JWideman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2007
- Messages
- 1,233
You have to keep in mind the JW angle: they HAVE to get married before the baby is born.
Judge bans hetro couple from marrying.
- Thread starter PhantomWolf
- Start date
-
- Tags
- australia incidents
You have to keep in mind the JW angle: they HAVE to get married before the baby is born.
Rasmus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Messages
- 6,372
Couldn#t they just find a priest to marry them?
How can the marriage before god require that the state happens to agree with the whole thing?
(In Germany, until recently, it was illegal for a church to perform a wedding unless the couple was already married by the state. Are things similar in Australia, perhaps?)
How can the marriage before god require that the state happens to agree with the whole thing?
(In Germany, until recently, it was illegal for a church to perform a wedding unless the couple was already married by the state. Are things similar in Australia, perhaps?)
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
I am not very familiar with JW's why is this so true? Why is being married when he baby is born so much more important than being married when the baby is conceived?
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
I think he wants it arbitrary, but not coded into law. So that instead of the arbitrary line drawn up by the legislature you will get lines drawn in any particular case after the fact on if it was legal or not.
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
Can you imagine the bureaucratic and fiscal nightmare that would result from a government that judges personal responsibility/maturity in every issue on a case-by-case basis? Not to mention that what will have to be coded into law are official government definitions and standards for "responsible" and "mature enough", so that the judges or officers making the determination have a scale to go by.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
Yes, and that is why I am in favor of arbitrary limits like this, and I don't think that 18 as a minimum age for marriage is an issue. I wouldn't care if they had given this couple an exception, but I don't think they are harmed by being unable to marry at that age.
ddt
Mafia Penguin
AFAIK, a pregnancy is exactly the main reason why such an exception (16-years old marrying with a special consent) is on the books - at least in Holland. And no, we don't have teenage pregnancies in droves - au contraire, the lowest rate in the world. So I'm a bit puzzled why the judge denied the request. How much extra paperwork is needed to fix everything up legally now the child will be born out of wedlock?
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
If those questions are legitimate, you would need to argue that there should be no minimum age for marriage, because no matter where a minimum age is set, the same questions could be asked
Equally legitimate questions are:
what purpose is served by not waiting several months?
What is the specific harm to them?
What identifiable harm will be caused by making them wait?
Last edited:
Wasn't it the judgement of the males which was impaired for an extra 2 years? And that impairment was removed in 1991?
The Fallen Serpent
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 2,139
The article does not give the judge's full opinion, only the part that is the consequence. There is a possibility the judge felt the teenagers were being pressured into the marriage by the parents. According to the article 'We got tongue-tied in court and weren't able to express our love the way we wanted,' Emma says. The article on the other hand presents a very media savvy and presentable front for their love and future marriage. Even according to the article the idea of marriage did not come from the teenagers but from the girl's mother after crying for half an hour.
Perhaps the judge feels the couple should sit on the situation for a few months to think it over and see if the marriage is just parental pressure or truly something they are committed to.
Also, as I understood it is the sex not the birth out of wedlock that is the issue for most Christian sects. The marriage solution is just a farce, a patch to claim repentance for their previous misdeeds when it does not otherwise appear they are actually repentant. Also, I was under the impression that it is not man, not even a priest, that recognizes marriages but God. Perhaps JWs are different in that regard.
Perhaps the judge feels the couple should sit on the situation for a few months to think it over and see if the marriage is just parental pressure or truly something they are committed to.
Also, as I understood it is the sex not the birth out of wedlock that is the issue for most Christian sects. The marriage solution is just a farce, a patch to claim repentance for their previous misdeeds when it does not otherwise appear they are actually repentant. Also, I was under the impression that it is not man, not even a priest, that recognizes marriages but God. Perhaps JWs are different in that regard.
ddt
Mafia Penguin
To start, the father will have to separately recognize the child, while when married, he's the legal father. Does that give him custody rights? Does that give him rights to decide on medical treatment for the kid (think it has a congenital condition). Does that give the child the right to inherit should the father die in the interim? And so on and so forth.
Australia is a common law country, while Holland is a Napoleonic law country, so they're not comparable. Moreover, Holland has done away with a lot of difference (but not all) between marriage, civil partnership and just living together (and I note the couple doesn't live together
).Nosi
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2009
- Messages
- 3,164
The judge prevented a pricey divorce.
I've heard that mobile phones are expensive in Australia but are text messages that expensive?
Since this couple is so committed to a life long partnership, none of those things will be a problem, even though they cannot marry for a few months yet.
The father will, of course, recognise the child.
The mother will of course not contest custody rights.
Neither will there be any question of his making decisions on medical treatment.
Of course he will leave his cell phone to the child.
Of course all of those issues will also arise
Not quite.
The Age of Consent (15 in Australia) is simply recognition that teenagers do it, no matter (or in spite of) their parents wishes.
Until she/he/they turn 18 and become adults, they are NOT considered responsible enough to be MARRIED unless they can convincingly prove otherwise. Because marriage is a legally binding arrangement with responsibilities attached, not just a stroll down the aisle on a sunny day. So I guess they were just not convincing enough...
Also, the thread title is wrong. They have not been banned from marriage at all. They have simply had the ceremony deferred for a little while...until they become adults. Then they don't have to ask de judge at all.
I still give them 2 years tops.
Last edited:
If you get a package deal, you can get many hours of talk time, thousands of txt msg allowances and a couple of GB of download bandwidth for the cost of just one monthly dole payment.
Not quite.
The Age of Consent (15 in Australia) is simply recognition that teenagers do it, no matter (or in spite of) their parents wishes.
Until she/he/they turn 18 and become adults, they are NOT considered responsible enough to be MARRIED unless they can convincingly prove otherwise. Because marriage is a legally binding arrangement with responsibilities attached, not just a stroll down the aisle on a sunny day. So I guess they were just not convincing enough...
Also, the thread title is wrong. They have not been banned from marriage at all. They have simply had the ceremony deferred for a little while...until they become adults.
And having a child isn't such a responsibility?