How To Stop Child Marriages - The Example of Delaware

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

simply ban islam is the solution.

I guess you missed the part where it is stated that many American girls who have been coerced into marriage were Christians (which is a big part of the story, actually).

The contemporary problem of underage marriages in Middle Eastern immigrant communities was my addition to the issue, as I think this adds yet another way in which the laws in place can be harmful to the welfare of children.

[Melvin Reich]

simply ban islam is the solution.

That's not a solution.

No it is bannning a religion that opresses women and gays and minorities and that has laws that belong in the dark ages should banned.

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

That's not a solution.

No it is bannning a religion that opresses women and gays and minorities and that has laws that belong in the dark ages should banned.

So you're basically saying that we should ban all Abrahamic religions? Meh, fine by me. I'm an atheist.

[Geneviev]

That's not a solution.

No it is bannning a religion that opresses women and gays and minorities and that has laws that belong in the dark ages should banned.

Except it's not going to stop these laws allowing child marriage to exist. And it's mostly Christians.

[USS Monitor]

That's not a solution.

No it is bannning a religion that opresses women and gays and minorities and that has laws that belong in the dark ages should banned.

If you're going to talk about Islam, make sure you are keeping it relevant to the issue of child marriage and not derailing the thread.

[Melvin Reich]

No it is bannning a religion that opresses women and gays and minorities and that has laws that belong in the dark ages should banned.

So you're basically saying that we should ban all Abrahamic religions? Meh, fine by me. I'm an atheist.

Yes i am an atheist i don't think we should ban all religions right now but starting
by banning religous schools as a first step.

[Melvin Reich]

No it is bannning a religion that opresses women and gays and minorities and that has laws that belong in the dark ages should banned.

If you're going to talk about Islam, make sure you are keeping it relevant to the issue of child marriage and not derailing the thread.

Oke

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

So you're basically saying that we should ban all Abrahamic religions? Meh, fine by me. I'm an atheist.

Yes i am an atheist i don't think we should ban all religions right now but starting
by banning religous schools as a first step.

But this doesn't have anything to do with religious schools. This has to do with irresponsible and/or abusive families who condone underage marriages to save their families from "shame" - or to save themselves from parental neglect charges.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Attempts by people under 18 (and the absolute lowest legal should be 16, no exceptions) to get married should be investigated by the court before allowing the marriage to go ahead. That would do a lot.

[Melvin Reich]

Yes i am an atheist i don't think we should ban all religions right now but starting
by banning religous schools as a first step.

But this doesn't have anything to do with religious schools. This has to do with irresponsible and/or abusive families who condone underage marriages to save their families from "shame" - or to save themselves from parental neglect charges.

Than the parents should have a degree in parenting and the religous rules need to be updated to the modern days which some parts of christinanity kinda did.

[Cetacea]

this highlights one of the many racist dysfunctions of the United States and its western allies who condemn child marriage in those foreign brown countries but ignore the reality of the practive in its own borders, often amongst purportedly christian conservatives.

while I live in a country where the age of consent is 16 (and I accept that), Marriage should be restricted to those over 18, as it is a serious contract with huge implications for those involved. At its core it is a voluntary abrogation of ones personal rights in favour of ones 'partner' and that needs mature consideration - its the main reason that though I'vve been in a loving relationship with my partner for 20 years, I refuse to get married.

So good work Delaware, lets hope that the rest of the US gets over its hypocrisy and does the same instead of being apologists and facilitators of pedophilia and sexual servitude

[Krasny-Volny]

I actually think we should be less moralistic about this when it comes to judging other cultures. There should be a minimum age to get married, even with parental consent, and 13 is too young, but there's a difference between marrying off a 13 year old to a child molester vs. getting married at 16 in a culture where that's normal.

Sounds like an unacceptable cultural norm that should have no place in US laws.

In the region of the world where my family's from, marriages can be carried out at 13 (supposedly it's a cultural and religious thing). This caused a big stink in one of the neighbouring states about fifty years ago when a 13 year old girl was married off by her de facto guardian to a man over ten years her senior without the consent of her parents, who were from a culture and country that did not recognise marriages until age 18 (the Netherlands). The courts ruled that she be repatriated to the Netherlands as a minor and the marriage was annulled. This apparent disrespect for "local culture" caused riots which resulted in the indiscriminate murder of Westerners and a state of emergency being declared.

Unacceptable. I'm normally all for cultural liberties, but when they begin to violate the rights of the individual, they cannot be allowed to take precedence over civil law. Even if the majority are in favor of said cultural liberties.

[Krasny-Volny]

this highlights one of the many racist dysfunctions of the United States and its western allies who condemn child marriage in those foreign brown countries but ignore the reality of the practive in its own borders, often amongst purportedly christian conservatives.

That doesn't take away from the fact that these "foreign brown countries" are themselves dysfunctional by permitting child marriages as their norm.

Some Americans like to walk on eggshells when it comes to this topic, because they have this stupid desire to avoid showing disrespect for a culture very much unlike their own, even when there's plenty about that culture to criticize.

Fortunately I don't have this problem, because I came from one of those "foreign brown countries". Child marriage is barbaric no matter where it occurs, and thusly should be the target of equal condemnation wherever it occurs.

[USS Monitor]

I actually think we should be less moralistic about this when it comes to judging other cultures. There should be a minimum age to get married, even with parental consent, and 13 is too young, but there's a difference between marrying off a 13 year old to a child molester vs. getting married at 16 in a culture where that's normal.

Sounds like an unacceptable cultural norm that should have no place in US laws.

In the region of the world where my family's from, marriages can be carried out at 13 (supposedly it's a cultural and religious thing). This caused a big stink in one of the neighbouring states about fifty years ago when a 13 year old girl was married off by her de facto guardian to a man over ten years her senior without the consent of her parents, who were from a culture and country that did not recognise marriages until age 18 (the Netherlands). The courts ruled that she be repatriated to the Netherlands as a minor and the marriage was annulled. This apparent disrespect for "local culture" caused riots which resulted in the indiscriminate murder of Westerners and a state of emergency being declared.

Unacceptable. I'm normally all for cultural liberties, but when they begin to violate the rights of the individual, they cannot be allowed to take precedence over civil law. Even if the majority are in favor of said cultural liberties.

In that situation, the rioters were out of line. My thing isn't "brown people can do whatever they want and nobody is allowed to judge," and I didn't say anywhere that it's cool to riot because you disagree with a court ruling. It's more that setting the age of consent at exactly 18, rather than 16 or 20 or whatever, is arbitrary, and there's nothing magical about 18 that makes it objectively right. 13 is too young IMO, and I said that in my original post, but it shouldn't be a huge deal if the age of consent is a year or two different from one country to another. Just because some dysfunctional situations exist doesn't mean that every slight variation in marriage laws is evil. 16 year olds and 17 year olds in countries where it's normal to get married at that age should not be put in the same category with pre-pubescent or early teens kids that get handed over to child molesters like the case in the OP.

[Kramanica]

Just ban child marriage, plz and thnx.

[The Republic of Fore]

No one under the age of 18 should be married. For any reason. It's a serious decision that can have life changing effects.

[Senkaku]

It's more that setting the age of consent at exactly 18, rather than 16 or 20 or whatever, is arbitrary

Yeah, well, it's what the world's advanced industrial democracies have more or less settled on, for better or for worse, and it's frankly a pretty good benchmark to roll with. You could argue that just about anything about human society is "arbitrary" if you want to, but in this case 18 seems like a fairly solid pick.

16 year olds and 17 year olds in countries where it's normal to get married at that age should not be put in the same category with pre-pubescent or early teens kids that get handed over to child molesters like the case in the OP.

It seems to me that the goal of legislation banning child marriage should be to first protect the thousands and thousands of children being molested, raped, and abused as we speak, and then to try and work out the fiddly details of "oh, well these high school sweethearts/people from whatever culture really ARE in love/do want to get married." One is a far more pressing issue than the other- I'd much rather someone be irked that American law doesn't take a sufficiently nuanced view to include their heritage and cultural traditions that tend towards younger matches than have thousands of children getting married off to their rapists.

Long story short on both points: don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Just ban child marriage, plz and thnx.

^e x a c t l y

It really isn't so difficult or complicated, quite frankly.

[Uan aa Boa]

In terms of respecting cultural norms I think an increase to at least 16 in all cultures would be a good thing to aspire to. After all, marriage at 13 was once not that unusual in Europe. No culture should be frozen in time and change can be positive. Marriage no longer means what it did in previous centuries. Worldwide this wouldn't happen by simply passing a law but as part of a package along with access to education, contraception and improved opportunities for everyone. As the supposedly most developed country, however, the USA needs to get it's own house in order.

[The Free Joy State]

In terms of respecting cultural norms I think an increase to at least 16 in all cultures would be a good thing to aspire to. After all, marriage at 13 was once not that unusual in Europe. No culture should be frozen in time and change can be positive. Marriage no longer means what it did in previous centuries. Worldwide this wouldn't happen by simply passing a law but as part of a package along with access to education, contraception and improved opportunities for everyone. As the supposedly most developed country, however, the USA needs to get it's own house in order.

I agree with pretty much everything you say. With one exception.

I think the international minimum marriageable age should be 18. A sixteen year old is pretty vulnerable to pressure and (even if they think they're in love) can be pretty undecided about a lot of things. I mean, how many people (I'm including my younger self) had changed their minds of what degree they wanted to take or career they wanted to pursue between 16 and 18? And then to go and trust someone that young with the decision of making a long-term commitment to another human being.

And, in the article in the OP, one of the girls married at 16. She was still under the thumb of her parents, who hadn't allowed her to date and pushed her to marriage to avoid "teenage wildness".

So, I think 16 is far too young. I think 18 is still too young, and it would have to be combined by provision of free contraception, improved educational and social opportunities, and probably a greater oversight of homeschoolers (where this kind of thing seems to thrive).

[Purpelia]

Honestly I think that having any sort of international legal standard for ANYTHING AT ALL in regards to domestic politics is a very bad idea and only serves to oppress people and enforce globalization.

If the people of a country, or in your case a state want child marriages, or honor killings or genocide or what ever the hell they want they should be free to have that as long as they keep it contained within their borders. If you want to change it move to that country and vote for what ever party is against it. End of story.

[The Free Joy State]

Honestly I think that having any sort of international legal standard for ANYTHING AT ALL in regards to domestic politics is a very bad idea and only serves to oppress people and enforce globalization.

If the people of a country, or in your case a state want child marriages, or honor killings or genocide or what ever the hell they want they should be free to have that as long as they keep it contained within their borders. If you want to change it move to that country and vote for what ever party is against it. End of story.

[emphasis mine]

TIL genocide is A-OK as long as the government declares it nice and legal.

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

In terms of respecting cultural norms I think an increase to at least 16 in all cultures would be a good thing to aspire to. After all, marriage at 13 was once not that unusual in Europe. No culture should be frozen in time and change can be positive. Marriage no longer means what it did in previous centuries. Worldwide this wouldn't happen by simply passing a law but as part of a package along with access to education, contraception and improved opportunities for everyone. As the supposedly most developed country, however, the USA needs to get it's own house in order.

I agree with pretty much everything you say. With one exception.

I think the international minimum marriageable age should be 18. A sixteen year old is pretty vulnerable to pressure and (even if they think they're in love) can be pretty undecided about a lot of things. I mean, how many people (I'm including my younger self) had changed their minds of what degree they wanted to take or career they wanted to pursue between 16 and 18? And then to go and trust someone that young with the decision of making a long-term commitment to another human being.

And, in the article in the OP, one of the girls married at 16. She was still under the thumb of her parents, who hadn't allowed her to date and pushed her to marriage to avoid "teenage wildness".

So, I think 16 is far too young. I think 18 is still too young, and it would have to be combined by provision of free contraception, improved educational and social opportunities, and probably a greater oversight of homeschoolers (where this kind of thing seems to thrive).

I agree. In fact, I think the minimum age for marriage could even be higher. I mean, if you have to be 21 to drink alcohol (in the US), why should you be allowed to get married earlier than that?

Also, neuroscience tells us that the myelination of the neurons in the frontal lobe (the part of the brain that is responsible for executive functioning) continues until approximately 25 years of age, therefore many teens and tweens can have impulse control problems until this age.

https://www.verywellfamily.com/myelinat ... ss-3288324

Being 26 years old myself, I can tell you that I also perceive differences between how I used to think and act 5 years ago and now. I think I am more mature and less impulsive when it comes to making important decisions. I guess it wouldn't harm if the minimum marriage age was 21, at least. (As I know that 25 might cause an outcry in some circles, though that would probably be an even better arrangement.) Besides, you are more likely to be financially independent at 21 than at 16 or 18, so this might more or less enable you to resist any pressure for marriage that might come from your family.

[Uan aa Boa]

Regarding 16 versus 18, I'm fudging that question a little due to being in Scotland where the marriage age is 16. I'm hesitant because the Scottish government's decision to reduce the voting age to 16 has been both popular and successful. With a quick search I haven't been able to find any figures on how common pre-18 marriages there are, but considering that only 3% of people aged 16-24 are married or in a civil partnership there probably aren't many. Marriages are also extremely easy to dissolve if you've lived separately for 2 years.

Returning to the USA, I was reading on Wikipedia that the age of consent is at least 16 in all states with some exemptions mainly aimed at not criminalising sex between minors (as opposed to between a minor and an adult), and also an exemption if the people are married to each other. So I'm struggling to understand how, when the girl in the OP article went to a courthouse and declared herself pregnant by a man of 32, the judge asked her if she'd like to marry him rather than ordering his arrest.

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

Regarding 16 versus 18, I'm fudging that question a little due to being in Scotland where the marriage age is 16. I'm hesitant because the Scottish government's decision to reduce the voting age to 16 has been both popular and successful. With a quick search I haven't been able to find any figures on how common pre-18 marriages there are, but considering that only 3% of people aged 16-24 are married or in a civil partnership there probably aren't many. Marriages are also extremely easy to dissolve if you've lived separately for 2 years.

Returning to the USA, I was reading on Wikipedia that the age of consent is at least 16 in all states with some exemptions mainly aimed at not criminalising sex between minors (as opposed to between a minor and an adult), and also an exemption if the people are married to each other. So I'm struggling to understand how, when the girl in the OP article went to a courthouse and declared herself pregnant by a man of 32, the judge asked her if she'd like to marry him rather than ordering his arrest.

2 things of note: the girl in the OP article married in 1985. (Though underage marriages still occur today, I am guessing the journalist focused on her story simply because she is an adult now and can give consent for publication without endangering her safety.) In the mean time, the law regarding age of consent may have changed, maybe? (In some countries, the age of consent is still 13 - including Japan, surprisingly. Maybe the age of consent was 13 in the US at the time?)

In addition, it is possible that there are wild variations in the laws depending on the state. Heck, I've read about the laws of the states with regard to statutory rape yesterday, and some laws are quite deficient.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud ... R-0376.htm

For example, the law in Idaho defines statutory rape as "Rape of a female under age 18" - I'll leave it to you to decide whether this law criminalizes the rape of a male child.

The law in Massachusetts defines statutory rape as "Criminal inducement to get a person under age 18 of chaste life to have unlawful sexual intercourse" - and here I am mainly concerned about the "of chaste life" part. What does it even mean? Like, is it OK if you rape a minor if he or she was not a virgin??? (Again, correct me if "chaste" has a different meaning in legal terminology. I am not claiming to be well-versed in American law.)

The law in New Hampshire defines statutory rape as "Felonious sexual assault for anyone to engage in sexual penetration with a person, other than his spouse, who is under age 16". Now, if having sexual intercourse with a person who is under 16 is statutory rape, I don't know why the law also specifies that this person should not be your spouse. Doesn't this imply that New Hampshire allows people under 16 to get married? I mean, if people under 16 were not allowed to get married, there would be no need to say that "having sex with someone under 16 who is not your spouse" is statutory rape, because the intersection of "spouses" and "people under 16" would be an empty set.

Either I don't understand these laws, or America is a much weirder place than I thought.

[The Free Joy State]

Regarding 16 versus 18, I'm fudging that question a little due to being in Scotland where the marriage age is 16. I'm hesitant because the Scottish government's decision to reduce the voting age to 16 has been both popular and successful. With a quick search I haven't been able to find any figures on how common pre-18 marriages there are, but considering that only 3% of people aged 16-24 are married or in a civil partnership there probably aren't many. Marriages are also extremely easy to dissolve if you've lived separately for 2 years.

Returning to the USA, I was reading on Wikipedia that the age of consent is at least 16 in all states with some exemptions mainly aimed at not criminalising sex between minors (as opposed to between a minor and an adult), and also an exemption if the people are married to each other. So I'm struggling to understand how, when the girl in the OP article went to a courthouse and declared herself pregnant by a man of 32, the judge asked her if she'd like to marry him rather than ordering his arrest.

You see, I get that many people will go by the current law. In England, it's legal at 16 with a parent or guardian's consent.

But, I still think 18 (21 would be better) is the right age, because allowing marriage at 16 -- even with parental consent -- gives rise to events like this abomination where Christian homeschoolers (in 2016) gathered to arrange marriages for their teenage daughters, after "training" their daughters to accept marriage.

In 2016. In America.

Seriously.

And the "event" was to include daughters up to 20. So, I'd really favour increasingly the marital age to a higher age than 18. I said 18 because that's the age at which one is considered to have reached majority (for drinking, and voting) in England. So it's what I'm familiar with.

And, while divorce is easy (which is a good thing), it's worth considering that many of these religious communities frown on it and there's intense pressure for people to remain in (even deeply miserable) marriages. So, leaving a marriage that someone may have been pushed into may not be that easy.

Also, even if a marriage entered into at a young age wholly voluntarily, by the time the couple divorce there could still be children, leaving the couple with a tie that will last for life, and having to make custody arrangements. Divorces are emotionally draining. It's still a very hefty price to pay for a youthful mistake.

Better they wait a few more years. If it's true love, the kind that could stand the test of a long-term commitment, surely it could wait a few more years?

EDIT: Research by US State of how many people are married age 15-17 (it's most common in the Southern US, and especially Texas and West Virginia): http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... -by-state/