Breaking Non-News: In Louisiana's Push For Minimum Marriage Age, Story Is Mischaracterized In PSF
By rockaction, June 9, 2019 in The Politics Forum
rockaction 15,141
Location:Anywhere one looks askance
Interests:Shenanigans
Read the link.
Same as Furley's.
https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/legislature/article_920fdaf0-85a4-11e9-a334-bb5f784e01c1.html
Edited June 9, 2019 by rockaction
What a ####### waste of serious energy. Republicans sought to raise the minimum age to seventeen years old to protect children from trafficking and rape, and other Republicans objected, responded with instituting a minimum age of fifteen instead of no minimum.
timschochet 25,512
1 minute ago, rockaction said:
What a ####### waste of serious energy
You mean starting a new thread?
Jk I don't care; I do it all the time.
6 minutes ago, timschochet said:
It was just annoying me sitting there as an op-ed with no response other than having to argue it and it being buried in the thread. My take on starting threads is that if someone op-eds or misleads in the title, and they're not a regular contributor to the PSF, then answer it with a title.
[scooter] 11,895
It's poor form to try to steal someone's thread just because you disagree with their thread title.
Edited June 9, 2019 by [scooter]
3 minutes ago, rockaction said:
6 minutes ago, [scooter] said:
It's not a disagreement. It's an outright misrepresentation and I could give two flying ####s what you think about form
If you think that a thread title is a misrepresentation, then the classy thing to do would be to say so in that thread, rather than clutter the board with another narcissistic "look at me" thread.
My post was not edited, but deleted.
edit: but feel free to raise hell with the mods.
1 minute ago, [scooter] said:
I wasn't going to raise hell about anything with the mods. They can do as they like. I guess you're cross-posting from other threads now, squistion.
Just now, rockaction said:
I wasn't going to raise hell about anything with the mods. They can do as they like. I guess you're cross-posting from other threads now
...which wouldn't have happened if you had showed some class by staying in Furley's thread in the first place.
...which is exactly why duplicate threads are a nuisance which unnecessarily clutter the board.
Just now, [scooter] said:
If you take out an op-ed, expect an op-ed back, especially if that op-ed isn't based in fact.
SaintsInDome2006 42,368
Location:New Orleans
46 minutes ago, rockaction said:
Buddy, Louisiana has done worse things. I realize at times I must seem really jaundiced but this state politically is a sty. I say that despite some wonderful qualities and accomplishments but I'll put our amoral hypocrisy and corruption up against almost anyone. It does get worse than this but I won't get into it.
And it's not a Republican/ Democratic thing, these guys would switch parties if it befitted them. Heck John Alario is the most powerful man in almost any given state government and he did do just that. We have a Dem Governor and he's almost indistinguishable from a Republican.
Edited June 9, 2019 by SaintsInDome2006
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:
And it's not a Republican/ Democratic things, these guys would switch parties if it befitted them. Heck John Alaric is the most powerful man in the country and he do just that. We have a Dem Governor and he's almost indistinguishable from a Republican.
I don't doubt it. You're way more familiar with it than I am. I was just intra-boarding.
squistion 10,575
Location:Los Angeles
If one has an issue with a thread title they find misleading, the place to address it is in that thread or by reporting it to the mods rather than cluttering the board with a competing or contrary thread title.
Also in the past it has been frowned upon to single out any poster by name and criticize them in a thread title - which arguably is trolling.
Edited June 9, 2019 by squistion
I'd agree you should take the poster's name out the thread title, that's not cool. (Sorry just being honest).
Removing the name removes accountability and the passive voice does not suffice for the original transgression.
It's not trolling. The thread title has been changed to the passive voice regardless.
Drunken Cowboy 455
Location:North Carolina
You don't find it bothersome that the was resistance to raising the minimum age to 17?
7 minutes ago, Drunken Cowboy said:
Not when there's no minimum age to begin with and all marriages that are granted sixteen year olds and under are subject to judicial review/approval. That's pretty standard. The age of majority has never been the age of marriage consent in America.
Really sounds like an issue of checks and balances and a separation of powers issue, too. The state legislature obviously doesn't trust the courts to do their job effectively, or the courts have, in their own way, asked the state legislature to remove some of the burdens upon them regarding the handling of these cases.
Whatever the case, according to the article, it's hardly just one party or conservatives as a block that are preventing this. It probably has lots to do with local law, autonomy, judicial autonomy, etc.
Cowboysfan8 6,127
3 hours ago, squistion said:
You and scooter think alot alike
Henry Ford 59,085
Location:The Worst Timeline
I've been involved with this bill. I'm not sure I'm following all your criticism.
Also, worth noting that "Republican" and "Conservative" are not interchangeable terms in Louisiana politics.
18 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:
My criticism was of the thread title in the PSF, not the bill, though I'm ambivalent about the bill.
I generally always note that "Republican" and "Conservative" are not interchangeable in any respect. The "conservative wing of the Republican/Democratic party" is the sentence I always use to remind myself of that.
The article linked had one conservative (and family lawyer, according to other articles) up in arms about the bill while another Republican wanted the age raised. I assumed that her law-and-order stance (she wanted to fight forced prostitution and trafficking) came from a conservative outlook, though that may be a bad assumption.
I don't know. It seems that the way the title of thread was going that it was an op-ed on the front page of the PSF and I responded in turn.
Edited June 10, 2019 by rockaction
The fight to get this bill passed was a massive surprise even in this state. Even as such it still has a provision allowing 16 and 17 year olds to have judge and parent approval and get married.
Just now, Henry Ford said:
Yeah, I can see how it would be surprising, but parens patriae is generally a difficult thing to establish when the actual parents have had the authority before the state comes in and requests it. I'm not sure how I feel about the bill and the thorny issue of disallowing parents their previously-held right, but the provision of judicial approval seems wise to me. It seems to be a state check on what is the state's imprimatur or sanction of marriage vows and contract for those that have not reached the age of majority.
That's not the surprising part.
6 hours ago, Henry Ford said:
Hey Henry, not sure I follow you here. You know more about this than me. What surprised you in the process of getting the bill passed?
5 hours ago, rockaction said:
The total and complete pushback against setting an age under which children could not get married. 16/17 year olds getting judge approval? I guess everyone can live with that if it's the only way to get it passed. But that wasn't what the other side wanted, it's the compromise they agreed to when the press hit.
There was a sizeable biblical contingent who wanted to make sure everyone knew God is fine with adults marrying kids. 27 legislators still voted against this bill.
1 hour ago, Henry Ford said:
Ah, okay. I actually thought that was what you were surprised by, I just must not have expressed myself well in the previous post. I was going to the pushback as being unsurprising given that parens patriae is never an easy concept for deeply religious communities. Not in public school and religion, not in public health (see: smallpox vaccine), and certainly not marriage. I guess I'm not surprised by the pushback knowing the responses to other Progressive-Era institutions that have been promulgated in areas that have not had them or have managed to avoid them.
I guess that's all. I thought that is what it was.
The pushback against this bill was to at least some extent from people who believe that the only goal of marriage is procreation, and therefore that once you can procreate you can get married.
Some opponents to the bill don't think Roy Moore did anything wrong. Not that he didn't try to sleep with 15 year old girls when he was in his 30s, that there's nothing wrong with that because it's in the Bible.
1 minute ago, Henry Ford said:
Regarding the bolded, that's an odd order for folks that follow the Bible.
Regarding your second paragraph, the social and cultural divide grows in this country.
Why is that odd for folks who follow the Bible? In Biblical times, the age at which you became a man or woman was the age you could get married. Bar mitzvah/Bat mitzvah is that age. That was 13 for boys and 12 for girls. Now 13 for both
I misread you. I thought that it was actual procreation first, then marriage, not the ability to procreatej, therefore marriage. Sorry.
Sure. Makes perfect sense, then. My reading was off.