Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and legislative leaders talk about setting a minimum marriage age as if it will be a breeze next session. Maybe it will be, especially after those embarrassing national headlines about the couple who were able to marry in Kansas only to return home to Nebraska to see the 22-year-old groom charged with raping his 14-year-old bride. But when Sen. Phil Journey, R-Haysville, calls for an “escape clause” in cases where, say, a pregnant girl “demonstrates maturity and understanding of the situation,” you have to wonder what lies ahead for this issue. Our editorial in Saturday’s Eagle calls on lawmakers to “do the right thing and ensure that child rape can’t continue to be legitimized in Kansas with a wedding.” What do you think?
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Daniel on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
8 Comments
Perhaps if someone would justify the need for the government to license marriage in the first place. Then you could move on to the discussion of how to regulate it.
All of us know some older couple that married insanely young and had a wonderful life together. It is not beyond comprehension to believe that it might still be possible for two very young, yet committed individuals to marry successfully.In the case of the 14 year old and the 22 year old, I had heard that they came to Kansas with the consent of her parents. In that case, it seems ridiculous for him to be charged with raping his 14 year old bride. HOWEVER… in my opinion, Kansas does need to revise its minimum age requirements for marriage. Life is very different now than it was in the 20’s and 30’s. The odds of a successful, lifelong union are a million to one. Kids today are not nearly as mature as our grandparents and great-grandparents.
Gertie,Kids today have to know a hell of a lot more than their grandparents did to succeed in life. Succeeding in life is essential to succeeding in marriage.Moreover, the economy has evolved to make the traditional gender roles obsolete. In order to raise a family, two incomes are usually necessary. This means that the woman often has to have a viable career, and the man has responsibilities in the home as well.In my grandparent’s time, a high school diploma was the eqivalent of today’s Masters degree. If you had one, you were probably set for life. Today, that Masters may start you on a career, but as technology evolves, unless you keep up, it could become worthless in just a few years. This puts even more strain on women especially, and makes having a family difficult, but going back to traditional roles makes having a family impossible too. With all this stress, it’s a wonder any marriage lasts!Marriage and children need to be put off until a person has that education and a good start on that career, but unfortunately, biology hasn’t kept up with the economy. In fact, adolescence is occurring earlier than in our grandparent’s day. Sex starts earlier and earlier despite whatever abstinence education provides.If you want your kids to succeed, provide them with adequate knowledge and means to prevent pregnancy and STD’s, and don’t let them get married until that career is off and running! Trying to go back in time is impossible in today’s global economy. As the world changes, it’s us that have to adapt. The world won’t!
My God, Jed, you and I actually agree!!!Enjoy your extra hour of sleep in the morning!
Proudman, I strongly suspect the fee you have to pay is the justification for the government to license marriage. I don’t know what they charge now, but a couple of years ago, it was $75 in Sedgwick county. I think that’s pretty outrageous.
PM, Nitey,I believe the charge for a marriage license is to cover the paperwork and costs of recording a marriage. The original reason for marriage licenses was to prevent polygamy, marriage fraud and elopement by underage kids; all worthy causes that still merit our concern. It also gave people an alternative to religious marriage.When homosexuality was illegal, it also prevented gay marriage. Since that law was struck down, it’s function in that regard is moot, since there is no illegal activity to regulate. That seems to make a lot of people very angry, since gays were chosen as scapegoats for all the nation’s problems now that communism is no longer the unifying threat.
So you’re saying the purpose of a marriage license is to create a bureaucracy to regulate marriage?
Utah is a great example of how laws don’t stop behavior with regards to polygamy. Nor does a marriage license have any affect on the habits of ‘underage’ spouses.
PM,Utah is a great example of what happens when a religion takes over a government! Since the religion permits polygamy, arranged marriages and suppression of women, the state pretty much ignores the laws. That leads to a general disregard for rule of law, which results in the occasional shootouts and standoffs for which Utah is famous.