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?
Generally Christie is an Ass
I would not be surprised if your interpretation is correct
No... my take is, the 12 year old is still underage!
16 year old is not!
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.
Correction, his veto continues to allow what had been in place, but he recommends a less restrictive law.
So a 50 year old marring a 16 year old is okay?
It's not okay in my World!!
That is where the judicial consent comes in. I wouldn't approve, but it is legal in ALL states since this law would have made New Jersey the
"The bill that would have made New Jersey the first US state to ban child marriage without exceptions ".
Even AZ and CA
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.
Are you asking if that's what the law is that he vetoed or if it's morally right?
I'm asking if he vetoed a law that now would make child marriages legal. It seems inconceivable to me.
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.
The law allows for it now. Nothing has changed. Why in gods name did New Jersey not ban 13 year olds from being married?
I think Christy's proposal is fair. The one he vetoed made no sense if you are going to allow 16 year olds to have sex but not get married.