There was a column the other day where Norman Woods, a representative of a church-based PAC tried to claim that there was nothing wrong with marrying off 16 year old girls, and it’s nothing sinister…
When you cast your vote this spring, you can have confidence that your senator stood up to outside activists and told the East and West coast elites to keep their ideas on marriage to themselves. As Marco Rubio once said: “The greatest tool to lift children and families from poverty isn’t a government spending program. It’s called marriage.”
Read Norman’s justification for it here.
Welcome to the 1950’s, where those little girls knew their place, and there were no coastal elites trying to prevent child trafficking. Fortunately for us, we’re 70 or so years past that.
In a well needed counterpoint, Democrat Representative Kadyn Wittman points out that the effort to stop child marriage is a bipartisan effort involving both Republicans and Democrats, faith leaders and child marriage survivors who are asking for a stop to a practice that has no place in modern society:
During testimony, Norman Woods argued that many fathers would prefer their 16-year-old daughters marry an “established” older man. That statement reveals exactly why many South Dakotans were alarmed by opposition to this bill.
and..
The argument about the age of consent is equally misleading. We regulate different rights and responsibilities at different ages all the time. A teenager may legally drive before they can vote. They may work before they can sign contracts. They may consent to some medical decisions before they can serve on a jury. The existence of an age-of-consent law does not automatically mean the state should permit minors to enter into marriage.
Many of the same lawmakers who argue teenagers are too immature to make health care decisions, vote or enter contracts suddenly insist they are mature enough to enter a lifelong legal marriage contract. That inconsistency deserves scrutiny.
and..
South Dakotans can disagree respectfully about a lot of issues. But reducing legitimate concerns about child protection to conspiracy theories about “outside activists” is unserious and insulting to the many South Dakotans, Republicans, Democrats, independents, faith leaders, survivor advocates and parents alike who supported this reform because they genuinely believe children should not be married in our state.
Read the entire column here.
Currently, a 16 year old in South Dakota is old enough to be married to a 40 year old man, but not old enough to hire an attorney to get out of it when she discovers that there may be something wrong with this arrangement.
There’s something wrong here. And it needs to be fixed.