NationStates Jolt Archive

LINCOLN, Neb. - A 22-year-old man faces criminal charges in Nebraska for having sex with an underage 13-year-old girl, although he legally married her in Kansas after she became pregnant.

The man’s lawyer said the couple, with their families’ support, “made a responsible decision to try to cope with the problem.”

Matthew Koso, 22, was charged Monday with first-degree sexual assault, punishable by up to 50 years in prison. He was released on $7,500 bail pending an Aug. 17 preliminary hearing.

After the girl became pregnant, her mother gave permission in May for Koso to take the young woman to Kansas, which allows minors to get married with parental consent. The girl is now 14 and seven months pregnant.

“The idea ... is repugnant to me,” said Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning. “These people made the decision to send their ... 14-year-old daughter to Kansas to marry a pedophile.”

Nebraska allows people as young as 17 to marry if they have parental consent. Kansas law, however, sets no minimum marriage age, although case law sets the minimum age at 14 for boys and 12 for girls.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8716780/

WDYT?

My faith in humanity has been chiselling away for quite some time now, so, it's not really shocking to see something like this happen in America.

LINCOLN, Neb. - A 22-year-old man faces criminal charges in Nebraska for having sex with an underage 13-year-old girl, although he legally married her in Kansas after she became pregnant.

The man’s lawyer said the couple, with their families’ support, “made a responsible decision to try to cope with the problem.”

Matthew Koso, 22, was charged Monday with first-degree sexual assault, punishable by up to 50 years in prison. He was released on $7,500 bail pending an Aug. 17 preliminary hearing.

After the girl became pregnant, her mother gave permission in May for Koso to take the young woman to Kansas, which allows minors to get married with parental consent. The girl is now 14 and seven months pregnant.

“The idea ... is repugnant to me,” said Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning. “These people made the decision to send their ... 14-year-old daughter to Kansas to marry a pedophile.”

Nebraska allows people as young as 17 to marry if they have parental consent. Kansas law, however, sets no minimum marriage age, although case law sets the minimum age at 14 for boys and 12 for girls.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8716780/

WDYT?

One more excuse to sell my n00k to "freedom fighters," that shit is fucked. I can't believe the parents were stupid enough to let the girl do that. All three adults have ruined her life, especially her 'husband.' This sickens me.

I see nothing wrong with it. As far as I can tell, he never raped her, and she had sex willingly. I don't see anything wrong with it.

LINCOLN, Neb. - A 22-year-old man faces criminal charges in Nebraska for having sex with an underage 13-year-old girl, although he legally married her in Kansas after she became pregnant.

The man’s lawyer said the couple, with their families’ support, “made a responsible decision to try to cope with the problem.”

Matthew Koso, 22, was charged Monday with first-degree sexual assault, punishable by up to 50 years in prison. He was released on $7,500 bail pending an Aug. 17 preliminary hearing.

After the girl became pregnant, her mother gave permission in May for Koso to take the young woman to Kansas, which allows minors to get married with parental consent. The girl is now 14 and seven months pregnant.

“The idea ... is repugnant to me,” said Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning. “These people made the decision to send their ... 14-year-old daughter to Kansas to marry a pedophile.”

Nebraska allows people as young as 17 to marry if they have parental consent. Kansas law, however, sets no minimum marriage age, although case law sets the minimum age at 14 for boys and 12 for girls.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8716780/

WDYT?

pedophile, i dont think that is the right word. if he was marrying a boy...

I see nothing wrong with it. As far as I can tell, he never raped her, and she had sex willingly. I don't see anything wrong with it.

As a minor, she doesn't have good judgement. She doesn't know what she's getting into. In my state (CA) it doesn't matter if it was consensual, it's still wrong.

pwned

pedophile, i dont think that is the right word. if he was marrying a boy...

If he were marrying a boy, they would've kicked him out of Kansas and Nebraska, and any other red state. :p

I don't really give a care. Technically, if he's 22 and she was 13, he's not a pedophile, but an ephebophile, but that's splitting hairs I guess.

Anyways, I've known people who've had sex with bigger age gaps at that age, and it's none of my business.

I see nothing wrong with it.

dude, she was 13.

pedophile, i dont think that is the right word. if he was marrying a boy...

If he was marrying a boy, the word would be "homosexual".


As a minor, she doesn't have right judgement. She doesn't know what she's getting into. In my state (CA) it doesn't matter if it was consensual, it's still wrong.

Sure she does. It's not like she's two. She's fully aware of what's happening. And it dosen't matter what's legal where you live, it matters what's legal where they got married.

What do I think? I think Kansas needs to get a friggin' GRIP! First the demented school board forbidding the teaching of evolution in the public schools, now this! WTF, over???

Anyways, I've known people who've had sex with bigger age gaps at that age, and it's none of my business.

a bigger age gap with one younger than 15 and the other in their 20s or beyond? dude

Ah, Kansas. Because, clearly, allowing children to marry protects the "sanctity of marriage"... :rolleyes:

I think it's sad that her parents honestly believed it was better for their daughter to marry a statutory rapist than to have a child out of wedlock. For her sake, I hope he surprises me by being a decent husband to her.

dude, she was 13.
<_<
>_>
Your point?

Sure she does. It's not like she's two. She's fully aware of what's happening. And it dosen't matter what's legal where you live, it matters what's legal where they got married.

The human mind isn't fully developed until the age of 25, so both participants'
minds aren't capable of thinking out their actions.

The Human Mind isn't fully developed until the age of 25, so both participants'
minds aren't capable of thinking out their actions.

So what? Just because the human brain isn't developed fully dosen't mean it's not developed sufficiently. By that logic, people under the age of 25 should be given lighter sentences in crimes, because they can't think through their actions.

Ah, Kansas. Because, clearly, allowing children to marry protects the "sanctity of marriage"... :rolleyes:

I think it's sad that her parents honestly believed it was better for their daughter to marry a statutory rapist than to have a child out of wedlock. For her sake, I hope he surprises me by being a decent husband to her.
Now really, everybody throwing out accusations and attacks, now I don't condone dating or sleeping with way older men, but we don't know the situation, the real situation. Statutory rape is just another law to make lawmakers look important.

So what? Just because the human brain isn't developed fully dosen't mean it's not developed sufficiently. By that logic, people under the age of 25 should be given lighter sentences in crimes, because they can't think through their actions.

Yes, that's the debate in many states. Mainly because they're wondering if they should give the death sentence to this homicidal teen or just throw him in for life. I say life, because people can change.

Also, the last part of the brain to develop is reasoning, so it's not sufficient.

If he was marrying a boy, the word would be "homosexual".



Sure she does. It's not like she's two. She's fully aware of what's happening. And it dosen't matter what's legal where you live, it matters what's legal where they got married.

Welllll...actually...it matters where the sex originally took place. They originally had sex in Nebraska where it was illegal - therefore he can be charged in Nebraska. Regardless of whether they were married in another state or not.

Besides, they were married after having sex, making the sex illegal.

Your point?

it is legally impossible for a 13 year old to enter into a consensual sexual relationship, especially with someone who is in thier 20s. even in kansas.

more importantly, the existence of such a relationship is predicated on an adult taking advantage of a minor. there cannot be a non-coercive sexual relationship between people with that great of an age gap with one of them being so young.

it is legally impossible for a 13 year old to enter into a consensual sexual relationship, especially with someone who is in thier 20s. even in kansas.

more importantly, the existence of such a relationship is predicated on an adult taking advantage of a minor. there cannot be a non-coercive sexual relationship between people with that great of an age gap with one of them being so young.
Why not?

For her sake, I hope he surprises me by being a decent husband to her.

/signed

They are, afterall, about the same ages as Loretta Lynn and her husband Doo were when they got married :(

Why not?

for the same reason there can't be one between an adult and a 10 year old or a 5 year old (though there are certainly relevant degrees of difference between 5, 10, and 13).

This is kind of wrong even if the boy was only 22 the age gap was not that big.
It's more easy to be manipulated at younger age because of your lack of experience.

Now, in a society where we allow 13 years girls to dress like Britney Spears, we should solve baby-rape case first.

for the same reason there can't be one between an adult and a 10 year old or a 5 year old (though there are certainly relevant degrees of difference between 5, 10, and 13).

And those reasons are.....? There are only two I can think of.
1)People that young can't make rational decisions. While this may be constantly true for a 5 year old, it must be taken on a case by case basis with people as old as 13. It's not like he said "If you mary me I'll give you candy".

2)It makes people uncomfortable. I response to this is that I really don't give a ****

for the same reason there can't be one between an adult and a 10 year old or a 5 year old (though there are certainly relevant degrees of difference between 5, 10, and 13).
then why can there be one between a 16 year old and a 20 year old (16 is age of consent in many states)

10 is not 13.

LINCOLN, Neb. - A 22-year-old man faces criminal charges in Nebraska for having sex with an underage 13-year-old girl, although he legally married her in Kansas after she became pregnant.

The man’s lawyer said the couple, with their families’ support, “made a responsible decision to try to cope with the problem.”

Matthew Koso, 22, was charged Monday with first-degree sexual assault, punishable by up to 50 years in prison. He was released on $7,500 bail pending an Aug. 17 preliminary hearing.

After the girl became pregnant, her mother gave permission in May for Koso to take the young woman to Kansas, which allows minors to get married with parental consent. The girl is now 14 and seven months pregnant.

“The idea ... is repugnant to me,” said Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning. “These people made the decision to send their ... 14-year-old daughter to Kansas to marry a pedophile.”

Nebraska allows people as young as 17 to marry if they have parental consent. Kansas law, however, sets no minimum marriage age, although case law sets the minimum age at 14 for boys and 12 for girls.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8716780/

WDYT?

Only in Kansas...

So... he got a 13 year old pregnant... and then MARRIED HER?

Oh, that's SO MUCH BETTER!!!

We Texans are hardly better. At Waco, the only thing David Koresh was doing that was illegal under state law was (ready?)... the manufacture of hand grenades. Stockpiling .50 cal sniper rifles was perfectly legal, appearently.

As distasteful as I find this, I have to side with the law. Unless Federal supercedes it, the states have the right to run things their way. I think that's how the system is intended to function.

Who are we to tell Kansas how to run their state? I can't vote in Kansas, but if I could I would want the marriage age changed.

I have no problem with Nebraska enforcing their laws either. I like the concept of states rights.

I'm fine with a sexually mature 13 year old having sex.
I am not comfortable at all with the idea that there are emotionally immature 18 year olds getting into serious relationships.
I think we've got it backwards in our society. Two twelve year olds telling each other they love each other and want to be together forever is messed up. No one needs that kind of drama at that age, but it is socially acceptable for a little girl to have a little boyfriend. :headbang:

If she doesn't look like a little girl, than the guy isn't a pedophile, and the sex was ok, if a little icky.
The marriage makes me want to cry. How could her parents do that to her? A thirteen year old's chances of making it through childbirth are not good. Not only did her parents risk her life by making her marry the guy instead of getting an abortion like she should have, but they signed her life away if she does survive. Child abuse, to my mind.

A few things...

First, he married her after she was pregnant. Therefore, he must have had sex with her before he was married. That makes him a criminal to start with.

Second, it actually does matter what the state law says where you are, not just where you got married. In a similar manner, if for example Virginia, where I live, allowed me to own a pistol at 19 (which it does not) and Maryland says 21, then I cannot legally own the pistol I bought legally in Virginia if I cross the border. (If I am wrong in this analogy, which is entirely possible since I am no expert in the law, then I respectfully withdraw this point.)

Thirdly, regarding age gaps and decision making. The difference between someone who is 8 and someone who is 13 is big. The difference between someone who is 30 and someone who is 35 is not. The numerical differences are the same, but because the total difference is a much smaller part of their total life to date it has an entirely different meaning. Therefore, the difference between a 24/33 couple is tremendously different that a 13/22 couple.

Lastly, concerning the decision making capabilities of the underage person. These come in stages. We can trust most 4 year olds to potty on their own. We still usually pick out their clothes. 9 year olds can pretty much handle that, but we still have to help them 'decide' what to eat. 15 year olds can handle that (arguably :rolleyes: ), but there are other things they cannot do. What I am getting at is this. While a 4 year old is still concious of putting on clothes, and understands that is what they are doing, they do not have enough experience to know what is appropriate. Likewise, a 13 year old can grasp politics and current events, but few people would argue they should vote and run for office, as much as they may like to. They just do not have the experience to make such life altering decisions for themselves and others.

I would argue that having sex, and therefore the possibility of pregnancy, is far more weighty than voting. It most certainly will change their life forever if pregnancy happens, no matter what the outcome. The new life that is created of course is pretty affected as well. :)

If we do not yet allow a 13 year old to make decisions that affect others in a profound way in the public arena, why should it be acceptable for them to possibly create a new life, as much as they may want to do it? They do not yet have enough experience and maturity to understand all the implications of what they do.

Ihatevacations']then why can there be one between a 16 year old and a 20 year old (16 is age of consent in many states)

10 is not 13.14 is the age of consent in Hawaii, and up here in Canada. In some countries, it's younger. It's totally arbitrary. Sexual maturity is not a birthdate.

I think that people of normal rational capabilities of thought should be allowed to pursue their desires in any manner that does notcreate obvious and direct damage to an identified third party.

The twenty-two year oldis both out of college and an adult in the eyes of the state, the thirteen year old girl is acting with the consent of her parents who are also adults in the eyes of the state.

Whether this is morally right or wrong is a moot point, the state is amoral. In fact morality should not be involved in this argument (and other arguments i.e. Gay Marriage).

A few things...

First, he married her after she was pregnant. Therefore, he must have had sex with her before he was married. That makes him a criminal to start with.

Second, it actually does matter what the state law says where you are, not just where you got married. In a similar manner, if for example Virginia, where I live, allowed me to own a pistol at 19 (which it does not) and Maryland says 21, then I cannot legally own the pistol I bought legally in Virginia if I cross the border. (If I am wrong in this analogy, which is entirely possible since I am no expert in the law, then I respectfully withdraw this point.)

Thirdly, regarding age gaps and decision making. The difference between someone who is 8 and someone who is 13 is big. The difference between someone who is 30 and someone who is 35 is not. The numerical differences are the same, but because the total difference is a much smaller part of their total life to date it has an entirely different meaning. Therefore, the difference between a 24/33 couple is tremendously different that a 13/22 couple.

Lastly, concerning the decision making capabilities of the underage person. These come in stages. We can trust most 4 year olds to potty on their own. We still usually pick out their clothes. 9 year olds can pretty much handle that, but we still have to help them 'decide' what to eat. 15 year olds can handle that (arguably :rolleyes: ), but there are other things they cannot do. What I am getting at is this. While a 4 year old is still concious of putting on clothes, and understands that is what they are doing, they do not have enough experience to know what is appropriate. Likewise, a 13 year old can grasp politics and current events, but few people would argue they should vote and run for office, as much as they may like to. They just do not have the experience to make such life altering decisions for themselves and others.

I would argue that having sex, and therefore the possibility of pregnancy, is far more weighty than voting. It most certainly will change their life forever if pregnancy happens, no matter what the outcome. The new life that is created of course is pretty affected as well. :)

If we do not yet allow a 13 year old to make decisions that affect others in a profound way in the public arena, why should it be acceptable for them to possibly create a new life, as much as they may want to do it? They do not yet have enough experience and maturity to understand all the implications of what they do.

Bravo

*hands Neo-yether a cookie*

Likewise, a 13 year old can grasp politics and current events, but few people would argue they should vote and run for office, as much as they may like to. .
Shit, you know some 13 year olds that can grasp politics and current events? Half the damn people that can actually vote cant do that

Ihatevacations']Shit, you know some 13 year olds that can grasp politics and current events? Half the damn people that can actually vote cant do that

what is there to grasp, some two people saying watever you want to here, by the way, the electoral college is just VANISHING

Although it is not unheard of for 13 year olds to be sexually active, it is still unsual, and in my experience the 13 year old ends up with a whole load of issues later in life.

I am worried about the parents condoning the behaviour of both 13 and 22 year old, and also that they were able to marry in Kansas.

It also reminds me a little of Pitcairn Island. Just because something is "legal" doesn't mean it's "right".

I liked the gun ownership analogy, it reminds me of the inequality of drinking ages. The legal age is 18 to be served alcohol in the UK (pretty much), so people who can't drink is some states in the US can drink in the UK - what's up with that? :)

They do not yet have enough experience and maturity to understand all the implications of what they do. (emphasis added)

So the girl decides to have some experiences- maybe she'll realise that marriage isn't her gig and get divorced. It isn't the end of the world, or the end of her life. It just an experience and she'll be far more mature than the rest of her class mates because of it. Do we really want our kids to be immature? Especially teens? They deserve rights, too. You don't protect people by putting them in a bubble.

No one seems to be talking about the fact that she is going to be a 14 year old mother. We're all arguing over whether or not a 14 year old can make a rational decision to get married; does anyone here think a 14 year old girl is capable of raising a child properly?

WDYT?First off, I don't like the choices in the poll. I voted in favor of his actions because I don't think what he did is that condemnable. It is, but its not sexual abuse.

The way the law is in Germany, which I must admit I agree with more, is that you're allowed to have sex from the age of 14 on, and theoretically with anyone of any age. The restriction is that the older person may not abuse the sexual inexperience of the younger, in which case it would either be seduction of minors or sexual abuse, depending on whether the minor wanted to have sex or not. It's difficult to judge such cases, but it doesn't make someone like this case a child molester.

I disapprove of the marriage and the fact that she was only thirteen. I don't think you should be allowed to marry until 16 or so. But that doesn't make the guy a child abuser, after all, they did marry, so it's not like he goes for every little child. It may be the case that there's real emotion between them, though it's hard to tell.

Although it is not unheard of for 13 year olds to be sexually active, it is still unsual, and in my experience the 13 year old ends up with a whole load of issues later in life.

Unfortunately, it is FAR more prevalent than you think for a 13 year old to be sexually active, although I will agree that it tends to impact them very negatively later in life.

First off, I don't like the choices in the poll. I voted in favor of his actions because I don't think what he did is that condemnable. It is, but its not sexual abuse.

The way the law is in Germany, which I must admit I agree with more, is that you're allowed to have sex from the age of 14 on, and theoretically with anyone of any age. The restriction is that the older person may not abuse the sexual inexperience of the younger, in which case it would either be seduction of minors or sexual abuse, depending on whether the minor wanted to have sex or not. It's difficult to judge such cases, but it doesn't make someone like this case a child molester.

I disapprove of the marriage and the fact that she was only thirteen. I don't think you should be allowed to marry until 16 or so. But that doesn't make the guy a child abuser, after all, they did marry, so it's not like he goes for every little child. It may be the case that there's real emotion between them, though it's hard to tell.

I appreciate that you may not like the polling options, but either he's done the right thing or he's scum... or you're not sure. I really don't see any other options...

Do we really want our kids to be immature? Especially teens?

What?! YES!!! Adults are half the problem. They continually insist that kids grow up and act mature. When you're a kid, you're supposed to be immature. When else are you going to do it without getting the funny stares that I get when I stand on the desk and dance in my office? Why are people so determined to make childhood as short and stressful period as humanly possible? We should be encouraging kids to be childish for as long as they can get away with it, not the other way around.

Kids having sex is totally wrong. Why? Read the sentence; the answer's in there.

Who's fault is it? Adults. It's thanks to all of us that the next generation is going to be fucked up beyond all recognition.

I appreciate that you may not like the polling options, but either he's done the right thing or he's scum... or you're not sure. I really don't see any other options...I don't think its done right but he isn't scum. You don't see any other options because you didn't really bother to look. That's pretty hard to do, though, so don't feel offended.

What?! YES!!! Adults are half the problem. They continually insist that kids grow up and act mature. When you're a kid, you're supposed to be immature. When else are you going to do it without getting the funny stares that I get when I stand on the desk and dance in my office? Why are people so determined to make childhood as short and stressful period as humanly possible? We should be encouraging kids to be childish for as long as they can get away with it, not the other way around.

Kids having sex is totally wrong. Why? Read the sentence; the answer's in there.

Who's fault is it? Adults. It's thanks to all of us that the next generation is going to be fucked up beyond all recognition.

Good. You are totally correct. I agree.

I am confused. Someone takes responsibility for getting a teenager pregnant by marrying her - and then he gets in trouble. A dirty old man does the same and it takes 20 years to get him because he doesn't want to own up.

My faith in humanity has been chiselling away for quite some time now, so, it's not really shocking to see something like this happen in America.

You do know that thousands of years ago, very young girls married older guys at a much bigger age range, right?

Why lose faith now?

I went to school with a girl who got pregnant at the age of 15 (the farther was 21).

It was funny to know this girl. Before she got pregnant, she swore that she would never have children. After giving birth, she was a totally different person. She truly loved that child.
The guy turned out to be a good man. Put a ring on her finger once he found out that she was pregnant, and married her a few years later (he wanted her to be a bit older before making such a decision). The last thing I heard from them, they had been married for 2 years, had another child and generally did well. She was behind with her education – but that was to be expected. He was working hard to support them both, and she was working equally hard to take care of the kids and attending school.

The point is, some people got what it takes – some people don’t. Without knowing the couple it’s hard to judge…

I did vote “doing the right thing” because that’s what I think he’s doing. He should have known better, but at least he’s taking responsibility for what he did.

It’s unfortunate that he’s a criminal now – that’s not exactly helping her. I also find it strange that he can be convicted of rape. It can hardly have been, since she later married him…

This is sick. Not because its a sexually active 13 year old, but because some people actually said that he's doing the right thing. This summer, I'm working at a day camp with children around her age (12 year olds). Can I start by saying that they are completely immature? I can't even say the word rape around them (don't ask how it got to that), they start making faces and gagging sounds. Can one of those girls consent to sex? Well, she probably knows what sex is, hell, she definetly knows what it is, but she does not know of the risks associated with it, and she can not adequatly discuss contraception, so therefore, she cannot consent to sex with a person much over her age. Thats why I love our NY laws so much. A 12 year old can consent to a 12,13 or 14 year old, a 13 year old to a 12, 13, 14, or 15 year old, a 14 year old to a 12-16 year old, a 15 to a 13 to 17 yr old, 16 to a 14 to 18, and 17 to anyone above 15. Other than that, its statutory rape, no questions asked. If there is evidence that a sexual act did happen (ei. pregnancy, video, semen on the victim (assuming that a minor does not know her right to refuse a gynecological exam)) the older person is going to jail for up to 3 years, i think. What is the deal with those red states? First Indiana is subpeoning planned parenthood records for minors under 14 as they cannot consent to sex, and if they went to planned parenthood there may be some evidence of sex in their medical records (lets completely forget that that's breaching doctor-patient confidentiality), and then it's neighbors are letting this ephidophile or pedophile or whatever you want to call him get away? But back to my counselor experiences- These girls are completely immature. They play with toys, they like playgrounds, they are tiny. They may dress like Britanny Spears, but they are not- they are kids!!! I am years older than them and I still can't take care of a small child full time. I really don't think that this child can enter into a marriage or take care of a child. But this case goes back to the parents- Parents must teach their kids about contraception. Schools must have sex ed. Schools must educate minors about pedophiles and ephidophiles and whatever! Lock that guy up for several years... if he gets out and still cares, he can marry her then.

This is sick.

*snip*

Parents must teach their kids about contraception. Schools must have sex ed. Schools must educate minors about pedophiles and ephidophiles and whatever! Lock that guy up for several years... if he gets out and still cares, he can marry her then.


I agree with your anger. But it's too late for the marriage part, they ARE married now, the license and legality of the marriage is not being revoked, the sicko it being charge with statutory rape.

If he goes to prison now... Who takes care of his wife and kid?

I am actually more disturbed by the fact that they got married because of a pregnancy than any other part of this story. Being pregnant is not a good enough reason to get married, regardless of age. This will most likely end very, very badly.

Meanwhile, as disturbing as I find what this guy did, it isn't pedophilia - and the person in the article should have known that. Disgusting? Yes. Coercion? Certainly. Illegal? One should certainly hope so. Pedophilia? No - not unless she was stil pre-pubescent.

This man is NOT a pedophile.

A pedophile is attracted to children who have NOT hit puberty.

I do not condone what he has done, but "pedophile" is not the correct word to describe him.

I agree with your anger. But it's too late for the marriage part, they ARE married now, the license and legality of the marriage is not being revoked, the sicko it being charge with statutory rape.

If he goes to prison now... Who takes care of his wife and kid?
They can revoke the marriage liscence!!! What is the problem with all those red states? If it is a loving same-sex couple, their marriage liscense can be revoked in the blink of an eye but in a relationship where a minor might not even have an adequate advocate in her corner (hubby is trying to avoid jail time, parents are trying to keep their so-called dignity), they're not doing anything? The government should take the girl away, we can all see that she's not the family's top priority now. Their dignity is. As for those concerned with labeling him a pedophile- is an ephebophile better? or a man with a 'lolita complex'? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia

Unfortunately, it is FAR more prevalent than you think for a 13 year old to be sexually active, although I will agree that it tends to impact them very negatively later in life.
Unusual (when I can type it correctly) would be less than 50% in my opinion. The last studies I remember hearing about had less than 50% of 13 year-olds as sexually active, but I may be remembering wrong.

They can revoke the marriage liscence!!! What is the problem with all those red states? If it is a loving same-sex couple, their marriage liscense can be revoked in the blink of an eye but in a relationship where a minor might not even have an adequate advocate in her corner (hubby is trying to avoid jail time, parents are trying to keep their so-called dignity), they're not doing anything? The government should take the girl away, we can all see that she's not the family's top priority now. Their dignity is. As for those concerned with labeling him a pedophile- is an ephebophile better? or a man with a 'lolita complex'? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia

Spoken like someone with absolutely no knowledge of the law.

They cannot "revoke" the marriage license. The marriage was valid in Kansas, and the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution requires that Nebraska honour the marriage. The "same-sex marriages" that were "revoked" weren't revoked at all - the marriages were invalid to begin with under the laws of the states where they were issued. That's the difference here - this "couple" has a valid license and is legally married. Any valid license cannot be "revoked" by the state.

While it's definitely frowned upon in this day and age - the marriage is valid according to the laws of Kansas, and is valid in all 50 states and territories of the United States.

Spoken like someone with absolutely no knowledge of the law.

Hmmmm....

They cannot "revoke" the marriage license. The marriage was valid in Kansas, and the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution requires that Nebraska honour the marriage. The "same-sex marriages" that were "revoked" weren't revoked at all - the marriages were invalid to begin with under the laws of the states where they were issued. That's the difference here - this "couple" has a valid license and is legally married. Any valid license cannot be "revoked" by the state.

I assume you'll make this same argument when a gay couple moves from Mass. to another state?

Hmmmm....



I assume you'll make this same argument when a gay couple moves from Mass. to another state?

I would, except that DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act - passed and signed under the Clinton Administration in 1996) has given states the option to NOT give Full Faith and Credit to same-sex marriages legal in other states.

DOMA does not allow states the option for same-sex couples.

I could make the argument, but it would be moot due to DOMA.

Thank you, drive through.

As an attorney, I would gladly take this guy's case because the arrest is entirely illegal. Under the full-faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, (Const. Art. IV, Sec 1), each state must recognize the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." In other words, if you legally marry in one state, other states must recognize the legality of that marriage. The state will lose this case.

Incidentally, this is why there's talk of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages--under this clause, a legal gay marriage in one case would probably have to be recognized in every other state.

Once again, I have to stifle laughter at how badly we've messed up our society.

Personally, I respect the guy for owning up to something that some people will find disgusting and at least making an effort to do something about it. Whether or not it will work is down to time now.

How in the hell can a 22 yr old find a 13 year old BABY old enough to be that close to them? This is gross! He is way too old for her and now the parents have turned a disaster into a tragedy. Teenage marriages rarely if ever last and she is still a child. She is in no way ready for motherhood much less marriage. Stupid parents probably allowed her to date him rather than discipline her and say no he is too old. Shame on them. I hope he goes up the river for at least 5 years. She is way too young for all of this. If he had been a real man in the first place he wouldnt go looking around at a jr. high school for his dates and date someone who is his age. Dating a baby? GRoss! She is supposed to be thinking of football games and who likes who in school not how am I going to go make the TAXPAYERS foot the bill for her stupid CHILDISH decisions. WE will be paying for her medicaid, WIC and everything else!!! STUPID!!!! I hope the state makes her parents pay for everything since they decided to circumvent the law and abuse it for their own purposes!!! :headbang:

I would, except that DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act - passed and signed under the Clinton Administration in 1996) has given states the option to NOT give Full Faith and Credit to same-sex marriages legal in other states.

DOMA does not allow states the option for same-sex couples.

I could make the argument, but it would be moot due to DOMA.

Thank you, drive through.


I believe that this act would undoubtedly be declared unconstitutional if challenged. I can explain further if you're interested.

Spoken like someone with absolutely no knowledge of the law.

They cannot "revoke" the marriage license. The marriage was valid in Kansas, and the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution requires that Nebraska honour the marriage. The "same-sex marriages" that were "revoked" weren't revoked at all - the marriages were invalid to begin with under the laws of the states where they were issued. That's the difference here - this "couple" has a valid license and is legally married. Any valid license cannot be "revoked" by the state.

While it's definitely frowned upon in this day and age - the marriage is valid according to the laws of Kansas, and is valid in all 50 states and territories of the United States.

Correct.

My personal morality says sex with someone that young is wrong.

However, the guy did the decent thing. Too many men just walk away from shit like this. I'll respect his decision to take responsibility for his actions.

As an analogy you could dare someone to do something stupid. If you walk away when they get hurt you amongst the worst kind of scum. If you help them you still did wrong but you are 'man' enough to deal with your actions.

As an attorney, I would gladly take this guy's case because the arrest is entirely illegal. Under the full-faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, (Const. Art. IV, Sec 1), each state must recognize the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." In other words, if you legally marry in one state, other states must recognize the legality of that marriage. The state will lose this case.

Incidentally, this is why there's talk of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages--under this clause, a legal gay marriage in one case would probably have to be recognized in every other state.

I'm not too sure the arrest is entirely illegal.

Hear me out on this one.

The girl got pregnant BEFORE the marriage at age 13. They were married AFTER the child was conceived. This is pretty damning proof of the 22 year old having sex with the 13 year old BEFORE marriage.

Nebraska (where the sexual contact took place) has an age of consent of 17. Therefore, assuming after the child is born the 22-year-old's paternity can be established, we have proof positive of a crime occuring in the state of Nebraska - statutory rape.

And the Constitutional Amendment isn't entirely necessary to prevent Full Faith and Credit from being applied - DOMA does that quite well right now, unless DOMA is found to be Unconstitutional - then the amendment would be necessary.

That JD Degree HAS done me some good. ;-)

I believe that this act would undoubtedly be declared unconstitutional if challenged. I can explain further if you're interested.

You don't have to.

I have a JD too. ;-)

I'm not too sure the arrest is entirely illegal.

Hear me out on this one.

The girl got pregnant BEFORE the marriage at age 13. They were married AFTER the child was conceived. This is pretty damning proof of the 22 year old having sex with the 13 year old BEFORE marriage.

Nebraska (where the sexual contact took place) has an age of consent of 17. Therefore, assuming after the child is born the 22-year-old's paternity can be established, we have proof positive of a crime occuring in the state of Nebraska - statutory rape.

And the Constitutional Amendment isn't entirely necessary to prevent Full Faith and Credit from being applied - DOMA does that quite well right now, unless DOMA is found to be Unconstitutional - then the amendment would be necessary.

That JD Degree HAS done me some good. ;-)

Ah-ha! I didn't realize that she was impregnated while in Nebraska. Ok, I agree with your analysis.

And speaking of analysis, I think that the poll question isn't really an "either/or" situation. One could say that he did the honorable thing, but that doesn't change the fact that he's a sicko.

I believe that this act would undoubtedly be declared unconstitutional if challenged. I can explain further if you're interested.

Could you or Angus Bear please explain this further? Or debate it between yourselves, I'm interested in learning about this. Thanks.

I posted earlier in #29 defending the states rights. I misread the article, didn't catch that she became pregnant under-age, prior to marriage, in Nebraska. As a non-lawyer it seems clear to me that Nebraska can bring charges against the man for statutory rape.

But that doesn't seem to be the central point which is whether the marriage is recognized in Nebraska. If it were recognized there could be no further charges of rape, pedophilia, etc.

“The idea ... is repugnant to me,” said Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning. “These people made the decision to send their ... 14-year-old daughter to Kansas to marry a pedophile.”

Kansas law labeled ‘ridiculous’
He said the marriage is valid, thanks to the “ridiculous” Kansas law, “but it doesn’t matter. I’m not going to stand by while a grown man ... has a relationship with a 13-year-old — now 14-year-old — girl.”

Does his moral/social view of the marriage justify the prosecution? hell, I'm a conservative guy and I have many reasons why I think it wrong - but I'm going to leave it to the good people of Kansas to change their own laws, and defend their right to self-determination.

Isn't reciprocity assumed, if not guaranteed, particularly in something as commonplace and socially accepted as marriage? Considering the above quote by the DA, can this be readily shown to be selective denial of reciprocity based on the DA's moral and social values? What defense is possible for the husband, and what are the legal ramifications for states rights if Nebraska wins and precedent is set?

Could you or Angus Bear please explain this further? Or debate it between yourselves, I'm interested in learning about this. Thanks.

I posted earlier in #29 defending the states rights. I misread the article, didn't catch that she became pregnant under-age, prior to marriage, in Nebraska. As a non-lawyer it seems clear to me that Nebraska can bring charges against the man for statutory rape.

But that doesn't seem to be the central point which is whether the marriage is recognized in Nebraska. If it were recognized there could be no further charges of rape, pedophilia, etc.

“The idea ... is repugnant to me,” said Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning. “These people made the decision to send their ... 14-year-old daughter to Kansas to marry a pedophile.”

Kansas law labeled ‘ridiculous’
He said the marriage is valid, thanks to the “ridiculous” Kansas law, “but it doesn’t matter. I’m not going to stand by while a grown man ... has a relationship with a 13-year-old — now 14-year-old — girl.”

Does his moral/social view of the marriage justify the prosecution? hell, I'm a conservative guy and I have many reasons why I think it wrong - but I'm going to leave it to the good people of Kansas to change their own laws, and defend their right to self-determination.

Isn't reciprocity assumed, if not guaranteed, particularly in something as commonplace and socially accepted as marriage? Considering the above quote by the DA, can this be readily shown to be selective denial of reciprocity based on the DA's moral and social values? What defense is possible for the husband, and what are the legal ramifications for states rights if Nebraska wins and precedent is set?

A couple of things. I too initally missed that she was first impregnated unwed in Nebraska. Under these circumstances, Nebraska shouldn't have any problem successfully prosecuting the guy because he committed statutory rape (sex with a woman younger than the age of legal consent.) Had they been married before engaging in sex, Nebraska wouldn't have a leg to stand on because the girl's parents effectively gave her the power to consent. You are correct that the central point is not whether the marriage is legal in Nebraska--however, the defense will nonetheless try to characterize that as being the central issue. They will do this to cloud the waters and, though likely unsuccessful, will in doing so at least be able to say "yeah, but they ARE married... are we really going to send a guy to jail for having sex with his wife?" The defense will hope this mitigates the severity of his sentence if (or more likely, "when") convicted.

A marriage entered into in one state is valid in all other states under the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" of the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 1. This may not apply to gay marriages, but the opinion in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) practically begs a challenge to be sent to the court so they can enforce the full faith and credit clause on it.

I have not read the Defense of Marriage Act, but I understand it to attempt to preclude the full faith and credit clause from being applied in matters of homosexual marriage. I can't imagine this provision being constitutional if challenged because the Congress can't modify the Constitution without an amendment, nor can it interpret the constitution (that's the judiciary's role).


But Congress still has an option short of a Constitutional Amendment. In most cases, including this one, Congress determines the scope of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. What this means is that Congress can pass a law that says "States shall not be required to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages. In matters of determining the constitutionality of denying the recognition of same-sex marriages pursuant to the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court of the United States shall not have appellate jurisdiction." In that case, the Court would not have jurisdiction--would not have the right--to determine the constitutionality of the law, and the law would stand (though arguably unconstitutional).

This last option is seldom used, and opponents of whatever law is being proposed will always piss and moan about it because (a) they're not getting their way, and (b) people don't know any better. But the reality is that it's very much an intended part of our checks-and-balances system of government. A balanced system would (and does) allow the Congress and the Executive branch make a decision to keep the Supreme Court in check by a simple but definite majority. If a constitutional amendment was needed everytime to disagree with the Court, the court would always prevail unless someone organized and convinced 2/3 of the congress + 3/4 of the states to go along--and excluding the executive branch alltogether in doing so. It's counterintuitive!

Could you or Angus Bear please explain this further? Or debate it between yourselves, I'm interested in learning about this. Thanks.

I posted earlier in #29 defending the states rights. I misread the article, didn't catch that she became pregnant under-age, prior to marriage, in Nebraska. As a non-lawyer it seems clear to me that Nebraska can bring charges against the man for statutory rape.

But that doesn't seem to be the central point which is whether the marriage is recognized in Nebraska. If it were recognized there could be no further charges of rape, pedophilia, etc.

“The idea ... is repugnant to me,” said Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning. “These people made the decision to send their ... 14-year-old daughter to Kansas to marry a pedophile.”

Kansas law labeled ‘ridiculous’
He said the marriage is valid, thanks to the “ridiculous” Kansas law, “but it doesn’t matter. I’m not going to stand by while a grown man ... has a relationship with a 13-year-old — now 14-year-old — girl.”

Does his moral/social view of the marriage justify the prosecution? hell, I'm a conservative guy and I have many reasons why I think it wrong - but I'm going to leave it to the good people of Kansas to change their own laws, and defend their right to self-determination.

Isn't reciprocity assumed, if not guaranteed, particularly in something as commonplace and socially accepted as marriage? Considering the above quote by the DA, can this be readily shown to be selective denial of reciprocity based on the DA's moral and social values? What defense is possible for the husband, and what are the legal ramifications for states rights if Nebraska wins and precedent is set?

You're right, as of now there can be no further charges of statutory rape against the male. However, PAST actions (as indicated by the 13-year-old getting pregnant before marriage) CAN be prosecuted as statutory rape.

The Prosecutor in this case isn't trying to get the marriage overturned - that won't happen as a matter of law - but he *IS* trying to pursue the case based on the only charge he has available, statutory rape.

It's akin to what the US government did against Al Capone - they couldn't nail him on his Mob activities, so they got him on Tax Evasion. The prosecutor thinks the whole situation is wrong, and he may be right, but the only legal avenue he has is the statutory rape charge - and he's got the discretion whether or not to pursue it.

There's no attempt to deny the validity of the marriage. Any such attempt would be found to be unconsitutional pretty damn quickly (the afformentioned Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution).

As for the discussion of whether the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) would be found to be unconstitutional - it's possible it MAY...but since it only gives the option for denying Full Faith and Credit in one particular instance, it might not be wiped off the books as being unconstitutional. If it is, then the marriage amendment might be pushed through. I think that's why you haven't seen anyone challenge DOMA yet - they know that if they do it now, it's likely that a Consitutional Amendment will pass - it's better to wait for the attitudes of the country to change, to soften on the idea of same-sex marriage, and THEN try to get DOMA overturned. It's more of a strategy thing right now.

<snip>

I have not read the Defense of Marriage Act, but I understand it to attempt to preclude the full faith and credit clause from being applied in matters of homosexual marriage. I can't imagine this provision being constitutional if challenged because the Congress can't modify the Constitution without an amendment, nor can it interpret the constitution (that's the judiciary's role).

<snip>



Thanks, BT. If I understand the DoMA (text below), then Nebraska can prosecute the husband for statutory rape by refusing to recognize the "ridiculous" Kansas marriage law. Am I correct? Doesn't the DoMA effectively disable the full faith and credit clause? BTW, contrary to popular opinion, you lawyers come in handy once in a while!

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the "Defense of Marriage Act".

SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by adding after section 1738B the following:

Section 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect
thereof

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian
tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or
judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe
respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is
treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory,
possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such
relationship."

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm

Sorry... my brain must not be working right. The DoMA clearly says "between persons of the same sex".

I'll withdraw the question. If you read it the way I was, it's an alarming thing to pass into law.

Thanks to both of you for the education.

People don't like us in the abstract only. Whenever you need anything done, we're your best friend.

I would, except that DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act - passed and signed under the Clinton Administration in 1996) has given states the option to NOT give Full Faith and Credit to same-sex marriages legal in other states.

DOMA does not allow states the option for same-sex couples.

I could make the argument, but it would be moot due to DOMA.

Thank you, drive through.

Wait, so laws overwrite the constitution now?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

When did that happen!?!?!?!?!?

So, if a law was passed that said "GA doesn't have to recognize marriages from Kansas," that would be constitutional?

You're right, as of now there can be no further charges of statutory rape against the male. However, PAST actions (as indicated by the 13-year-old getting pregnant before marriage) CAN be prosecuted as statutory rape.

The Prosecutor in this case isn't trying to get the marriage overturned - that won't happen as a matter of law - but he *IS* trying to pursue the case based on the only charge he has available, statutory rape.

It's akin to what the US government did against Al Capone - they couldn't nail him on his Mob activities, so they got him on Tax Evasion. The prosecutor thinks the whole situation is wrong, and he may be right, but the only legal avenue he has is the statutory rape charge - and he's got the discretion whether or not to pursue it.

There's no attempt to deny the validity of the marriage. Any such attempt would be found to be unconsitutional pretty damn quickly (the afformentioned Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution).

As for the discussion of whether the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) would be found to be unconstitutional - it's possible it MAY...but since it only gives the option for denying Full Faith and Credit in one particular instance, it might not be wiped off the books as being unconstitutional. If it is, then the marriage amendment might be pushed through. I think that's why you haven't seen anyone challenge DOMA yet - they know that if they do it now, it's likely that a Consitutional Amendment will pass - it's better to wait for the attitudes of the country to change, to soften on the idea of same-sex marriage, and THEN try to get DOMA overturned. It's more of a strategy thing right now.

I agree with everything you wrote, except in the last paragraph, but that all comes down to opinion and perception anyway. :) So we're good.

As an attorney, I would gladly take this guy's case because the arrest is entirely illegal. Under the full-faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, (Const. Art. IV, Sec 1), each state must recognize the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." In other words, if you legally marry in one state, other states must recognize the legality of that marriage. The state will lose this case.

As an attorney, you should pay more attention to detail.

This guy had sex with the child before getting married, in a state where it is illegal. They are not refusing to accept the marriage, they are prosecuting him for a crime committed well before the marriage - and one on which I am certain the statute of limitations has not run out.

However, the guy did the decent thing. Too many men just walk away from shit like this. I'll respect his decision to take responsibility for his actions.

The "decent thing" would have been to help financially and emotionally care for the child being born (or pay for medical bills if the girl decided to abort). The decent thing is certainly *not* getting the girl into a worse situation by marrying her - a marriage that is almost certain to fail. Even when grown adults get married because of a pregnancy, the marriage rarely lasts. This situation is even worse. A 13-year old is not old enough to make that type of decision, and her parents should be punished severely for allowing it.

As an attorney, you should pay more attention to detail.

This guy had sex with the child before getting married, in a state where it is illegal. They are not refusing to accept the marriage, they are prosecuting him for a crime committed well before the marriage - and one on which I am certain the statute of limitations has not run out.

As you read the rest of the threads, I'm sure you'll see that this correction was noted.

After you spend four years in undergrad, three years in law school, serve two clerkships, pass the bar exam, and open your own practice, please feel free to come back to me and tell me that I should pay more attention to details that won't contribute one cent to paying off the remainder of my unusually low student debt of $50,000. k? Please don't attempt to undermine my legal credibility. (burn!)

Wait, so laws overwrite the constitution now?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

When did that happen!?!?!?!?!?

So, if a law was passed that said "GA doesn't have to recognize marriages from Kansas," that would be constitutional?

It would be until it was challenged in the courts.

DOMA has yet to be challenged.

It would be until it was challenged in the courts.

DOMA has yet to be challenged.

This is a matter of semantics, but if a law is unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional. The courts will presumably recognize it as such once it's challenged. Let's not walk any further down this path :)

This is a matter of semantics, but if a law is unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional. The courts will presumably recognize it as such once it's challenged. Let's not walk any further down this path :)

It's not unconstitutional until it's ruled as such by the courts, and, in most instances, by the US Supreme Court. Until then, arguments on BOTH sides are valid.

I can see DOMA passing a strict scrutiny test by a 5-4 margin in the Supreme Court.

Until DOMA is challenged, it is still law and can be used by any state not wishing to accept same-sex marriages validly entered into in another state.

Yeah, it's a technicality, but it's a valid one - you can't just ignore the law simply because you think it might be Unconstitutional.

It's not unconstitutional until it's ruled as such by the courts, and, in most instances, by the US Supreme Court. Until then, arguments on BOTH sides are valid.

I can see DOMA passing a strict scrutiny test by a 5-4 margin in the Supreme Court.

Until DOMA is challenged, it is still law and can be used by any state not wishing to accept same-sex marriages validly entered into in another state.

Yeah, it's a technicality, but it's a valid one - you can't just ignore the law simply because you think it might be Unconstitutional.

I dispute this, but that's ok.

Unconstitutional means not in accordance with the principles set forth under the constitution. A law can be not in accordance with the principles set forth under the constitution before a court opinion holds that this is the case. A law outlawing all speech, religions, news media, petitions and assembly would not be in accordance with the principles set forth under the constitution no matter what a court opinion does nor does not decree. Therefore, a law may be unconstitutional without so being rendered by a court.

Secondly, I don't believe that a strict scrutiny (or any level scrutiny, for that matter) has ever been used to uphold a law contrary to the full faith and credit clause. I could be mistaken. Is there specific precident that you can think of to support this? If you're right, and the court has in the past applied a strict scrutiny standard to uphold a law otherwise contrary to that clause, my certainty of DOMA's overturn would definitely erode substantially.

Lastly, I could, and would violate laws I believed were unconstitutional--especially if the courts had not yet chimed in. Of course, if the courts disagree with me, I could end up in serious trouble by doing so!

Secondly, I don't believe that a strict scrutiny (or any level scrutiny, for that matter) has ever been used to uphold a law contrary to the full faith and credit clause. I could be mistaken. Is there specific precident that you can think of to support this? If you're right, and the court has in the past applied a strict scrutiny standard to uphold a law otherwise contrary to that clause, my certainty of DOMA's overturn would definitely erode substantially.



I'm not sure what level of scrutiny has been applied to Full Faith and Credit, but I chose the most restrictive - Strict Scrutiny - as, on its face, DOMA does seem in violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause. Strict Scrutiny places the burden of proof on the the government and the law is presumed unconstituional. Therefore, to be considered Constitutional, there must be:

1. A Ligitimate Governmental Purpose
2. a Compelling Governmental Purpose
3. the law must be likely to achieve its goal
4. there must be no less restrictive alternative

It's likely that Strict Scrutiny could be applied and all four could be found. It's also likely that the court could find no ligitimate or compelling governmental purpose.

Since Full Faith and Credit isn't a fundamental right, it's possible that Intermediate Scrutiny or Rational Basis could be applied. Both of these presume the law is constitutional and the burden of proof is on the challengers. It would be a LOT easier to pass either of these two tests.

Not all laws that infringe on rights are unconstitutional...there CAN be restrictions on freedom of Speech, for example, so long as they restrict the place and manner of speech and not the content. They just have to pass the Strictest test to be found Constitutional.