article who are not Liberals could understand that, but it went right over the Liberals heads.
The only reason I brought up the other states was to show you many states left and right have marriage laws as bad or worse than those in Kentucky.
I don't know how I can help you understand my point. Glad I don't get involved that often. Brings back memories of how difficult it can be.
Just understand everything is relative. In cities, counties or states where the pay is higher, the cost of living is higher as well and vice versa. Some states pay 2 to 3 times as much as another state pays a bus driver, but the cost of a house for that bus driver will also cost 2 or 3 times as much as it would for the bus driver in the lower paying city, county or state, even though that buy identical homes.
There are approximately 4700 to 4800 people in the Owsley county epistte has brought into the discussion and they are exceptionally poor, but they would really be much more exceptionally poor if they were in an area that cost 2 to 3 times as much as it does where they live now.
I guess my point is all these definitions of rich and poor are based on income only and don't consider cost of living in their comparisons of the various cities. Just because you make $100,000 doing a particular job doesn't mean you are any better off than someone making $35,000 doing the same job in another city. You make 2 or 3 times as much, but someone else has everything you have for 1/2 to 1/3 the cost.
You've learned well. Huff Post would be proud of you. By the way, the county consist of approximately 4700 people and it is less that 3/4 or 75%, still too many, but not the whole state of Kentucky as anyone reading your comment would assume you meant. I think that is why it is so hard trying to discuss anything.
I was wondering about that Dennis. Somehow I just can't picture a woman behind that 'Paula' name. Just seems like a man or male. Sorry Paula, but it's just a feeling.
The per capita income for the county was $10,742. About 41.7% of families and 45.4% of the population were below the poverty line, including 56.3% of those under age 18 and 34.5% of those age 65 or over.
Kentucky has the lowest 'living wage' which is $43,000. Owsley residents make one quarter of the living wage in their state. It's obtuse to fantasize that they prefer to live below the poverty line.
Who do you think is fantasizing about that, Dulay? Certainly not me.
I think we can agree Owsley county is in sad shape. But when you look at these articles that show the difference in incomes in different locations and give the impression a person making $50,000 in some obscure county in North Carolina is much poorer than someone making $125,000 in California in one of their upscale locations without considering the cost of living, you're not getting an accurate comparison of the two people ability to have the same buying power.
I don't read HuffPo because I don't like Arriana Huffington. I also don't read Kos or Alternet.
This is not just Kentucky, the southeast or conservatives. These people are hurting and they need help. It is our moral responsibility to help them. This is what the social safety net is for but I don't want to just create people who subsist on handouts for the rest of their lives. Most people want to contribute to society but have various roadblocks blocking their path forward. For some people, it is lack of education or job skills. For others, it is their health and that needs to be addressed with universal healthcare. For many they have no economic opportunities We are a very interconnected society and solving these problems that work for them and help them live a better life is what the job of the government is at all levels. Its time to stop with the nonsense of tax cuts in the hope that it might trickle down and instead focus on helping these people. The fact that solving these problems will also create jobs for others must be understood.
There will always ben so people will need the social safety net and I will never take that away from them or make them feel bad for needing that help.
Here is a more comprehensive approach to breaking down the numbers of child marriages in the United States.
Here's an excerpt which addresses the reality of why this still occurs.
Your post refutes that.
I already addressed your false posit that cost of living should be the standard through which we should view this issue. Those living in abject poverty don't give a shit about how much MORE poor they'd be if they lived elsewhere. They aren't lucky that they live where their income keeps their family below the lowest living wage in the nation. They aren't lucky that they live in a place where there has been little to NO economic growth for decades. They aren't lucky that they live in a place where the economy is entirely based on using up finite natural resources and businesses walking away from the pollution to the environment that they leave behind after profiting from pillaging.
Why aren't you answering your own questions? Where's your line drawn, Mr. Inquisitor?
Did she strike a nerve there?
DID YOU STRIKE A NERVE?
Obviously, someone's nerve was struck judging by the very strong and varied emotional response to that question.
I'm not convinced that people make good decisions under the age of 21. Just because she may be pregnant isn't a logical reason to compound the problem by getting married at 16. Instead, we need to put more effort into preventing teen pregnancy instead of allowing pregnant teens to marry other teens or adults.
I agree with the effort needs to be put into preventing teen pregnancy and putting the responsibility back on both parents at any age. And that includes the father, who now can produce any number of children he wants to without any downside for doing so.
I don't know if it is the same, although Florida has a tremendous number of children marrying, a good friend of mine met a girl quite a number of years ago in Florida and had a one month fling. He moved back to North Carolina soon after that. He didn't find out for a few years, he had gotten her pregnant. Florida state made him take a blood test and he ended up having to pay back child support for 3 or 4 years and continue to pay until the child was grown. That's one thing that can be done to help in the prevention of teen or otherwise pregnancies, where the state in most cases it seems takes on the responsibility of providing the funds to raise a child.
When I was young, we called them 'Jail Bait', but that was before the State took over parent's responsibilities.
Huff Post has triggered the more enlightened once again.
Nice libelous statement! By all means, who exactly is ok with that?
Interesting facts:
Marriage Age Requirement California:
If either partner is under 18, one parent or legal guardian must be present. If a parent can not be present, due to death, separation, divorce or other circumstances, proper evidence must be presented for verification. You will need a certified copy of your birth certificate. The couple must schedule an appointment with a counselor and then appear before a superior court judge. No minimum age with approval of a superior court judge and parental consent
Cousin Marriages California:
Yes. First and second cousins may legally marry in California.
Marriage Age Requirements Kentucky: (This is what it is now)
Applicants 16 & 17 years old must have parental consent and the license issued in the county of residence of the under aged applicant. If both applicants are under age, the application needs to be made in the bride’s county of residence
No one under the age of 16 may be issued a license unless they are pregnant and have a District Court Judge issue a court order directing the Clerk to do so.
A Consent to Marriage Form (84-FCC-501) is required. This must be completed, witnessed, signed by the parent or legal guardian* of the minor, and sworn by the deputy clerk. (A guardian must bring the document affirming guardianship).
One parent or legal guardian* and two witnesses 18 years old or older, must sign the Consent to Marriage Form for each minor.
If the parents of either minor are divorced, custody papers are required to sign the Consent to Marriage Form.
Birth certificate or driver’s license must be presented. Parents/legal guardians need to present a valid ID as well.
Cousin Marriages Kentucky:
No. Kentucky won’t recognize these marriages even if legal in another state.
Marriage Age Requirements Mississippi:
If either applicant is younger than 21 years of age, parental consent is needed. Parent or guardian may come with the applicants. If the parent or guardian cannot appear in the office, the Out of Office Parental Consent Form must be printed, filled out, and notarized. A copy of the parent’s drivers license or ID is required along with the form to complete the application process.
Marriage licenses cannot be issued unless the male applicant is at least 17 years of age, and the female applicant is at least 15 years of age.
Cousin Marriages Mississippi:
No
Marriage Age Requirements Massachusetts:
You must be 18 years of age or older. If either party is under 18, a Marriage of Minors
application form must be filed with the probate court or district court where the minor lives
Consent can be just judicial, but is normally both parental and judicial. In the absence of any statutory minimum age, one opinion is that the traditional minimum common law marriageable age of 12 for girls and 14 for boys may still be in effect.
Cousin Marriages Massachusetts:
Yes. First and second cousins may legally marry in Massachusetts.
Marriage Age Requirements Florida:
The legal age for marriage without parental consent is eighteen (18) years of age.
The legal age for marriage, with parent’s consent, is sixteen (16).
The marriage application may not be issued, for anyone under the age of sixteen, unless the bride has a doctor’s certification that she is pregnant. At that time, both the groom and bride will sign the affidavit stating that they are the parents of an expected child, and the parent(s) will sign consent(s) to the marriage.
If the bride has a doctor certificate of pregnancy, whether or not the parents consent to the marriage, a hearing will be held before the county judge with proper notice to the parent(s).
A minor who has been previously married may also apply for a license.
Cousin Marriages Florida:
Yes. First and second cousins may legally marry in Florida.
Marriage Age Requirements In Washington:
Applicants 16 years or under must have written waiver from Juvenile Court signed by a Superior Court Judge, as well as written permission of a parent or guardian. Parental or guardian permission must be sworn to and signed before a notary public or deputy auditor.
Applicants who are 17 years of age must have written permission by one parent or legal guardian. Such consent must be sworn to and signed before a notary public or deputy auditor.
Applicants under the age of 17 must apply to the Juvenile Court system in order to obtain a license.
Cousin Marriages Washington:
No.
Marriage Age Requirements Texas:
If an applicant is under the age of 18, must be accompanied by one parent, to sign legal consent. A minor must have a certified copy of birth certificate, photo I.D. and Social Security card or proof of social security number. If parents are divorced, the parent granted custody must submit a certified copy of their divorce decree in order to sign consent. Please contact your local County Clerk office for additional information.
Since 2017, the minimum age is 18, however emancipated minors aged 16–17 have an exemption to legally marry
Minimum age is 16.
Cousin Marriages Texas:
No
Marriage Age Requirements North Carolina:
Teens age 18 and over may marry without parental consent with proper ID.
Teens ages 16 & 17 may marry with consent by the custodial parent or the person, agency or institution having legal custody or serving as guardian – documents proving custody or guardianship are required along with proper ID and a certified copy of the applicant’s birth certificate – parent signing for applicant must show picture ID
Teens ages 14 & 15 may marry, but are required to have a court order allowing them to obtain a marriage license in North Carolina – please contact your local Clerk of Superior Court’s office to learn more about this procedure.
Cousin Marriages North Carolina:
Yes. First cousins MAY marry, but DOUBLE first cousins may not. Double first cousins are very rare, as the couple have to be related as cousins through both parents.
Marriage Age Requirements Maryland:
An individual 16 or 17 years old may not marry unless:
The individual has the consent of a parent or guardian and the parent makes oath that the individual is at least 16 years old or:
If the individual does not have the consent of a parent or guardian, either party to be married gives the clerk a certificate from a licensed physician stating that the physician has examined the woman to be married and has found that she is pregnant or has given birth to a child.
An individual 15 years old may not marry unless:
The individual has the consent of a parent or guardian and
Either party to be married gives the clerk a certificate from a licensed physician stating that the physician has examined the woman to be married and has found that she is pregnant or has given birth to a child.
An individual under the age of 15 may not marry .
Cousin Marriages Maryland:
Yes. First and second cousins may legally marry in Maryland.
Marriage Age Requirements Connecticut:
If you are under age 18, you need to obtain written consent from a parent, guardian, or in the absence of such parent or guardian, a probate court judge.
If under age 16, you need to obtain written consent from a probate court judge.
If a person who wishes to marry has a conservator, the conservator must appear in person with a government issued picture identification, proof of conservatorship, and a written statement of consent.
Cousin Marriages Connecticut:
Yes. First and second cousins may legally marry in Connecticut.
Marriage Age Requirements Illinois:
Minors under age 18 but over age 16 may be married with the consent of parents. Both parents must appear at the time the license is issued and sign an affidavit consenting to marriage.
Cousin Marriages Illinois:
Yes, first cousins may marry if they are older than the age of 50. (I think they're saying no. I would have married my cousin at 15, but not now and I doubt she would be interested either.)
Well there were some interesting facts about marriage in our states between consenting adults and children. Personally I don't think you should get married until you're 30 years old and marry someone who is about the same age you are or an old rich woman if you're in it for the money. If you want to check out your state. When you get to this site, click on your state and then any one of your counties.