Poll of the Day > Rhode Island governor to sign bill banning child marriage

(+) Yeah! (+)

Far-Queue posted...

Rhode Island governor to sign bill banning child marriage

Cacciato posted...

that reminds me of Mississippi finally banning slavery a couple of years ago.

Was there a lot of that going on? I don't think you need a law about it unless it happens frequently enough that it causes a problem.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Was there a lot of that going on? I don't think you need a law about it unless its happening frequently enough that it causes a problem.

Great way to justify basically anything. Oh, there's not much murder anymore, why do we need the law!? I think it's probably a bit more controversial that it wasn't signed into law in the 1860s or subsequent decades.

---

That's why I asked. I'd expect both things to be rather obscure. Am I wrong?

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That's why I asked. I'd expect both things to be rather obscure. Am I wrong?

I agree with you on slavery being extremely rare, and the Mississippi issue has been talked about as an 'error'. Still, could've been some wacked out person not sending the papers on purpose.

As for child marriage, I'd say there's a lot more of that in the USA than you may think.

https://childusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020-Report-on-Child-Marriage-in-the-US.pdf

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That's why I asked. I'd expect both things to be rather obscure. Am I wrong?

so if there was only a little bit of rape or slavery happening, you dont think there needs to be laws against them?

---

Hey, we haven't had a guy lock a bunch of women in their basement (that we know of) and enslave them in the last few years, do we really need that law that gets invoked rarely?

---

That wasn't what I was saying at all. Those are laws that already exist. In terms of effort put forth I don't see their removal any more pressing than the needless creation of new laws.

For example, it would be problematic if elephants were kept as pets in urban areas. But no one does that so there's no reason to make it a law. Similarly if people once did it to warrant a law but have stopped there's no reason to put forth the effort to remove it either

So far no one has been able to tell me how often the original subject happens.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So far no one has been able to tell me how often the original subject happens.

I dont think anyone cares enough

if you want to know, look into it

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That wasn't what I was saying at all. Those are laws that already exist. In terms of effort put forth I don't see their removal any more pressing than the needless creation of new laws.

For example, it would be problematic if elephants were kept as pets in urban areas. But no one does that so there's no reason to make it a law. Similarly if people once did it to warrant a law but have stopped there's no reason to put forth the effort to remove it either

So far no one has been able to tell me how often the original subject happens.

The reason is because without laws, people would try to do whatever they wanted. Like Idk about elephants, but lots of people like to own exotic pets. One that are pretty dangerous, so they had to make laws about it. Even if it doesnt happen a lot. Or like in this case. While there werent a ton of marriages, any amount of child marriage sucks. So, might as well now allow that... Normally, the reasons we have laws is because someone did something. For example, there was a law forbidding putting ice cream cones in your back pocket. It seems like a ridiculous law. But it was because horse thieves would use that as a method to lure horses away without being charged with stealing. So some laws were more of less products of a certain times.

It reminds me of how products usually have warning in them that seem obvious. But that had to put them there. Because if they dont, someone might do something dumb, which would get the company in trouble...
---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Was there a lot of that going on? I don't think you need a law about it unless it happens frequently enough that it causes a problem.

If it happens literally once (which it has), that's enough to qualify as a problem. There isn't an acceptable amount of child sex trafficking, and laws that permit child marriage are frequently exploited to get around trafficking laws.

---

LinkPizza posted...

In the US, the age requirement isnt only for public drinking...

That sounds like a limitation of your "FREEDOM"?

---

Zangulus posted...

Imagine thinking that more than 0 or even 0 isnt enough of a reason to explicitly outlaw the ownership of people.

The US constitution already precludes that. Why would individual states need their own law regarding it?

adjl posted...

laws that permit child marriage are frequently exploited to get around trafficking laws.

I didn't associate the two things at all. I thought we were discussing whether they were capable of making a life long commitment, or if they were prepared for the divorce if that didn't work out.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I didn't associate the two things at all. I thought we were discussing whether they were capable of making a life long commitment, or if they were prepared for the divorce if that didn't work out.

As it stands, most laws surrounding child marriage allow it only with parental permission. As is completely expected, there are people that take advantage of that to force their children into marriages with adults (usually for some manner of financial gain), which are legally binding because they had parental permission. That, in turn, opens the door to all manner of terrible abuses, because being married supersedes AoC laws in many cases.

It'd be nice if this were just a matter of "oh those silly teenagers don't know what they're getting themselves into!", but unfortunately, it more commonly manifests as a loophole that allows legal human trafficking. It needs to be illegal, especially considering that the only harm such a law will do is requiring teenagers to wait a few years before getting married (which, in all honesty, is something pretty much every couple should be doing anyway, so that's not a tremendous loss). I'd also be completely game for saying that the spouse and parents of anyone that was married off as a child should be immediately convicted of trafficking if the person simply says that they didn't want to be married, but that's a bit extreme and could be abused (to say nothing of how dubious it is to retroactively punish people for breaking a new law, even if they fully deserve it).

---

adjl posted...

if the person simply says that they didn't want to be married

Maybe this is the part I don't get. If they are allowed to make a legally binding contract in the first place that implies they're capable of making an informed decision for themselves. So when the person performing the ceremony asks "do you take this person to be your lawfully wedded..." they are expected to be equally as capable of saying "no".

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Maybe this is the part I don't get. If they are allowed to make a legally binding contract in the first place that implies they're capable of making an informed decision for themselves. So when the person performing the ceremony asks "do you take this person to be your lawfully wedded..." they are expected to be equally as capable of saying "no".

Sometimes, as a child, you dont know you can say no. And when you find out you could have said no, its too late...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Sometimes, as a child, you dont know you can say no.

I expect this happens quite often to adults as well. Does this also call into question the ability for other people to make a contract?

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Maybe this is the part I don't get. If they are allowed to make a legally binding contract in the first place that implies they're capable of making an informed decision for themselves.

They aren't allowed to do that, though. It's only allowed with parental permission, which ultimately just means that it's the parents that are allowed to make the contract.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So when the person performing the ceremony asks "do you take this person to be your lawfully wedded..." they are expected to be equally as capable of saying "no".

In situations like that, the child will typically not want to say "no" because they know they'll be beaten within an inch of their life when they get home if they do. There also generally is not a ceremony (the ceremony's not the legally binding part anyway), since even the sort of people that like marrying 12-year-olds know it's something you do as far from the public eye as possible.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I expect this happens quite often to adults as well. Does this also call into question the ability for other people to make a contract?

You can have marriages between adults annulled if one party was incapable of properly consenting, yes. It's significantly more common for children to be in that situation than adults, though, by simple virtue of the fact that children can never properly consent.

---

adjl posted...

That, in turn, opens the door to all manner of terrible abuses, because being married supersedes AoC laws in many cases.

Although, at the same time, most Western countries got rid of "marital rape" laws last century.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I expect this happens quite often to adults as well. Does this also call into question the ability for other people to make a contract?

The problem is kids do it because their parents make them. And after that, so many things can happen. Like sex trafficking. Or not being able to even see another human for however long. Basically, they are forced into a marriage and are stuck in a shitty situation... And sometimes, theres not anything my they can do about it...
---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Although, at the same time, most Western countries got rid of "marital rape" laws last century.

Being married does indeed not excuse rape, but when you've got an abusive situation like that and can groom a child bride (as much as I hate to gender it because boys are not exempt, it is predominantly girls that are forced into these situations), you can end up in some really sketchy territory as far as consent goes, without actually crossing the line into anything explicitly illegal. It's better to just head it off by banning the whole practice.

The same, incidentally, can be said for incest: Because of the power dynamic and the potential for grooming, it's pretty common to end up in situations where consent isn't really there, but it still doesn't actually fall into illegal territory. Keeping incest illegal preempts that. There's an argument to be made that that's unreasonable because it includes the rare case that is genuinely consensual (and, unlike this matter, that issue can't be worked around by simply waiting a couple years), but the logic is understandable.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Was there a lot of that going on? I don't think you need a law about it unless it happens frequently enough that it causes a problem.

Shit like this is why I got you tagged as CP enthusiast

---

Maybe we can get some hands-on child marriage information from Ted Nugent!

---

EvilMegas posted...

Shit like this is why I got you tagged as CP enthusiast

So asking questions about a subject is somehow the same as defending it.
Anyway I was satisfied with the response that they are not equally capable of saying "no" to the marriage vows as the component that leads to potential trafficking.

---

Anyone with a modicum of common sense would know why you would want to make it illegal to marry kids, dude.


---

EvilMegas posted...

Anyone with a modicum of common sense would know why you would want to make it illegal to marry kids, dude.

Right, obviously there's concern that they aren't prepared to make life effecting decisions. I was not previously aware that potential trafficking was also involved.

---