• Idaho lawmakers kill bill ending child marriage
    24 replies, posted
https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article226944034.html Idaho has the highest rate of child marriage in the U.S., according to a national report. This statistic isn’t likely to change soon because the House of Representatives on Thursday voted to kill a bill that would end child marriage in Idaho. Under current Idaho law, 16- and 17-year-olds just need parental consent to marry. A child under age 16 can marry if a judge consents also. A bi-partisan bill led by Rep. Melissa Wintrow, D-Boise, proposed setting the minimum age to marry at 16. Under the proposed law, for a 16- or 17-year-old to get married, consent of the child, parents and the court would be required. From 2000 to 2010, 4,080 children in Idaho were married, according to data compiled from 38 states by Unchained at Last, a national advocacy group working to end forced and child marriages in America. The youngest minor wed in Idaho was 13. Several lawmakers who spoke against the bill cited government overreach. “I do not think courts should be involved in marriage at all,” said Bryan Zollinger, R-Idaho Falls. “I don’t believe there should be a license required to get married. I think two willing people should be able to go and get married.”
Hey shit for brains, they already clearly do. Your actions don't line up with your words at all you fuckwit.
https://media.spokesman.com/photos/2017/08/21/llingerComposite_3_1_856399D.JPG.jpg I'm not really suprised. A Republican, a conspiracy theorist and he even supports child marriage. Seriously though, how can such people be even elected? I know I'm going to answer my own question here but are people really that stupid that they keep electing idiots?
Are these loons trying to send us back to medieval times or what? Wtf kind of twisted world do you live in where this is ok??
Politicians in the US have no obligation or incentive to discuss policy or advertise their platform, which is a big reason our politics have descended into this shitflinging popularity contest where the only thing that matters is what team you're on. Ask anyone, "would you vote for a guy who wants child marriage to be legal?" and they'll tell you no. Ask that same person, "would you vote for the COMMUNIST who wants to TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS and REPLACE YOUR JOB WITH ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION?" and they'll vote along party lines without giving the candidates any deeper thought.
“I do not think courts should be involved in marriage at all,” said Bryan Zollinger, R-Idaho Falls. “I don’t believe there should be a license required to get married. I think two willing people should be able to go and get married.” Ten bucks he sure as hell doesn't support gay marriage
Ah right, so it's almost the same as here. Most people voted our current president and prime minister based on them saying that the other candidates "would allow AGGRESSIVE ISLAMIST IMMIGRANTS INTO THE COUNTRY and to EXERCISE SHARIA LAW and they would LOWER PENSIONS in order to GIVE MONEY TO THE MURDEROUS MUSLIMS". One of our presidential debates even had people chanting our current president's name after almost every "zinger" he said, and they were booing whenever the other candidate said something. So yeah, not too dissimilar. Fucking hell, get me off this ride.
Dammit
Is this even necessary legislation though? It's not like that's a big problem, as a matter of fact, probably doesn't happen at all They probably couldn't be arsed with all the bureaucracy you get when you institute any new law, but irrelevant
Read the article Idaho has the highest rate of child marriage in the U.S., according to a national report. The youngest minor wed in Idaho was 13.
From 2000 to 2010, 4,080 children in Idaho were married, according to data compiled from 38 states by Unchained at Last, a national advocacy group working to end forced and child marriages in America. The youngest minor wed in Idaho was 13. Read the fucking thread before posting stupid shit. You literally didn't even read the OP before dropping this turd of a post.
I'm reminded of you saying that you don't bother debating because it's pointless trying to change people's minds. With high-brow posts like these, I'm beginning to think you don't bother debating because you're just straight up incapable of doing so.
...What is the reasoning?!
"big guvmint"
what the fuck.
Theres just is not any competition. That guy ran against nobody during the primary and easily defated his democratic challenger. I can maybe see why this is as I’m not really sure who would want to be a representative that only makes 18k a year base salary. I make double that and Im just starting out in the IT industry. Idaho is one of if not the most red state in the country and it never fails to amaze me how the can twist the idea of small government into saying this isn’t want government should be involved in. As a person who believes in the idea of less government, this is still something I think government should have a say in. Its like saying you can kill your children because they are your kids and government doesn’t habe a right to tell you how to deal with your kids...
wha... how, I mean what does the government has to do with it? is it a "not having it just makes you want it more" kind of thing?
The issue is that the part I quoted in response to his claims is what's already in place. He thinks courts have no place in this but they already are involved. So passing this doesn't get them involved. It only gets rid of an existing issue. His entire reasoning on voting against it is that he doesn't want to get the courts involved. So his actions don't line up with his words because they're already involved regardless.
He's using the "government should stay out of marriage" excuse. Even though combining children and adults in that manner goes against the foundations of our society's moral code.
Hey it's only Christian to support child marriage so
Passing this would definitely get them involved more and thats what he is clearly arguing against. This is a quote from the article. “Under the proposed law, for a 16- or 17-year-old to get married, consent of the child, parents and the court would be required.” Where as currently for a 16 or 17 year old to get married they just need parental consent. So yes this law would technically increase the say the courts hold over marriage. Again I don’t agree with this personally but I still fail to see how his statements don’t line up with his actions.
Hi can you please stop posting about serious things you know nothing about if you're unwilling to even put the most minuscule amount of effort into researching it before acting like you know what's going on? Thanks.
Imagine how much cleaner Polidicks and Headlines would be if thread-creators had the choice of creating a simple 2-or-3-question survey that users have to answer correctly before they allowed to comment in the thread. Just pick easy questions whose answers are buried within the article, forcing people to at the very least skim it before they can just take a hot steaming dump and run off. "How many child marriages were in Idaho between the years 2000 and 2010?" Just like that, this thread would instantly be that much cleaner.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.