So a 16 year old is mature enough to decide to get their dick cut off but too young to choose to get married?

Fortunately for those young New Hampshire Lovebirds, they can simply take a drive to a neighboring Blue state to get married, like Massachusetts, where you onky have to be TWELVE to get married.

Oops,Massachusetts changed the law in 2022. Now you have to be 18. But there's still California ... ..

#12 Do have any commentary on why California has no minimum age for marriage? Or why California doesn't let pregnant women get divorced? Or do you just want to make it about me?

I bring up California to counter those who immediately try to make EVERY SINGLE ISSUE partisan. The "Red State vs Blue State" angle is a lazy approach to problem solving.

#14 Mine too. The reasons are varied. This Edward's dude seems to be advocating teenage marriage as an alternative to abortion. Many Progressives believe teenagers should have the right to self determination.

I don't see this as a partisan issue.

yet you always criticize liberals and progressives and democrats, exclusively or so it seems

#21 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-08 11:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

I specifically criticize those who make lazy partisan arguments. Since the overwhelming majority of the people who post here are progressives and democrats, that is where the chips fall.

@#17 ... I don't see this as a partisan issue. ...

Yet, in the same comment, you say...

... Many Progressives believe teenagers should have the right to self determination. ...

You can't have it both ways."

Sure I can. I gave two examples, of folks from opposing parties who support teenage marriage for different reasons. I could also offer two examples of people from different parties who oppose teenage marriage for different reasons. Then again, you ALWAYS insist that any opinion that differs from your own is invalid, so what would be the point? You have no interest in discussion.

"As for CA their divorce laws are just as abhorrent, but then again, they aren't like Texas where no abortion and trying to make divorce much harder"

No, California is not like Texas. They have a 6 month waiting period to get a divorce, Texas's waiting period is 60 days. So is Texas trying to be more like California?

#23 I like the nickname, Mirands. Nobody has ever called me that. LegallyYourDead called me Genius and Copernicus today instead of Moron. I feel so special

So, just your opinion or interpretation of links you do not want to provide?

#28 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-09 12:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

I wouldn't call it either, more like a deduction based on various conversations, articles and other information sources over time.

Do you disagree with the statement, "Many Progressives believe teenagers should have the right to self determination"?
Do YOU believe teenagers should NOT have the right to self determination?

To help out, here are three definitions:

The process by which a person controls their own life.
Free choice of one's own acts or states without external compulsion
Self-determination is an idea that includes people choosing and setting their own goals, being involved in making life decisions, self-advocating, and working to reach their goals.

So do you believe 16 and 17 year olds should have the right to self determination as defined above? If so, that is one down, how many more progressives do I need to find to make my statement true?

I'm not avoiding anything. What I posted was that same "very general statement, without qualification" which you and Truth seemed to find highly objectionable for some reason. I didn't even express MY opinion on the matter, perhaps you were reading more into it? My entire point is that there are differing opinions out there that do not break entirely on partisan lines. Truth can't handle that concept.

As 16 and 17 year olds, what limits on self determination do you think should be placed on them (by the government specifically)?

So scroll up to your #14 and my #17 and take my words at face value. Its not that complicated. There are no secret code words in there that require extensive discussion or interpretation. Spending 10 posts picking apart the words and trying to extract additional meaning from it is a pointless waste of time. Either you agree with what I said or you don't.

...My first question is not who. But why? #14 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-08 10:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

#14 Mine too. The reasons are varied. This Edward's dude seems to be advocating teenage marriage as an alternative to abortion. Many Progressives believe teenagers should have the right to self determination. I don't see this as a partisan issue. #17 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2024-05-08 10:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Good Night.

A related question, Are you in favor of criminalizing sex between 16 and 17 year olds?

I think pretty much everybody here agrees that WHAT Jess Edward's said is pretty horrible. But that is one guy's ignorant words. That is NOT the central issue. The central issue is still whether 16 and 17 year olds should be prohibited from getting married, without exception, which is what is being proposed.

I do find it curious whenever someone claims a marriage is a "contract". Perhaps at one time it was, but in modern times, it really isn't. A definition, "A contract is an agreement between two parties that creates an obligation to perform (or not perform) a particular duty."What particular LEGAL obligations do spouses have to one another?

I think you are talking about division of financial resources, AFTER a marriage, which are not dictated by the marriage "contract" specifically. What legal obligations do they have to one another DURING marriage? Married people can do pretty much anything they want, regardless of the marriage "contract". So it isn't really a contract at all.

In those days a woman was practically considered property of her husband, and had few rights or ability to make her own choices. That is not the world we live in. Most teenaged marriages nowadays it is Becky Sue who wants to get married, not her parents selling her off for a dowry. Usually she is pregnant and dreaming of a fairytale wedding, white picket fences, cuddling with Bobby Joe on the couch and what she perceives as "freedom" from her parents house rules. In fact, marriage is in some states, considered emancipation.

Of course we all know that Becky Sues view of marriage and parenthood is naiive, but is it the governments job to stop her from making foolish choices? Should she be instead forced to raise her baby as an unwed mother living with her parents, who are forced to support the baby too? Or coerced to have an abortion so a child can't "ruin her life"? I just find it ironic that the choice party wants to make it impossible for Becky Sue to choose marriage, even if her parents support her decision.

You got a link for the Dad who traded his daughter's hand in marriage for a new car? Your perceptions about "what Republicans want" are a little over the top, dontchathink?

Top of my head

1. Can't marry someone else
2. Co-ownership of all liabilities and assets obtained during the marriage
3. Automatic inheritance of all assets and liabilities upon death of a spouse as next of kin
4. Visitation rights to children (this isn't necessarily limited to married folk)
5. Accrual of tax benefits
6. End of life power

#57 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2024-05-09 08:18 PM | FLAG:

Good points, now narrow the context to the specific controvers. Which of these harmfully impact 16-17 year old newlyweds, such that the "but minors can't sign a contract" issue is a serious concern? I'll say none of the above.

#68 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-10 03:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Top of my head, it would certainly be harmful to the 16 or 17 year old to take on someone else's debt."

You might want to google that one, I'm pretty sure spouses aren't responsible for each other's debt, only debt for community property they both own and signed for. Regardless, that WOULD be a legaly binding contract, so a minor can't legally take on debt.

"ld certainly be harmful to the 16 or 17 year old to get married and thus limit their ability to meet what would be a better match for them"

Absolutely, but isn't that their choice? Are you in favor of state arranged marriages, you know to help them find a better match?

"-I mean that is the point of these laws, right, to protect the child from making life altering decisions until old enough to fully understand the consequences of their actions."

Do you really feel that way? Does that mean you think 16-17 year olds should NOT be allowed to have puberty blockers, gender affirming surgeries and abortions?

I admit that that wisdom in not limited to people of any specific age (there are idiots at 27 and wise kids at 15) but a demarcation has to be somewhere.

I agree. So did New Hampshire when they raised the age for marriage (with parental consent and court approval) to 16 a few years ago. But you think that is too low?

"Having to make end of life decisions may be detrimental to a 16 or 17 year old who has limited experience/wisdom."

End of life Decisions? You mean like if Becky Sue married a Boomer and he had a heart attack and she had to decide whether to disconnect life support? Ok, I'll give you that one. Add it to the Judge's list, before approving teenage marriages both parties must have a living will on file for such circumstances.

"Minor's not being able to sign a contract is actually a big part of it. Many of the obligations that attend marriage are financial obligations."

I think I covered that above, Can you give me an example of a financial obligation that a 16-17 year old would incur solely as a result of marriage? They can't sign a lease, mortgage or car loan, and I doubt they will have enough left over from their minimum wage paychecks to have savings to fight over.

"WRT to the state's actions, I think their actions should be to support people in need and not dictate their choices."

I'm not sure what you mean here. Telling people they cannot get married is dictating their choices.

#74 That is a good example, albeit one of very low probability. If they are both young, it is very unlikely Becky Sue would be left alone to make this decision, as other family members would probably show up. It would be equally vexing if they were not married, in which case Bobby's parents could refuse to allow her to enter the hospital room or have any say whatsoever over the outcome for the father of her child and the disposition of his remains. I think that would be worse for the young lovers. She would also not be entitled to widows benefits offered by social security, military, an employer or insurance proceeds. So there is that too.

I'm realizing I missed some of your earlier posts and I apologize. I'm not arguing that marriage involves zero responsibilities. That's your straw man. I asked quite specifically "Which of these harmfully impact 16-17 year old newlyweds, such that the "but minors can't sign a contract" issue is a serious concern?

#73 "You are assuming that the kids get divorced before the debt is paid off."
Huh?

"Take this example: 16 year old marries 22 year old. 16 year old has no debt, 22 year old has $50K in credit card debt."

A The 16 year old spouse is not responsible for debts incurred before their marriage. Period.
B The 16 year old is not responsible for the debts incurred by the 22 yer old DURING the marriage, unless the 16 year old also signed the credit agreement.
C If the 16 year old signed the credit agreement, the 16 year old is STILL probably not legally acceptable because 16 year olds cannot sign credit card agreements. (Unless emancipated)
D It is highly unlikely that even if an emancipated 16 year did sign a credit agreement, the application would be denied, so now we are back to B

It is practically impossible for a 22 year old to ruin a 16 year olds credit because they don't HAVE any credit. It is far more likely to happen the other way around.

"do you think the repo man or credit agencies are going to care?"

Credit Card debt is unsecured, there is nothing to repo. Credit reports are separate, except for debts both sign for, in which case it appears on both credit reports. See B and C

So how many examples do I need? At least one that is

A Not invalid
B Not ridiculously unlikely
C Not overcome by an obvious upside to counteract your alleged harmful effect.

So now seems like a good time to tell my family story, which informs my views on this controversy. A young family member came to me for advice. She was pregnant and determined to have the child. She was going through all of us looking for an ally, because everyone told her she shouldn't get married for the sake of the child and would be a mistake, destroying her future by doing so, etc. I took the easy way out and withheld comment (imagine that). Instead I took her to an Auntie who got pregnant and married at 16 with a disastrous outcome. I fully expected Auntie to talk her into an abortion. (She had counseled other women who made that choice). I left the room so they could talk, and when I returned, the decision had been made. She said, "you put her number on speed dial (pointing to me) and if he ever lays a hand on you call. Now go and write out your invitations. I can't wait to come to the wedding. WHAAAT? So she explained. She said if she hadn't gotten married, she would never have learned to be a mother because HER mother would have taken over. Her husband would never have learned to be a father because he would have stayed on the corner with the boys every night instead of staying up with her and the baby. If they hadn't made that initial committment, they would have had no coonviction to try so hard. It felt impossible and it got bad, and they got divorced, but she wouldn't have traded that experience for the world. She was able to look at her son and tell him she tried. She told the young lady that as hard as it is to get a man to take responsibility for a child, if you've got a boy who loves you, don't let him get away. The girl was positively beaming and I was in trouble.

So I told her, but that was just one viewpoint, and mentioned my brother, who got a girl pregnant, took absolutely no responsibility and ended up in prison. She told me she already talked to him and he supported her decision. I really don't stay in touch, but I called him and said WTF? And he proceeded to tell me he ended up in prison because of the baby. So I lit into him, and he says, Hold up, Hold up..... I ended up in prison because I didn't step up and I could never face myself in the mirror after that and I didn't know how to fix it so I just self medicated. I don't want that to happen to them, so I called the dude. (meaning the boyfriend) So next I met the boy and he was scared to death. I assured him my brother would remain in prison and had no friends on the outside. He had originally been hoping she'd go for the abortion, but it was apparent he did really love her and would do anything to make her happy. He was scared to death he wouldn't be able to figure out how to be a parent.

Her mother was furious, she said, "I ain't havin no wedding for a knocked up girl." So that was on me. I talked her down from 12 bridesmaids to one told her to take the Playstation off the Registry list. Yes, they were that immature. We got food from Cosco and I officiated because I am a notary. Auntie took the mic and sternly told everybody to stop whispering, we are celebrating a joyous occasion and she expected everyone be at the baby shower. (Continued)

So I wish I could tell you everything worked out great but it didn't. They made it through 2 years of minimum wage jobs and high school daycare, fought over dishes and money, the three of them living in a single bedroom, first at one relatives house then another. He went to jail for stealing some rims and she didn't visit him and next thing you know it was over. Lots of tears and drama followed. I made sure she let him see the baby even when his child support was late and he never missed a visitation. It was tense, but gradually they each got their own lives on track. The boy is now 13 years old. His mother got remarried and is a LPN in the neonatal unit. His father is making good money as an HVAC tech and comes to all our family gatherings. She calls him her "practice husband". They did it all on their own with very little help from family. They are the best parents I know. The boy is very well loved, nobody wouuld call him a mistake or say he ruined his parents lives. Both of them have repeatedly thanked Auntie for her advice and the strength they learned from following that path. They have no regrets and when they talk about how things would have been different if they hadn't gotten married, the stories are darker, not brighter.

I realize this could have turned out much worse, and don't advocate it as the best path for anyone else. I just believe in letting kids, particularly older teens, make their own choices whenever possible, particularly when they are reversible. They need a little practice before their 18th birthdays, and marriage is a big life choice, but it is reversible. They had already decided to be parents, and they deserved to have a chance to become a family, on their own terms.

Thank you. I realize that last line reads differently than I had intended. I'm not suggesting that kids should get married for practice, because it is reversible. I'm suggesting that teens have the opportunity to practice make big decisions, in general while parents still have ultimate veto power. Once they turn 18, there are no guardrails.

I agree. I was inspired to become a police officer because I was a victim of domestic violence, and fully support any and all efforts that make divorce easier, but more urgently, helping a victim get out of the household as quickly as possible. I can say that in my personal experience, domestic violence is more directly tied to characteristics of the abuser than the relationship status (married vs living together, for example), in other words, beaters gonna beat whether they put a ring on it or not.

"abuse which is more common in young people"

This surprised me also:

This study sought to determine if the recent secular decrease in reported intimate partner violence (IPV) in women was due to cohort or period effects. Women ages 18 to 64 were interviewed about IPV during their adult lifetimes. The lifetime prevalence of any IPV was 42%. Regardless of birth cohort, IPV was most common among women in their mid-20s to early 30s. After adjusting for cohort and period effects, women 26 to 30 had the highest risk of any IPV; risk decreased with age. Younger birth cohorts were at decreased risk for IPV. The estimated risk is lowest for those born between 1966 and 1975, with 31% lower risk of IPV than those born in 1946-1955. There was a substantial drop in IPV for all age-groups beginning in the 1990s.

Many states (including the disputed example) call it at 16 with both parental permission an court approval. That gives an opportunity to determine if there is a power imbalance, signs of abuse, family support system, etc. I think that is a pretty good place to draw the line, and the court process sometimes includes an exposure to opportunties for counseling or parenting classes. Some states incorporate an age differential rule too, for example a 16 yo can marry a 19 yo. Lots of variations. This should be a bipartisan effort.