Christie vetoes first law to outlaw child marriage

Wanted to pass along the following information- 

Have you registered yet for the Chain-In in Trenton next Thursday, or organized a high-school walkout for that day?

We're going to send a strong message to legislators: We do not accept Gov. Christie's outrageous conditional veto of A3091, the bill Unchained helped to write that would have ended child marriage in New Jersey. The bill, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, would have made New Jersey the first state to eliminate a human-rights abuse that primarily affects girls.

June 1 | 11:30 a.m. CHAIN-IN: Outside NJ statehouse annex (Trenton) WALKOUTS: At as many high schools as possible

Gowns, veils, chains and tape provided by Unchained (FREE) Optional round-trip bus ride to Trenton from Westfield ($30) REGISTER (FREE) ~ RESERVE BUS SEAT ($30) ~ ORGANIZE A WALKOUT

Shocking Veto

Under current law in New Jersey, children age 16 or 17 can marry with parental “consent” (which often is “coercion”), and children 15 and younger - with no minimum age - can marry with judicial approval (and the law does not specify any criteria that a judge must consider).

Some 3,600 children as young as 13 were married in New Jersey between 1995 and 2014 – almost all girls wed to adult men. More than 105 of them were married, with judicial approval, to older spouses with an age difference that constitutes statutory rape.

Yet Christie insisted with his conditional veto that this same failed judicial-review process now be used for children at precisely the ages, 16 and 17, when they face the greatest risk of forced marriage. Further, Christie's conditional veto did not even try to address the two main reasons we must end child marriage.

First, children can easily be forced into marriage or forced to stay in a marriage before they turn 18 and become legal adults. They face overwhelming legal and practical barriers if they try to leave home, access a shelter, retain an attorney or bring a legal action.

While I personally find it wrong, it is not something government should ban. We should be tolerant of cultural differences. 

Gilgul said:

While I personally find it wrong, it is not something government should ban. We should be tolerant of cultural differences. 

Oh, please. It's sanctioned RAPE. A 13-year-old is too young to consent to sex, but if her parents force her to get married, then it's OK? Some religions believe that a woman who tarnishes the family's honor should be stoned to death too. Should we tolerate that religious difference?

Cultural differences or human right abuses? I feel it is dangerous to say culture and religion usurp human rights. Gays should be killed because a culture says it is sinful? A woman's genitals should be cut off because a religion says so? A husband should have many wives? A man should not be punished for statutory rape because he marries a 13 year old girl due to his cultural or religious beliefs? Sounds like we are throwing people under the bus in the name of religion and culture. How can anyone live in a multicultural society with all being relative to one's culture?  

That Gilgul person is trolling you.

Even if she/he is, there are enough people out there that believe that being culturally and religiously sensitive is more important than human rights.

All you supposedly tolerent people who like any culture so long as it is yours. And you are so quick to act to make it anything but what you like banned. That is Fascism pure and simple. Also amazing how you accuse anyone who differs from your orthodoxy of "trolling" 

And by the way NJ is required to recognize any marriage performed in the US so all anyone would need to do is take a train to NY and get married there. 

Gilgul said:

 That is Fascism pure and simple. 

An apt description of most of Gilgul's posts here.  I know that surveys have shown that most people believe they are a good person but it is a little hard to imagine how the mechanics of that work sometimes.

I use a simple criteria which is always in sync with my closely held beliefs.   If the proposed act brings on 

vomiting..........it should be avoided

So you can avoid it. But others may see it differently. That is true diversity and freedom. 

So we should allow anything that's considered customary in other cultures?  Should juries make exceptions for honor killings or genital mutilation because those are accepted in other cultures?

Gilgul said:

So you can avoid it. But others may see it differently. That is true diversity and freedom. 

Honor killing is totally different since by definition it is a third party acting in opposition to the wishes of another. But consensual genital mutilation falls into the category of something I and many find distasteful but should not be illegal so long as consented to. 

Where do you stop? Some European countries are moving to banning bris. Some European countries have already banned  Kosher animal slaughter. 

so you're in favor of absoluely any practice as long as parents give consent on behalf of their children?

Gilgul said:

Honor killing is totally different since by definition it is a third party acting in opposition to the wishes of another. But consensual genital mutilation falls into the category of something I and many find distasteful but should not be illegal so long as consented to. 

Where do you stop? Some European countries are moving to banning bris. Some European countries have already banned  Kosher animal slaughter. 

Gilgul said:

Also amazing how you accuse anyone who differs from your orthodoxy of "trolling" 

I did not use the term "trolling" because I thought you expressed an opinion that differed from my "orthodoxy".  I used the term because you were "trolling".

ml1 I am in favor of not making illegal anything to which a person or the person's legal guardian consented. Which is very different from your statement. My personal view of the action or practice is irrelevant so long as I am not directly involved. 

Again you equate disagreeing with your opinion as trolling. 

South_Mountaineer said:

Gilgul said:

Also amazing how you accuse anyone who differs from your orthodoxy of "trolling" 

I did not use the term "trolling" because I thought you expressed an opinion that differed from my "orthodoxy".  I used the term because you were "trolling".

so you believe the state should allow absolutely any practice as long as parents consent on behalf of the child?

Gilgul said:

I am in favor of not making illegal anything to which a person or the person's legal guardian consented. Which is very different from your statement. My personal view of the action or practice is irrelevant so long as I am not directly involved. 

I don't think you can put "consensual" and "genital mutilation" in the same sentence.  

Gilgul said:

Honor killing is totally different since by definition it is a third party acting in opposition to the wishes of another. But consensual genital mutilation falls into the category of something I and many find distasteful but should not be illegal so long as consented to. 

Where do you stop? Some European countries are moving to banning bris. Some European countries have already banned  Kosher animal slaughter. 

Ml1 I may draw the line at ritual sacrifice to appease the volcano god but short of death that would be yes. Better to err on the side of freedom of choice. 

And again Gilgul attempts to troll someone.

Gilgul said:

Again you equate disagreeing with your opinion as trolling. 

South_Mountaineer said:

Gilgul said:

Also amazing how you accuse anyone who differs from your orthodoxy of "trolling" 

I did not use the term "trolling" because I thought you expressed an opinion that differed from my "orthodoxy".  I used the term because you were "trolling".

Yahooyahoo Because you do not live in the culture where it is practiced. I do not either. But I leave it up to them. But it is fine to work in those cultures to try to change the norm. 

yahooyahoo said:

I don't think you can put "consensual" and "genital mutilation" in the same sentence.  

Gilgul said:

Honor killing is totally different since by definition it is a third party acting in opposition to the wishes of another. But consensual genital mutilation falls into the category of something I and many find distasteful but should not be illegal so long as consented to. 

Where do you stop? Some European countries are moving to banning bris. Some European countries have already banned  Kosher animal slaughter. 

If anyone is trolling you are because everyone else is having a debate and discussion but you seem to have no interest in one.  

South_Mountaineer said:

And again Gilgul attempts to troll someone.

Gilgul said:

Again you equate disagreeing with your opinion as trolling. 

South_Mountaineer said:

Gilgul said:

Also amazing how you accuse anyone who differs from your orthodoxy of "trolling" 

I did not use the term "trolling" because I thought you expressed an opinion that differed from my "orthodoxy".  I used the term because you were "trolling".

South_Mountaineer said:

And again Gilgul attempts to troll someone.

Gilgul said:

Again you equate disagreeing with your opinion as trolling. 

South_Mountaineer said:

Gilgul said:

Also amazing how you accuse anyone who differs from your orthodoxy of "trolling" 

I did not use the term "trolling" because I thought you expressed an opinion that differed from my "orthodoxy".  I used the term because you were "trolling".

Gilgul said:

If anyone is trolling you are because everyone else is having a debate and discussion but you seem to have no interest in one.  

South_Mountaineer said:

And again Gilgul attempts to troll someone.

Gilgul said:

Again you equate disagreeing with your opinion as trolling. 

South_Mountaineer said:

Gilgul said:

Also amazing how you accuse anyone who differs from your orthodoxy of "trolling" 

I did not use the term "trolling" because I thought you expressed an opinion that differed from my "orthodoxy".  I used the term because you were "trolling".

No, it's clear you are not trying to have a debate.  You toss off the phrase "consensual genital mutilation" and compare it to a bris - as if removing a the foreskin of a male child's penis is equivalent to the procedure that goes by the euphemism "female circumcision".  Since I don't think that you're that uninformed, the conclusion is that you are trying to provoke anger in others, and/or try a "you liberals are hypocrites" type of argument.

h4daniel said:

Wanted to pass along the following information- 

Have you registered yet for the Chain-In in Trenton next Thursday, or organized a high-school walkout for that day?

We're going to send a strong message to legislators: We do not accept Gov. Christie's outrageous conditional veto of A3091, the bill Unchained helped to write that would have ended child marriage in New Jersey. The bill, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, would have made New Jersey the first state to eliminate a human-rights abuse that primarily affects girls.

June 1 | 11:30 a.m. CHAIN-IN: Outside NJ statehouse annex (Trenton) WALKOUTS: At as many high schools as possible

Gowns, veils, chains and tape provided by Unchained (FREE) Optional round-trip bus ride to Trenton from Westfield ($30) REGISTER (FREE) ~ RESERVE BUS SEAT ($30) ~ ORGANIZE A WALKOUT

Shocking Veto

Under current law in New Jersey, children age 16 or 17 can marry with parental “consent” (which often is “coercion”), and children 15 and younger - with no minimum age - can marry with judicial approval (and the law does not specify any criteria that a judge must consider).

Some 3,600 children as young as 13 were married in New Jersey between 1995 and 2014 – almost all girls wed to adult men. More than 105 of them were married, with judicial approval, to older spouses with an age difference that constitutes statutory rape.

Yet Christie insisted with his conditional veto that this same failed judicial-review process now be used for children at precisely the ages, 16 and 17, when they face the greatest risk of forced marriage. Further, Christie's conditional veto did not even try to address the two main reasons we must end child marriage.

First, children can easily be forced into marriage or forced to stay in a marriage before they turn 18 and become legal adults. They face overwhelming legal and practical barriers if they try to leave home, access a shelter, retain an attorney or bring a legal action.

Did you read the law extant; the bill; or the Governor's veto statement?

I'm thinking not.

Current law allows children younger than 16, to marry with Judicial consent. Those of the age of 16 and 17 years, to marry with parental consent.

The Governor's veto statement asks the legislature to craft a bill prohibiting persons under 16 years from obtaining a license to marry; and requiring Judicial consent for a license for those who are 16 or 17 years.

Also, as long as you bring it up, how many persons under the age of 16, were issued marriage licenses during the two decades you reference?

Although I realize I am repeating myself: did you read the law extant; the bill; or the Governor's veto statement; or was the above, just a cut and paste from some advocacy site? (The "Shocking Veto" lead to the "substantive" portion of your post; preceded by the request for $30.00, leads me to conclude a cut and paste).

Of course, it is always possible that one of us just read something too fast; or that one of our readings was just half fast.

TomR

P.s., No fan of Governor Christie here.

Yet in some countries in Europe this is exactly what is happening. 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=...

The Progressive Party in Norway, one of the two ruling parties in the country (along with the Conservative Party) has announced that it intends to initiate a law banning circumcision in the country for males under the age of 16.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=...

Norwegian paper's cartoon suggests circumcision akin to pedophilia

It is a slippery slope to de-legitimizing all cultural practices that differ from your own.

South_Mountaineer said:

Gilgul said:

If anyone is trolling you are because everyone else is having a debate and discussion but you seem to have no interest in one.  

South_Mountaineer said:

And again Gilgul attempts to troll someone.

Gilgul said:

Again you equate disagreeing with your opinion as trolling. 

South_Mountaineer said:

Gilgul said:

Also amazing how you accuse anyone who differs from your orthodoxy of "trolling" 

I did not use the term "trolling" because I thought you expressed an opinion that differed from my "orthodoxy".  I used the term because you were "trolling".

No, it's clear you are not trying to have a debate.  You toss off the phrase "consensual genital mutilation" and compare it to a bris - as if removing a the foreskin of a male child's penis is equivalent to the procedure that goes by the euphemism "female circumcision".  Since I don't think that you're that uninformed, the conclusion is that you are trying to provoke anger in others, and/or try a "you liberals are hypocrites" type of argument.

Well please explain the term "troll" to all, including individuals like myself who still do not understand your response to Gilgul.  In order to get at this issue, a couple of questions for you.

Do you agree that your (namely, South Mountaineer) opinions often conform to the MOL orthodoxy?

Do you agree that Gilgul's opinions usually do NOT conform to the MOL orthodoxy?

South_Mountaineer said:

Gilgul said:

Also amazing how you accuse anyone who differs from your orthodoxy of "trolling" 

I did not use the term "trolling" because I thought you expressed an opinion that differed from my "orthodoxy".  I used the term because you were "trolling".

The legal concept of the state having the right and authority to intervene on behalf of children and vulnerable or incapacitated adults predates this country.  Agree that line drawing is difficult and government must be watched.  But I think you are being gratuitously provocative  in suggesting that anything short of murder ("ritual sacrifice") is none of government's business.  

RealityForAll said:

Well please explain the term "troll" to all, including individuals like myself who still do not understand your response to Gilgul.  In order to get at this issue, a couple of questions for you.

Do you agree that your (namely, South Mountaineer) opinions often conform to the MOL orthodoxy?

Do you agree that Gilgul's opinions usually do NOT conform to the MOL orthodoxy?

South_Mountaineer said:

Gilgul said:

Also amazing how you accuse anyone who differs from your orthodoxy of "trolling" 

I did not use the term "trolling" because I thought you expressed an opinion that differed from my "orthodoxy".  I used the term because you were "trolling".

someone is probably trolling if a substantial number of people can't be sure if the person is serious or messing with us.  gilgul is a person that fits that description for me.  I have to believe a post like this one is not serious.

Gilgul said:

Ml1 I may draw the line at ritual sacrifice to appease the volcano god but short of death that would be yes. Better to err on the side of freedom of choice. 

More indication that you and many others here consider anything not aligned with their world view as trolling. Which is a huge problem.