Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
Where's DOMA when you need it? Oh yeah, DOMA wouldn't have helped with this. Never mind.
OK, let's see how well I've absorbed ConLaw.If the correct law only allows special treatment for someone who is pregnant, would this not fail the Equal Protection clause? Worse yet, it could create an absurd situation where a pregnant teenage girl may have permission to get married to a guy who could not possibly give or get consent because he is 1) under age and 2) not pregnant (nor could he be). I presume, when Ann says, "What a complete screw up!", she means more than just the "extraneous 'not'".
Just to make it clear--when I mentioned Equal Protection, I meant it applying across gender lines, not just across pregnant/not pregnant division. Hence the second half of the comment.
Off the top of my head, Shadow Fox, I'd say that the law, if fixed, meets intermediate scrutiny.It need not even be gender-based.
What's more screwed up: this law, or the parents who would utilize it?
Ok, Arkansas Legislature, here's some help from the Texas Family Code:§ 2.102. PARENTAL CONSENT FOR UNDERAGE APPLICANT. (a) If an applicant is 16 years of age or older but under 18 years of age, the county clerk shall issue the license if parental consent is given as provided by this section.Please feel free to copy as needed.
This can't be good for Hillary. Now Bill's gonna wish he was an Arkansas resident again.
Shari-a law coming to a state near you!What bunch of morons. They were in such a hurry to recess they failed to read the legistlation they voted on.Arkansas voters are not getting their money's worth.
"MAY have to call a special session" (?!) They should have done that yesterday! Now THAT was a shameful mistake. Any laws concerning minors - especially with regard to pregnancy and marriage -- should be triple-checked, and by several people. How did that bill ever pass through many pens?
I'm not sure about the constitutionality angle, but Shadowfox is right on about the potentially bizarre results if the legislature merely changes the law by removing the word "not." If that's the only change made, then the statute will read: "In order for a person who is younger than eighteen (18) years of age and who is pregnant to obtain a marriage license, the person must provide the county clerk with evidence of parental consent to the marriage."Suppose a 17 year old boy knocks up a 17 year old girl, and they want to get married, with all parents fully consenting. How is that legal? She can obtain a marriage license, because she is under 18 and pregnant. He cannot, because he is under 18 and not pregnant. Oops.
Pogo and Fen just called and want to know if anybody can suggest a nice trailer they can rent in Arkansas for a few weeks.Sloan...sounds like something up your alley.
If that's the only change made, then the statute will read: "In order for a person who is younger than eighteen (18) years of age and who is pregnant to obtain a marriage license...."...He cannot, because he is under 18 and not pregnant. Haven't you had friends who have annoyingly told you that "we" are pregnant? Apparently, some people think pregnancy is a state that can include men.
I am 11 and wish to marry Nicole Kidman. My parents though are dead sadly, so can Bill Clinton or anyone consent on my behalf please?I so much want that woman before I'm past it. This is a real Human Rights case.
Funny, but the spell check did not show any misspellings in the law!But I think we need a complete redraft here, not just a removal of a stray "not". Arkansas: Laws Я Us.
Keep in mind that there are a number of communities that regularly do 'give away' child brides-- including some south Asians, Gypsies in South Carolina and polygamists from Colorado City/Hildale.Having more familiarity than I'd like with the last of these situations, I commend Arkansas for at least trying to make it harder to do this. They may have to fix the error, but they have figured out that when a 16 (or 14, or 9, or 5) year old is forced to marry a man 30 years her senior, it isn't a 'choice.'
Peter,Why not go fuck yourself? It's worked out so far.
Some years ago, a judge discovered, (or affected to discover) that due to careless drafting, a legislative act included a repealer clause repealing "all laws, and parts of laws" that instead of just repealing the previous version of Act, could be interpreted as repealing "all laws, and parts of laws," that is, every law ever passed in the State.
Post a Comment