Yikes- Married at 12?

[SaintCad]

"At what point does the state have a right to intercede on behalf of its citizens even when its over the wishes of those citizens? I had thought I was taught that the state has a right to abridge the rights of the individual when the welfare of the masses were at stake."

 

Actually the standard is "compelling state interest". While this may be interpreted as a form of Utilitarism (such as drunk driving checkpoints), it does not always have to be. For example, in Roe v. Wade, the state argued (unsucessfully) that there is a compelling state interest in protecting the life of the fetus (that abortion was, in effect, murder in utero). The decision was probably based more on Blackmun's views of expanding the "right of privacy" than the arguments themselves (he allowed Weddington to present her case a second time in support of Roe and basically told her how to argue the case). In spite of this, the Court did recognize that the state did have an interest in regulating abortions. Thus the needs of the few (unwanted fetuses) can outweigh the rights of the many (all women).

[John-in-KC]

To funscout,

 

If you were addressing your response to my post, I have to agree: God's churches would help any young woman who found herself pregnant or a mother in need. This applies even more so when the pregnant child is the victim of criminal action (rape, statutory rape, or incest).

 

However, at a policy level, I also believe God's churches in this era should be working to say that sexual activity at age 12 is just plain wrong.

[funscout]

John-in-KC,

 

No, I wasn't responding to your post, and I agree that churches need to be vocal on not accepting the idea of children having sex.

 

I was responding to Fuzzy Bear's post about churches being happy when a 12 year old gets pregnant. Now, I'm sure FB was just being sarcastic, but unfortunately, there are plenty of other people who jump at the chance to slam churches, so I wanted to set the record straight.

 

[yellow_hammer]

Fuzzy Bear said,

 

"Church people are the happiest because another child of poverty is alive and well, so marriage at 12 is exactly what the anti-abortion crowd has longed for all of these years."

 

As a church member who is pro-life I take offense to this statement. It is slanderous and pure fabrication. Most of us try to maintain a civil tone in these debates - your statement is over the top.

 

I propose that church members today make the best of a bad situation. If the young lady decides against abortion and stays involved in church then they are willing to accept her and her child in the spirit of Christ. It has nothing to do with a secret conspiracy to lower the legal age for marriage.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I believe that Churches do many good works. I believe that Bill Gates has done more good works than many Churches. I believe that the United States Government has done more good works than Bill Gates. I believe that good works are not measured in amounts but by an individuals heart. So, one individual may do more than all of the above.

 

The making of laws generally follow principles that people agree on. Bad laws are made without support and are easily reversed since there is little agreement. Bad laws can only be supported by the business end of a gun. But lets argue that someone made a law without support and did so simply for fun. This doesnt seem like a joke so fun must be out. Lets argue that someone made a law as a trial balloon, which might be plausible but unlikely because of the work it takes to pass a law. So, it might be argued that marriage at 12 or at most any age would be a law most Churches would uphold because Churches believe in marriage. Where else would it find support? Has someone made a law that has no support and has democracy failed us? Who else would support it?

 

There are many in Churches today that support pro-life or reversing the Roe decision. The climate and the pieces are in place to bring it down. When, not if, the reversal happens things will revert to what had gone on before in the 50's. Women either had their children as they still do today or they aborted them not as they do today. There were many legal miscarriages with a friendly doctor or back alley abortions or they flew their daughters to Mexico to have an abortion. Many of these were good Christian people, sadly several that I knew personally. Simply put, history will repeat itself and when it does the new law will also be defeated as it was before because law must have support or it will be a hollow law.

 

Because of this historical repetition, I fail to find any humor or practicality to any of it. What I do believe is that laws cannot make a person religious and laws cannot make a nation religious. It is the individual and the persons heart that makes a person religious and when enough individuals in a nation are religious, then that nation belongs to God.

 

I personally am against abortion but I do not believe any law will ever help. I support people giving effective help to all Mothers and all of their children. This means every person regardless of race or religion. This means long term and not until someone passes another law. We are a rich nation. Let's put our money where our hearts are but then maybe we already have.

 

FB

[Hunt]

"So, it might be argued that marriage at 12 or at most any age would be a law most Churches would uphold because Churches believe in marriage."

 

Well, any nutty thing might be argued, but you can't know much about churches if you think that "most" of them would support a law allowing 12-year-old children to get married, whether they are pregnant or not. Perhaps you are under the impression that in all cases church people think that pregnant girls should be pressured to marry the father--I don't know if that was ever true, but it's certainly not true now.

The weird thing about this is that even in the case that gave rise to this discussion, there was nobody arguing that 12-year-olds should be allowed to marry. What happened was that a judge noted that under traditional common law (that's the common law of England going back centuries), marriage of a 12-year-old girl could be deemed legal. The case he was considering involved a girl who had begun a relationship at age 15 with the consent of her parents. I still think that is too young, and the judge made bad law because he was facing a difficult case, but it really has nothing to do with 12-year-olds. (I would bet you that the case would have turned out differently if the girl had been 12 rather than 15, no matter what her mother thought about it.)

[Fuzzy Bear]

Many important areas of law are governed primarily by common law. In almost all areas of the law, statutes may give only terse statements of general principle, but the fine boundaries and definitions exist only in the common law. To find out what the law is, one has to locate precedent decisions on the topic and reason from those decisions by analogy.

 

Prior to 1545 most marriages were by Common Law but the Catholic Church decided that Church weddings were needed. By 1992, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox Churches abolished Common Law marriages. Historically, in Common Law marriage people could be married as early as 7. The age of parental consent was 12 for females and 14 for males but these marriages were easily voided even though Common Law marriages were/are legally binidng and are still acceptable under exceptional circumstances.

 

In Colorado:

The practice of Common Law marriage was based on a lack of qualified personnel to perform marriages and the lack of transportation to qualified personnel. So, couples themselves solemnized their own marriage (meaning, perform one's own marriage ceremony). The man and the woman must be legally competent (capable) and agree to a marriage relationship. The specific test for competence, as determined in Dusky vs United States, is whether the accused "has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understandingand whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him."

 

The standard Colorado courts have outlined that a common law marriage which requires that the couple:

 

1. Cohabitate continuously or there is a consummation of the marriage. The length of time of the cohabitation is not considered.

 

2. Mutually agree to be married, which is the intent to freely become married

 

3. Openly hold themselves out to the public as married, which is a public declaration.

 

Here is a non-exclusive list of factors Colorado divorce courts look at when determining whether a common law marriage exists:

 

1. Whether the couple refers to themselves as married to third parties,

 

2. Filing joint federal or state tax returns, registration as husband and wife on applications, leases, contract forms and hotel and motel registers.

 

3. Listing the other party as a spouse on insurance forms or retirement plans,

 

4. Joint finances, such as bank accounts, or owning property, and

 

5. The woman taking the man's surname.

There is no official Certificate of Common Law Marriage. If the parties to a common law marriage need documentary proof, they may complete and sign, in front of a notary, an affidavit attesting to the marriage. It may be placed on file with the Office of the Clerk and Recorder, most likely in the county of residence. A Common Law marriage cannot be terminated except by court dissolution (divorce) or death.

 

Since the basic precept for Common Law marriage no longer exists, meaning that there is no lack of qualified personnel and transportation is no longer a problem, then this issue should be a moot point but the law remains. Forty other States have dismissed Common Law marriage but Colorado continues to strive to make an outdated law work, so we should ask the obvious question; what reason(s) is/are left? Is it tradition, Case Law, or inextricable business relationships connected to that Law? Several judges are attempting to further refine the law but using what appears to be little more than 16th Century standards. They have accepted the premise that a person of 12 can understand that they are getting married so the judges must believe that that is enough.

 

Throughout the world today 51 million women between the ages of 15-19 are married. Marriages for children, ages 10 to 14, are generally not counted because the majority of countries have laws against these unions even though they exist and the numbers are high. It is understood that sexual activity and pregnancy is the only goal of these early marriages and that the outcomes generally are a loss of economic opportunities, education, health, and friendships. In other words, young people are not mentally prepared to undertake the social, educational and business opportunities that lead to a successful life at an early age. So, it is a practical consideration to set the age of consent at age 18 today.

 

The reasoning that the rest of the world is using by abolishing the early age standards is merely to help their economies and to help people pursue happiness in a practical way. Knowing more than a superficial knowledge about marriage is now more than ever essential for a successful marriage to work. But this still does not answer the question as to what the Colorado judges are doing. They may feel that their job is to clarify and interpret law and not to make law which is noble but to do so no matter what problems are created by their actions is shortsighted at best. But then, if there are problems, the legislature can improve the laws or people that backed the legislature can lobby for a change but that doesnt appear to be the case either. FB

 

(This message has been edited by Fuzzy Bear)(This message has been edited by Fuzzy Bear)

[Hunt]

I would say that in more recent times, the main reason courts continue to recognize common law marriages is to deal with the situation when a couple holds themselves out to the public as married, especially for a long period of time, and then one of them tries to deny the benefits of marriage to the other--i.e., division of property, child custody, etc. It's not that the government wants to promote marriages that have not been properly solemnized, but rather to prevent unfairness. In the majority of cases, recognizing the existence of a common law marriage probably benefits the wife, who is likely to be the one being abandoned without a share of the marital property.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I agree that there are those that live together that may desire to split everything equally once they separate. Forty other states have reasoned that equality is a legal action ands that a legal union allows for those rights. That is the basis for practical law. The problem with Common Law marriage is that it lacks a higher mental competence standard. Simply acknowledging what a person is doing is not enough. A person wanting to get married needs to understand the consequences of their actions. A person of 7, 12 or 15 lacks essential life experiences to make a practical decision about marriage. Granted, legal unions do not stipulate a higher undertanding but it does have some protection for those involved. FB

[acco40]

We in the western world have a particular view of marriage that is not shared by the majority of the world (imho). We think in terms of maturity, love, financial responsibility and oddly enough "what happens when they divorce." Many in our culture marry for the wrong reasons. Some men marry for sex. Some women marry to escape parents. Many women have babies so that they have "someone to love them." Thankfully, some couples who marry for the wrong reasons grow and learn to love one another and form a great, lasting union.

 

Many cultures believe in arranged marriages. In these cultures, the bride and groom are sometimes quite young. I don't believe their success rate is any lower that what it is in our culture.

 

I think SR450Beaver has a grain of truth in his posting about how our society is "infantizing" our youth today. Also, because of better nutrition, our young ladies are reaching thelarche, menarche and eventually nubility at a much younger age. So with sexual development going to the left and maturity going to the right - it is a recipe for disaster.

[acco40]

We in the western world have a particular view of marriage that is not shared by the majority of the world (imho). We think in terms of maturity, love, financial responsibility and oddly enough "what happens when they divorce." Many in our culture marry for the wrong reasons. Some men marry for sex. Some women marry to escape parents. Many women have babies so that they have "someone to love them." Thankfully, some couples who marry for the wrong reasons grow and learn to love one another and form a great, lasting union.

 

Many cultures believe in arranged marriages. In these cultures, the bride and groom are sometimes quite young. I don't believe their success rate is any lower that what it is in our culture.

 

I think SR450Beaver has a grain of truth in his posting about how our society is "infantizing" our youth today. Also, because of better nutrition, our young ladies are reaching thelarche, menarche and eventually nubility at a much younger age. So with sexual development going to the left and maturity going to the right - it is a recipe for disaster.

[packsaddle]

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/14983668.htm

 

Just seemed relevant somehow. Regarding helmet laws, South Carolina also repealed them years ago. I have long considered the repeal of the helmet laws for motorcycles to be part of a vast conspiracy by transplant surgeons. They really do refer to motorcycles as 'donorcycles'.

[NWScouter]

Just reading the information in the news article, I am speculating that there are two reasons for the husband to seek the ruling. The first that pops to mind is avoiding prosecution for statutory rape. He is in his thirties and she is or was in her low teens. The second is to their rights to benefits that they may have due to him serving time, they may be spousal visits and welfare type benefits. It would be interesting to know why the issue of the marriage ended up in court. Child support and visitation rights seem to be not dependant on marital status.