Yesterday Senator John “California” Carley left some of his colleagues scratching their heads in his arguments against Senate Bill 156, which would have set a minimum age for marriage to 18 to help put an end to loopholes in the law which allow 50 year olds to marry 16 year olds in South Dakota.
Because Ol’ California Carley came up with a cringeworthy string of arguments on why he wants sex between 16 year old girls and middle aged men to be legal:
Carley echoed opposition given in the bill’s committee hearing, arguing that while he is “appalled at the idea of predators and abusers taking some of our young daughters and forcing them into a life of servitude and abuse,” he thinks that the bill fails to address the issue, and that it “criminalizes marriage rather than the abuse that is covered up by such a marriage.”
Carley suggested that changes could be made to make the bill more appealing to him, such making it a requirement that both parents have to sign off on a child marriage, requiring counseling before a child can be married to an adult, or giving emancipation to children who get married, though he did not bring any of these ideas as amendments to the bill.
and..
Carley did not advocate raising the age of consent in South Dakota from 16 along with the age of marriage, but instead argued that sex between an adult and a minor is better if the two are married than if they are not.
Read Carley’s opinion on sex between an adult and minor at Keloland.com.
Umm.. Not sure how to respond to that one.
Maybe by asking “How would he know?”
(Maybe he should put that on a t-shirt for the next election)
Turns my stomach.
Mr Carley is right, once married and consent was given by parents, it’s all fine. Stop attacking goo’s conservatives. Persons 13-19 arr legally adults, but those ages 13-17 need consent of their parents to enter a relationship status.
Are you mentally deficient? Guessing this is Mike Z, because no one else says this kind of messed up stuff.
Persons 13-17 are in no way legal adults. Teenagers 16-17 can legally consent to sex, but they are still not legally adults in every other part of SD law.
Is this the worst session ever?
Pat is there a contest where we can vote in some sort of Dumpster Diver Olympics competition?
Individual legislators?
District team?
How many bills from Perry’s ban on fluoride in public water systems to Jordan’s removal of the seatbelt law to many more where it is clear these legislators never did the work prior to introducing these bills. It also reflects poorly on leadership too by wasting valuable time and not vet these bills too.
After the Delta Airlines plane crash in Toronto will we see Freedumb Caucus Dylan Jordan be the prime sponsor of a bill being the removal of mandatory seatbelt use on aircraft while flying over South Dakota bucking federal regulations? He will attempt to argue state’s rights and passengers should have the Freedumb of movement especially during turbulence, takeoff and landings?
WE ARE REAPING WHAT THE VOTERS HAVE SOW.
AND THE RESULTS SUCK.
“Better” as in more safisfying to one or both of the participants?
I think he’s trying to come up with some moral equivalence. And failing.
Trapping a young woman in marriage at 16 just means that in 5 years or 10 years or 20 years (when she is 36) it will be even more difficult for her to leave a toxic relationship. And it would be a toxic relationship because of the power imbalance.