• 48* Missouri Republican Legislators Vote Against Ban on Child Marriage
    27 replies, posted
[QUOTE] Last night, members of the Missouri House faced a vote on a bill that would bar marriage for state residents fourteen or younger. Fifty of them voted no. Granted, the bill passed, 95-50, but the surge of opposition is noteworthy, since the bill is geared to reform a state law that's been criticized for making Missouri a haven for sex trafficking. It's a law that permits younger teens to enter into marriage, regardless of their age gap with their betrothed, so long as someone (parents, judges) say it's OK. Under current law, for instance, a fifteen-year-old can marry a 30-year-old as long as they obtain permission from a parent. And those even younger than fifteen can legally marry with the approval of a judge. The bill in question, sponsored by Representative Jean Evans (R-Manchester), would take parents out of the equation: minors between the ages of fifteen and seventeen would need a judge's approval to marry. Seventeen-year-olds would need a parent's consent. And, in a first for the state, Evans' bill would outright ban the practice of issuing marriage licenses to children fourteen or younger.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]In a phone call with the RFT this morning, Merideth suggests that the wave of flip-flopping was sparked by Republican lawmakers who spoke against the bill on the grounds that it infringed on personal freedom and parental rights. Merideth notes these same lawmakers have had a much different view of personal freedom when it comes to reproductive rights. "Last week they were arguing that the government should be involved in approving a minor's abortion," notes Merideth, referring to a bill being considered in the House that would require a minor to inform all parents or guardians before receiving an abortion. [/QUOTE] [url]https://m.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog/2018/02/20/child-marriage-is-a-ok-say-50-missouri-lawmakers[/url] The vote passed anyway, but once again the Party of Family Values exercises its hypocrisy: arguing that marrying off your child is a parental right and personal freedom.
[quote]Republican lawmakers who spoke against the bill on the grounds that it infringed on personal freedom and parental rights.[/quote] ...What? So if I were to argue that it's my right as a parent to sell my kid into slavery, no less than fifty idiots would jump to my defense? That might be a false equivalence but their mentality is still completely insane.
[QUOTE=Kirbunny431;53151330]...What? So if I were to argue that it's my right as a parent to sell my kid into slavery, no less than fifty idiots would jump to my defense? That might be a false equivalence but their mentality is still completely insane.[/QUOTE] Maybe a formal investigation needs to be set up against those. Can't be right that someone would vote against something like child marriage without there being something shady happening
I was unaware that the area I lived in was still in the middle ages.
Why? What lobbyist was for child marriage?
[QUOTE=gokiyono;53151340]Maybe a formal investigation needs to be set up against those. Can't be right that someone would vote against something like child marriage without there being something shady happening[/QUOTE] All speculation of course, but there's one explanation that fits pretty nicely: last year, 49 of these lawmakers voted FOR the ban, but the bill was too slow coming out of the gate and died before it became law. This year, those same 49 people voted AGAINST the [I]exact same bill[/I], with not a word changed, when it was reintroduced. The difference? Trump. He has done two big things for GOP candidates: 1) Trump taught them that there's no scandal they can't beat, no depths of depravity too low, as long as they loudly deny everything and have enough campaign money. Hell, a [B]child molester[/B] almost got elected. As long as they can afford to sow enough propaganda to confuse the narrative among their voters, they have nothing to fear. 2) Noting that key phrase in the first point is "enough campaign money," the GOP has a new strategic angle to explore: what is the point of diminishing returns on taking dirty money received for vile behavior becompared to the cost of exceeding public outrage with paid propaganda? Basically, I'm betting that these lawmakers took money from a regressive religious lobbying group, expecting that they could buy enough ads to make it a net gain after factoring in public disgust.
I'm starting to think the republican party would probably like living in Iran or Saudi Arabia more than America.
[QUOTE=Firetornado;53151394]Why? What lobbyist was for child marriage?[/QUOTE] Ironically, many women's organizations. There was a good [url=https://youtu.be/F-1mm8hJwVo]Vice[/url] video put out on the subject recently. The concern is that the banning of child marriage can be used as ammunition for further restrictions on certain medical treatments - including abortion - for young girls. The ACLU doesn't want it passed, nor does Planned Parenthood. Always a bit more nuanced than you would expect.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53151399]All speculation of course, but there's one explanation that fits pretty nicely: last year, 49 of these lawmakers voted FOR the ban, but the bill was too slow coming out of the gate and died before it became law. This year, those same 49 people voted AGAINST the [I]exact same bill[/I], with not a word changed, when it was reintroduced. The difference? Trump. He has done two big things for GOP candidates: 1) Trump taught them that there's no scandal they can't beat, no depths of depravity too low, as long as they loudly deny everything and have enough campaign money. Hell, a [B]child molester[/B] almost got elected. As long as they can afford to sow enough propaganda to confuse the narrative among their voters, they have nothing to fear. 2) Noting that key phrase in the first point is "enough campaign money," the GOP has a new strategic angle to explore: what is the point of diminishing returns on taking dirty money received for vile behavior becompared to the cost of exceeding public outrage with paid propaganda? Basically, I'm betting that these lawmakers took money from a regressive religious lobbying group, expecting that they could buy enough ads to make it a net gain after factoring in public disgust.[/QUOTE] Conservative lawmakers being bribed [del]to be assholes[/del] is much more believable tbh. But still I can't help but be a bit sceptical because of, as you mentioned, Senhor Moore [editline]22nd February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=BrickInHead;53151418]Ironically, many women's organizations. There was a good [url=https://youtu.be/F-1mm8hJwVo]Vice[/url] video put out on the subject recently. The concern is that the banning of child marriage can be used as ammunition for further restrictions on certain medical treatments - including abortion - for young girls. The ACLU doesn't want it passed, not does Planned Parenthood. Always a bit more nuanced than you would expect.[/QUOTE] How so tho? I can't really make the connection of no child marriage -> no abortion
The fuck? You'd think Republicans would be against something like that.
and people wonder how they elected a democrat senator, all the gop men who ran were garbage
[QUOTE=jimbobjoe1234;53151449]The fuck? You'd think Republicans would be against something like that.[/QUOTE] Republicans have fallen very far and no hypocrisy is too great for them to espouse. You'd be amazed just how many depraved individuals can be found among both lawmakers and supporters of the GOP.
[QUOTE=gokiyono;53151433]How so tho? I can't really make the connection of no child marriage -> no abortion[/QUOTE] policy begets policy. Laws that treat unborn fetuses as "people" for the purposes of murder, for instance, give weight to the argument that "fetuses are people too" and provides ammunition to legislate and prevent abortion. In this circumstance, by establishing a minimum age (thereby constraining the choices and freedoms of young women), you convey the idea that you're willing to prevent young women from accessing something (or, in the alternative, "protect" young women from something). This same logic can be applied as a public policy consideration for legitimizing the restriction of young women to get access to birth control, abortion services, etc. It's a complicated situation politically in the states. Were things like abortion not in such a precarious position, this would probably be a no brainer. But because women's organizations are constantly on the defensive, they tend to be quite conservative (not politically, just in their activity) on a lot of things. They fear slippery slopes that could result in hard fought rights getting clawed back.
Maybe all these conspiracy theorists crying about how "liberals want to normalize pedophilia" had the right idea, but the wrong party. The GOP attempted to elect an accused pedophile and now voted in favor of child marriage.
[quote]on the grounds that it infringed on personal freedom[/quote] Children haven't the same personal freedoms as adults, that is a no-brainer. [quote]and parental rights.[/quote] This isn't a parental right, this is child abuse.
this really smells like one of those ancap memes but it's actually real life
Great, now every person who voted for child marriage should be put on that handy registry of people not allowed within 500 feet of a school.
"Should child marriage be illegal?" and answering "no" is equivalent to somehow answering "name:" wrong on a test.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;53151497]policy begets policy. Laws that treat unborn fetuses as "people" for the purposes of murder, for instance, give weight to the argument that "fetuses are people too" and provides ammunition to legislate and prevent abortion. In this circumstance, by establishing a minimum age (thereby constraining the choices and freedoms of young women), you convey the idea that you're willing to prevent young women from accessing something (or, in the alternative, "protect" young women from something). This same logic can be applied as a public policy consideration for legitimizing the restriction of young women to get access to birth control, abortion services, etc. It's a complicated situation politically in the states. Were things like abortion not in such a precarious position, this would probably be a no brainer. But because women's organizations are constantly on the defensive, they tend to be quite conservative (not politically, just in their activity) on a lot of things. They fear slippery slopes that could result in hard fought rights getting clawed back.[/QUOTE] But then again there's plenty of things you need to be more than 18 or 21 for. Yet they don't seem to be grey areaing into that kind of shit. It seems pretty "gay marriage -> dog marriage" to go "no child marriage -> no abortion stuff for young women" as a thing to go. And even then I'm sure that the GOP don't really need a predesence like that to make life worse for women
[QUOTE=Humin;53153752]"Should child marriage be illegal?" and answering "no" is equivalent to somehow answering "name:" wrong on a test.[/QUOTE] Hey that's rude I have a weird french last name and I used to get it wrong at times in middleschool, but I'd never vote for child marriage!
The GOP hasn't convinced me that they wouldn't eventually try to unban slavery if they were allowed to regress as much as they wanted.
[QUOTE=gokiyono;53153762]But then again there's plenty of things you need to be more than 18 or 21 for. Yet they don't seem to be grey areaing into that kind of shit. It seems pretty "gay marriage -> dog marriage" to go "no child marriage -> no abortion stuff for young women" as a thing to go. And even then I'm sure that the GOP don't really need a predesence like that to make life worse for women[/QUOTE] It's hard to draw a connection between limiting cigarettes to abortion. In contrast, the nexus between marriage (a union that, traditionally, features reproduction as a central element) and abortion is substantially stronger. It's damn near the exact same policy area. I wouldn't equate it with gay marriage -> dog marriage either because that's a laughable, improbable end. The fact is that reproductive rights in America are constantly under seige. Any ammunition that can change the way people view a topic is significant. Since Roe v. Wade tons of tiny little laws that are seemingly innocuous have been passed that discourage or limit access. Statutes like requiring an ultrasound before an abortion, like forcing nurses to instruct women of the "dangers and risks". Then there are statutes that rely on the assumption that a fetus is equivalent to a born human, like the aforementioned murder statute. Women have been charged with child abuse for drinking or smoking during pregnancy. While these things are morally agreeable, they rely on the assumption that a fetus is, for all intents and purposes, a human with rights - which they are not. Women's organizations that fight agreeable statutes like these aren't doing so because they're amoral creeps, it's because they have a real and present fear of further restrictions to the right to abortion and family planning services.
[QUOTE=Splarg!;53153840]The GOP hasn't convinced me that they wouldn't eventually try to unban slavery if they were allowed to regress as much as they wanted.[/QUOTE] They pretty much already have by way of things like private prisons. The GOP absolutely adores prison labor and funnily enough have a long history of pushing tough on crime policies that [I]just so happen[/I] to disproportionately affect and put a lot of decidedly not white people in prison
[QUOTE=Sitkero;53153951]They pretty much already have by way of things like private prisons. The GOP absolutely adores prison labor and funnily enough have a long history of pushing tough on crime policies that [I]just so happen[/I] to disproportionately affect and put a lot of decidedly not white people in prison[/QUOTE] More on this, there's a really good documentary on Netflix called [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_(film)]"13th"[/url] that delves head first into this issue. Really encourage people to watch it.
[QUOTE=Sitkero;53153951]They pretty much already have by way of things like private prisons. The GOP absolutely adores prison labor and funnily enough have a long history of pushing tough on crime policies that [I]just so happen[/I] to disproportionately affect and put a lot of decidedly not white people in prison[/QUOTE] I think Louisana has the most prisoners per population in the world, prison labor is a big part of the economy of the south.
Close, 48 Republicans and 2 Democrats so the title is slightly inaccurate [url]https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10100644940680713&set=a.10100222239646973.1073741829.21201889&type=3&theater[/url] 48/115 Republicans so about 40% 2/45 Democrats so about 4% [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_House_of_Representatives[/url]
[QUOTE=Exho;53159220]Close, 48 Republicans and 2 Democrats so the title is slightly inaccurate [url]https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10100644940680713&set=a.10100222239646973.1073741829.21201889&type=3&theater[/url] 48/115 Republicans so about 40% 2/45 Democrats so about 4% [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_House_of_Representatives[/url][/QUOTE] Ah, thank you. Not intentional -- my understanding of the article was that it was an entirely Republican effort. Will update title to reflect.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.