How About Some Other Sex Controversy?

Remove all ads!

Well, it appears this one involves Kansas too - why am I not surprised?

This has been posted on SP in the past, but there are some new developments in the case.

A 20-year old man gets a 13-year old girl pregnant. Instead of doing the responsible thing and going to the police, instead the parents of the Nebraska teen decide that she should marry the guy, since the sex was consensual, and it wouldn't do to have an illegitimate baby. PROBLEM: Nebraska law prohibits 13-year olds from getting married. However, the practice is prefectly OK in neighboring Kansas provided you have informed consent from those to be married, and from the parents if they are under 18. (As it turns out, when dmc mentioned in the related thread that 14-year old getting married wasn't all that uncommon in the relatively recent past, who knew that it was still legal in the U.S. today?) To go even further, there is NO minimum age for marriage in Kansas, any age is acceptable with parental consent.

So now comes the update. They got married - and now, at 14, she had the baby. The proud father (and he really is proud - that's no joke), now 21, is of course, facing criminal charges, and could be sent to prison for up to 50 years. Furthermore, he's not accepting any type of plea agreement that would send him to prison for a shorter term. He's pleading "not guilty" saying he did nothing wrong. This despite the Nebraska statue that makes having sex with a 13-year old a strict no-no. And there's really no way to interperet the law in any other way. The defense seems to be that this is a valid marriage - and according to Kansas law, it is indeed valid. And since sex is considered a normal part of any marriage, it's exonerates him from the charges. (They seem to be leaving out the part that the sex occurred BEFORE they were married, but the heck with the details.)

Now I don't see too many people defending this guys actions, but here's the thing. Since the marriage is valid, let's change the situation slightly. What if he had married her prior to having sex with her? Would that still be a criminal offense? While not explicitly stated, it is certainly implicit in Kansas law that if minors are allowed to get married, then minors are also allowed to have sex. Is it just me who finds this law completely unrealistic and something that seriously needs to be changed? I can understand if someone is under 18, they would need parental consent to marry, but I for one do not think that parental consent nullifies a need for a minimum age requirement. You also need the informed consent of the people involved, so you couldn't say, for example, a toddler was able to give informed consent. But evidently a 13-year old CAN give informed consent, and I'm wondering what the limit is. 12? 10? I mean if 13 is OK, why stop there?

You can read all about the case here

[ March 17, 2006, 16:01: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Marriage has to exempt from age limits for intercourse. It would take a strange interpretation of the law to put someone behind the bars for doing his marital duty. Parental consent on its own shouldn't override age of consent laws but sex is an essential part of marriage, so people are entitled to expect it to be legal for them if they are legally married. Next, invalid marriage would also have to provide such an exemption if they had acted in good faith, anyway. Furthermore, if they are married validly in one state, they shouldn't be punished for having sex in any other state -- states may not recognise divorces from other states or same-sex "marriages" or whatever falls under bigamy in one law and not the other, but putting people to jail for sleeping with wives? Come on. Still, there's the problem of having sex before they married.

I'm not sure if he should go to jail if he had really wanted to marry her and not just exploit her. However, this isn't sure. Next, the girl's consent should be examined. If there had been any coercion on the part of the parents, marriage may be legally void. Next, it wouldn't hurt to check if said marriage wasn't only a simulation in order to avoid punishment on the guy's part.

Edit: But yeah, 13 year olds are a tad bit too young for marriage or sex. They shouldn't really have boyfriends or girlfriends, let alone have sex.

Edit bis: What Felinoid says makes much sense. On the level of civil law, moving to Kansas to marry and then coming back could be construed as circumventing the Nebraska law. It could even give a pretext to the Nebraska authorities to refuse to recognise said marriage. Still not sure if people should go to jail, though.

[ October 31, 2005, 21:41: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Bah, the jerk's just gambling that he'll get off. Which, ironically, is what put him in this position in the first place.

That depends. Would he have sex with her in Nebraska or in Kansas? If they're living in Kansas then it's o... it's o... Well, I can't seem to say it, but it starts with an O and ends with a K. But if they just went out-of-state to get married and skirt the local laws, then they should get their a$$es kicked when they try to pull that "married" **** back in Nebraska.

Moving to Kansas: okay
Quick trip for a marriage and then living in Nebraska: not okay

[ October 31, 2005, 21:20: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

 

To address the age question.

Any choice of an age is arbitrary and artificial. In early societies boys and girls became adults when they reached puberty. As society became more sophisticated and the formal learning period expanded the age of adulthood was pushed upward.

As to when a person male or female is old enough to give informed consent? We are now discussing mental maturity which is harder to define and will vary from individual to individual. Again picking an age is arbitrary.

As far as jailing the man I see no benefit to it and in fact it would be harmful to the family he has created.

 

As far as I know, they still live in Nebraska, and regardless, she got pregnant while she was in Nebraska, although I don't really know how one would prove that.

As far as whether or not it's OK, I think that really depends on what they mean by informed consent. For example, it seems reasonable that if someone is old enough to make an informed decision about having sex, then that person may very well be able to make an informed consent to marriage as well. Like I said previously, it seems that accoding to Kansas law it is implicit that it's OK to have sex with the person you're married to, regardless of the age. It would have to be a very strange interpretation of the law indeed to say otherwise.

Also, as chev rightly points out, unless it happens to be a gay marriage, most states honor the marriages of people married outside the state. Thousands of people get married in Vegas every year, and those marriages are acknowledges by their home states. I had a friend who got married earlier this year in Florida, but his marriage is considered fine here in Maryland. So while it may be a snakey way to avoid the law, it certainly appears that if you can get married in one state (again, barring gay marriages) you can in effect say you're married anywhere.

@Nakia - I agree. Since they are now married, I do not see the purpose of prosecuting this man. While we may disagree with his actions, at least it appears that his actions and feelings for this girl are genuine, and the only thing imprisoning him will do is take away the family's sole source of financial support.

 

They could declare him guilty but abstain from ordering punishment, I think. Not sure if you can do that in the Anglo-Saxon legal system, though.

 

Depends on how the law is written. Hopefully the judge can give community service. Might do him some good. Since he knew the girl's half-brother he must have known she was underage. Way underage.

 

Hm, is that really so ? What about marriages involving more than one woman, completely in accordance with the laws of the country the weddings took place ?

Agere in fraudem leges. Most laws about recognition of marriages from a foreign country have a clause, that a marriage made deliberately to avoid the law (on a two-week trip for example) of the homecountry is void in the homecountry. At least around here.

[ October 31, 2005, 23:21: Message edited by: Iago ]

 

There's the problem of recognition of divorce and remarriage, of gay union, degree of proximity, age... perhaps something more. Some marriages are never going to be recognised in other countries or even different states within the US.

In their case, it looks like acting to circumvent the law, but the age of consent laws are meant to prevent exploitation rather than unions (which doesn't mean such unions aren't frowned upon).

50 years for consensual sex with a 13 year old girl is a total idiocy. He wouldn't get that much for raping an adult woman and there's a big, big difference here. If people like he get such long sentences and rapists a couple of years, it sends the ridiculous message that it's better to rape a 16 year old girl than to do it consensually with a 13 year old one. What ****ing kind of law would that be?

 

I agree with Nakia. It would just be harmful to his new family. If they're happy, what's the damn problem? Johnny Law will once again just be a ****ing bitch.

 

I would agree, if there were something approaching a sane minimum age for marriage.

To take an extreme, verging-on-strawman example: what if the girl was 6, the man was still 20, and the parents consented? Sex still okay?

 

Its disgusting that any 20 year old can even think of having sex with a very young teen girl.

This is a guy that is old enough to have already left highschool for a number of years, yet is having sex with a girl that just started highschool!

 

@ Iago - I am certain that there are limitations in all countries as to what constitutes a valid marriage, and as such, someone immigrating to a new country may in fact find that their marriage isn't recognized by that country. An obvious example would be polygamy. Even if your native country allows polygamy, you couldn't move to a country that doesn't allow it and declare that you have more than one spouse.

However, going to a different state is very different than going to a different country. You don't need a passport, or have to deal with a language barrier or anything. All you need to go to a neighboring state is a car and some gasoline. I can say for certain that a great many people in the U.S. every year get married outside their home state, and yet get the marriages recognized in their home state. It's even possible to get married in Mexico, Jamaica, or some other Carribbean nation, and those are usually recognized when you get back to the U.S. as well.


Back on topic though, I think the biggest reason I have for not prosecuting this guy is who are we protecting? Who is the victim? His wife? It's quite obvious she doesn't think so. It does not appear (providing she was fully consenting of course) that she was in any way psychologically damaged or traumatized. If she doesn't consider herself a victim, it appears her parents that pushed for her to get married don't have a problem with it, and if she is happy with this man, then who are we benefitting by pushing this case forward?

Just so that I make myself clear, if any of the following were true I would not support this marriage:

1. If the sex was not consensual.
2. If she didn't want to marry him, but was coerced into doing so.
3. If he didn't really want to marry her, and just did so in an attempt to avoid the prison term (we'll find out if in a few years they get a divorce).

If this guy's actions are genuine, isn't this the best solution for all concerned? What are the alternatives? Another uneducated single mother? Another abortion? Another child that's going to have a difficult time getting ahead? (And by that, keep in mind that there are technically TWO children that question applies to.) All things considered, isn't marrying her, and helping care for and raise his family the best possible outcome that could be hoped for?

 

Obviously not, but neither marriage. How can a person consent to marriage if he can't consent to sex?

Hmm... I do find myself in agreement with Aldeth.

 

@ Cúchulainn

Two weeks ago we were at a Bat Mitzvah (13 yr old coming of age ceremony for Jewish girls). At the reception, my wife had the line of the night. "Is this a Bat Mitzvah or a sweet sixteen party?" When I was 13 girls did not look like that. Some of them I would have wagered were 21.

 

Rate of maturity, whether physical, sexual, or mental, is highly fluid. As such, age of consent laws should always be suspended with parental consent. The marriage should be legal.
Of course, having sex with her before they were married was illegal, but 50 years? Give him 6 months or something. What if two highschool sweethearts did it and one was a day over the 'age of consent' and the other a day under? Would you give one of them 50 years?
I still worry about it a little, a 21 year old and a 14 year old, but everything I've seen says that it is a healthy relationship, just keep an eye on them.

 

@NOG

It usually doesn't work like that with age of consent laws. They aren't so strict that you can have one a day over and another a day under, and have it be illegal. I'll use my state, Maryland as an example. Once you hit 16 you can have sex with anyone you damn well please. However, if you are 14 or 15, you can consent to sex with someone else who is within 3 years of your age (provided that they are also at least 14 years old). Therefore, a 14 year old can consent to sex with her 17 year old boyfriend, but would not be able to if her boyfriend is 18.

That having been said, your point is still well taken. Why is a 14-year old with a 17 year-old OK, but a 14-year old with an 18 year-old not OK? As I said above, if the teen was OK with it, her parents are OK with it, and everything is working out fine, this is not something that the justice system needs to intercede into.

 

I probably would have guessed it still was given the inertia of many legal systems.

Found this "Age of Consent" document on the web.
http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

Seems that 14 is still the age of consent (for sex with anyone) in South Carolina, and possibly Iowa and Missouri. Lowest defined age internationally appears to be 12.

I've got a very vague recollection that a now-famous actress starred (legally) in some dodgy porn movies at the age of 14. This might have been playground legend however.

An aside, I'm slightly surprised that there is a female-female age of consent in the UK. From distant memory, when same-sex laws were enacted in the Victorian era, it omitted Lesbians as Queen Vic didn't believe they existed.

Ah, a bit more research

 

So in New Mexico you can have heterosexual sex at 17 but homosexual sex at 13? WTF???

 

@ Shell - Yeah, that's ****ed up. First of all, I think it's ridiculously high to have 17 be the age of consent, but it also seems strange that the limit is higher for traditional sexual intercourse than it is for the less traditional forms.

The shocking part about that list is that there are still several states that have laws making homosexual intercourse illegal.