Idaho Republicans block ban on child marriage

[Purgatio]

So someone's 17 years, 11 months, 29 days, 23 hours, and 59 seconds old - they cannot consent. Suddenly, in the very next second, they turn 18, and now have the magical power to consent, just a second later. Were they visited by an angel in that very second?

The law draws arbitrary bright-lines in the name of legal certainty, not because the law is denying there is a certain degree of ambiguity in borderline cases. If the law sets a speed limit of 60 km/h, it's not because 59 km/h is infinitely safe and 61 km/h is infinitely unsafe, but because passing a law saying drivers "shall not drive at unsafe and dangerous speeds" is ambiguous and creates uncertainty for potential defendants.

Likewise, passing a statutory rape law saying "you shall not have sex with individuals lacking the mental capacity to freely, autonomously and voluntarily consent to sexual intercourse with you" is way too unpredictable for people to plan their lives. An age like 16 or 18 is an arbitrary line in the sand but helps create predictability and certainty for people to stably plan their lives.

[Shofercia]

Not just Idaho

Its been pointed out by international Human Rights groups that the US has worse child marriage laws than Afghanistan (Minimum Age 16) whereas in the US 17 states have no minimum age of marriage, 2 states have a minimum age of 14 and 5 states have a minimum age of 15.

Like many of the unsavory aspects of US conservative culture, tolerance of child marriage seems to be well ingrained in America. Its not a new phenomena and its well known that many evangelical churchs actively advocate for young girls marrying much older men.

But for state politicians to actually defend the practice and outright block efforts to end it is still incomprehensible, just another addition to the Litany of WTF Murica?!!!!!

Marriage doesn't mean consent to sex, so you can be married and still not able to consent to sex. Also afghanistan is not really that bad of a place, Iran or Pakistan are really worse places. Something like 24% of the marraiges are under 18 in Pakistan, and ages of 13-15 are possible for girls legally, with it being socially acceptable at much younger ages. Unfortunately, this is also generally the age of consent in these countries.

Bingo!

The law also required 16 and 17 year olds to seek consent from parents in order to marry.

That isn't "Strengthening consent protections.". It's removing their ability to consent. In situations where 16/17 year olds are being coerced into marriage, demanding the consent of the most likely people to be coercing them isn't a "Protection.". That clause does nothing but restrict the rights of young adults for no discernible reason beyond moral panic.

I'd even go so far as to say it's a deliberate wrecking proposal designed to give the Democrats the chance to cry foul and call the Republicans a bunch of pedophiles for opposing the law.

Duh! For those who are in the know, this is an Idaho thing, that the Democrats are politicizing, while accusing the Republicans of politicizing everything.

The first paragraph of the article.

CHICAGO - A small but growing number of teens and even younger children who think they were born the wrong sex are getting support from parents and from doctors who give them sex-changing treatments, according to reports in the medical journal Pediatrics.

Here's a four-year-old getting SRS.

https://www.inquisitr.com/3480381/4-yea ... australia/

And if recency is your thing, this should be up-to-the-minute enough for you on hormone therapy.

http://thefederalist.com/2019/03/01/can ... -hormones/

https://www.docdroid.net/nm1XeFs/bowden ... 7-2019.pdf

I am still waiting for you to explain what relevance this has to the topic of the thread.

Didn't you imply that we were supposed to be outraged at those mean, mean Republicans in the OP? He's pointing out that there's something else out there, that might be equally outrageous, that also relates to the kids.

[Purgatio]

The reasoning behind said law is exactly that, because most relationships with such large age gaps often involve a disparity in authority.

True, but the same can said about a difference in social status (the prince and the peasant girl), IQ or education (the professor and the cleaning lady), personality (extravert and introvert) etc.

Well...to be fair, when it comes to IQ, most jurisdictions have laws protecting the severaly mentally-disabled from sexual exploitation.

[Saiwania]

I was 16 when i had a relation with a 42 year old woman. She didn't rape me, nor would i call her a rapist ffs

For most legal matters, the law doesn't care about such things. Either someone was in compliance with the law or they weren't. If the age of consent was 18, she'd have broken the law. So if anyone breaks a law, it is best for them to simply not get caught or to do enough due diligence to make sure to follow the law ahead of time; if not to minimize risk.

It is usually much easier to simply default to only talking to people 18 or older if you're too old, checking their driver's license if need be. Most underage people, you won't have much in common with them unless you're close to their age as well. I suppose online communication can be had if its perfectly chaste but again, usually you have more dealings with other adults by default if you're past a certain age. It's fine to talk on occasion briefly if the situation calls for it, but not socially appropriate for an adult to physically come visit a minor.

Its not too hard to limit any mature talk or dealings to those 18 or older. 18 to 120 years of age is still quite a large pool of people to have dealings with without needing to worry about any legal issues. People just need to have good judgement and sense about them. If a minor behaves sinfully towards an adult, it'd be time for the adult to break off all contact with them. Consult an attorney to be sure of what is expected where you live.

It is much less risk to just be talking to those 18+ by default. And if by rare circumstances an adult meets a minor that is too "special" to them, it isn't such a big imposition for them to simply wait a year or so for the minor to legally become an adult just like them, before pursuing any serious sort of relationship.

[Shofercia]

So someone's 17 years, 11 months, 29 days, 23 hours, and 59 seconds old - they cannot consent. Suddenly, in the very next second, they turn 18, and now have the magical power to consent, just a second later. Were they visited by an angel in that very second?

The law draws arbitrary bright-lines in the name of legal certainty, not because the law is denying there is a certain degree of ambiguity in borderline cases. If the law sets a speed limit of 60 km/h, it's not because 59 km/h is infinitely safe and 61 km/h is infinitely unsafe, but because passing a law saying drivers "shall not drive at unsafe and dangerous speeds" is ambiguous and creates uncertainty for potential defendants.

Likewise, passing a statutory rape law saying "you shall not have sex with individuals lacking the mental capacity to freely, autonomously and voluntarily consent to sexual intercourse with you" is way too unpredictable for people to plan their lives. An age like 16 or 18 is an arbitrary line in the sand but helps create predictability and certainty for people to stably plan their lives.

When the original speed limit was set, it depended on car performance back in the day. As cars got better, and the speed limit stayed the same, the people started to complain. Regarding statutory rape, there should be certain exceptions. For instance: guy's 16, girl's 17, they've been dating for over a decade, hormones kick in, and they start fucking. Totally consensual. Guy turns 17, they keep fucking. Totally consensual. Girl turns 18, they fuck three times on three different days - statutory rape! That's the kind of stupidity I'm trying to avoid.

I'm all for bright line rules, but there need to be exceptions as well, considering the case that I just described.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

The law draws arbitrary bright-lines in the name of legal certainty, not because the law is denying there is a certain degree of ambiguity in borderline cases. If the law sets a speed limit of 60 km/h, it's not because 59 km/h is infinitely safe and 61 km/h is infinitely unsafe, but because passing a law saying drivers "shall not drive at unsafe and dangerous speeds" is ambiguous and creates uncertainty for potential defendants.

Likewise, passing a statutory rape law saying "you shall not have sex with individuals lacking the mental capacity to freely, autonomously and voluntarily consent to sexual intercourse with you" is way too unpredictable for people to plan their lives. An age like 16 or 18 is an arbitrary line in the sand but helps create predictability and certainty for people to stably plan their lives.

When the original speed limit was set, it depended on car performance back in the day. As cars got better, and the speed limit stayed the same, the people started to complain. Regarding statutory rape, there should be certain exceptions. For instance: guy's 16, girl's 17, they've been dating for over a decade, hormones kick in, and they start fuc*ing. Totally consensual. Guy turns 17, they keep fu*king. Totally consensual. Girl turns 18, they fu*k three times on three different days - statutory rape! That's the kind of stupidity I'm trying to avoid.

I'm all for bright line rules, but there need to be exceptions as well, considering the case that I just described.

Was this hypothetucal couple married in this time period?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

You have a point here, but 1 difference is in the examples you've given, the children consent to it. In the case of this we don't really know if the child consented to this kind of marriage.

>Implying that my generation are statutory rapists

Literally over half the students in my high school have fornicated before. Or are you talking about younger children?

See this is something I don't like. If your gonna talk about a topic as controversial as this, have an actual married couple, not some actors.

Doesn't pedophilia involve underage people, and not just people under 18?

Which is why I'm on the fence about this subject. Here's what I think:

If people under 18 wanna get married, AlHamdulillah. But I recommend that they marry someone of equal/similar age. It shouldn't be "15 yr-old married 40 yr-old" imo.

Um....or you could just adjust the laws?

I can agree with this. Except no one should be getting preggers before marriage and can't financially cafe for the baby.

Younger children of course. I was 16 when i had a relation with a 42 year old woman. She didn't rape me, nor would i call her a rapist ffs

Ok, thx for the clarification. My apologies for jumping to conclusions.

Varies from country to ountry. In many European countries 16 is the age of consent, so this relationship would not be illegal there, unless it was prostitution or she was a teacher/caretaker/etc of him.

Even in nations where 16 is of age a relationship between a 42 yr old and a 16 yr old while Not illegal would still be frowned upon as exploitive. Hell, I was 25 when I meet my wife who was 34 and even then people commented on the age gap.

I mean just because there's a big age gap doesn't necessarily mean something bad is happening. It usually does mean that but there's a small chance it isn't. Whether it's wrong or not is a different discussion.

The law draws arbitrary bright-lines in the name of legal certainty, not because the law is denying there is a certain degree of ambiguity in borderline cases. If the law sets a speed limit of 60 km/h, it's not because 59 km/h is infinitely safe and 61 km/h is infinitely unsafe, but because passing a law saying drivers "shall not drive at unsafe and dangerous speeds" is ambiguous and creates uncertainty for potential defendants.

Likewise, passing a statutory rape law saying "you shall not have sex with individuals lacking the mental capacity to freely, autonomously and voluntarily consent to sexual intercourse with you" is way too unpredictable for people to plan their lives. An age like 16 or 18 is an arbitrary line in the sand but helps create predictability and certainty for people to stably plan their lives.

When the original speed limit was set, it depended on car performance back in the day. As cars got better, and the speed limit stayed the same, the people started to complain. Regarding statutory rape, there should be certain exceptions. For instance: guy's 16, girl's 17, they've been dating for over a decade, hormones kick in, and they start fuc*ing. Totally consensual. Guy turns 17, they keep fu*king. Totally consensual. Girl turns 18, they fu*k three times on three different days - statutory rape! That's the kind of stupidity I'm trying to avoid.

I'm all for bright line rules, but there need to be exceptions as well, considering the case that I just described.

Was this hypothetucal couple married in this time period?

[Purgatio]

The law draws arbitrary bright-lines in the name of legal certainty, not because the law is denying there is a certain degree of ambiguity in borderline cases. If the law sets a speed limit of 60 km/h, it's not because 59 km/h is infinitely safe and 61 km/h is infinitely unsafe, but because passing a law saying drivers "shall not drive at unsafe and dangerous speeds" is ambiguous and creates uncertainty for potential defendants.

Likewise, passing a statutory rape law saying "you shall not have sex with individuals lacking the mental capacity to freely, autonomously and voluntarily consent to sexual intercourse with you" is way too unpredictable for people to plan their lives. An age like 16 or 18 is an arbitrary line in the sand but helps create predictability and certainty for people to stably plan their lives.

When the original speed limit was set, it depended on car performance back in the day. As cars got better, and the speed limit stayed the same, the people started to complain. Regarding statutory rape, there should be certain exceptions. For instance: guy's 16, girl's 17, they've been dating for over a decade, hormones kick in, and they start fucking. Totally consensual. Guy turns 17, they keep fucking. Totally consensual. Girl turns 18, they fuck three times on three different days - statutory rape! That's the kind of stupidity I'm trying to avoid.

I'm all for bright line rules, but there need to be exceptions as well, considering the case that I just described.

The fear of course is that exceptions could be interpreted and applied broadly by judges in a way that undermines the protective and deterrent purpose behind the brightline rule in the first place. To return to the speeding example, if I created an exception for drivers over the speed limit who were "nevertheless safe, prudent and competent drivers", judges are gonna have to interpret and apply that exception using their own subjective interpretation of the exception. If it is applied too liberally the deterrent purpose of the speed limit (you MUST not drive above X speed) is totally undermined.

Likewise, a statutory age limit for consent to sex is intended to deter older individuals from having sex with people below Age X because a majority of people under that age lack mental competency to autonomously consent to sex. Creating an exception like "unless the victim was mentally competent to consent under all the circumstances" might rescue defendants like in the example you brought up, but it would be ambiguous and applied by judges unpredictably in individual cases, undermining the deterrent effect of statutory rape laws in the first place. Yes, it creates arbitrary effects, but as I said we accept a little arbitrariness and irrational borderline cases in the law in the name of creating a stable and predictable legal order for everyone.

[Xmara]

So you can get married when you’re 12 despite not being the age of consent? Isn’t that enabling statutory rape?

The US should make it so that you have to be 18 before you can get married. No exceptions. If you can’t consent to sex then you can’t consent to marriage.

[Farnhamia]

So you can get married when you’re 12 despite not being the age of consent? Isn’t that enabling statutory rape?

The US should make it so that you have to be 18 before you can get married. No exceptions. If you can’t consent to sex then you can’t consent to marriage.

Yes, well, states get to set those ages, not "the US."

[El-Amin Caliphate]

When the original speed limit was set, it depended on car performance back in the day. As cars got better, and the speed limit stayed the same, the people started to complain. Regarding statutory rape, there should be certain exceptions. For instance: guy's 16, girl's 17, they've been dating for over a decade, hormones kick in, and they start fucking. Totally consensual. Guy turns 17, they keep fucking. Totally consensual. Girl turns 18, they fuck three times on three different days - statutory rape! That's the kind of stupidity I'm trying to avoid.

I'm all for bright line rules, but there need to be exceptions as well, considering the case that I just described.

The fear of course is that exceptions could be interpreted and applied broadly by judges in a way that undermines the protective and deterrent purpose behind the brightline rule in the first place. To return to the speeding example, if I created an exception for drivers over the speed limit who were "nevertheless safe, prudent and competent drivers", judges are gonna have to interpret and apply that exception using their own subjective interpretation of the exception. If it is applied too liberally the deterrent purpose of the speed limit (you MUST not drive above X speed) is totally undermined.

Likewise, a statutory age limit for consent to sex is intended to deter older individuals from having sex with people below Age X because a majority of people under that age lack mental competency to autonomously consent to sex. Creating an exception like "unless the victim was mentally competent to consent under all the circumstances" might rescue defendants like in the example you brought up, but it would be ambiguous and applied by judges unpredictably in individual cases, undermining the deterrent effect of statutory rape laws in the first place. Yes, it creates arbitrary effects, but as I said we accept a little arbitrariness and irrational borderline cases in the law in the name of creating a stable and predictable legal order for everyone.

Just ask if the couple in question consented. If both say "yes" then everything's alright.

[Farnhamia]

The fear of course is that exceptions could be interpreted and applied broadly by judges in a way that undermines the protective and deterrent purpose behind the brightline rule in the first place. To return to the speeding example, if I created an exception for drivers over the speed limit who were "nevertheless safe, prudent and competent drivers", judges are gonna have to interpret and apply that exception using their own subjective interpretation of the exception. If it is applied too liberally the deterrent purpose of the speed limit (you MUST not drive above X speed) is totally undermined.

Likewise, a statutory age limit for consent to sex is intended to deter older individuals from having sex with people below Age X because a majority of people under that age lack mental competency to autonomously consent to sex. Creating an exception like "unless the victim was mentally competent to consent under all the circumstances" might rescue defendants like in the example you brought up, but it would be ambiguous and applied by judges unpredictably in individual cases, undermining the deterrent effect of statutory rape laws in the first place. Yes, it creates arbitrary effects, but as I said we accept a little arbitrariness and irrational borderline cases in the law in the name of creating a stable and predictable legal order for everyone.

Just ask if the couple in question consented. If both say "yes" then everything's alright.

Would their parents be in the room when you ask the question?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

So you can get married when you’re 12 despite not being the age of consent? Isn’t that enabling statutory rape?

No, because states get to define age of consent.

The US should make it so that you have to be 18 before you can get married. No exceptions. If you can’t consent to sex then you can’t consent to marriage.

Actually you can. Just say "I do" And not have sex till the legal age if consent is reached.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Just ask if the couple in question consented. If both say "yes" then everything's alright.

Would their parents be in the room when you ask the question?

Doubtfully. Even the other party of the couple shouldn't be with the other party of said couple.

[Purgatio]

The fear of course is that exceptions could be interpreted and applied broadly by judges in a way that undermines the protective and deterrent purpose behind the brightline rule in the first place. To return to the speeding example, if I created an exception for drivers over the speed limit who were "nevertheless safe, prudent and competent drivers", judges are gonna have to interpret and apply that exception using their own subjective interpretation of the exception. If it is applied too liberally the deterrent purpose of the speed limit (you MUST not drive above X speed) is totally undermined.

Likewise, a statutory age limit for consent to sex is intended to deter older individuals from having sex with people below Age X because a majority of people under that age lack mental competency to autonomously consent to sex. Creating an exception like "unless the victim was mentally competent to consent under all the circumstances" might rescue defendants like in the example you brought up, but it would be ambiguous and applied by judges unpredictably in individual cases, undermining the deterrent effect of statutory rape laws in the first place. Yes, it creates arbitrary effects, but as I said we accept a little arbitrariness and irrational borderline cases in the law in the name of creating a stable and predictable legal order for everyone.

Just ask if the couple in question consented. If both say "yes" then everything's alright.

The whole debate exists because we are trying to determine if consent under the circumstances is valid. A 10-year-old kid saying "yes" to sex with a 40-year-old teacher is meaningless if the 10-year-old does not actually understand the nature and implication of what she is saying "yes" to. It requires a comprehensive examination of mental capacity and competency, the results of which are not predictable in advance in individual cases. Hence, we draw a hard, rigid, brightline rule (14, or 16, or 18, depending on your country) so people can predict the outcome of the case in advance.

[Katganistan]

I am against child rape. Child marriages are child rape.

What would you call two minors getting married with parental consent?

A fucking horrendous idea, with too much ability to be abused.

[Saiwania]

The US should make it so that you have to be 18 before you can get married. No exceptions. If you can’t consent to sex then you can’t consent to marriage.

This would make it so that two high school sweethearts who've known each other throughout childhood, can't get married until they're both 18. Lets just pretend that it is the rare scenario that from a young age, both are sure enough to want this union ahead of time.

It's not such a big deal from my perspective, to force everyone to have to be 18 to marry, but just pointing out that the US has a lot of very rural places where marriage at younger ages in certain rarer circumstances, is more socially accepted or common. Such as if its an Amish or Mormon family or etc.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

What would you call two minors getting married with parental consent?

A f*cking horrendous idea, with too much ability to be abused.

Minors can't marry other minors?

Dang as soon as I said that I saw the problem. Ok, certain minors and marry certain minors (let's say minimum age of marriage was 15)

[Farnhamia]

Would their parents be in the room when you ask the question?

Doubtfully. Even the other party of the couple shouldn't be with the other party of said couple.

Well ... that's something but parental pressure can penetrate even lead-lined walls, over long distances. And despite the deep conviction that people between the ages of 12 and 18 and perfectly capable of making adult decisions (I've been assured of this by many people between the ages of 12 and 18), they can't. Sorry, I can't get behind that idea.

[Xmara]

So you can get married when you’re 12 despite not being the age of consent? Isn’t that enabling statutory rape?

The US should make it so that you have to be 18 before you can get married. No exceptions. If you can’t consent to sex then you can’t consent to marriage.

Yes, well, states get to set those ages, not "the US."

Okay, then all states should pass laws to prevent minors from getting married.

[Farnhamia]

Yes, well, states get to set those ages, not "the US."

Okay, then all states should pass laws to prevent minors from getting married.

But ... states rights!

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Just ask if the couple in question consented. If both say "yes" then everything's alright.

The whole debate exists because we are trying to determine if consent under the circumstances is valid. A 10-year-old kid saying "yes" to sex with a 40-year-old teacher is meaningless if the 10-year-old does not actually understand the nature and implication of what she is saying "yes" to. It requires a comprehensive examination of mental capacity and competency, the results of which are not predictable in advance in individual cases. Hence, we draw a hard, rigid, brightline rule (14, or 16, or 18, depending on your country) so people can predict the outcome of the case in advance.

You're right, I left that part out. You still don't need a rigidline tho. Just ask "do you know what sex is and what is means for both parties involved?" If they say "yes", go to question number 2: "did you consent to have sex with this person?". If they say "yes" then everything's alright.

[Purgatio]

A f*cking horrendous idea, with too much ability to be abused.

Minors can't marry other minors?

Dang as soon as I said that I saw the problem. Ok, certain minors and marry certain minors (let's say minimum age of marriage was 15)

Whether the other party is also a minor isn't the problem. The problem is whether the minor who is consenting actually understands the implications of what she is agreeing to, or if she is acting under the undue influence and manipulation of the adults in her life (be it parents, teachers or others unduly pressuring her into a marriage the implications and consequences of which she remains too immature or mentally-incompetent to understand). That problem doesn't go away just because the other spouse is also a minor, it just mean there are now two individuals whose mental capacity to understand what they are consenting to is now in doubt, rather than one.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Yes, well, states get to set those ages, not "the US."

Okay, then all states should pass laws to prevent minors from getting married.

Why?

[Purgatio]

The whole debate exists because we are trying to determine if consent under the circumstances is valid. A 10-year-old kid saying "yes" to sex with a 40-year-old teacher is meaningless if the 10-year-old does not actually understand the nature and implication of what she is saying "yes" to. It requires a comprehensive examination of mental capacity and competency, the results of which are not predictable in advance in individual cases. Hence, we draw a hard, rigid, brightline rule (14, or 16, or 18, depending on your country) so people can predict the outcome of the case in advance.

You're right, I left that part out. You still don't need a rigidline tho. Just ask "do you know what sex is and what is means for both parties involved?" If they say "yes", go to question number 2: "did you consent to have sex with this person?". If they say "yes" then everything's alright.

That is what the courts already do in cases like the Mental Capacity Act 2005, where decisions that can be made far in advance (like whether a surgery should be carried out) are involved. But sex is oftentimes spontaneous or on the spur of the moment, you don't have time to go to court, get a comprehensive examination of your sexual partner's mental capacity by a judge, get an injunction approving sexual intercourse before you have sex. To put it mildly, that can be a bit of a mood-killer for most couples. So we draw a predictable line in the sand for people to know in advance when they are allowed to have sex with someone and when they are not.