Yay!Kansas moves out of the dark ages, prevents under 15yearolds from getting married

Ikohn4ever

Ikohn4ever

CAGiversary!
Feedback
5 (100%)
Kansas House: No one under 15 can marry
Bill would severely restrict would-be spouses under 18

TOPEKA, Kansas (AP) -- Kansas may have seen the last of its child brides.

After a pregnant 14-year-old from Nebraska drove to Kansas last year to marry her 22-year-old boyfriend, now serving time for having sex with the minor, Kansas lawmakers decided it was time to set a minimum marriage age.

On Thursday, the Kansas House vote 119-0 to approve a bill that would prohibit anyone under the age of 15 from marrying in Kansas and would set strict limits for would-be brides or grooms under the age of 18. The Senate approved it a day earlier, 36-4.

Under the legislation, requested by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a 15-year-old could marry only if a district court judge decided it was in that person's best interest.

Those who are 16 or 17 could marry if they met one of three conditions: permission from a parent or legal guardian and judicial consent; permission from both parents and any legal guardian; or permission from judge if the parents are dead and there is no legal guardian.

Currently, Kansas has no minimum age for marriage if the minor has parental or judicial approval.

In the case of the Nebraska girl -- a person must be at least 17 to marry in that state -- the girl's mother gave permission for the couple to get married in Kansas last spring after learning that her daughter was pregnant. The couple's daughter was born a few months later, in August.

The groom, Matthew Koso, was charged with sexual assault and sentenced in February to 18 months to 30 months in prison for impregnating the girl.

Last month, Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue set 16 as that state's minimum marriage age after a 37-year-old woman married a 15-year-old boy, a friend of her teenage son. Lisa Lynnette Clark pleaded guilty in March to statutory rape and was sentenced to nine months in prison.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/05/kansas.marriage.ap/index.html


Kansas is so against evolution being taught that they fight tooth and nail to get rid of it but it finally decides 14 and under cant get married.
 
Is this necessarily a good thing? Consider the situation from a different perspective. The guy was willing enough to marry the girl he impregnated which shows that he is willing to shoulder responsibility for the baby's well-being. Putting him in jail does nothing to help the situation and leaves another single mother who will possibly end up on welfare which will be paid by Kansas citizens via taxes. If anything it's a bad thing. At least, if he married her, he would be under a social as well as financial obligation to provide a living for his family as well as relieve the government of that burden. He can't do that behind bars since he won't be paid. It's sad that he got her preggers but it's worse that the girl will become another in the already long line of welfare leeches. She can't even provide a living for herself and her baby as there's few jobs for pregnant 14 yr olds (at least nothing legal). The other scenario (giving up for adoption) wouldn't be that much better. It'll grow up as a state ward in an orphanage. Its only advantage is that it is a baby and will be more likely be adopted.
 
[quote name='jaykrue']Is this necessarily a good thing? Consider the situation from a different perspective. The guy was willing enough to marry the girl he impregnated which shows that he is willing to shoulder responsibility for the baby's well-being. Putting him in jail does nothing to help the situation and leaves another single mother who will possibly end up on welfare which will be paid by Kansas citizens via taxes. If anything it's a bad thing. At least, if he married her, he would be under a social as well as financial obligation to provide a living for his family as well as relieve the government of that burden. He can't do that behind bars since he won't be paid. It's sad that he got her preggers but it's worse that the girl will become another in the already long line of welfare leeches. She can't even provide a living for herself and her baby as there's few jobs for pregnant 14 yr olds (at least nothing legal). The other scenario (giving up for adoption) wouldn't be that much better. It'll grow up as a state ward in an orphanage. Its only advantage is that it is a baby and will be more likely be adopted.[/QUOTE]

What ya need to do before spouting stupidity is read into the story. The guy was a serial pedophile. This wasn't his first time, and when he got her "preggers" the family MADE him get married to the girl. Just wait till he gets out, and wants a divorce. He's a waste of life that should be shot, but he doesn't deserve death. Make him clean highways for the rest of his life.
 
[quote name='jaykrue']Is this necessarily a good thing? Consider the situation from a different perspective. The guy was willing enough to marry the girl he impregnated which shows that he is willing to shoulder responsibility for the baby's well-being. Putting him in jail does nothing to help the situation and leaves another single mother who will possibly end up on welfare which will be paid by Kansas citizens via taxes. If anything it's a bad thing. At least, if he married her, he would be under a social as well as financial obligation to provide a living for his family as well as relieve the government of that burden. He can't do that behind bars since he won't be paid. It's sad that he got her preggers but it's worse that the girl will become another in the already long line of welfare leeches. She can't even provide a living for herself and her baby as there's few jobs for pregnant 14 yr olds (at least nothing legal). The other scenario (giving up for adoption) wouldn't be that much better. It'll grow up as a state ward in an orphanage. Its only advantage is that it is a baby and will be more likely be adopted.[/quote]
I get what you're talking about but I can't say I agree with you. Let's say a guy was caught robbing a store and was thrown in jail, leaving behind a wife and kids. Different situation but same outcome. His wife, should she not be able to provide for her kids, would be just as likely to seek government assistance. Should his jail time be commuted in order to have him support his family? If anything robbing a store is a lot less serious offense than statutory (sp?)rape, in my opinion.

And as much as we like to think getting married creates some sort of unbreakable committment on the part of the guy to support his family, it doesn't. He could skip out a year later if he wanted to. Even if he stayed, there's no guarantee that'll he will be able to support his family, and they could still go on welfare. And frankly, any 22 year old getting involved in a sexual relationship with a 14 year old doesn't seem like the kind of guy that would hold down a good job.
 
[quote name='jaykrue']Is this necessarily a good thing? Consider the situation from a different perspective. The guy was willing enough to marry the girl he impregnated which shows that he is willing to shoulder responsibility for the baby's well-being. Putting him in jail does nothing to help the situation and leaves another single mother who will possibly end up on welfare which will be paid by Kansas citizens via taxes. If anything it's a bad thing. At least, if he married her, he would be under a social as well as financial obligation to provide a living for his family as well as relieve the government of that burden. He can't do that behind bars since he won't be paid. It's sad that he got her preggers but it's worse that the girl will become another in the already long line of welfare leeches. She can't even provide a living for herself and her baby as there's few jobs for pregnant 14 yr olds (at least nothing legal). The other scenario (giving up for adoption) wouldn't be that much better. It'll grow up as a state ward in an orphanage. Its only advantage is that it is a baby and will be more likely be adopted.[/quote]

But without knowing the reason for the marriage, the awareness of the girl, the willingness of the girl etc. you can't really say whether it's good or not. Not every situation is better with a marriage.
 
[quote name='Lister']What ya need to do before spouting stupidity is read into the story. The guy was a serial pedophile. This wasn't his first time, and when he got her "preggers" the family MADE him get married to the girl. Just wait till he gets out, and wants a divorce. He's a waste of life that should be shot, but he doesn't deserve death. Make him clean highways for the rest of his life.[/quote]
:rofl: Please, you might want to take your own advice. Where does it say he was a 'serial pedophile'? Don't assume because, you know all you're doing is making an ass... of yourself. Nowhere in the article does it say he's a serial pedophile. Bitch, you want me to point it out to you?

After a pregnant 14-year-old from Nebraska drove to Kansas last year to marry her 22-year-old boyfriend, now serving time for having sex with the minor...

In the case of the Nebraska girl -- a person must be at least 17 to marry in that state -- the girl's mother gave permission for the couple to get married in Kansas last spring after learning that her daughter was pregnant.

The groom, Matthew Koso, was charged with sexual assault and sentenced in February to 18 months to 30 months in prison for impregnating the girl.
Click to expand...
These are the 3 separate lines showing exactly what the story is about. Show me where is the multiple offense. Having sex with the same girl isn't the same thing as multiple offense. And how is 'gave permission' the same as being forced? You need to read the fuckING article. Instead of reading what is implied, read what is actually in the article. By your last comment, it's obvious you're letting your emotions cloud your perception.
 
In this case, jail and marriage were separate issues. They got married, but he is still going to jail. So if they hadn't gotten married (if the law were already in effect), she'd be in the same boat.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']But without knowing the reason for the marriage, the awareness of the girl, the willingness of the girl etc. you can't really say whether it's good or not. Not every situation is better with a marriage.[/quote]

The willingness of the girl? The article specifically says that the guy was her boyfriend. To me that implies that she at least consented to have sex with him. As I mentioned to Lister, according to the article, the mom gave permission. If, and I say 'if', the family did force the guy to marry the girl, then the article should've worded it as such. Giving permission is benign. Pressured to get married is more telling of a nonconsentual arrangement. Not every situation is better with a marriage but throwing a guy in jail for impregnating a girl isn't any better. Let him shoulder the responsibility of taking care of the child.

[quote name='dcfox']I get what you're talking about but I can't say I agree with you. Let's say a guy was caught robbing a store and was thrown in jail, leaving behind a wife and kids. Different situation but same outcome. His wife, should she not be able to provide for her kids, would be just as likely to seek government assistance. Should his jail time be commuted in order to have him support his family? If anything robbing a store is a lot less serious offense than statutory (sp?)rape, in my opinion.[/quote]

That's a strawman argument because as you said, different situation. Robbing a store/impregnating a girl are two different things. Both have severe legal penalties while one is a clear cut civil offense while the other is a moral offense. Why is 18 set as the arbitrary age limit for decision-making ability? If that was truly the case, then there wouldn't be any criminals over the age of 18 as they're assumed to have the social maturity to behave.

[quote name='dcfox']And as much as we like to think getting married creates some sort of unbreakable committment on the part of the guy to support his family, it doesn't. He could skip out a year later if he wanted to. Even if he stayed, there's no guarantee that'll he will be able to support his family, and they could still go on welfare. And frankly, any 22 year old getting involved in a sexual relationship with a 14 year old doesn't seem like the kind of guy that would hold down a good job.[/quote]

True that the family as a whole could still go on welfare but if he's never given the chance to, we'll never know. Part of the problem here is the stigma of the crime. Even after he gets out (presumably after he's served his sentence), the otracizing nature of his crime guarantees he will be punished forever, forced to register as a sex offender in whatever county he lives in. This in turn disallows him any method of providing for his wife/child. He will effectively be socially blacklisted and as a consequence economically. If his crime was so severe as to warrant being punished for life, he should then serve life. Why is he still being punished post-released? One of my friends has to register as a sex offender simply because he woke up to girl he got drunk with one night so she called rape despite his repeated pleas of mutual consent. He had a hard time finding a job by himself until I hired him myself. He left my company 8 months ago with my blessing for a job that paid more money. My point is that it will be highly unlikely anyone would've given him a chance due to his sex offender status. It wasn't until I could vouch for him as a dependable & good worker was he able to move on with his life. The girl he slept with ended up going to jail for tax fraud which leads me to believe she probably was lying about him too but that mark won't ever be lifted from his record.
 
[quote name='Lister']What ya need to do before spouting stupidity is read into the story. The guy was a serial pedophile. This wasn't his first time, and when he got her "preggers" the family MADE him get married to the girl. Just wait till he gets out, and wants a divorce. He's a waste of life that should be shot, but he doesn't deserve death. Make him clean highways for the rest of his life.[/QUOTE]

As Jaykrue has stated, you should take your own advice. Maybe you should research it instead of reading into it. I live in Nebraska and the story has been in the news for months now. Not once have I heard that he was a serial pedophile. The wifes family had a protection order against him until he asked and got their permission to marry her. Why would they force him to marry her if they already had a protection order against him?

Go here to see the story. At the bottom of the page is links to previous articles concerning what happened.
http://www.ketv.com/news/9166623/detail.html
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']No one under 15 can marry
Bill would severely restrict would-be spouses under 18.[/QUOTE]

Half of Kansas groaned when this story was released, and Subby cried. :D
 
[quote name='jaykrue']Is this necessarily a good thing? Consider the situation from a different perspective. The guy was willing enough to marry the girl he impregnated which shows that he is willing to shoulder responsibility for the baby's well-being. Putting him in jail does nothing to help the situation and leaves another single mother who will possibly end up on welfare which will be paid by Kansas citizens via taxes. If anything it's a bad thing. At least, if he married her, he would be under a social as well as financial obligation to provide a living for his family as well as relieve the government of that burden. He can't do that behind bars since he won't be paid. It's sad that he got her preggers but it's worse that the girl will become another in the already long line of welfare leeches. She can't even provide a living for herself and her baby as there's few jobs for pregnant 14 yr olds (at least nothing legal). The other scenario (giving up for adoption) wouldn't be that much better. It'll grow up as a state ward in an orphanage. Its only advantage is that it is a baby and will be more likely be adopted.[/QUOTE]
Society has determined that under a certain age, you are not mentally capable of consent. Therefore, having sex with someone under the age of consent is by definition not consentual. Having nonconsentual sex a very serious crime, deserving of a very severe sentance. The financial status of the child does not come into play here. Should a child molester walk free because he can pay the child? This is the logic that Gary Glitter uses to rape children in Southeast Asia.

This argument is quite valid in the case of throwing men in jail due to nonpayment of child support. How can he pay child support in jail? If they have the ability to provide even partial support to the child, and they simply refuse to do so, then it could be appropriate. But, if they simply lack the means to make payment in full, and are making a good faith effort to support the child, it serves no one to jail them.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Society has determined that under a certain age, you are not mentally capable of consent. Therefore, having sex with someone under the age of consent is by definition not consentual. Having nonconsentual sex a very serious crime, deserving of a very severe sentance. The financial status of the child does not come into play here. Should a child molester walk free because he can pay the child? This is the logic that Gary Glitter uses to rape children in Southeast Asia.

This argument is quite valid in the case of throwing men in jail due to nonpayment of child support. How can he pay child support in jail? If they have the ability to provide even partial support to the child, and they simply refuse to do so, then it could be appropriate. But, if they simply lack the means to make payment in full, and are making a good faith effort to support the child, it serves no one to jail them.[/quote]

Yes, but just because it's a law determined by social decree, it doesn't mean it's always correct or covers unique situations. Case in point, this girl willingly had sex with this man. That's a bad decision. But she did so without force. Plus the arbitrary age of 18 does not preclude the notion of maturity. There are just as many (if not more) women of legal age who make the same mistake as this little girl - getting pregnant with a guy they shouldn't have. In defense of the guy, he, at least, stepped up to his newfound responsibilities as a result of his indiscretion and went to marry her. Whether or not the marriage will last is an altogether separate issue, as GuilewasNK pointed out. Should a child molestor walk free because he can pay for a child? No. As I mentioned in another post, if they want to keep him in jail, give him some job behind bars (like making license plates) and pay him for it. At least this will allow him to be productive and provide for his family instead of simply jailing him and letting the girl go on welfare. If this happened in my state, I'd even be more adamant. I don't see anything wrong w/ punishing the guy; just that he is allowed to do something productive with his time behind bars so that my taxes don't have to take care of his mistake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top