Am I reading this wrong. Chris Christie just vetoed a law that prohibits those < 18 to marry w/o parental permission & those < 16 would require a courts permission. He vetoed this. So now a 50 yr old can marry a 12 yr old. Is that right?
No. From your linked article "Instead, the Governor recommended that the ban should only apply to those under 16 years-old and that for minors aged 16 and 17, judicial approval should be issued in order to obtain a marriage license."
A 50 year old will not be able to marry a 12 year old.
Oh geez. I can't read all that legalese. I'll be suicidal if I try. Let me know what you find out. But what's the point of the legislation and why would he veto it.
Here's what I get out of it. "Governor recommended that the ban should only apply to those under 16 years-old and that for minors aged 16 and 17, judicial approval should be issued in order to obtain a marriage license."
So he wants a ban but not for 16/17. Those need special approval. Apparently he believes that the law should be rewritten. I'm not sure he's wrong. My friends daughter was just married. She just turned 16. She got pregnant with her 16 year old boyfriend when she was 15. They want to do the right thing. And now that she's 16 she can legally marry with her mom's permission. I'm a little worried about the 3500 girls as young as 13 were married. That's bizarre. Who is marrying these girls? Muslims? So they need legislation. But a ban under 18 was too much for Christy. After all. The law was going to allow for 16 year olds to have sex, but not marriage? That's a bit ludicrous.
He vetoed a bill that would have prohibited all minors entering into marriage or civil unions. He proposed putting more restrictions on New Jersey’s current law, which allows 16- and 17-year-olds to obtain marriage licenses with parental consent, and grants them to those under 16 with a family court judge’s permission.
Show of Hands
Comments: Add Comment