We heard, last week, that a bill to end child marriage had stalled in Kentucky, due to a conservative group lobbying in favor of the practice. \u201cKentucky\u2019s \u2018child bride\u2019 bill stalls as groups fight to let 13-year-olds wed<\/a>,\u201d one news source declared.\u00a0\u201cKentucky Republicans kill bill to limit child marriage because parents should have right to marry off kids<\/a>,\u201d another outlet reported.<\/p>\n As\u00a0USA Today<\/a> explained:<\/p>\n A bill to make 18 the legal age for marriage in Kentucky has stalled in a Senate committee amid concerns about the rights of parents to\u00a0allow children to wed at a younger age, according to several lawmakers.<\/p>\n Known as the\u00a0\u201cchild bride\u201d bill,\u00a0Senate Bill 48 was pulled off the agenda just hours before a scheduled vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee\u00a0for the second time in\u00a0two weeks.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n On Thursday, Sen. Julie Raque Adams, who sponsored the bill, identified the Family Foundation of Kentucky as the organization opposing the bill. We\u2019ll come back to the Family Foundation\u2014and their motivations\u2014in a moment. Before we do that, I want to provide some background on Kentucky\u2019s current law, and on what SB 48 would do.<\/p>\n Kentucky has the third highest child marriage rate in the country. During committee hearings, Donna Pollard of Louisville testified that, at age 16, her mother pressured her into marrying an older man who had been molesting her for two years. After their wedding, her new husband quickly became violent and abusive. Eileen Recktenwald of the Kentucky Association of Sexual Assault Programs referred to the current law as \u201clegalized rape of children.\u201d<\/p>\n Here is a summary of<\/a> the current law and how it would change:<\/p>\n Currently, teens under 18\u00a0in Kentucky can marry at age 16 or 17 with a parent\u2019s permission. Teens under 16 can marry with a\u00a0 judge\u2019s permission in case of a pregnancy, though critics say if a girl under 16 is pregnant, it is evidence of a sex crime because she would have been too young to consent to a sexual relationship.<\/p>\n The bill would establish 18 as the legal age for marriage. Those\u00a0who are 17 could marry with permission of a district judge, if the\u00a0age difference between the 17-year-old and the\u00a0other party is fewer than four years.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Insider Louisville offers more<\/a>:<\/p>\n Asked Thursday morning who was lobbying against her bill, Adams told Insider Louisville that it was the Family Foundation of Kentucky \u2014 one of the more prominent groups in Frankfort advocating for socially conservative causes \u2014 who argued that it \u201cdiminishes parental rights.\u201d<\/p>\n Adams added that she and other legislators are now working on a compromise bill that she hopes will satisfy the concerns of opponents, but added that the problem is that \u201cmany times the parents are the problem,\u201d as abusive ones sometimes send their own kids \u201cinto the arms of a predator.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Here\u2019s where it gets interesting: As we shall see, the sticking point for the Family Foundation of Kentucky was that the bill<\/a> would allow 17-year-olds to marry, but\u00a0would\u00a0remove the parental consent requirement<\/em>\u00a0for these individuals, instead requiring 17-year-olds who wish to marry to petition the court in a process that would, if successful, emancipate them. Removing parental consent from the process,\u00a0the Family Foundation argued, would be a violation of parental rights.<\/p>\n Under Adams\u2019 bill, a 17-year-old who wished to marry would need to present evidence of maturity, proof of stable housing, and proof of a high school diploma or GED. The judge would then need to determine that the minor wishes to marry of their own free will, that they are mature enough to do so, and that the marriage will not disadvantage them. If the judge were to grant the 17-year-old\u2019s petition, the minor would be emancipated, as is explained in the bill:<\/p>\n The granting of a petition for permission to marry filed under subsection (3) of this section shall have the effect of granting a petition to remove the disabilities of minority. A minor emancipated by the petition shall be considered to have all the rights and responsibilities of an adult, except for specific constitutional or statutory age requirements, including but not limited to voting, the use of alcoholic beverages, and other health and safety regulations relevant to him or her because of his or her age.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It makes sense that, should we allow 17-year-olds to marry at all, the process should involve emancipation. After all, a minor who is emancipated is now legally an adult, with the rights and privileges that go along with that. This means that a 17-year-old who marries, under Adams\u2019 bill, would become an adult first, ensuring that their decision is as unencumbered as possible.<\/p>\n With that out of the way, let\u2019s scrutinize the Family Foundation\u2019s reasons for objecting. Martin Cothran, a spokesmen for Family Foundation of Kentucky,\u00a0explained the group\u2019s objections<\/a> to the bill as follows on Thursday:<\/p>\n Cothran said his group was not opposed to the bill setting the minimum age for marriage at 17, but added that they are opposed to the court approval process for 17-year-olds, as\u00a0\u201cit takes away parental rights, in terms of parental consent, and gives it to the court. So we have a big concern about that.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe approach of this bill is the opposite of what we would advocate,\u201d said Cothran. \u201cIt takes away parental rights at the very beginning, and then includes them in a sort of incidental way at the end of the process. We pushed for changes in the language to allow for parental rights at the beginning and take them away where they need to be taken away.\u201d<\/p>\n Cothran said their concerns could be \u201ceasily resolved\u201d in a compromise bill.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I checked the bill<\/a> and couldn\u2019t find the \u201cincidental\u201d inclusion of parental rights \u201cat the end of the process\u201d that Cothran refers to here. He must mean a section specifying that \u201cthe wishes of the parent\u201d are not \u201csufficient evidence to establish that the best interests of the minor would be served by granting the petition for marriage.\u201d It\u2019s worth clarifying that the legislation as it stood last week did not include parental consent anywhere in the process for a 17-year-old who wished to marry.<\/p>\n Under current law, a 17-year-old must have to have parental consent to marry. Under Adams\u2019 bill, a 17-year-old would not<\/em> have to have parental consent to marry. Instead, they could marry without<\/em> parental consent.<\/p>\n The Family Foundation, Cothran said, was not fighting to lower the minimum age of marriage allowed in the bill. Instead, the group\u2019s concern centered solely on the process by which the bill would allow 17-year-olds to marry. Even here, Cochran\u00a0did not suggest that parental consent and parental consent alone<\/em> should be required, as under current law. Instead, he suggested that the bill should \u201callow for parental rights at the beginning\u201d and then \u201ctake them away where they need to be taken away.\u201d<\/p>\n What would this look like? It could mean simply adding that a 17-year-old wishing to marry would need to submit, along with everything else, a statement of consent signed by a parent or guardian. Or, it could look like completely rewriting the process to minimize the role of the judge and maximize the role of the parent in deciding whether a child is ready to marry.<\/p>\n Either way, the Family Foundation feels it was mischaracterized<\/a>:<\/p>\n After a news story about \u2026 the bill produced backlash Thursday for The Family Foundation and legislators, the organization responded on Twitter.<\/p>\n \u201c@KentuckyFamily does NOT oppose min. marriage age, AND, is FOR parental rights \u2014 these are NOT mutually exclusive. Contrary statements by others of our position are grievously misinformed or intentionally distorted,\u201d the Friday tweet said.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n
\n
\n