New Jersey governor refuses to ban child marriage because 'it would conflict with religious customs'

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Independent


'An exclusion without exceptions would violate the cultures and traditions of some communities'
Andrew Buncombe New York
@AndrewBuncombe
3 hours ago






A high profile Republican governor has declined to sign into law, a measure that would have made his state the first to ban child marriage without exception.

Chris Christie, the governor of New Jersey and someone who has been a staunch supporter of Donald Trump, said such a ban would conflict with religious customs. He did not specify what religions he was referring to.

Reuters said underage marriage is widespread in the US, where about 170,000 children were wed between 2000 and 2010 in 38 of the 50 states where data was available.

Although age 18 is the minimum for marriage in most of the nation, every state has legal loopholes allowing children to wed. The New Jersey bill would have prohibited any marriage of children under age 18.

Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/new-jersey-chris-christie-child-marriage-ban-fails-religious-custom-a7735616.html#commentsDiv

[pnwmom]

1. This is disgusting. n/t

[iluvtennis]

46. +++ agree. these arcane laws need to be taken off of the books. GAH

[jpak]

2. A handmaid's tale

for real

welcome to the future

[jberryhill]

3. Disingenuous

Then, Mr. Christie, you SIGN the law and let such "religious" folks sue to overturn it.

[Massacure]

14. Kind of like how Republican governors sign abortion restrictions and make us sue to overturn it?

[jberryhill]

15. Not really....

I wanna see the guy suing to marry a 16 year old.

The young woman in the matter would need a guardian ad litem for her own case. That alone would be worth the price of admission.

Setting the age of legal marriage is a neutral administrative function of the state. The mere fact that there ARE states which have long banned child marriage is a pretty good indication that it's not having an unconstitutional impact.

NO ONE's religious practices are impacted by the state's refusal to grant them civil marriage.

For example...

The age of consent in New Jersey is 16.

If, in some religious cult, they want to perform religious marriage ceremonies between an 80 year old and a 16 year old, they are welcome to do so.

However, the fact that the state won't recognize their marriage does not impact the ability to practice their religion. Not one bit.

[oberliner]

25. What about two 17 year olds getting married?

Let's say one of them is pregnant with the other's child, for example.

[jberryhill]

26. Not sure I understand the relevance of the question

Are you asking me personally what I think of that, or whether it is Constitutional for a state to set an age for marriage?

I don't care whether two 17 year olds can get married or not. I genuinely don't.

Christie is suggesting it would be a First Amendment violation for a state to set an age for marriage. I believe that is simply an idiotic proposition.

If there are some other reasons for vetoing the bill, such as the scenario you are suggesting, well that's what governor's are elected to figure out.

The question is "Can a state set an age for marriage at 18 without violating the First Amendment rights of religious adherents." The answer is obviously yes.

[oberliner]

29. His counter-proposal was to set 16 as the minimum state age for marriage.

In his conditional veto message, Christie proposed an outright ban on marriages for minors under the age of 16, and judicial approval for marriages for minors age 16 and 17.

[jberryhill]

31. Yes, and so?

What does that have to do with his statement about the rights of religious believers?

If he wanted to give a rationale which makes sense for vetoing the bill, he was free to do that. Instead he opted for nonsense.

[oberliner]

33. You wrote that he was suggesting it is a violation to set a minimum state age for marriage

But he actually was proposing doing exactly that in his statement.

[jberryhill]

36. This is not hard

Let's start from the top:

1. Legislature sends bill to Christie setting marriage age at 18.

2. Christie vetoes bill saying it would violate religious rights.

3. I say that is a stupid rationale because it is not a 1st Amd. violation for a neutral administrative law within the state's discretion to set a marriage age.

You then tell me that there are lots of good reasons for vetoing the bill. That is a non-sequitur. I don't even care what the marriage age is in New Jersey, but I assume their legislature and governor can figure it out. There are probably lots of good reasons for all kinds of ages, age brackets, conditions, or whatever. But that has nothing to do with the claim that it would violate religious rights. It would not, regardless of whatever they settle on.

Getting the "right answer" for the "wrong reason" is not something I consider a great accomplishment.

[oberliner]

40. That's not what happened

He did not say he vetoed the bill because it would violate religious rights.

Here's the statement:

"I agree that protecting the well-being, dignity, and freedom of minors is vital, but the severe bar this bill creates is not necessary to address the concerns raised by the bill's proponents and does not comport with the sensibilities and, in some cases, religious customs of the people of this state," Christie said.

He also said:

"It is disingenuous to hold that a 16-year-old may never consent to marriage, although New Jersey law permits the very same 16-year-old to consent to sex or obtain an abortion without so much as parental knowledge, let alone consent," Christie said. "That inconsistency in logic undercuts the alleged logic of an outright ban."

In addition, he proposed an outright ban on marriages for minors under the age of 16, and judicial approval for marriages for minors age 16 and 17.

Religious customs were mentioned but so were general sensibilities.

[jberryhill]

42. Then you might point out that the OP is inaccurate

I did not realize that in order to respond to what was posted in the OP, it was necessary to go out and find other information.

While that new articles throws ads all over the place making it difficult to read as they appear and one has to chase after the text, I also did not see the further quote in your post above anywhere in the article.

Perhaps it would have been simpler to point out that the article was incomplete or misleading, since I did not realize it was necessary to go googling off in search of more information in order to respond to what was posted here.

[oberliner]

48. Fair enough

I think the article in the OP is very deceptive and essentially click bait.

You are right that I ought to have mentioned that at the outset and pointed folks in the direction of other, more legitimate articles that reported on this.

[jberryhill]

50. I can't stand it when that happens

And because of the tiresome exercise of suddenly having people shout at me through autoplay, or chasing text around the page, I tend to trust that the relevant portions of articles are quoted in OP's. I don't come to DU to go off and read other sites.

Christie having a sudden concern for equal protection did strike me as odd, though.

But, ugh, how'd you like to be the judge who is asked to approve a marriage between a 60 year old cult leader and a 16 year old pregnant girl?

On the "what about two 17 year olds and a pregnancy" thing, I could see arguments both ways, personally. Do those "we had to get married" and shotgun wedding things work out for people for the best in the long term? I don't know.

But what I do know is that if you have a 17 year old who wants to make a lifelong commitment, then there isn't anything stopping them from setting up house and waiting a year. Issues like support and custody, etc., if it's not going to work out, will also work themselves out without the inconvenience of a divorce.

I guess I just don't see pregnancy as a compelling reason for two people to get married, nor the harm in saying "yeah, sure, fine, come back in a year".

[mr_lebowski]

54. Not to mention they've probably tried people under 18 as adults ...

Personally I think whatever is the minimum age a person has been tried as an adult in a given state should automatically become the age of consent to have sex with someone else regardless of age, and for them to marry, and vote, join the armed services, write their own notes for school absences, etc.

Either you're an adult capable of making adult decisions and accepting adult consequences at a given age, or you're not.

I say this not because I'm a fan of adults and kids getting together, but because I'm anti-trying-children-as-adults and would like the people who advocate/say it's fine to do so ... to have to deal with some consequences of that 'argument' that they likely wouldn't enjoy ...

[oberliner]

4. His counter proposal was to ban marriages for anyone under 16

But to allow 16 and 17 year olds to marry with parental consent and judicial approval.

This bill would've banned anyone under 18 from being legally allowed to marry.

[Honeycombe8]

10. That counter proposal seems reasonable to me.

If a teen is pregnant, she should be able to get married, with her parents' consent, IMO.

[oberliner]

13. I agree

Seems to make sense.

[TomVilmer]

20. Minors could get married in Denmark - until this year

A new law by far right politicians changed the marriage age to 18 year now in Denmark. Until then a small number of minors got dispensation each year, after evaluation and decision by social workers.

[Lithos]

27. I am fine with it to a point

However, some people use loopholes like this to avoid statutory rape. I've no problem seeing a 16 year old marry an 18 year old; but I have severe issues with a 50 year old man marrying the 16 year old.

L-

[oberliner]

30. One can make that illegal without banning all marriages for anyone under 18

Which is what this bill would have done.

[WePurrsevere]

37. Under 18 and I wouldn't have been able to marry my 1st DH...

when I became pregnant at 17 1/2.

Almost 40 yrs later, divorced and now remarried and I don't regret marrying him, I regret that I didn't get the help I needed when one of our daughters died of SIDS. Oddly enough I'm still friendly with him and much of his family.

ANyway, I can see not under 16/17 and under 18 needing parental/guardian approval but none at all under 18 with zero exceptions I personally wouldn't get behind.

[jpak]

5. Didn't Trump spend last weekend in NJ?

[3catwoman3]

6. The look on that little girl's face...

...says it all.

[oberliner]

7. The photo was part of a "social experiment"

To gauge people's reactions. Not a real couple.

It was set up by some famous YouTube person.

[3catwoman3]

8. That's a relief.

eom

[Judi Lynn]

19. Do you have a link to information on that assertion? It would be good to see it confirmed. Thanks.

On edit:

Do you have any information on who that "Famous YouTube" person is?

Social experiment?

Why not share the awareness you have of the elements of this story and the bogus photo purposely arranged to fool the public with D.U., please.

[oberliner]

21. Coby Persin does these types of videos all the time

Edit to add:

The article you posted in the OP notes that the photo is from a Coby Persin social experiment.

Look at the photo caption.

[Judi Lynn]

45. It's misleading of the Independent to publish a staged photo, absolutely.

As an illustration of how child/adult marriages actually appear in life, that could
would be representative, but it shouldn't have been included at all.

Here's the YouTube:

[center]

[/center]
Thanks for your answer.

[oberliner]

47. It was The Independent, not The Guardian

But I agree that it was misleading.

[Honeycombe8]

11. She's marrying that old fart? OMG. That should be illegal. nt

[oberliner]

12. No, it's fake

A "social experiment" by a Youtube person.

[Me.]

9. Legalised Child Abuse?

[bucolic_frolic]

16. The very requirement and act of obtaining a marriage license

is the state involved in religious customs.

He can shut down the George Washington Bridge but can't ban children from marrying?

[keithbvadu2]

17. How soon will they repeal laws against polygamy?

How soon will they repeal laws against polygamy?

Or laws against genital mutilation?

There are many cultural laws relating to religion.

This decision/rationale could open up a whole new can of worms.

[oberliner]

23. There is no state in the US that has passed a bill like this

If it had passed in NJ, that would have been the first.

[keithbvadu2]

24. Freedom of religion - the magic phrase

[uppityperson]

18. Reading the article, I agree. It's a conditional veto, seeming judicial approved exceptions.

Mr Christie conditionally vetoed the measure, sending it back to the state legislature with proposed changes. He said it should have an exception so a judge can approve marriages for 16- and 17-year-olds.(clip)

Opponents of the measure said exceptions should remain for marriages of young members of the military - 17-year-olds can enlist with parental consent - and pregnant teenagers.

[athena]

38. Chris Christie regularly vetoes good bills.

See the following, and try to agree with any of it:

https://patch.com/connecticut/hartford/s/g3xwg/chris-christie-vetoes-bill-that-would-force-president-trump-to-release-tax-returns
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/28/politics/christie-pig-ban/
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/11/christie_vetoes_residency_requirement_bill_for_nj.html
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/05/christie_limits_help_in_homelessness_prevention_bi.html
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/05/christie_announces_partial_veto_of_equal_pay_bill.html
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/06/christie_vetoes_bill_requiring_diversity_training.html
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/05/christie_vetoes_bill_turning_nj_pensions_over_to_u.html
http://www.app.com/story/news/politics/new-jersey/chris-christie/2017/05/03/christie-vetoes-bill-curbing-puppy-mills/310143001/
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/12/christie_vetoes_bill_limiting_solitary_confinement.html
http://www.njherald.com/story/13901118/christie-vetoes-overhaul-of-states-affordable-housing#
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/02/christie_vetoes_bill_requiring_cops_disclose_seize.html

This is only a small selection, what I could come up with in a minute or two.

[uppityperson]

39. That may be, I'm only talking about the one in the op.

[AllaN01Bear]

22. yo ho yo ho pilots life for me

w.t.f. now who is playing islamic law? huh. ps: looking at that photo no one looks happy .

[samnsara]

34. that photo was staged by protesters. It was taken several months ago...thats not a real marriage..

..they were trying to make a point.....

[oberliner]

35. It was staged by Coby Persin

Not protestors.

[CrispyQ]

28. How many child marriages are older women with young boys?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

[mr_lebowski]

55. I dunno know but it sure seems last few years there's been a lot of news stories of older women ...

Hooking up with minors and getting busted for it ... esp. teachers.

Last few years I've seen more of those stories in the news than the other way around.

I realize that's a separate point in a certain sense, and it may be due to the media making a bigger deal about those cases due to it's relative uncommoness, I can't really be sure.

But lets not act like 'stuff' never goes 'the other way around'. And sometimes marriage w/the minor male has come out of it ...

[CrispyQ]

56. Yes, the reverse sometimes happens, but 'both sides are equally guilty' doesn't hold, here.

Culturally, there isn't the same status for older women to appear with younger men, as the other way around.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/02/10/why-does-the-united-states-still-let-12-year-old-girls-get-married/?postshare=701486850216167&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.9afe11dab7d5

While most states set 18 as the minimum marriage age, exceptions in every state allow children younger than 18 to marry, typically with parental consent or judicial approval. How much younger? Laws in 27 states do not specify an age below which a child cannot marry.

Unchained At Last, a nonprofit I founded to help women resist or escape forced marriage in the United States, spent the past year collecting marriage license data from 2000 to 2010, the most recent year for which most states were able to provide information. We learned that in 38 states, more than 167,000 children — almost all of them girls, some as young 12 — were married during that period, mostly to men 18 or older.

[samnsara]

32. bet he objects to the veils muslim women wear?

[rickford66]

43. So he would allow stoning ?

[PSPS]

44. Just stupid click bait from the Independent. Horribly and intentionally misleading.

1. The scandalous picture used in the story is a staged fake photo
2. The true scope of the vetoed bill is misrepresented in the article
3. The governor's veto statement was intentionally cropped to distort its meaning
4. The term "child bride" isn't used when speaking of 16 and 17-year old girls.

But, hey! It got people to click on their link!

[weissmam]

49. christie is a pig

[DallasNE]

51. IF "Violates Culture And Tradition" Is The Yardstick

Then the Mormon's got screwed. I guess Christie doesn't understand that part about separation of church and state where theocracy is disallowed.

[tclambert]

52. Human sacrifice? We wouldn't want to interfere with religious traditions . . .

Many of the sacrifices consider it an honor, anyway. They get lots of benefits in the year leading up to their moment on the altar, too.

[burrowowl]

53. We wouldn't want to interfere with Mormon polygamy or

female genital mutilation, etc.
What an ass and horrible bill.