REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED IDAHO CONGRESS REJECTS BILL TO END CHILD MARRIAGE FOR THOSE UNDER THE AGE OF 16
BY DANIEL MORITZ-RABSON ON 3/1/19 AT 12:48 PM
00:00
How Mozambique schoolkids use theatre to warn against child marriage
SHARE
U.S.
Idaho legislators rejected a bill that would have blocked marriage for youth under age 16 in the state, The Idaho Statesman reported.
The bill, proposed, by Democratic Representative Melissa Wintrow, aimed to prevent children under 16 from getting married and would require consent of the child, parents and a court before a marriage. Current state law allows children younger than 16-years-old to get married with parental and judicial consent, and teens who are 16 and older to get married with only parental consent.
The GOP-controlled House of Representatives voted against the legislation in a 39-28 vote on Thursday.
GettyImages-1085337468
People gather at the state capitol for the third annual “Women’s March” in Des Moines, Iowa, on January 19. A report found that Idaho had the highest rate of child marriage of 38 states that provided data.
STEVE POPE/GETTY IMAGES
Advocacy group Unchained at Last released a report last year that noted from 2000 to 2010, Idaho had the highest rate of child marriage of the 38 states that released data. During the decade tracked, 4,080 children in Idaho had marriages.
"I do not think courts should be involved in marriage at all," Republican representative Bryan Zollinger said. "I don’t believe there should be a license required to get married. I think two willing people should be able to go and get married."
Republican Representative Christy Zito mentioned abortion, which is legal in Idaho before age 18 with approval from a parent or judge, when discussing the vote.
"It will then become easier in the state of Idaho to obtain an abortion at 15-and-a-half years old than it will to decide to form a family," Zito said, according to Boise State Public Radio.
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
11 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.One of my marriages would be considered a child bride. I was 24 and we ran away to be married in Alabama. The way the law went they had to contact her parents for consent but the time frame would expire before they could reply. This was before our "information age" as we have things today.
DenoPenno
Level 9
Mar 6, 2019
0
It should be illegal everywhere to get married before 18, and there should be no restrictions on abortion, parental consent or judicial consent needed. A scared 13 year old who was raped shouldn't need additional hoops to jump through to protect herself after. And a child shouldn't be able to be coerced into marrying. Marrying before you can vote shouldn't even be a thing.
CommonHuman
Level 7
Mar 4, 2019
1
Everyone does realize that a group of Democrats were trying to pass a law to legalize childhood marriage, granted making it more restrictive but still legalize it...
Biosteelman
Level 7
Mar 3, 2019
0
Sounds like you are saying children can be married without their own consent?? What further baffles me is how anyone justifies that what is considered child sexual abuse somehow is then called lawful through a marriage certificate
thinkwithme
Level 7
Mar 3, 2019
1
I live in Georgia, and our state legislature is trying to ban abortion after 6 weeks. The war on women continues....
Emerald
Level 7
Mar 3, 2019
1
You don't know that once the sperm and the egg meet that "it's a child?" In the bible the pregnancy is water for about 3 months, then after that the mother to be has a "limb." Only at birth do we find the fetus has become a child and becomes a living being. If people really followed the bible women would have rights and a choice.
I think what they were doing was not giving legal law for precedent that a minor has a legal voice outside of their parent or guardian.
The fact that it already requires the approval of the parents and a judge means in theory the child's interest should be protected. But the better question is why allow it under the age of 16 period. Shouldn't that have been the new law?
Biosteelman
Level 7
Mar 2, 2019
2
@Biosteelman Approval of parents and a judge do not necessarily protect the child's interest. Here is a woman who was wed to her rapist at age 11: [cnn.com]
@Stephanie99 Yes you are correct in that instance the child wasn't protected. Somehow you think continuing the child marriage law is ok. Let's talk about that. How you think kids who consent to marriage should be allowed to marry.
@Biosteelman Why would you conclude that I think that the child marriage law is ok when I posted about someone who was trying to end it? Did you read the link? Did you even open the link? "Sherry Johnson was raped, pregnant and married by 11. Now she's fighting to end child marriage in America"
@Stephanie99 because the The only reason you would reply to me was for me to change my stance. But I'm sorry thry did the right thing. If you're gonna change the law it should be to ban child marriage not make it slight harder to do.
@Biosteelman Don't let perfect get in the way of better.
@Stephanie99 baby steps first huh. I don't believe children have the capacity to understand or know what is good for them. I also don't think our legal system should be placing that burden upon them.
Now a better tweak to the law is what I call reminder or flavor text, simply added marriage doesn't change the legal age of consent for sexual acts not does it confer implied consent.
@Biosteelman Is that a bill that is being proposed?
@Stephanie99 no. But the one that was is garbage. So even an imaginary bill is better.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.