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

EvilEyeFleegle

Dogpatch USA
Gold Supporting Member
Nov 2, 2017
16,095
9,182
1,280
Twin Falls Idaho
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.

1715357859706.png

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


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.”

 
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)


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.”
Funny how child-molesters like accusing their opponents of the shit they're doing.

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

Lol
Hmm...nice segue. AFAIK, no one is getting their children 'mutilated'. Surgery remains an over 18 affair.
Before you squeak out that puberty blockers are 'sexual mutilation'....they are not.
So, back to the topic..are you for or against child marriages..IE marriages where one or the other partner is over 18?

 
Funny how child-molesters like accusing their opponents of the shit they're doing.


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?
 
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)


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.”
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.
 
Stop lying I know better
No..actually you don't. You are ignorant and on the wrong side of almost everything.
The proof of this is how you NEVER actually respond to the topic..you just spin to the narrative spoon-fed to you...and rinse and repeat.
You are too weak and stupid to actually debate the subject with real fact.
Sucks to be you~
 
No..actually you don't. You are ignorant and on the wrong side of almost everything.
The proof of this is how you NEVER actually respond to the topic..you just spin to the narrative spoon-fed to you...and rinse and repeat.
You are too weak and stupid to actually debate the subject with real fact.
Sucks to be you~

I know better. Take your nonsense elsewhere
 

Forum List

Back
Top