Another scumbag politician.

[BIGUN 1,314]

10 minutes ago, billvon said:

what they consider their own land, with their own government, determined to right the wrongs of the Trail of Tears

They're doing it and winning. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rejects-tulsa-native-american-traffic-laws-dispute-rcna97760

[JoeWeber 2,720]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

I think we'd be less condescending towards the Middle East's endless history of violence.

Condescending I can accept; enabling is where I have a problem.

[ryoder 1,590]

Kudos to Georgia GOP for doing the right thing!

Georgia Republicans boot vice chairman after ruling he voted illegally

The Georgia Republican Party voted overwhelmingly Friday to oust First Vice Chairman Brian K. Pritchard from his leadership position after a judge ruled he voted illegally nine times while serving probation for a felony check forgery sentence.

[Stumpy 284]

Why do politicians who want child marriage to continue always seem to look something like this?!

[JoeWeber 2,720]

12 hours ago, Stumpy said:

Why do politicians who want child marriage to continue always seem to look something like this?!

Excellent point. You just have to wonder what he's been rubbing his zipper flap against and if he was able to see it.

[BIGUN 1,314]

22 hours ago, Stumpy said:

Why do politicians who want child marriage to continue always seem to look something like this?!

 Thompson Rehder's bill prohibits marriage licenses from being granted in Missouri to anyone under the age of 18. Currently 16 and 17 year-olds can get marriage licenses with parental consent, and marriages are currently banned between minors and anyone aged 21 and up.

“Why is the government getting involved in people’s lives like this?” VanSchoiak said. “What purpose do we have in deciding that a couple who are 16 or 17 years old, their parents say, you know, ‘you guys love each other, go ahead and get married, you have my permission.’ Why would we stop that?”

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/why-would-we-stop-that-missouri-republicans-oppose-bill-to-end-child-marriage/ar-BB1m7L8J

[SkyDekker 1,465]

6 hours ago, BIGUN said:

 Thompson Rehder's bill prohibits marriage licenses from being granted in Missouri to anyone under the age of 18. Currently 16 and 17 year-olds can get marriage licenses with parental consent, and marriages are currently banned between minors and anyone aged 21 and up.

“Why is the government getting involved in people’s lives like this?” VanSchoiak said. “What purpose do we have in deciding that a couple who are 16 or 17 years old, their parents say, you know, ‘you guys love each other, go ahead and get married, you have my permission.’ Why would we stop that?”

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/why-would-we-stop-that-missouri-republicans-oppose-bill-to-end-child-marriage/ar-BB1m7L8J

Because if we are deeming people not old enough to have a drink or old enough to buy a cigarette, or old enough to elect who represents them, we shouldn't deem them old enough to decide who they want to spend the rest of their life with.

[billvon 2,991]

7 hours ago, BIGUN said:

"Why is the government getting involved in people’s lives like this?” VanSchoiak said. “What purpose do we have in deciding that a couple who are 16 or 17 years old, their parents say, you know, ‘you guys love each other, go ahead and get married, you have my permission.’ Why would we stop that?”

The laws on statutory rape come to mind.

[gowlerk 2,192]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

The laws on statutory rape come to mind.

The age of consent is 16 all across Canada. What is it where you are?

[BartsDaddy 7]

4 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Because if we are deeming people not old enough to have a drink or old enough to buy a cigarette, or old enough to elect who represents them, we shouldn't deem them old enough to decide who they want to spend the rest of their life with.

The government has no problem sending them off to war before allowing any of those things.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

17 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

The age of consent is 16 all across Canada. What is it where you are?

Not entirely true. There is a "close in age" exemption for 14 and 15 year old to consent to sex with somebody less than 5 year older who isn't in a position of power or authority.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Just now, BartsDaddy said:

The government has no problem sending them off to war before allowing any of those things.

Yes I have an issue with that too.

[billvon 2,991]

22 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

The age of consent is 16 all across Canada. What is it where you are?

18.  If the other person is within 3 years of the minor, it's a misdemeanor; if not, it's usually a felony.

[johnhking1 96]

4 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Because if we are deeming people not old enough to have a drink or old enough to buy a cigarette, or old enough to elect who represents them, we shouldn't deem them old enough to decide who they want to spend the rest of their life with.

Don't you mean the next 2 years of their life.

[billvon 2,991]

1 minute ago, johnhking1 said:

Don't you mean the next 2 years of their life.

Why do you hate the SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE?!?!!??!

(j/k)

[BIGUN 1,314]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

The laws on statutory rape come to mind

Two separate issues. 

Each state has a different statute for Statutory Rape. 

Missouri is talking about marriage (in which the statutory rape charges "could" apply"). But, what he's saying is - if a 16 and a 17 year old want to get married AND the parents are ok with it, then why should the government get involved. 

He's not saying a 31 y/o man and a 16 y/o girl - cause then the statutory rape would apply. 

[SkyDekker 1,465]

21 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

But, what he's saying is - if a 16 and a 17 year old want to get married AND the parents are ok with it, then why should the government get involved. 

If a 14 and a 13 year old want to get married and the parents are ok with it, then why should the government get involved?

[gowlerk 2,192]

10 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

If a 14 and a 13 year old want to get married and the parents are ok with it, then why should the government get involved?

If an 18 year old wants to go to the bar and drink why should the government get involved? Apparently people mature very slowly in America compared to the rest of the world.

[ryoder 1,590]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

If an 18 year old wants to go to the bar and drink why should the government get involved? Apparently people mature very slowly in America compared to the rest of the world.

That is a logical conclusion, if one looks at the MAGA faction of the GOP.

[BIGUN 1,314]

48 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

If a 14 and a 13 year old want to get married and the parents are ok with it, then why should the government get involved?

That was exactly his point. 

[billvon 2,991]

3 hours ago, BIGUN said:

But, what he's saying is - if a 16 and a 17 year old want to get married AND the parents are ok with it, then why should the government get involved.

The government legislates against statutory rape because, in their view, a 16 year old is not mature enough to give informed consent, and the risk of life altering results (pregnancy, STDs, death in certain states) and abuse (17, 18, 22 year olds taking advantage of immature decision making) outweighs the benefits of the 16 year old being able to do whatever he/she wants.

Marriage is an even more life altering event.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

3 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Two separate issues. 

Each state has a different statute for Statutory Rape. 

Missouri is talking about marriage (in which the statutory rape charges "could" apply"). But, what he's saying is - if a 16 and a 17 year old want to get married AND the parents are ok with it, then why should the government get involved. 

He's not saying a 31 y/o man and a 16 y/o girl - cause then the statutory rape would apply. 

To belabor the point, we each have a view on how old a person should be before the government can say no, that's too young or that's coercive. The question invites a discussion on whether states versus the federal government should be the decider (sic). For inflammatory example, if a state decided that 10 years old and a parents permission was acceptable, as it is in some places around the world, should the rest of America just grin and bear it?

[BIGUN 1,314]

That's why I posted the Statutory Rape laws for each state. And, in none - is there any exception for a 10 year old. 

[jakee 1,489]

10 hours ago, BIGUN said:

That was exactly his point. 

What exactly is your point though?

[JoeWeber 2,720]

5 hours ago, BIGUN said:

That's why I posted the Statutory Rape laws for each state. And, in none - is there any exception for a 10 year old. 

I wasn't practicing numerology, the point is that belief in states rights vs. national government authority seems to swing with the wind and the issue.