fake news

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Courier Journal

what the f#ck

[HillGoose]

wtf.

i hate f!cking traditionalists who want to marry their kids off into some religious death cult

[NewYorkExpress]

The only reason I can think of for child brides are sixteen and seventeen year olds, who already have children on the way. How many of those could there possibly be in Kentucky?

[Doimper]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wonder what they think about same-sex marriage between consenting adults?

[Greedo punched first]

Gross.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

How many of those could there possibly be in Kentucky?

Plenty.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The only reason I can think of for child brides are sixteen and seventeen year olds, who already have children on the way. How many of those could there possibly be in Kentucky?

The way the current Kentucky law reads, sixteen and seventeen year old generally need parental permission, but if the bride-to-be is pregnant, then if they can get a District Judge to sign off on it, the participants can be any age.  At least the idiotic law applies just as much if it's the boy who is way underage instead of the girl.

[dead0man]

Are 13 years old actually getting married in KY?

[Kingpoleon]

They are just fighting for traditional marriage, guys. For two thousand years and more people have been married at the ages of thirteen, fourteen and fifteen.

[Joey1996]

How about we let kids be kids? Jfc

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

I feel like some conservatives miss the good old days when child brides were considered normal.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

The vast majority of Christians oppose this.  Actually talk to people who believe in the Bible instead of listening to what the media says about us.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

The vast majority of Christians oppose this.  Actually talk to people who believe in the Bible instead of listening to what the media says about us.

Tell that to the Republicans stalling the bill.

Like it or not, men marrying young girls is still very much acceptable in some fundamentalist Christian tribes.  It is telling that a group like the "Family Foundation" would remain silent on these child marriage bans after battling gay couples for so many years.

[Joey1996]

Why isn't Kim Davis fighting against this?

[junior chįmp]

They are just fighting for traditional marriage, guys. For two thousand years and more people have been married at the ages of thirteen, fourteen and fifteen.

Republicans were right....gay marriage has led to people marrying preteens

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Are 13 years old actually getting married in KY?

The only person the article mentions is the mother of the woman pushing for the bill.   So there was at least one person 40-50 years ago.

Looks like the headline is fake news.  The debate is over 16 and 17 year olds.

[Badger]

The only reason I can think of for child brides are sixteen and seventeen year olds, who already have children on the way. How many of those could there possibly be in Kentucky?

According to my closest friend who spent a year working for Habitat for Humanity down there, thousands easily.

[Skunk]

Conservatives were right when they said Muslims would implement Sharia law and get children marri- oh wait.

[Fuzzy Bear]

In a rural society, where folks life expectancy was forty-something, allowing 15-16 year olds to marry was a different matter.  We're not there now, however, and I cringe when I think about what some folks who push this sort of thing in this day and age.

I can understand the idea of wanting underage teens who get pregnant to be able to marry the underage father of the child.  In a different society, that wasn't a horrible idea, either.  Unfortunately, I've had a granddaughter who was pregnant in high school and marriage to the young man who fathered the child wasn't a great idea, as he wasn't willing to (A) stop committing crimes,  and (B) do anything about his substance abuse and mental health issues.  There was a time when "shotgun weddings" provided some stability for the child(ren) involved, but this time and age isn't the time and age where that happens.

[politicallefty]

Ugh. So-called "parental rights" almost invariably means that children before the age of consent are basically property of their parents and entirely subject to their whims. It seems to be a recent right-wing fascination, and one I find really abhorrent. I don't think it's all that different from the so-called "states rights" movement. It's never about rights, but about subjugating a particular group.

[darklordoftech]

I don't think it's all that different from the so-called "states rights" movement. It's never about rights, but about subjugating a particular group.

As I see, having authority shouldn't be seen as a "right". There's a reason that the founding fathers talked about the states having "powers" and not "rights".

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

Conservatives were right when they said Muslims would implement Sharia law and get children marri- oh wait.

[mvd10]

Deport these people to Saudi Arabia or some other backwards sh**thole please. I think they would fit in very well in certain Muslim countries .

[politicallefty]

I don't think it's all that different from the so-called "states rights" movement. It's never about rights, but about subjugating a particular group.

As I see, having authority shouldn't be seen as a "right". There's a reason that the founding fathers talked about the states having "powers" and not "rights".

That's absolutely right. The Bill of Rights are not really rights, but are actually restrictions on the state.

So-called "parental rights" have nothing to do with any tangible right. It's all about ensuring older whites keep power as long as they can. "Parental rights" is almost always about being able to strike your child, marry your child away, cut your child's genitals, and/or force religious dogma despite their opposition.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don't think it's all that different from the so-called "states rights" movement. It's never about rights, but about subjugating a particular group.

As I see, having authority shouldn't be seen as a "right". There's a reason that the founding fathers talked about the states having "powers" and not "rights".

That's absolutely right. The Bill of Rights are not really rights, but are actually restrictions on the state.

So-called "parental rights" have nothing to do with any tangible right. It's all about ensuring older whites keep power as long as they can. "Parental rights" is almost always about being able to strike your child, marry your child away, cut your child's genitals, and/or force religious dogma despite their opposition.

"Parental Rights" are tied to the fact that parents are responsible for everything a child does until they reach the age of majority (which, I believe, is now 18 in every state). 

There are limitations to parental rights  The idea that it's about forcing marriage or genital mutation on children is nonsense, and the person who posted that is, quite frankly, either uninformed or irresponsible.  Parental Rights are, however, a vehicle to enable parents to exert control over their children's development in order that the children grow up to be responsible adults.

Parental Rights enable parents to teach children responsibility, self-reliance, and the virtues that enable democracy to happen.  Parental Rights also enable parents to prevent children from bringing harm to themselves and others.  It's the RIGHT of a parent to tell a child, "No, you can't associate with that kid!" when a parent knows that such an association will lead to a harm that they will be responsible for in the future.  It's the RIGHT of a parent to discipline a child to reinforce pro-social behavior and to extinguish anti-social behavior that infringes on the rights of others.  It's their right because when things go sideways, it's PARENTS who pick up the tab.