4 ms·
1) What the author of that article calls "rape" is probably a "statutory rape" which is a very different thing than actual violent rape that most readers visual
by dennisgorelik 9y ago
1) What the author of that article calls "rape" is probably a "statutory rape" which is a very different thing than actual violent rape that most readers visualize.
2) "it did interrupt Johnson’s attendance at elementary school"
That is baloney.
Why would marriage interrupt school attendance? Sherry just used her pregnancy and marriage as an excuse not go to school. That was her choice and had nothing to do with her legal status.
3) "two-thirds of marriages of underage girls don’t last"
So what? Half of marriages do not last. Does it mean we have to ban all the marriages now?
Or, may be, we should ban employment, because employment does not last too?
How about one third of underage marriages that actually do last? Why should we ban them?
- Mz 9y agoIf you read the full article, this was probably actually rape, compounded by it being child rape. But I do agree that changing marriage laws doesn't really fix the situation described. The grown men raping little girls should be prosecuted for it instead of getting the girl handed over to them by the parents. Changing the marriage laws won't solve something so deeply sick and twisted. The situation described is a case of serious local corruption. They issued marriage licenses to put an end to rape investigations. Totally messed up stuff, not easily fixed.