New York State Bars Anyone Under 18 From Getting Married

[ummmmmm]

The state govts can recognize legal competence to sign into binding contracts based on "age of consent" (which citizens vote on to establish as policy).

As for "marriage": it makes more sense to me to have state laws recognize "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" to specify legal terms and conditions of financial or custodial/estate agreements between consenting parties. And leave "marriage" involving personal or spiritual social relationships or rituals up to people or churches to conduct under their own terms and beliefs, similar to baptisms or communions that are part of religious expression or practice.

All the conflicts over LGBT and marriage can be avoided by keeping govt out of beliefs and beliefs out of govt.

ummmmmm you are looking for intelligent political discussion. I am looking for whatever it takes to explain the concept of "not abusing govt to establish biased beliefs that discriminate against people of other creeds."

If you get this concept, great, maybe we both celebrate finding one more person objective enough to discuss how this affects everything else in politics otherwise causing the mob mentality neither of us can stand, apparently!

Welcome aboard, keep posting.
And be the intelligent change you want to see in the world!

I will keep following your posts.
With two of us, that's enough to have a conversation, and maybe a clue as to what it will take to overcome collective politics that feeds bullying and trolling online. My theory is to establish one on one connections with each person, and this eventually dismantles the machine by reducing it to working parts. The same bricks used to build walls and barriers can be taken apart and used to build bridges and roads.

People are the govt which merely reflect what we enforce. So when we the people build better relations and solutions, we can better lobby the party agenda and legislate through govt to implement better ideas and approaches than what is promoted in the media for political hype and Pavlovian pandering.

I am trying to understand your position. (Please freely do a full reset of my view if I am just not getting it, there is no pride attached, this is purely trying to exchange ideas.)

Your statement about competence to enter into contracts is clear to me, no questions.

Whether the other is called "marriage," "civil unions," or "domestic partnerships," or anything else, it seems to me it will clearly be both (1) subjective, and (2) a category of relationship a majority of the populace demands receives favorable treatment, in whatever form (tax benefits or otherwise). We can move that debate around anywhere and land it in different places -- e.g., which relationships are sanctioned by a church, which organizations count as a church, whether churches should be out of the loop and the criteria should be applied by some other body -- but the end result is always to ask which relationships get the special, favorable treatment ordinary voters demand for (currently) marriage. No?

 

[ummmmmm]

Not everyone believes in govt managing social benefits through taxes ummmmmm

Wouldn't it make more sense for political parties to manage Cooperative social programs and benefits for their own members, so they can agree to make it mandatory and decide all the terms and benefits they want based on their own beliefs? Churches can run and fund their own social support programs as they believe, like the Mormons that have their own version of social welfare as temporary assistance, or Catholics run their own schools, orphanage or adoption programs and prolife outreach, without mandating that or forcing taxpayers to fund it. Why not require all Parties to manage their political beliefs similar to how other religious organizations do for their own members?

As stated before, the govt can establish age of consent to enter legal contracts, based on the population voting on secular policies.

As for anything involving relative beliefs, either the public has to consent before making public policies regarding faith based beliefs, or these need to be separated from govt so people retain free exercise of their beliefs.

Can we have a conversation about that, and what distinguishes political beliefs from objective public policy?

Before we can host any Conventions to reform govt, we should be able to maintain a conversation without imposing beliefs back and forth on others!

Thanks for asking for more intelligent and objective discussions.

If you start asking for this on other media formats, that's enough to start the next revolution...

Very simply response. "Not everyone believes in govt managing social benefits through taxes" Yeah, but most do, unknowingly or not, and that is not changing. So, that's the reality backdrop against we must have our discussion.

 

[ummmmmm]

As for anything involving relative beliefs, either the public has to consent before making public policies regarding faith based beliefs, or these need to be separated from govt so people retain free exercise of their beliefs.

Can we have a conversation about that, and what distinguishes political beliefs from objective public policy?

Sure. Start us off.

 

[whitehall]

NY voters elected state representatives to to promote their agenda. If their agenda isn't met they need to reconsider their loyalty. Andy Cuomo might be guilty of a lot of things but signing a bill into law ain't one of them. The ironic thing is that the bill might prevent legitimate marriages while the abortion rate goes through the roof.

 

[Dana7360]

Puberty and "menarche" are facts of life. Girls are physically or medically capable of getting pregnant and bearing children as teenagers, law or no law, consent or no consent.

High school girls are partying, dating boys, getting pregnant, and you are demanding an abortion and a boyfriend dumping.

And there's an older man all set up to marry the girl as soon as she comes of age, but it’s got to be his child she brings to term and raises, not the high school sweethearts.

And the ex boyfriend who was a minor at the time is screwed, and that's just as bad as being a registered sex offender, because he was supposed to let the older men have the girls and wait his turn on the dating scene, until he had money and real estate and a nice income from a good paying steady job.

I couldn't even finish reading your first sentence.

It's that disgusting.

You are trying to justify marry children off to adults.

Think about that.

 

[Dana7360]

It's a legal contract.

Exactly.

By law there are only 3 criteria to be able to enter a legal contract.

1. The person must be of sound mind.
2. The contract can't be signed under duress.
3. THE PERSON MUST BE 18 OR ABOVE.

Which means a person below the age of 18 can not legally enter into the marriage contract.

It's a point I was meaning to bring up. Thank you for making your point.

 

[Dana7360]

Then we should go to a lawyer and get the contract drawn up.

All the person has to do is go to the county clerk's office for the marriage contract.

The person fills it out.

The people who got married, person who officiates the marriage and their witnesses, sign that contract then it's filed with the state.

 

[Dana7360]

I am 66 almost 67. To me, anybody under 30 is a kid. I got married when I was 21, she 20 and been married ever since. That said, yes. At any age, if they get knocked up, marriage should be an option if they choose it. BTW, we did not attempt to or have our first child for 3 years, preferring to have more time for just us, in the beginning. Kids generally need to wait on getting married or having babies, as often they are stupid kids. Sometimes the best is to handle their responsibilities as a team.

I don't see anyone but you calling a 30 year old adult a kid.

The law doesn't apply to a 30 year old adult.

The law applies to children. That law protects children.

It's sad to read you call the process of creating new life "knocked up." It shows you don't have much respect for women and women who become pregnant.

No if a child becomes pregnant the answer isn't marriage. In fact, marriage will make the problem worse.

I totally support this law.

I will never understand why people think it's ok for children to get married.

It's a prescription for disaster.

 

[LeftofLeft]

What happened to a woman’s right to choose? Follow the logic of the Democrats. They want to give a woman (girl) the right to get an abortion under the age of 18 without their parents’ permission yet shit theirselves over marriage 18 or under?

 

[emilynghiem]

I am trying to understand your position. (Please freely do a full reset of my view if I am just not getting it, there is no pride attached, this is purely trying to exchange ideas.)

Your statement about competence to enter into contracts is clear to me, no questions.

Whether the other is called "marriage," "civil unions," or "domestic partnerships," or anything else, it seems to me it will clearly be both (1) subjective, and (2) a category of relationship a majority of the populace demands receives favorable treatment, in whatever form (tax benefits or otherwise). We can move that debate around anywhere and land it in different places -- e.g., which relationships are sanctioned by a church, which organizations count as a church, whether churches should be out of the loop and the criteria should be applied by some other body -- but the end result is always to ask which relationships get the special, favorable treatment ordinary voters demand for (currently) marriage. No?

A. Civil unions or domestic partnerships are legal/financial contracts only. Like neutral LLC type partnerships. This means govt stays out of social relations and only has courts preside over contractual disputes like any other business deal that doesn't require the two parties to a contract to have personal relations socially, only to agree by mutual consent, sound mind, and legal competence to common terms.

B. Whatever conditions or beliefs people "favor" would be up to them and their groups that agree to support those.

Parties have enough members, resources, and structures in every state and nationwide to manage their own tax paid benefits or credits.

The advantage is they would get the terms they believe in without having to fight legally with anyone else of other beliefs.

As for what we ALL agree on, yes, that CAN remain public policy.

However, if people insist on imposing terms on marriage others don't consent to under state govt, then NO, we would have to stick to neutral terms and keep the rest private.

I have consulted with Conservative Republicans, progressive Democrats who want universal care, and independent Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and Christian Anarchists.

Giving Tax Credits and breaks so people can fund and manage Cooperatives under their own choice and beliefs about terms and conditions appears to accommodate all of these groups and approaches.

The people and groups still need to consult and agree how to set up the terms before we could get such a system to work.

The motivation to compel this reform
A. Either establishing that the existing system is discriminatory and excludes public accommodations for people or groups of other creeds whose beliefs are violated
B. The advantages of investing in party and church run Cooperatives, for democratically decided and universal access to sustainable benefits, exceeds the current wasteful system of fighting over limits and bureaucratic costs and burdens of govt and denying accountability/accommodations for taxpayers of opposing beliefs.

The issues that prove diverse beliefs cannot be accommodated equally by govt mandates:
1. Conflicting beliefs over funding or endorsing/legalizing abortion
2. Conflicting beliefs about vaccines or govt shutdowns of business while relying on taxpayer money to support social or economic demands
3. Different beliefs in or degrees of the role of govt in health care under which conditions.

If we can agree on advantages while acknowledging partisan abuse of govt violates Constitutional equal protections and public accommodations, we might move toward better solutions and how Party structures could work for us instead of against us in achieving respective goals without conflict and obstruction.

 

[emilynghiem]

Sure. Start us off.

Since the thread was supposed to be about minors getting married, not social benefits attached to marriage, I could repost my last comments and start a thread for how could parties be used to separate beliefs about marriage and benefits from govt.

I could see either parties managing cooperative benefits per precinct and collectively statewide or nationwide

Or splitting federal govt into two administrations for domestic/internal social policies between people and states vs. External duties that focus on national security, interstate commerce, and physical not personal matters the other admin addresses.

Let me start a new thread. Thanks ummmmmm

How this relates to the OP:
States could mediate policies with their own citizens per district, and not necessarily impose mandates for the entire state or nation. So if a family has an exception to the age of consent being 18, it is possible to have counselors investigate to make sure no rape, abuse or trafficking is going on. If both families approve, and medical and legal examiners confirm there is no abuse, it is possible for states to approve some process for handling exceptions if residents and voters agree.

I think most psychologists lean toward recognizing 15-18 as still ages of development where adolescents require adult guidance. And 21-25 are the age range where the brain becomes fully independent and able to make legally competent decisions as an adult.

In any case, to protect consent of minors from coercision or abuse, I recommend teaching and assistance in conflict resolution and peer mediation in schools as standard civics education.

This would allow earlier detection, intervention, prevention and correction of any abuses that I assume are the concern with lowering age of consent to marriage, sex, and other decisions like abortion, gender transition, etc.

 

[White 6]

I don't see anyone but you calling a 30 year old adult a kid.

The law doesn't apply to a 30 year old adult.

The law applies to children. That law protects children.

It's sad to read you call the process of creating new life "knocked up." It shows you don't have much respect for women and women who become pregnant.

No if a child becomes pregnant the answer isn't marriage. In fact, marriage will make the problem worse.

I totally support this law.

I will never understand why people think it's ok for children to get married.

It's a prescription for disaster.

If you think young people act like an adult, think like an adult, react to changing situations in control of their emotions, just because they turned 18, I can assure you, it is not so. 30 is a generalization, but 18 is just a date in contract law, where we hold them responsible whether they are or not.
I doubt this changes anything much for children under 18, except limits options for them and their parents. They are not protected from anything, on average.
Cheer up. No need to be sad of euphemisms. Nor that I have little respect for kids under 18 that get knocked up. It is not like they evaluated, determined they had the maturity, life skills, present funds, future funding streams, necessary education, to establish and maintain a good growth environment for a child, totally dependent upon them, (which becomes harder to attain as single mothers), who should have thought better than to get knocked up in the first place.
I do not support the law, but it really won't affect me, will it?
I have a friend, that at the age of 17, knocked up his 14-year-old girlfriend. They married. He worked with me after school before their daughter was born, before graduation, then landing a manufacturing job with a future, based on testing and mechanical knowledge, providing them a secure start and lifestyle during their 16-year marriage. In time, while married and raising their daughter and a few years later a subsequent son, his wife got her GED and landed a job at the same factory he worked at. Nobody was thrilled at the beginning situation, but the couple, with their parents made it work. Maybe it is different down here or was back then, with young men taking greater responsibility. I don't know. It was a different time. People may have raised their sons different from nowadays. I know we tried to raise our twin boys (born years after we were married) different from how boys are often raised now. This anecdote does not mean it is a good idea, in a majority of case, but it worked out far better than sending him to jail as a sex offender, before high school graduation and a 14-year-old country girl raising a baby on her own, while she remained dependent on her parents. Luckily the state government never got a chance to get involved in the decision-making process.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

New York can do nothing about couples that go to other states to get married. The state is obligated to accept that marriage as legal. The state can do nothing about married couples that immigrate here. The only thing New York can do is lose money from the weddings that would take place in the state but have moved because of the silly law.