Kansas sets minimum marriage age

[richlevy]

Showing that even the most backward idiots once in a while recognize that they are backwards idiots, Kansas has set a minimum marriage age. This was in response to a mother shipping her pregnant daughter and boyfriend to Kanas to get married.

So 15-year-olds can still get married in Kansas as long as they're not gay.

The sex part is tricky, since some religions require consummation for a marriage to take effect. So if Kansas said that a couple could marry but could not have sex for a year, they would be violating religious laws.

Kansas has established 15 as the minimum marriage age in the state. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius signed a bill into law Wednesday, though it won't take effect until July.
Lawmakers were moved to action after a pregnant 14-year-old girl moved to the state to marry her 22-year-old boyfriend. Previously, Kansas set no minimum age if a parent or judge approved of the union.
Sebelius said she wants to protect young people from harm and prevent abusers from using marriage as a way to conceal their abuse, and pointed out that the law now specifies 18 as the age someone can marry without parental or judicial consent.
The new bill makes provisions for 16- and 17-year-olds and, if a judge approves, 15-year-olds can marry.

Eric Rucker, chief of staff for Kansas attorney general Phill Kline, questioned the logic of setting the bar at 15.
"How is it that a person can get married at 15," he asked, "when the general law of the state of Kansas says you cannot consent to sexual activity until you're 16?"

[xoxoxoBruce]

You mean they have to stop having sex for a whole year between 14 and 16?

[KinkyVixen]

Kansas is just gay in general. I know. I live (t)here.

[9th Engineer]

Well wait a second. I'm assuming the line about consenting to sexual activity only comes into play when there's a significant age gap. So two 15 year olds married in Kansas won't be subject to any restrictions not imposed on non-married teens. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that the only people caught by the 'old enough to marry but not old enough to consent' contradiction are those who weren't really supposed to be doing it in the first place.

This hurts my head.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Well wait a second. I'm assuming the line about consenting to sexual activity only comes into play when there's a significant age gap.

I think that's a bad assumption. If two 15 year olds get caught the boy gets charged.....as usual.

[SteveDallas]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

This hurts my head.

Then you probably ought not to read these tidbits of Kansas law, courtesy of our friends at www.ageofconsent.com.

21-3505. Criminal sodomy. (a) Criminal sodomy is:

(1) Sodomy between persons who are 16 or more years of age and members of the same sex or between a person and an animal;

(2) sodomy with a child who is 14 or more years of age but less than 16 years of age; or

(3) causing a child 14 or more years of age but less than 16 years of age to engage in sodomy with any person or animal.

(b) It shall be a defense to a prosecution of criminal sodomy as provided in subsection (a)(2) that the child was married to the accused at the time of the offense.

(c) Criminal sodomy as provided in subsection (a)(1) is a class B nonperson misdemeanor. Criminal sodomy as provided in subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) is a severity level 3, person felony.




Statute 21-3503
Chapter 21.--CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
Article 35.--SEX OFFENSES

21-3503. Indecent liberties with a child. (a) Indecent liberties with a child is engaging in any of the following acts with a child who is 14 or more years of age but less than 16 years of age:

(1) Any lewd fondling or touching of the person of either the child or the offender, done or submitted to with the intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the offender, or both; or

(2) soliciting the child to engage in any lewd fondling or touching of the person of another with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of the child, the offender or another.

(b) It shall be a defense to a prosecution of indecent liberties with a child as described in subsection (a)(1) that the child was married to the accused at the time of the offense.

(c) Indecent liberties with a child is a severity level 5, person felony.

SOURCE: http://www.ink.org/public/legislativ...s/statutes.cgi


21-3502. Rape. (a) Rape is:
(1) Sexual intercourse with a person who does not consent to the sexual intercourse, under any of the following circumstances:
(A) When the victim is overcome by force or fear;
(B) when the victim is unconscious or physically powerless; or
(C) when the victim is incapable of giving consent because of mental deficiency or disease, or when the victim is incapable of giving consent because of the effect of any alcoholic liquor, narcotic, drug or other substance, which condition was known by the offender or was reasonably apparent to the offender;
(2) sexual intercourse with a child who is under 14 years of age;
(3) sexual intercourse with a victim when the victim's consent was obtained through a knowing misrepresentation made by the offender that the sexual intercourse was a medically or therapeutically necessary procedure;or
(4) sexual intercourse with a victim when the victim's consent was obtained through a knowing misrepresentation made by the offender that the sexual intercourse was a legally required procedure within the scope of the offender's authority.
(b) It shall be a defense to a prosecution of rape under subsection (a)(2) that the child was married to the accused at the time of the offense. (c) Rape as described in subsection (a)(1) or (2) is a severity level 1, person felony. Rape as described in subsection (a)(3) or (4) is a severity level 2, person felony.

[Sun_Sparkz]

uh, thanks

[9th Engineer]

It shall be a defense to a prosecution of ... that the child was married to the accused at the time of the offense.

That really turns my stomach. Any lawmaker who finds himself needing to add clauses because the crime is excusable within marriage needs to seriously reevaluate his role in society.

[wolf]

So, wait ... I can sodomize someone over 16 and of the opposite sex and be in the clear, right? Am I reading that properly?

[BigV]

Maybe that's only recreational and not criminal sodomy.

[Clodfobble]

As long as it's consenting sodomy of a 17-year-old of the opposite sex, then sure.

[BigV]

So, aside from our obvious not sodomy cases, who's guilty? The penetrator or the penetratee or both?

[wolf]

Simple, who ever has the penis.

Oh, and is older.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Somebody's going to look at that seven-year age difference too, sooner or later. Age spreads are important in some state laws in determining an offense. California, for one, doesn't get bothered if a couple of adolescent minors of less than five years' difference of age make some whoopee, but will act on a twentysomething groping a mid-teen. Particularly on a complaint.