‘A get out of jail free card’: GOP bill would eliminate age requirements for marriage

[GMDino]

I am QUITE sure the Cruz, Hawley, Graham, et al will be up in arms about this,

Yep.

Anytime now...

https://www.wkrn.com/news/tennessee-politics/a-get-out-of-jail-free-card-gop-bill-would-eliminate-age-requirements-for-marriages-in-tennessee/

Quote:NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) – A proposal making its way through the state legislature would establish a common-law marriage between “one man” and “one woman.”


Opponents of the bill (HB 233) say it would eliminate an age requirement, and in some instances, open the door for a coverup of child sex abuse.


Tennessee House passes bill banning ‘obscene materials’ from schools; Advances to Senate


The bill’s sponsor, Tom Leatherwood (R-Arlington) said the law being considered would add a new marriage option for Tennesseans. “So, all this bill does is give an alternative form of marriage for those pastors and other individuals who have a conscientious objection to the current pathway to marriage in our law.”


But missing from the bill are age requirements, opening the door for possible child marriages. Something the bill sponsor acknowledged during a Children and Family Affairs subcommittee. “There is not an explicit age limit,” Leatherwood said.


Representative Mike Stewart (D-Nashville), who sits on the subcommittee the bill passed out of, said he doesn’t understand the motivation. “I don’t think any normal person thinks we shouldn’t have an age requirement for marriage.”


Read the latest from the TN State Capitol Newsroom


He added it could open up the possibility to cover up child sex abuse. “It should not be there as it’s basically a get out of jail free card for people who are basically committing statutory rape — I mean it’s completely ridiculous, so that’s another reason why this terrible bill should be eliminated,” Steward said.


The Sexual Assault Center of Middle Tennessee released the following statement to News 2:


“The Sexual Assault Center does not believe the age of consent for marriage should be any younger than it already is. It makes children more vulnerable to coercion and manipulation from predators, sexual and other.”


According to UNICEF, between 2000 and 2018, 300,000 girls and boys were married before 18 in the US.

Under current Tennessee law, you can get married as young as 17 with parental consent.



The bill will be heard in the House Civil Justice committee Wednesday.

[Arturo Bandini]

My taliban dream.

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

https://www.newsweek.com/tennessee-bill-proposes-eliminating-marriage-age-requirements-1695209

I'm curious how the Q freaks will spin this one.

[XenoMorph]

"There is no federal legislation in the United States regarding the minimum age for marriage, and states are allowed to set their own parameters. Currently, child marriage is legal in 44 states and nearly 300,000 children were married between 2000 and 2018 across the country, according to United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)."

thats a pretty interesting nugget

[*Nately120*]

(04-05-2022, 04:04 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: "There is no federal legislation in the United States regarding the minimum age for marriage, and states are allowed to set their own parameters. Currently, child marriage is legal in 44 states and nearly 300,000 children were married between 2000 and 2018 across the country, according to United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)."

thats a pretty interesting nugget

I feel like we touched upon the unspoken "not that bad" vibes around this stuff during the Roy Moore thing.  

[Sled21]

I'd suggest it was an oversight in the bill that will be addressed. Nothing to see here.

[GMDino]

(04-06-2022, 08:26 AM)Sled21 Wrote: I'd suggest it was an oversight in the bill that will be addressed. Nothing to see here.

Huh, weird.

You'd think one of the bill's sponsors would just have suggested that before submitting the bill...since he knew.

" ...the bill sponsor acknowledged during a Children and Family Affairs subcommittee. “There is not an explicit age limit,” Leatherwood said."

Or a party that is currently filling airwaves accusing everyone else of being "groomers" if they even MENTION sex would have been more "explicit" about age when drafting the bill.

Unless they don't really care and this is just another way to throw red meat to their base about them gheys! 

[GMDino]

Tennessee is, uh, interesting.

A picture of their engagement announcement. When she graduated High School in 2007, Rose would have been 42 years old. pic.twitter.com/cuFiYCJkM0

— Keith Barber (@KeithDB80) April 6, 2022

 

[GMDino]

Also in TN, so I'll just leave it here, but unrelated to the gop allowing minors to be forced into marriage.

I can never run for office due to my history of being an ax murderer… pic.twitter.com/x7EnhZWyog

— Bob Moreo (@phikapbob) April 6, 2022

 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

This is a fascinating attempt at an utterly disingenuous argument. Let's establish some basic facts before proceeding, shall we? Legally a "child" is anyone under 14 years of age. Anyone between the ages of 14 and 18 is an adolescent. Now, that being established, what states allow a minor under 14 to marry? Well, it's only two, and they're both, you guessed it, the deep red states of Massachusetts and New Hampshire with ages of 12 and 13 respectively. Now, this is with parental consent as all fifty states have set the limit at 18 for marriage without parental consent. The mode number, by a large margin, is 16, which includes the state of Tennessee, the subject of this thread.

Oh, here's the source;

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/marriage-age-by-state


Sadly, it seems the only two states that allow "child marriage" are the deep blue state of Massachusetts, where you can marry a 12 year old, and the blue state of New Hampshire, where you can marry a 13 year old. Looks like someone didn't think the topic of this thread through very well.

But at least we did expose the fact that two Dem run states allow child marriage. I wonder if we'll get a separate thread on that?

[GMDino]

https://blog.mass.gov/masslawlib/legal-topics/child-brides/

Quote:In Massachusetts, under MGL c.207, s. 25, a person under eighteen cannot marry without parental consent . Massachusetts does not have a law specifying the minimum age at which a person can marry with a parent’s consent. The process requires court approval, so whether or not to authorize the marriage of a particular minor is within a judge’s discretion.


Yet if you search the web, several sites suggest either that the minimum age to marry here with parental consent is 14 for boys and 12 for girls, or that it is 16 for both. Where do these ages come from?


The notion of a minimum age of 14 for boys and 12 for girls comes from an 1854 case, Parton v. Hervey, 67 Mass. 119. In this case, a 13-year-old girl got married without her mother’s consent, and her mother was forbidding her from going to live with her new husband. The court ruled that while it is illegal for someone to perform a marriage of a minor, the marriage itself is only voidable, not void. So the minor could get out of the marriage if she wanted to, but that the marriage was not void as a matter of law, as long as the minor was above the “age of consent.” The case then went on to say that the age of consent in Massachusetts (in 1854) was fourteen for males and twelve for females, and thus the girl was still married and her mother couldn’t keep her from her beloved husband. This case was most recently cited in 1977 in Baird v. Attorney Gen., 371 Mass. 741 , for its basic premise “A marriage ceremony involving a freely assenting minor, acting without parental consent, has been held valid, although, because of the minor’s age, the ceremony was performed in violation of law.” This case did not reiterate the ages of 12 and 14.


Presumably, the concept that the minimum age is sixteen for both males and females comes from that same notion, that a minor above the age of consent may have a valid marriage. Massachusetts does not have a general age of consent for all things (for example, consent to medical treatment or kidnapping are different). For sexual matters, though, sixteen is generally called the “age of consent,” because sex with a person under sixteen is prohibited by MGL c.265 s.23. And so some websites state that you can marry here with parental consent at sixteen, and without it at eighteen. But just the law does not list a minimum age of twelve, it doesn’t give a minimum age of sixteen either.


The truth is both simpler and more murky. In Massachusetts, if a parent consents to a minor child’s marriage, authorization must still be obtained from the Probate or District Court. The judge will use his or her discretion to determine if the marriage is in the child’s best interest. As far as we can determine, there is no minimum age; there also is no requirement that the judge approve any request. Each case is simply decided on its own merits.

I'm just glad what aboustism hasn't died off yet.  

All seriousness aside no one ever said this wasn't a larger problem...just that in 2022 TN is taking a step in the wrong direction.

Anything beyond lazy research would have shown that.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-06-2022, 08:42 PM)GMDino Wrote:

https://blog.mass.gov/masslawlib/legal-topics/child-brides/



I'm just glad what aboustism hasn't died off yet.    

So, your own source states that there is no minimum age in Massachusetts.  Pedophiles!     Also, it's not "whataboutism" if you're accusing one side of doing something that is actually already being done by the other.  This is called a direct comparison, not "whataboutism".  I understand that actually addressing the point would hurt your thread, so I forgive you.
  

Quote:All seriousness aside no one ever said this wasn't a larger problem...just that in 2022 TN is taking a step in the wrong direction.

I would agree, if the bill passed into law as currently written.  Has it done that?

Quote:Anything beyond lazy research would have shown that.

You're right, I should use twitter as my source on about 80% of my posts, instead of the top google result when you search for "US federal law minimum age for marriage" and then use the top result.  Got to stick to reposting other people's tweets if you want to do "serious" research. 

BTW, the source for the site I quoted is the Cornell Law School.  You better let them know they need to start using Twitter as a primary source pronto so they don't look foolish on the internets.

[GreenDragon]

Good news for Matt Gaetz!

[Vas Deferens]

(04-08-2022, 05:11 PM)GreenDragon Wrote: Good news for Matt Gaetz!

As long as they don’t put a price point measure into the bill. christians these days, Amir?

[Matt_Crimson]

(04-06-2022, 07:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is a fascinating attempt at an utterly disingenuous argument.  Let's establish some basic facts before proceeding, shall we?  Legally a "child" is anyone under 14 years of age.  Anyone between the ages of 14 and 18 is an adolescent.  Now, that being established, what states allow a minor under 14 to marry?  Well, it's only two, and they're both, you guessed it, the deep red states of Massachusetts and New Hampshire with ages of 12 and 13 respectively.  Now, this is with parental consent as all fifty states have set the limit at 18 for marriage without parental consent.  The mode number, by a large margin, is 16, which includes the state of Tennessee, the subject of this thread.  

Oh, here's the source;

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/marriage-age-by-state


Sadly, it seems the only two states that allow "child marriage" are the deep blue state of Massachusetts, where you can marry a 12 year old, and the blue state of New Hampshire, where you can marry a 13 year old.  Looks like someone didn't think the topic of this thread through very well.

But at least we did expose the fact that two Dem run states allow child marriage.  I wonder if we'll get a separate thread on that?

Well that, and this is typical media/political hysteria. The talking point of this being a "pedophile bill" is clearly a strategic move to paint a damning picture of the GOP. The bill has since been amended to include the language everyone was requesting, but I'm sure now the talking point of this being an "anti gay bill" will be what the outlets switch to and include in their headlines.

[GMDino]

(04-09-2022, 12:54 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Well that, and this is typical media/political hysteria. The talking point of this being a "pedophile bill" is clearly a strategic move to paint a damning picture of the GOP. The bill has since been amended to include the language everyone was requesting, but I'm sure now the talking point of this being an "anti gay bill" will be what the outlets switch to and include in their headlines.

Yeah public opinion finally caught up with them...lol.  Doesn't change that it was omitted when the bill was drafter and sponsored by the gop.

And yes it is also an attempt to get around "gay marriage" but specifically only applying it to "one man" and "one woman".  But we already knew the gop would do that as it was in the bill originally.

It is just another law, based on religion, looking for a problem to fix that didn't exist and blew up in their face.

https://perma.cc/X9DB-62YN

Quote:Tennessee legislator files amendment to anti-LGBT marriage bill amid age limit backlash

Melissa Brown
Nashville Tennessean

View Comments
[/url][url=https://wr.perma-archives.org/public/x9db-62yn/20220408220646mp_/http://twitter.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tennessean.com%2Fstory%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2F2022%2F04%2F06%2Ftennessee-marriage-bill-no-age-limit-sparks-backlash-over-child-bride-concerns%2F9479778002%2F&text=Tennessee%20legislator%20files%20amendment%20to%20anti-LGBT%20marriage%20bill%20amid%20age%20limit%20backlash&via=tennessean]






0:12
1:02





A Tennessee bill to exclude same-sex couples from a proposed legal marriage contract process sparked widespread backlash after sponsors initially failed to include a minimum age limit in the legislation, though sponsors have submitted amendments to address the issue. 

Widespread public outcry spread Tuesday over child welfare concerns, as critics said a pathway to marriage without minimum age limits relaxes guardrails to protect minors from predatory behavior and abuse. 

The bill would create an alternate pathway to marriage, allowing opposite-sex couples to file marriage "contracts," based on common law principles that have not yet been legally recognized in Tennessee. The contracts would not be available to same-sex couples. 

Sponsors of the legislation have now added amendments specifying a man and woman seeking the contract must have "attained the age of majority," which is 18 in Tennessee.

The Senate version of the bill has advanced to a full vote slated for Thursday. A House committee on Wednesday rolled the legislation to next week after sponsor Rep. Tom Leatherwood, R-Arlington, faced tough questions on the bill. 

Leatherwood maintained Wednesday he had no intentions of opening up the contract process to minors and the age limit amendment would only strengthen the bill. 

"This one took a sideways turn on the folks that submitted the bill in a way I don't think they anticipated,” said Regina Lambert Hillman, a University of Memphis law professor.


The proposed legislation would not eliminate or overwrite Tennessee’s marital age limits. Current Tennessee law sets a minimum marriage age at 17, and prohibits a 17-year-old from marrying someone who is four or more years older.

More:Gov. Bill Haslam signs law banning Tennessee marriage of minors under 17

Bill is backlash to marriage equality, opponents say
Hillman worked on the 2015 legal team for the Obergefell v. Hodges case, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that codified nationwide marriage equality. A Tennessee case, Tanco v. Haslam, was consolidated into Obergefell case.

Seven years since the marriage equality victory, Hillman said it's disappointing to see continual efforts to roll back progress made for LGBTQ rights. 

“It's this continuation of the backlash over the Obergefell decision,” Hillman said. “The sky didn't fall. We have all kinds of married couples in our state that are working, raising families, paying taxes just like our straight counterparts.”


Hillman sees HB 0233/SB 0562 as an attempt to "dilute" state marriage licenses, which are now available to any adult couple who wishes to marry

"We have so many issues that could use the energy of our legislators," Hillman said. "[These bills] are inviting litigation, they're dangerous to LGBTQ youth, they're divisive to our community."

The Family Action Council of Tennessee, a conservative advocacy organization led by former state Sen. David Fowler, has pushed for the bill. In committee testimony this spring, Fowler said a separate marriage certificate is needed for people who have conscientious objections to same-sex marriage but need legal documentation of their union. 

“As a minister, I can't sign and affirm something that is contrary to my conscience," Fowler said.
Tennessee marriage certificates do not require a minister’s signature, and opponents of the bill say it’s a solution in search of a problem “that doesn’t exist.”

“No religious organizations have been required to perform same-sex marriages. Those concerns are alleviated,” Hillman said. “I understand change is difficult, and there are folks that don't like the Obergefell decision. But I don't have to agree with everyone who gets a marriage certificate as long as they meet the state requirements.”

Tennessee marriage bill initially faltered in committee
Leatherwood initially presented the bill in an early March subcommittee, which voted to send the bill to a "summer study," typically a death knell for a bill.

"All this bill does is give an alternative form of marriage for those pastors and other individuals who have a conscientious objection to the current pathway to marriage in our law," Leatherwood said.
Rep. Torrey Harris, D-Memphis, in March asked Leatherwood to file an amendment explicitly blocking minors from the process, which Leatherwood initially chose not to do.

On Wednesday, Harris said Leatherwood appealed to the subcommittee chair in March to bring the bill up again for a vote after it was sent to summer study.

Harris, one of the first LGBTQ lawmakers elected to the General Assembly, said he opposes the bill but chose not to criticize the legislation on its ideology, instead focusing on his serious concerns with the lack of an age limit. 

"There's so many moving pieces and problems with this, and somebody's personal beliefs overshadow all the problems that this bill could cause for the state of Tennessee," Harris said.  

Leatherwood on Wednesday didn't directly answer why he chose not to bring an amendment weeks ago but said the explicit age limit would strengthen the legislation.

"Altering or addressing age in marriage was never the intent of this bill," Leatherwood said. "I think it's a better bill by putting that in there."

[Matt_Crimson]

(04-09-2022, 01:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yeah public opinion finally caught up with them...lol.  Doesn't change that it was omitted when the bill was drafter and sponsored by the gop.

And yes it is also an attempt to get around "gay marriage" but specifically only applying it to "one man" and "one woman".  But we already knew the gop would do that as it was in the bill originally.

So then....what action needs to be taken now? Should the people sponsoring the pre-amended bill be tarred and feathered now?

[GMDino]

(04-09-2022, 05:56 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: So then....what action needs to be taken now? Should the people sponsoring the pre-amended bill be tarred and feathered now?

Well given the rest of the bill still stinks too maybe people will still hold their feet to the fire and get it stopped before it gets passed.

But "yay" they finally fixed part of it, I guess?

[Matt_Crimson]

(04-09-2022, 06:57 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well given the rest of the bill still stinks too maybe people will still hold their feet to the fire and get it stopped before it gets passed.

But "yay" they finally fixed part of it, I guess?

This isnt about the rest of the bill. You specifically made the thread to point out that the GOP was pushing a bill that would promote child sex abuse and said nothing else about the rest of the bill. To which I responded that it was amended. You then pointed out that the bill was only amended because of public opinion.

To which I am responding, what's your point?

[GMDino]

(04-09-2022, 07:58 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: This isnt about the rest of the bill. You specifically made the thread to point out that the GOP was pushing a bill that would promote child sex abuse and said nothing else about the rest of the bill. To which I responded that it was amended. You then pointed out that the bill was only amended because of public opinion.

To which I am responding, what's your point?

My response was to your question about "what action needs to be take next".

To the part where they wrote and co-sponsored a bill with no age limit on marriage that has been fixed thanks to the public pressure.  That's the point.

Without it that bill gets signed off on and no one even "notices".

Since that is fixed we can now make fun of the rest of the bill that serves zero purpose...lol.

Or you can defend it.  It's a free country...and you get what you pay for.