Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Could you please provide SCOTUS citations where they've upheld such?
They haven't addressed it one way or another. There isn't some deep-pocketed legal lobby out there to fund protests over a 20+ year-old married to a 14 year-old going to jail.
Could you please provide SCOTUS citations where they've upheld such?
I would also like to know. We had a big discussion about this on another site yesterday. I'd be very interested to learn about the examples in which marriages in one state were not "recognized" by another.
So effectively, it is a blank slate. There have always been trivial cases where the government allows some small amount of local corruption to go on unremediated. That's probably never going to change. It doesn't establish precedent.
I would also like to know. We had a big discussion about this on another site yesterday. I'd be very interested to learn about the examples in which marriages in one state were not "recognized" by another.
FALLS CITY, Neb., Aug. 29 - On Sunday evening, Matthew Koso tipped three ounces of formula into his 5-day-old daughter's mouth, then hoisted her atop his shoulder in hope of a burp. On Tuesday morning, he is scheduled to be arraigned on charges for which the newborn is the state's prime piece of evidence.
Matthew Koso, 22; his wife Crystal, 14; and their daughter, Samara. Mr. Koso faces an arraignment Tuesday on a charge of statutory rape.
Mr. Koso is 22. The baby's mother, Crystal, is 14. He is charged with statutory rape, even though they were wed with their parents' blessing in May, crossing into Kansas because their own state prohibits marriages of people under 17.
Do the math: In August, the child is five days old. The couple got married in May. The child isn't premature.
Do the math: In August, the child is five days old. The couple got married in May. The child isn't premature.
It is all kinds of wrong. He had no business having sex with her, but traditionally marriage protected the male from statutory rape charges - but that debate is for another thread. I personally have no issue with SSM, but I guarantee you there are states that will fight reciprocity on it.
That case is about statutory rape, and specifically says
Quote:
In Nebraska, as in many other states, intercourse between someone who is 19 and someone younger than 16 is classified as statutory rape. It is illegal here even if the couple is married at the time.
It doesn't say that the state does not recognize their marriage.
It is all kinds of wrong. He had no business having sex with her, but traditionally marriage protected the male from statutory rape charges
My point was: They were not married.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
It doesn't say that the state does not recognize their marriage.
I don't even think we know if it actually is illegal, if the couple is married. This case doesn't really shine a light on that (even though the NY Times reporter said it did) because the couple wasn't married. However, it could very well be that the law prohibits sex between a married couple, if one of the couple is underage. It would be worth fact-checking that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
