Judge bans hetro couple from marrying.

quadraginta said:
This particular enforcement of the law seems a bit hypocritical too, or at the very least a matter of locking the barn after the horse leaves the county.

What are the intended benefits of age restrictions on marriage? To reduce teen pregnancy? To discourage life-changing decisions before they are mature enough to make them?

Seems a bit late for that.

What is gained by delaying the marriage in this instance?
Click to expand...

Where is the hypocrisy in this enforcement of the law?
The door is not being locked after the horse goes anywhere: the law says they can't marry before age 18. The law is being applied.
Are you serious asking about the intended benefits of age restrictions on marriage? Because they have made some dumb decisions there should be no restrictions?
What is gained by delaying marriage in any instance?
Is 16 too young? 14? 12? 10?
 
kerikiwi said:
Where is the hypocrisy in this enforcement of the law?
The door is not being locked after the horse goes anywhere: the law says they can't marry before age 18. The law is being applied.
Are you serious asking about the intended benefits of age restrictions on marriage? Because they have made some dumb decisions there should be no restrictions?
What is gained by delaying marriage in any instance?
Is 16 too young? 14? 12? 10?
Click to expand...

I think the point is that at 16 they are considered responsible enough to have sex and she is considered responsible enough to become a mother and therefore be legally (and morally) responsible for that child until the child reaches maturity but is not considered responsible enough to make the decision to get married.
 
quadraginta said:
This particular enforcement of the law seems a bit hypocritical too, or at the very least a matter of locking the barn after the horse leaves the county.
Click to expand...

Depends on why you think they were not permitted to marry. If it has nothing to do with children they might have, but about themselves and their decision making capacity, then it makes sense. Better than being divorced at 22.
What are the intended benefits of age restrictions on marriage? To reduce teen pregnancy? To discourage life-changing decisions before they are mature enough to make them?

Seems a bit late for that.
Click to expand...

They could give the kid up for adoption or to a relative.
What is gained by delaying the marriage in this instance?
Click to expand...

Why should pregnancy be an automatic condition to justify an exemption under a this law?
 
quadraginta said:
How much do you think her judgment will have improved in the space of that few months? Will it be substantially different than it is now? Will there be a wondrous transformation on her birthday?
Click to expand...

Because you need to set clear limits. Hell this clear limit as a way around it, it is be 18 or convince a judge to give you an exception.

You need clear limits, so don't go on with BS about one day being a major difference, no one thinks it is. But you need clear limits or do you think 8 year olds should decide to get married? That is only 3650 individually inconsequential days, so it must in total be of no consequence right? You can add 0 as many times together as you want and it will never be anything other than 0.
 
Darat said:
I think the point is that at 16 they are considered responsible enough to have sex and she is considered responsible enough to become a mother and therefore be legally (and morally) responsible for that child until the child reaches maturity but is not considered responsible enough to make the decision to get married.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't agree with that. It makes some sense, but the other side is that teens will have sex no matter what the law is, and criminalizing typical behavior is dumb and bad. But teens do not typically get married, and this couple could have gotten married anyway, if they convinced the judge to give them an exception.

This does not seem like a totally over the top restriction.
 
Darat said:
I think the point is that at 16 they are considered responsible enough to have sex and she is considered responsible enough to become a mother and therefore be legally (and morally) responsible for that child until the child reaches maturity but is not considered responsible enough to make the decision to get married.
Click to expand...


Thanks, Darat. That's the general idea.
 
gumboot said:
There's nothing particularly remarkable about it - just about every country has a minimum age at which marriage is allowed. The only curiosity is what exactly the court would consider sufficiently "exceptional" to justify an early marriage.

The think I find most remarkable about the article is that the girl attempts to play the pious and devoutly religious card, complete with hand-wringing and proclamations about "living in separate rooms" and "If you live together, you have to live as husband and wife" and yet she's clearly sexually active prior to marriage which is a "sin".

In other words, like most religious people, she's a hypocrite who only actually adheres to her religion when it suits her.
Click to expand...

The best example of blatant religious hypocracy I think is that when I've been a health care volunteer abroad, we will see so many men saying that they can't use condoms because they're Catholic. But they're still having premarital sex and screwing around with people other than their wives! I find it amusing that these guys found using a condom more sinful than adultery.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Because you need to set clear limits. Hell this clear limit as a way around it, it is be 18 or convince a judge to give you an exception.

You need clear limits, so don't go on with BS about one day being a major difference, no one thinks it is. But you need clear limits or do you think 8 year olds should decide to get married? That is only 3650 individually inconsequential days, so it must in total be of no consequence right? You can add 0 as many times together as you want and it will never be anything other than 0.
Click to expand...


Not everything has "clear limits". Growing up is not one of those things. Waving your hands around and making ludicrous and childish extremist strawman comparisons doesn't change that.

What purpose, in this particular case, was served by making these two wait several months? What is the specific benefit to them? What identifiable harm will be prevented by making them wait?

You speak of "clear limits", but cannot explain what, in this instance, is going to be different once that limit has been achieved, except for mindless adherence to a standard of, in this case, debatable utility.

I have no issue with setting proximate goals, and using them as guidelines for limits on behavior, but when those goals become magic numbers imbued with some imaginary intrinsic quality I am less than impressed.
 
Zep said:
-- She is under the age for self-determination as a legal adult (18 in Australia), but not by much. Otherwise she would not need legal permission. (Children as young as 15 and 16 have been permitted to marry in Australia reasonably often. I think 15 is the legal minimum.)
Click to expand...

Just to clear up:

The legal age that you can get married without any restrictions in Australia is 18. The legal minimum permitted by the exceptional circumstances clause is 16.

This couple tried to use part of the Marriage Act that allowed for exceptional circumstances, which allows a judge to permit a marriage for someone who is younger then 18 but older then 16.

Funnily enough, if it wasn't for the Sexual Discrimination Amendment Act 1991 (Cth) we wouldn't be having this discussion, because the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) originally listed the marriageable age as 18 for boys and 16 for girls.
 
Yeah, they've found themselves caught out by inconsistencies in the age of consent laws, but they've not been hard done to or poorly treated. The law has been applied equitably, and they've not been singled out by a prejudiced judge, as is implied by the article's title. They've not been 'banned from getting married', they're simply under-aged. They seem to be complaining that the courts didn't single them out for special treatment.

And yes, it's hypocritical to play the religion card when their faith didn't stop them poking out of wedlock.
 
Wildy said:
Just to clear up:

The legal age that you can get married without any restrictions in Australia is 18. The legal minimum permitted by the exceptional circumstances clause is 16.

This couple tried to use part of the Marriage Act that allowed for exceptional circumstances, which allows a judge to permit a marriage for someone who is younger then 18 but older then 16.

Funnily enough, if it wasn't for the Sexual Discrimination Amendment Act 1991 (Cth) we wouldn't be having this discussion, because the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) originally listed the marriageable age as 18 for boys and 16 for girls.
Click to expand...

One wonders what earth-shattering event occurred in 1991 which suddenly impaired the judgment of all Australian females for an additional two years.
 
quadraginta said:
Not everything has "clear limits". Growing up is not one of those things. Waving your hands around and making ludicrous and childish extremist strawman comparisons doesn't change that.
Click to expand...

Of course your own strawmen go with out mentioning?

So you really want there to be no way of knowing what age something goes from illegal to legal, because it will be up to the judge and jury to decide if they were mature enough? Lock Woody Allen up, that is too creepy and easy to convince people to convict him then, as you are getting rid of absolute guides.
What purpose, in this particular case, was served by making these two wait several months? What is the specific benefit to them? What identifiable harm will be prevented by making them wait?
Click to expand...

What are the criteria used in determining if they deserve an exemption? They could have gotten one, if they judge allowed it. So exactly the kind of personalization you demand was used in this case. The judge just ruled differently than you want him to.
You speak of "clear limits", but cannot explain what, in this instance, is going to be different once that limit has been achieved, except for mindless adherence to a standard of, in this case, debatable utility.
Click to expand...

Because I think having clear limits is more important than the limits being set properly for every case.
I have no issue with setting proximate goals, and using them as guidelines for limits on behavior, but when those goals become magic numbers imbued with some imaginary intrinsic quality I am less than impressed.
Click to expand...

So you are fine with never being sure if your actions are legal or not, but it being up to the subjective views of others?
 
quadraginta said:
One wonders what earth-shattering event occurred in 1991 which suddenly impaired the judgment of all Australian females for an additional two years.
Click to expand...

Why did we ever decide that it was wrong to have 13 year olds marry middle aged men, what suddenly changed about women that made them incapable of being proper wives at 13 so suddenly?
 
ponderingturtle said:
What are the criteria used in determining if they deserve an exemption? They could have gotten one, if they judge allowed it. So exactly the kind of personalization you demand was used in this case. The judge just ruled differently than you want him to.
Click to expand...

This is the crux of the matter. Does pregnancy normally warrant an exception to the 18-years-old rule for marriage? I very much doubt it, or the judge would've had no reason to deny this young couple their request. And while I can sympathise with their wish to have their baby born within wedlock, accepting pregnancy as a reason for exception would encourage 16 and 17-year-olds to get pregnant.
 
quadraginta said:
How much do you think her judgment will have improved in the space of that few months? Will it be substantially different than it is now? Will there be a wondrous transformation on her birthday?
Click to expand...

No matter where the line is drawn it will always be arbitrary. There will always be people on either side of it who personally are/are not responsible enough regardless of their age. Where it's drawn is a matter for legislators or for the people, whichever; but the law needs a line.

She can wait a couple of months. Are they going to stop loving each other or something if they don't get married RIGHT NOW?
 
quadraginta said:
One wonders what earth-shattering event occurred in 1991 which suddenly impaired the judgment of all Australian females for an additional two years.
Click to expand...

It was probably deemed discrimination for one sex to have a higher (or lower) marriageable age then the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom