Missouri bill to ban all child marriages runs into resistance from House Republicans

[playtime]

View attachment 944699

View attachment 944703

View attachment 944700

View attachment 944701

View attachment 944704

triggered much, lenny?

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Precisely what i was thinking. Dems support letting 17 y/os decide whether or not to chop off their dick or their breasts, but they can't decide to get married.

Did you even read the article? This is a Republican sponsored and led bill..Dems have very little sway in Missouri.
So, tell me, what exactly do Dems have to do with the bill..you know, the topic?

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

And prevent genital maturation.

Has what to do with the topic?

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

We have several in our family who married at 16 or 17. My husband's oldest sister married at 14 and stayed happily married to her husband for more than 50 years until she died. His other sister married at 17 and remained happily married to her husband for more than 50 years before he died a few years ago. My older sister married at 17 and remained married until her husband died a few years ago. Others of our friends married very young and have stayed married.

I was barely 20 when I married and if I had met my husband sooner probably would have been younger.

There are no hard and fast rules for when a person is ready to marry.

I have no problem with requiring parental or guardian consent to marry before age 18, but downright banning marriages at 16 or 17 does seem overly extreme to me.

Thank you for your cogent and on-topic reply--it seems hard for some to actually go there.
I think that, despite your family's positive experiences with early marriage, that the majority of teen-marriages do NOT end in success.
Do we need to protect our youth from this possible hazard? I dunno, to be honest.
I do take a bit of umbrage with one committee holding up a bill that has near-unanimous support--across party lines.
I'm very tired of the the tail constantly wagging the dog.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thank you for your cogent and of-topic reply--it seems hard for some to actually go there.
I think that, despite your families positive experiences with early marriage, that the majority of teen-marriages do NOT end in success.
Do we need to protect our youth from this possible hazard? I dunno, to be honest.
I do take a bit of umbrage with one committee holding up a bill that has near, unanimous support--across party lines.
I'm very tired of the the tail constantly wagging the dog.

I understand that but I also understand the need to fully debate some issues that have far reaching and long lasting consequences. Admittedly teens of my generation were far more mature and ready to take on adult responsibilities far sooner than many do today. But even if the odds are against them, I would rather see young people marry than have children out of wedlock that ensures they and their children are far more likely to be low income/poor.

 

[mudwhistle]

Hmm..so no opinion on the topic? AFAIK, there is no allegation of sexual child abuse..save in your feeble attempt to hijack the thread.

Perhaps you might be a bit more detailed with your accusations? Most of the comments in this article are from Republicans and the Republican-dominated Senate in Missouri passed the bill with only one against.
The Republican Gov. and the Republican Lieutenant-Gov. are in favor.

Which of them are the 'Child molesters' you are referring to?

 

[mudwhistle]

I understand that but I also understand the need to fully debate some issues that have far reaching and long lasting consequences. Admittedly teens of my generation were far more mature and ready to take on adult responsibilities far sooner than many do today. But even if the odds are against them, I would rather see young people marry than have children out of wedlock that ensures they and their children are far more likely to be low income/poor.

That's how the Democrat Party destroyed the Black Community.

Over 70% of them are born to couples out of wedlock.

 

[Coyote]

Please stay on topic folks, this is getting too easily derailed. Topic is child marriage laws not transgender stuff, not pedophilia unless it relates to child marriage.

 

[playtime]

View attachment 944709

 

[mudwhistle]

Please stay on topic folks, this is getting too easily derailed. Topic is child marriage laws not transgender stuff, not pedophilia unless it relates to child marriage.

The only reason one would want to marry a child is if they're a pedophile.

 

[mudwhistle]

triggered much, lenny?

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

The only reason one would want to marry a child is if they're a pedophile.

So..a 19 years old marrying a 17 year old is a pedophile?
It appears you are saying that those who wish to allow minors to continue to marry adults are pedophiles?
You do know..after all, you did read the link right?---that all of those are Republicans?

 

[mudwhistle]

So..a 19 years old marrying a 17 year old is a pedophile?
It appears you are saying that those who wish to allow minors to continue to marry adults are pedophiles?
You do know..after all, you did read the link right?---that all of those are Republicans?

The age of consent is 16.

 

[Rogue AI]

How does LGPEDO not support this? They support lowering the age of consent, they support children making lifelong decisions like sterilizing themselves, they support life ending decisions like killing babies, yet they get a squeamish about marriage? Didn't they whine and cry about marriage not so long ago? Seems pretty hypocritical, or maybe they just don't want to see a potential drop in their victim pool.

 

[Dadoalex]

Hmmm....this seems a no-brainer, protecting youth from both adult predators and the consequences of poor decisions resulting in getting married too young, often leaving the state holding the bag regarding finances and minor children. Yet, some of the Republicans in Missouri oppose it?
Their logic seems flawed. They trot out some successful early marriages, a minority---and ignore the negative consequences--the majority.

View attachment 944689
Missouri Republican state representative Dean Van Schoiak (Image: Facebook / Dean VanSchoiak)

https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article288424893.html

A bipartisan bill that would outlaw all child marriages in Missouri has run into resistance from Republicans in the Missouri House that could prevent it from becoming law. The legislation, filed by Sen. Holly Thompson Rehder, a Scott City Republican, and Sen. Lauren Arthur, a Kansas City Democrat, would prohibit anyone under 18 from obtaining a marriage license. Current law allows 16 and 17-year-olds to get married with parental consent. The GOP-controlled state Senate approved the bill on a nearly unanimous vote of 31 to 1 last month. But the legislation has since stalled in a House committee with just more than a week left in this year’s legislative session which ends on May 17.

Supporters of the bill say the opposition illustrates some lawmakers’ extreme and archaic views on marriage. Missouri previously had one of the nation’s most lenient laws surrounding child marriage and the state’s current law has been criticized as a loophole that leaves thousands of teenagers open to abuse and exploitation. “Any explanation used to justify opposition is nothing more than, you know, an excuse to protect predators,” Arthur said in an interview. The committee’s chair, Rep. Jim Murphy, a St. Louis-area Republican, said in an interview that there aren’t enough votes within the committee to get it to the House floor. Seven of the 14 committee members oppose the legislation and disagree with raising the state’s marriage age, he said. “It’s on the…going 16 to 18,” Murphy, who supports the bill, said of the opposition. “There’s just enough members in that committee that don’t think that’s a good idea.”

One of those lawmakers is Rep. Dean Van Schoiack, a Savannah Republican and vice chair of the committee. Van Schoiack said in an interview that he knows people who got married as minors, including a woman at roughly age 17. The couple, he said, is “still madly in love with each other.” “Why is the government getting involved in people’s lives like this?” Van Schoiak said. “What purpose do we have in deciding that a couple who are 16 or 17 years old, their parents say, you know, ‘you guys love each other, go ahead and get married, you have my permission.’ Why would we stop that?”

Rehder, who is running for lieutenant governor, pushed back in an interview. “The government does tell people when they can get married because we do have an age limit right now,” she said. “The fact that he feels that it’s okay for a parent to make a decision for a child, that is a lifetime decision, is offensive.” 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. “As a child that did get married,” she said, “I would say I have a lot more insight to this issue than what he does.”

Marriage is a legal contract with a supposed lifetime commitment.

Do the parents pay the cost if the marriage they sign for goes south?

Why do we allow a kid who can't enter into a contract for a 2 year loan on used car to enter into a lifetime contract that will probably produce kids and maybe ABORTIONS?

HMMMMMMM?

 

[john doe 101]

So parents can give consent to have their child sexually mutilated but not to marry at 16 or 17?

Lol

I knew you'd find a way to defend this even though you are fixated on child abuse.

 

[Rawley]

Did you even read the article? This is a Republican sponsored and led bill..Dems have very little sway in Missouri.
So, tell me, what exactly do Dems have to do with the bill..you know, the topic?

OK. Some Reps, like the ones cited in topic the are are as fucked in the head as most Dems. That on topic enough for you?

 

[Dadoalex]

Yeah, no worries about HIM offending sexually..as he's not seen his penis in 30 years~

That's why we have selfies.

Imagine the wiener selfie I posted here.

 

[Dadoalex]

I support child marriages. Meaning, I support a 16 year old marrying a 16 year old. Like if she got pregnant or something.
But they shouldnt be marrying 39 year olds. WTF

Why?
You think 2 kids too stupid to use protection are now smart enough to raise a kid?

Seriously?

 

[Dadoalex]

So parents can give consent to have their child sexually mutilated but not to marry at 16 or 17?

Lol

This isn't about circumcision. Try to stay on topic ASS