281

Missouri bill to ban all child marriages runs into resistance from House Republicans (www.kansascity.com)

submitted 7 months ago by bquintb@midwest.social to c/politics@lemmy.world

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 33 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 106 points 7 months ago

i love their reasoning too... because a pregnant child should not only be forced to have the kid, but now be ~~allowed~~ forced to marry someone despite not having the reasoning ability to really do either.

there is just no way to spin this that doesnt show republicans for the ghouls they are.

[-] snooggums@midwest.social 35 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

There is a discussion about parental rights and how denying marriage would deny a 17 year old parent the same rights as an 18 year old married parent because of how marriage is tied up in all kinds of things. Of course they could address it by an amendment that grants the rights without needing the marriage, but instead they would rather just promote abusive situatuations instead.

Plus they are trying to increase the number of teen pregnancies through abortion bans, so making it more likely that people end up as underage parents.

[-] audiomodder@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 7 months ago

Math major here: by inductive proof

n=18 If marriage is allowed for n, then we must also allow for n-1. Therefore: newborns can now get married.

[-] Clusterfck@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 7 months ago

Your first mistake was using math in Missouri.

[-] RavenFellBlade@startrek.website 6 points 7 months ago

Now jist wait a dern minute! Them numbers is lookin like letters! That's spicious! squints menacingly

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Your proof doesn't end at 0. Embryos can get married.

[-] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

I'm going further and I'm gonna marry my balls in Missourah.

[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 6 points 7 months ago

I mean, even just saying a minors paternal rights are something that needs to be mediated by family court doesn't sound particularly terrible to me.
If you're a minor, we've already decided that you're not able to make a lot of legal choices for yourself.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 7 months ago

You forgot the part where all of this is virtuous. See? It’s a good thing!

[-] bquintb@midwest.social 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

[-] ptz@dubvee.org 81 points 7 months ago

Kinda feel like anyone who opposes that should immediately be put on a watchlist and their browser histories put under intense scrutiny.

[-] Tinidril@midwest.social 54 points 7 months ago

I kinda think the same for all Republicans.

[-] lemmyman@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Hmm my brain initially read this as "I kink shame all republicans" and...it kinda works?

[-] morphballganon@lemmy.world 18 points 7 months ago

Should, yes. Unfortunately, the police are filled with the same type.

[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 11 points 7 months ago

See, it's that sort of partisan thinking that's dividing this country. A policy like that specifically designed to disproportionately target and imprison Republicans is the sort of decisive culture war nonsense that's the problem nowadays.

I think I just poes law'd myself.

[-] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 3 points 7 months ago

I mean, realistically one wouldn't want a rule like that, because if there was one, they'd probably make a bill that had both a child marriage ban but also a whole bunch of heinous rights restrictions and such, and then accuse anyone against of being against because of the child marriage part, but I get the sentiment.

[-] ptz@dubvee.org 5 points 7 months ago

Riders are a whole other problem, agreed.

[-] Nobody@lemmy.world 50 points 7 months ago

The legislation is personal for Rehder, who was married at age 15 to her 21-year-old boyfriend in 1984. A year earlier, her sister, at age 16, married her 39-year-old drug dealer, she has said.

That's the reality of child marriage. It's exploitation and child molestation. Keep in mind these are the same people who want LGBT+ people exterminated for being "groomers." The accusation is a confession.

[-] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 20 points 7 months ago

A year earlier, her sister, at age 16, married her 39-year-old drug dealer, she has said.

Hey, this was just an algebraic error. He thought she was supposed to multiply by two and add seven rather than him dividing by two and adding seven. I'm sure it was an honest mistake.

[-] OpenStars@discuss.online 17 points 7 months ago

Sigh... of course it did:-(.

[-] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 17 points 7 months ago

I should be allowed to MARRY the CHILD I RAPE!

-Republicans trying to Protect The Children!

[-] cmoney@lemmy.world 14 points 7 months ago

Also keep in mind that once a child is married to an adult, that adult is now the child's "guardian". So making important decisions like getting a divorce is now left up to the child's new guardian potentially leaving the child stuck with their new spouse/guardian until they are legally considered an adult.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago

Yeah, it’s so harmful. Marrying one’s molester is about the worst decision a teenager can make according to everyone I’ve known who’s done it

[-] henfredemars@infosec.pub 13 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

This is kind of gross. Eww…

How does a person argue for marrying children to help them with childbearing? How does somebody think that’s OK?

I don’t think a healthy adult should think of kids like that. It implies something deeply uncomfortable about your attitude towards children.

[-] Th4tGuyII@kbin.social 11 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Of course they would be the ones trying to protect groomers - I'd love to see the day when Republicans reach self-awareness en-masse, but I expect to die long, long before that day arrives

[-] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 7 months ago

this one is truly fucking wild to me, imagine lacking this level of self awareness.

[-] snownyte@kbin.social 5 points 7 months ago

"WE WAN SUM FUK ON THAT YOUNGIN'S ASS!"

[-] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth 1 points 7 months ago

It’s illegal for a minor to marry anyone over 21, as far as I can tell, all this does is make it so highschool sweethearts can’t get married, which is whatever.

I don’t care about people within 4 or 5 years of each other getting married, this whole thing seems like a waste of time and money

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

No it means they have to wait until both are at the age of majority.

[-] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth 1 points 7 months ago

Ok that’s fine too, I don’t really care that much about it, we don’t let them enter into legal contracts anyway.

[-] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

"Trying to make it so Rapists can't marry the children they Rape is a waste of Time and Money."

-You

[-] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth 3 points 7 months ago

Did you read the article?

It specifically mentions that it bans minors from marrying anyone over 21, that means 16-20 4 year max that’s barely shit

I disagree with their reasoning behind it 100%, but that’s high school level romance.

Standard Romeo and Juliet law as far as age of consent.

We also don’t let minors enter into legally binding contracts, so that right there is a good enough reason to ban it, as marriage is essentially just a contract for you to be treated as one entity.

Both sides have decent arguments, I think that if we say they are old enough to have sex, they should be able to make their relationship “official”, but it should be able to be annulled for no reason for the first, 5 years, 10? Idk.

Pick an arbitrary number and stick with it, after that it is normal divorce.

Their kids, treat it like every other thing they do and make it a safe place to fail and gain experience.

Or don’t, I don’t really care, but I am willing to hear you out on why you don’t think the current laws are right!

this post was submitted on 10 May 2024

281 points (99.3% liked)

politics

19244 readers

3028 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News