NE to Parents: We're Better at Raising Your Kids

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 12:04 pm

Just as you don't get to decide that issue, just cos YOU think the parents fucked up doesn't mean you're correct about their shit. I find arguments about this almost moot as not one fucking person here knows enough to start making sweeping judgements.

13-year old was impregnated by 21-year old. Parents agree to get them married in another state. Nebraska cops arrest & jail the dude sometime after their return.

That's FUCKING IT.

Whether or not the state is justified in this decision ain't the point. The question is should they have the authority to do so.

Post by **GORDON** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 12:08 pm

Well, what I think this boils down to is that I think that parents should be given the benefit of the doubt as to how to take care of their kids, and others think the parents are always suspect, and the state should feel free to step in. Because the state knows how to raise kids.

You will never convince me that as a general rule, the state is better at raising kids than their own parents are.

I spose y'all will be campaigning in Kansas to get their ruled changed regarding 12 year old girls getting married w/parental consent? No, you already decided that the state knows best. What a conundrum. Legal in Kansas, illegal in Nebraska... what to do, what to do.

mbilderback · Post by **mbilderback** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 12:21 pm

Malcom's right, I don't have enough information... I find it difficult to see a situation where it would be ok, but nothing says I have thought of them all. However, I think your sweeping statment about the state swooping in and arresting the guy as wrong is also presumptive. Maybe they shouldn't have or maybe they should have, I'll admit I assumed a bit and jumped the gun on some of my comments, but you did just as bad. And personally, I think you went on the side that had the least chance of being right.

DoctorChaos · Post by **DoctorChaos** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 12:23 pm

We've got a couple things going on.

1) The recognition of a marriage from another state. A lot of folks on the board are ex-service or currently in. Seeing how they move around a bunch, should they have to get married in every state they reside? Even overseas it's recognized. Now we're saying that based on age or sexual orientation (should be discussed in another thread if interested) another state can choose not to recognize it. This has an effect with respect to health insurance, next of kin, etc.

2) More important is the recognition that the parents intentions, no matter how misguided in this case, were to give their daughter what they perceived to be better life. It also forces the father and mother to assume responsibilty. I'm speaking of the 13 and 21 year olds.

Now this thread may just be a misunderstanding on our part. Perhaps he was arrested for the relations prior to the marriage. That would constitute statutory rape. However, I thought someone other than the state had to press charges.

My $.02

Post by **GORDON** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 12:56 pm

Malcom's right, I don't have enough information... I find it difficult to see a situation where it would be ok, but nothing says I have thought of them all. However, I think your sweeping statment about the state swooping in and arresting the guy as wrong is also presumptive. Maybe they shouldn't have or maybe they should have, I'll admit I assumed a bit and jumped the gun on some of my comments, but you did just as bad. And personally, I think you went on the side that had the least chance of being right.

As far as I'm concerned, gov't NEVER makes the best decision, compared to what people make for themselves. I think mine is a much healthier attitude than yours.

In my original, front page post the only time I did any speculating outside of the original news article was that it was probably a hard decision for the parents. Although I guess I assumed without any proof that the parents loved their daughter...

The first line of my post was "As far as I can glean from recent news reports..." which is my way of saying I don't have all the information. I just tend to err on the side of people over government.

mbilderback · Post by **mbilderback** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:15 pm

We've got a couple things going on.

1) The recognition of a marriage from another state. A lot of folks on the board are ex-service or currently in. Seeing how they move around a bunch, should they have to get married in every state they reside? Even overseas it's recognized. Now we're saying that based on age or sexual orientation (should be discussed in another thread if interested) another state can choose not to recognize it. This has an effect with respect to health insurance, next of kin, etc.

2) More important is the recognition that the parents intentions, no matter how misguided in this case, were to give their daughter what they perceived to be better life. It also forces the father and mother to assume responsibilty. I'm speaking of the 13 and 21 year olds.

Now this thread may just be a misunderstanding on our part. Perhaps he was arrested for the relations prior to the marriage. That would constitute statutory rape. However, I thought someone other than the state had to press charges.

My $.02

Here's where I perceive ideas bounding into unknown territory.

1) Nothing in the article has said that the marriage was not considered legal or binding. Just that he was arrested, my bet is that he was arrested for statutory rape.

2) I agree with this. The parents have the right to give consent and allow the two to marry. However, this does not absolve the 21 year old of previous illegal acts.

As I said above, I bet he was arrested for statutory rape after they found out that a 13 year old was pregnant before marriage. And FYI, the state can press statutory rape charges without a complaintant, I believe they can't in normal (+18 yr old) rape. The facts of the case are pretty clear cut as far as I can tell, and if I were a DA in NE, I'd definately try to press charges.

And Gordon:

As far as I'm concerned, gov't NEVER makes the best decision, compared to what people make for themselves. I think mine is a much healthier attitude than yours.

Typically I'd agree, but in the end, this is irrelevant to the case. A 21 yr old had sex with a 13 yr old. That is a poster case for statutory rape, whether or not the parents agreed, it was illegal and the 21yr old knew that.

In my original, front page post the only time I did any speculating outside of the original news article was that it was probably a hard decision for the parents. Although I guess I assumed without any proof that the parents loved their daughter...

But after the fact, you're putting a lot of assumptions into the article.

The first line of my post was "As far as I can glean from recent news reports..." which is my way of saying I don't have all the information. I just tend to err on the side of people over government.

So do I, I just think that this is way over the line. Just because you get married after the fact doesn't mean it wasn't statutory rape. Are you saying that Mary Lauteurno or however you spell her name shouldn't have been imprisoned? She wanted to marry the boy she raped, hell, they're married now.

Post by **TheCatt** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:23 pm

Laws and the adherance to them is what makes us civilized. Check out what goes on in Utah these days and let me know that it is acceptable.
You mean the state w\ the porn czar?
No where the 50 and 60 year old men take 12 and 13 year olds as wives. Against the law but the govt turns their heads. Sorry but I think the young ones do deserve the law to protect them.

It's up to their parents to "protect" them, not the law.

Post by **TheCatt** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:24 pm

Well, what I think this boils down to is that I think that parents should be given the benefit of the doubt as to how to take care of their kids, and others think the parents are always suspect, and the state should feel free to step in. Because the state knows how to raise kids.

You will never convince me that as a general rule, the state is better at raising kids than their own parents are.

I spose y'all will be campaigning in Kansas to get their ruled changed regarding 12 year old girls getting married w/parental consent? No, you already decided that the state knows best. What a conundrum. Legal in Kansas, illegal in Nebraska... what to do, what to do.

I agree, 100%.

mbilderback · Post by **mbilderback** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:33 pm

I guess I just don't have that kind of faith in parents. You know, when parents sell their kids on the street for their next meth hit, why does the state step in? The parent is doing what he or she thinks is right....right?

Fact is, there are a lot of people, (like this 13 yr old) who are unprepared to have children. It doesn't matter how old they are, but since there's no maturity test before you're allowed to conceive, there are unprepared parents. The government HAS to set baselines for principles that society feels are the minimum necessary rules that parents have to live by. But again, this is completely irrelevant.

Here's the way I see it, you have two choices:
1. Either you agree with the state arresting this 21 year old pedophile, OR
2. You change the law and eliminate sexual contact with a minor as an offense unless the parents press charges.

Meaning if a father decides to molest his little girl, it's ok because the parent isn't going to press charges on himself...right?

DoctorChaos · Post by **DoctorChaos** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 2:10 pm

As I said above, I bet he was arrested for statutory rape after they found out that a 13 year old was pregnant before marriage. And FYI, the state can press statutory rape charges without a complaintant, I believe they can't in normal (+18 yr old) rape. The facts of the case are pretty clear cut as far as I can tell, and if I were a DA in NE, I'd definately try to press charges.

But is the baby admissable evidence? :laugh:

Post by **GORDON** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 3:17 pm

Almost every marred male in the world prior to the year 1900 was a pedophile, apparently.

mbilderback · Post by **mbilderback** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 3:18 pm

Almost every marred male in the world prior to the year 1900 was a pedophile, apparently.

Apparently, in your world, times don't change.

mbilderback · Post by **mbilderback** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 3:24 pm

According to your logic, I should tell my boss to get her black ass out and pick me some cotton, but I won't since I figure society progresses at some point.

Post by **GORDON** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 3:26 pm

People don't change, morality just gets legislated more as time goes on. What used to be normal and ordinary is now called sick pedophilia.

Nobody is going to get elected, or reelected, on a platform of, say, legalizing prostitution. Their opponent, even if he agrees at heart, will be saying, "My opponent is for the moral corruption of society."

"Do it for the protection of the children" has been getting people in office since they poisoned Socrates for corrupting the youth. You pretend to be shocked by all this, but I imagine you'll change your tune on state intervention the first time you spank your kid in Walmart for throwing a temper tantrum, and you are met at the door by police and a social worker who throw you in jail and the kid in foster care until it is determined you aren't a danger.

I think we're off topic.

Post by **GORDON** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 3:29 pm

According to your logic, I should tell my boss to get her black ass out and pick me some cotton, but I won't since I figure society progresses at some point.

That's about as relevant to this conversation as MD's "Utah won't enforce polygamy laws!" argument.

But it sure is visceral, and emotionally loaded!

DoctorChaos · Post by **DoctorChaos** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 3:31 pm

Now we just need to mention Nazi's and we can close the thread. Opps

mbilderback · Post by **mbilderback** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 3:33 pm

So, basically, you're saying that slavery should never have been banned, statutory rape is a law that shouldn't exist, and divorce shouldn't exist? All these are things that, as a society, were agreed to need to be changed. Fact is, times and laws change.

Post by **GORDON** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 3:36 pm

I know, I just said that morality gets legislated more as time goes on.

And slavery doesn't really fit into a morality argument. Our Constitution gives protection to all people born in America, not just the white ones. It was so entrenched into American life that it took a war to settle the issue.

mbilderback · Post by **mbilderback** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 3:42 pm

I know, I just said that morality gets legislated more as time goes on.

And slavery doesn't really fit into a morality argument. Our Constitution gives protection to all people born in America, not just the white ones. It was so entrenched into American life that it took a war to settle the issue.

Gordo, damn, for once, I'm calling you an idiot. Have you no concept of how, as times and practices change so must laws? In a perfect world, sure, this wouldn't be a problem and children wouldn't have sex until they were mature enough, whatever the age, and parents could rest assured that nothing like this would happen. BUT, in the real f-in world, there are a bunch of sick perverts out there and there needs to be laws in place to prosecute. I see this as one of those times.

Post by **GORDON** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 3:45 pm

So why is it legal for a 12 year old girl to get married in Kansas, with parental consent?