.JPG)
I would have preferred that this thread not be split into five parts, but it's been a weird, political year, hasn't it?
That's reflected itself in the legislature. I don't know if there's ever been a year when so many bills shave been introduced. If there has been, I don't recall it. Necessarily, therefore, a lot of them have died on the vine, including a lot that deserved to. Nonetheless, a lot that should have died trudge on that weary path up the hill towards the Governor's Bic.
Well, here's hoping that many of them grow weak, fall off the side of the road, and pass on into legislative death.
Given as we're in a new phase of the legislature, I'm not going to try to run all the bills that have passed one house or the other, or which have failed. At this point, that's too burdensome. But we'll continue to track the path of major bills, and where they're at.
February 9, 2023
The House amended HB 152, a new wide-ranging abortion ban, so that it will only take effect if the current "trigger law" ban is struck down by the Wyoming Supreme Court.
HB 152 contained language attempting to address constitutional concerns. It now goes on to the Senate. My prediction is that this will not, in its amended form, pass the Senate.
SF133 providing that high school athletes must compete in their actual gender, i.e., the gender of their DNA, passed the House. This will pass the Senate.
HB 4, extending postpartum Medicaid, passed the House and is on to the Senate.
SF144, one of the two laws banning the surgical and chemical mutilation of minors in the name of changing their gender, introduced as Chloe's Law, passed the Senate with only 5 no votes. Those voting no were Republican Sens. Fred Baldwin (Kemmerer), Jim Anderson (Casper) and Cale Case (Lander); and Democratic Sens. Chris Rothfuss (Laramie) and Mike Gierau (Jackson). Case is a surprise given that he's very conservative, as is Anderson.
This bill is named for Chloe Cole. Cole started taking hormone blockers at 13 and underwent a double mastectomy at 15. Like Hines', she's become a crusader against underage mutilation in the name of "gender affirming care".
Another Illinois Ward bill, HB 143, bit the dust in what is becoming a legislative losing streak for the transplanted Midwesterner. The bill would have prevented Wyoming from following World Health Organization and Centers For Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for COVID-19 restrictions. The vote was 32-29.
Public COVID provisions are a big deal for the Illinoisan who left her state at least partially for such reasons, apparently under the delusion they had not applied in Wyoming.
My prediction is that this record of failure is not going to cause a reassessment of anything, including her relocation to Wyoming and importation of Midwestern views. Freedom Caucus members will double down after the session and claim they were sabotaged by "Rino's", i.e., Wyomingites.
HB 154 allowing for permanent vehicle registration passed the House.
HB 188 providing for wolf depredation payments passed the House.
HB 47, which had gotten out of committee with two amendments sent over by Chuck Gray, who apparently has a lot of time on his hands in his new job as a public servant, was stripped of them. The amended House Bill 47 would have given the Secretary of State power to make decisions about the reliability of a county’s election equipment without the local clerks’ approval.
Gray campaigned on the stolen election lie and made supposed election security the centerpiece of his bid for the office of Secretary of State. Hopefully when the legislative session is over, he can get to his new clerical job of stamping filings and other things the office does most of the time.
February 9, 2023
And today, HB 103, a bill favored by Chuck Gray to prevent crossover voting, bit the dust. Gray, taking time out of his busy schedule doing filings and checking on security interest priorities, testified in front of the committee handling the bill before it gave him the middle finger salute and dumped the bill, suggesting that his new-found role has not accorded weight to all of the state's legislators.
February 10, 2023
Speaking against the bill as voices of reason were conservation groups and a rancher, who noted that he had dozens of trespassers per year and though the bill was a bad idea.
The person whose thoughts lead to the introduction of the bill, a person who provides church security in Buffalo, admitted that if somebody was dangerous they already did what was necessary to escort a person out, although that really fits into a different category. It perhaps demonstrates why this bill was unnecessary at best.
February 11, 2023
A somewhat confusing story broke yesterday, in more than one Wyoming electronic news media outlet, reporting that the Wyoming Republican Party, or at least central figures in the party organization, are condemning HB 7, the bill that prohibits marriages, in its now amended form, under 16 years of age, and requires court permission for those below 18 years of age. That now amended bill reads as follows:
2023
STATE OF WYOMING
23LSO-0297
ENGROSSED
HOUSE BILL NO. HB0007
Underage marriage-amendments.
Sponsored by: Representative(s) Zwonitzer, Dn and Oakley and Senator(s) Case and Furphy
A BILL
for
AN ACT relating to domestic relations; amending the minimum marriageable age; specifying that marriages involving persons under age sixteen (16) are void; making conforming amendments; specifying applicability; and providing for an effective date.
Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:
Section 1. W.S. 20‑1‑102, 20‑1‑103(c)(iii), 20‑1‑105(b) and 20‑2‑101(a) by creating a new paragraph (iv) and (b) are amended to read:
20‑1‑102. Minimum marriageable age; exception; parental consent.
(a) At the time of marriage the parties shall be at least sixteen (16) eighteen (18) years of age except as otherwise provided. No person shall marry who is under the age of sixteen (16) years.
(b) All marriages involving a person under sixteen (16) or seventeen (17) years of age are prohibited and voidable, unless before contracting the marriage a judge of a court of record in Wyoming approves the marriage and authorizes the county clerk to issue a license therefor. All marriages involving a person under sixteen (16) years of age are void.
(c) When either party is a minor sixteen (16) or seventeen (17) years of age, no license shall be granted without the verbal consent, if present, and written consent, if absent, of the father, mother, guardian or person having the care and control of the minor person sixteen (16) or seventeen (17) years of age. Written consent shall be proved by the testimony of at least one (1) competent witness.
20‑1‑103. License; required.
(c) Unless there is an order to waive the requirements of this section by a judge of a court of record in the county pursuant to W.S. 20‑1‑105, the clerk shall refuse to issue a license if:
(iii) Either party is a minor sixteen (16) or seventeen (17) years of age and the consent of a parent or guardian has not been given.
20‑1‑105. Judge may order license issued.
(b) If either party is under sixteen (16) or seventeen (17) years of age, the parents or guardians may apply to any judge of a court of record in the county of residence of the minor person sixteen (16) or seventeen (17) years of age for an order authorizing the marriage and directing the issuance of a marriage license. If the judge believes it advisable, he shall enter an order authorizing the marriage and directing the county clerk to issue a license. Upon filing of a certified copy of the order with the county clerk, the county clerk shall issue a license and endorse thereon the fact of the issuance of the order. No person authorized to perform marriage ceremonies in Wyoming shall perform any marriage ceremony if either party is under the age specified by this subsection unless the license contains the endorsement of sixteen (16) years.
20‑2‑101. Void and voidable marriages defined; annulments.
(a) Marriages contracted in Wyoming are void without any decree of divorce:
(iv) When either party is under sixteen (16) years of age at the time of contracting the marriage.
(b) A marriage is voidable if solemnized when either party was under the age of legal consent sixteen (16) or seventeen (17) years of age unless a judge gave consent, if they separated during nonage and did not cohabit together afterwards, or if the consent of one (1) of the parties was obtained by force or fraud and there was no subsequent voluntary cohabitation of the parties.
Section 2. This act shall apply to all marriages entered into on and after the effective date of this act.
Section 3. This act is effective immediately upon completion of all acts necessary for a bill to become law as provided by Article 4, Section 8 of the Wyoming Constitution.
I've been waiting for the opposition to happen.
This bill sailed through the house and is in the Senate, and I'm frankly surprised that the opposition didn't appear before now. Not because the bill is a bad idea. It's a good one, and it should pass. Marriages lower than 16 years old are a hideous idea, and frankly marriage below 18 sure a good one. Nonetheless, a similar attempt at banning such marriages failed last year.
The reason I thought it would fail is that there's some silent opposition from at least the members of one religion in the state, and I thought it might arise there. But, it didn't. The objections to have a religious tinge to them, but not from the expected quarter.
But it's also taken on a rather creepy tone.
Apparently the email, which wasn't published in full by the press, stated the following:
This bill may seem harmless, but there are concerns about constitutional rights that you need to form your own opinions about
And then it linked to a blog post which it endorses, stating that it's a succinct analysis..
The blog post is easy to find. And it provides, in its entirety, the following (complete with photo):
HB0007 - Underage marriage-amendments
Sponsored By: Representative(s) Zwonitzer, Dn and Oakley and Senator(s) Case and Furphy
ESSENCE: "No person shall marry who is under the age of sixteen (16) years." PERIOD. END OF STORY. AND "Marriages contracted in Wyoming are void without any decree of divorce:... When either party is under sixteen (16) years of age at the time of contracting the marriage."
ACTION:
Write the members of the Senate and ask them to vote "NO" when HB 7 comes up on Monday's 2nd Reading.
Jim.Anderson@wyoleg.gov; Fred.Baldwin@wyoleg.gov; Eric.Barlow@wyoleg.gov; Bo.Biteman@wyoleg.gov; Brian.Boner@wyoleg.gov; Anthony.Bouchard@wyoleg.gov; Evie.Brennan@wyoleg.gov; Cale.Case@wyoleg.gov; Ed.Cooper@wyoleg.gov; Dan.Dockstader@wyoleg.gov; Ogden.Driskill@wyoleg.gov; Affie.Ellis@wyoleg.gov; Tim.French@wyoleg.gov; Dan.Furphy@wyoleg.gov; Larry.Hicks@wyoleg.gov; Lynn.Hutchings@wyoleg.gov; Bob.Ide@wyoleg.gov; Stacy.Jones@wyoleg.gov; Dave.Kinskey@wyoleg.gov; John.Kolb@wyoleg.gov; Bill.Landen@wyoleg.gov; Dan.Laursen@wyoleg.gov; Troy.McKeown@wyoleg.gov; Tara.Nethercott@wyoleg.gov; Stephan.Pappas@wyoleg.gov; Tim.Salazar@wyoleg.gov; Wendy.Schuler@wyoleg.gov; Charles.Scott@wyoleg.gov; Cheri.Steinmetz@wyoleg.gov
CONCERNS:
HB 7 denies the fundamental purpose of marriage:
Marriage is the only institution in Wyoming Statute designed to keep a child's father and mother living under the same roof and cooperating in the raising of any children that they, together, conceive. This is the NATURAL RIGHT of every child. As such, it is protected in the Wyoming Constitution (see. Art. 1, Sec. 3 and 23). Since young men and women may be physically capable of begetting and bearing children prior to the age of 16, marriage MUST remain open to them for the sake of those children.
The sad fact that physical maturity often does not match emotional and intellectual maturity is an indictment of our modern educational system. That is a problem that should be addressed. But we should not use it as an excuse to instantiate bad law.
HB 7 denies parental rights.
Parents, by virtue of their right to conceive children, have the pre-political (i.e. God-given) responsibility to raise their own children. This right and responsibility includes guiding their own maturing children into the estate of Holy Matrimony. HB 7 strips parents of their right to consent to properly desired and well-ordered marriages when they are below an arbitrary age. Moreover, this arbitrary age limit is demonstrably lower than the historical norm of millennia of human existence.
It is true that some perverse religions and cultures COERCE children to marry young, against their wishes. Sometimes, as in the case of human trafficking, this coercion comes from outside the family. Sometimes, it comes from the parents themselves. The Constitutional rights of children require that side-boards be in place to prevent such perversions. But those side-boards already exist in the form of written parental consent and judicial review of that consent. HB 7 removes those side-boards and replaces them with an arbitrary number that has no organic or essential impetus behind it.
Comparison with other states:
Nearly all (49 out of 50 states) set the minimum age of legal consent at 18--just exactly as Wyoming does. Also like Wyoming, 46 of 50 allow people to get married below the minimum age if their parents give permission. Of these, 37 set the lowest age of marriage with parental consent at 16, while four (IN, NE, OR, WA) set it at 17, two set it at 15 (HI and MO), one (NH) sets it at 13, and two (CA and MS) have no minimum age for parental consent.
In addition to CA and MS, 12 other states (AK, GA, HI, KS, MD, MA, NM, NC, OK, RI, UT, WV, WY) have judicial mechanisms that allow exceptions to the minimum age with parental consent. Some of these exceptions specifically name pregnancy, some prohibit age-differentials between the bride and groom more than four years. The sponsor testified that "Wyoming is one of eight states remaining, I believe, that do not have a minimum marriage age in statute" (AK, CA, MA, NM, NC, OK, RI, WV, WY and Puerto Rico). (Only California has both NO minimum age, and NO judicial mechanism.) The remaining 42 states set the absolute minimum age at 13 (NH), 15 (HI and MO), 17 (IN, NE, OR, WA) and 18 (KY and LA) and 16. HB 7 wipes away Wyoming's current mechanism for taking into account ANY special circumstances.
Testimony:
Additionally, the bringers of HB 7 offer no evidence that Wyoming is facing any statistical uptick of coerced marriages. In the House committee, there was no testimony weighing the trade-off of parental rights over against any “significant issue” with child marriage in Wyoming. To the contrary, the sponsor of the bill openly admitted that “it is not what we would call a problem in this state.” On average 20 marriages per year under 18 and under in Wyoming. There was no testimony about the factual number under 16. Nor was there any testimony about why under 16 years old there should be no judicial exceptions.
Rather, the sponsor openly testified that the reason for bringing the bill is to “keep up with the Jones’” (i.e. 42 other states have put arbitrary age restrictions on marriage. After this dubious motivation, the testimony given in committee was fraught with hypothetical harms. For instance: “if a minor wants a divorce, she can’t hire of lawyer.” Or, “Minors might be coerced into marriage.” Or, “Minors, are not mature enough to marry.” All these cautions are already covered by current law that requires a judge to investigate whether or not the person is being coerced into marriage if that person is mature enough to legally consent. It is rather insulting to say that Wyoming judges are not up to the task that has been given them by law. But, that could be remedied by giving them legislative guidance or additional help. The responsibility does not need to be taken away altogether.
HB 7 violates the right of Wyoming citizens to marry.
Only a generation ago, people were regularly ready for marriage by the age of 15, not 16, and still today many Wyoming couples are celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary after having been married prior to 15. Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is pertinent, here. "1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. 2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. 3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State." As evidenced by the wide differences between states, the age of 16 is an arbitrary limitation that may serve as a general rule, but cannot be absolutely enforced without violating the "full age" standard of Article 16. HB 7 would arbitrarily strip away that right from people who actually have a legitimate reason to marry, and who desire to give their child a stable and loving home. This is unjust both to child and parents.
FOR FURTHER READING:
Cowboy State Daily, Bill Banning Teens Younger Than 16 To Marry Passes Unanimously Through Senate Committee
Jonathan Lange, UNICEF Comes to Wyoming: Ham-handed uniformity oppresses the human family
PROGRESS:
1/13/2023 H Introduced and Referred to H03 - Revenue
1/17/2023 H03 - Revenue:Recommend Do Pass 6-3-0-0-0
Ayes: Representative(s) Byron, Harshman, Northrup, Oakley, Storer, Zwonitzer
Nays: Representative(s) Bear, Locke, Strock
1/18/2023 H COW:Passed / 1/19/2023 H 2nd Reading:Passed
1/20/2023 H 3rd Reading:Passed 36-25-1-0-0
Ayes: Representative(s) Andrew, Berger, Brown, Burkhart, Jr, Byron, Chadwick, Chestek, Clouston, Conrad, Crago, Eklund, Harshman, Henderson, Larsen, Lloyd, Larson, Jt, Lawley, Nicholas, Niemiec, Northrup, Oakley, Obermueller, O'hearn, Olsen, Provenza, Sherwood, Speaker Sommers, Stith, Storer, Trujillo, Walters, Washut, Western, Wylie, Yin, Zwonitzer, Dan, Zwonitzer, Dave
Nays: Representative(s) Allemand, Allred, Angelos, Banks, Bear, Davis, Haroldson, Heiner, Hornok, Jennings, Knapp, Locke, Neiman, Ottman, Pendergraft, Penn, Rodriguez-Williams, Singh, Slagle, Smith, Strock, Styvar, Tarver, Ward, Winter
Excused: Representative Newsome
2/2/2023 S Introduced and Referred to S07 - Corporations
2/9/2023 S07 - Corporations:Recommend Do Pass 4-0-1-0-0
Ayes: Senator(s) Barlow, Boner, Case, Scott
Excused: Senator Landen
2/9/2023 S COW: Passed 15-12 (standing vote)
Aye: Case, Cooper, Anderson, Boner, Scott, Jones, Pappas, Geireau, Ellis, Schuler, Barlow, Landen, Rothfuss, Furphy, Bouchard
Nay: Dockstader, Baldwin, Kinsky, Hicks, Steinmetz, Biteman, Salazar, Ide, French, Kolb, Hutchings, McKeown
Absent: Nethercott, Brennen (chair), Driskill, Laurson
Note the photograph, presumably representing a teenage girl, was in the original, I didn't put it up there.
The gist of the argument is several fold as being presented here and elsewhere, which is.
1. The bill will make it impossible for girls younger than 16 to get married if they get pregnant.
2. In the past such marriages were common and its only through the operation of negative modern societal institutions that they aren't now.
3. There are lots of examples of such marriages working out.
All of these are pretty bad arguments.
First of all, let's try to eliminate the following fallacy:
Moreover, this arbitrary age limit is demonstrably lower than the historical norm of millennia of human existence.
And:
Only a generation ago, people were regularly ready for marriage by the age of 15, not 16, . . .
This is only true, ironically enough if you consider the source of this post, if you consider the pre Christian era. And in doing so, let's turn to one of our exciting incitfal posts on this blog:
Shockingly young! Surprisingly old! Too young, too old! Well, nothing much actually changing at all. . . Marriage ages then. . . and now. . and what does it all mean?
As pointed out in that insightful analysis, the "they used to marry younger" claim is really a myth. Looking back over a century, we noted:
The median age for women was 21.6 in 1910. The same year, the median age for men was 25.1.At the time the author wrote this entry, 2010, the median age for women was 25.0. The median age for men was 26.7. Data suggested that it had crept up a little over 1.7 years for women and 1.3 years for men.Okay, that is a difference, but is that what you were expecting?I doubt it, unless you are quite familiar with these statistics.So, over century, the average age for "first marriages" has gone up a little under four years for women, and a little over 1.5 years for men. Not that much of a climb.
Indeed, when we went further, we found:
Let's take a table that somebody else has generated and see if it changes things at all:
Year --- Men --- Women
2015 ----29.2 ----27.1
2010 --- 28.2 --- 26.1
2000 --- 26.8 --- 25.1
1990 --- 26.1 --- 23.9
1980 --- 24.7 --- 22.0
1970 --- 23.2 --- 20.8
1960 --- 22.8 --- 20.3
1950 --- 22.8 --- 20.3
1940 --- 24.3 --- 21.5
1930 --- 24.3 --- 21.3
1920 --- 24.6 --- 21.2
1910 --- 25.1 --- 21.6
1900 --- 25.9 --- 21.9
1890 --- 26.1 --- 22.0Okay, that doesn't take us a lot further back, but it also produces some interesting results. If we go all the way back to 1890 what we find is that the median age for men was 26.1, and that it then went down a year by 1910. It continued to go down until 1960, at which time it was 22.8 years. That really doesn't fit with our picture at all. If we'd been making this same calculation mid 20th Century, we'd be noting that marriage ages were going down. Now, if this table is correct, the age for men is 29.2, way up from 1960, and about three years up from 1890. From 1890 on, however, it took all the way until 1990, 100 hundred years, for the age for men to rise back up to what it had been in 1890. For that matter, it took from 1890 until 1980 for the age to rise back up to 22.0 years for women, although its climbed dramatically since then. . . maybe.
And then. . . :
Let's look at 1850.In 1850 the average marriage age for men was 28.Um. . . 28? Yes, we just climbed up over that in 2010.And for women it was 26. We got back to that in 2010 also.It took us 130 years for the average "first" marriage age to get back to what it had been in 1850.
In other words, the claim, if we keep it back to the last two centuries, that there were vast number of sober, or giddy, middle teens getting married back in the day, is pretty much a flaming pile of cow flop. In reality, before the American Civil War, back in that more agrarian and rustic era, your average bride was 26, and the average groom, 28.
Not exactly teenagers.
In truth, this has been the case since the Middle Ages, and that's no accident. Examples of girls being married off were common in pre-Christian Europe, but not once Christianity set in. And that's for a simple reason. In most of pre-Christian Europe, women were basically chattel. Girls were being sold into marriage. "Look, Gunther, I'd really like that field and those cattle. . . how about taking young Ursula here. . . "
Ursula didn't have any say in the matter, including what followed.
After the Catholic Church, which was the only Christian Church at the time, being the first and original Church, came in, it introduced the requirement that Ursula had to consent to the marriage. I.e, women could say no, and they started saying it in droves. Marriage ages went way, way, up.
That's a lesson for us in a variety of ways, and plays into some other threads we have going on here, including the one about transgenderism. Our modern pornofied culture isn't letting girls say no, now that it's barbarized once again, and they're finding a way to opt out. That's another topic, but on this one, no, there really wasn't a recent era or even an ancient one, unless we go back to cultures and eras that hadn't yet received Christian missionaries.
Which points out why not knowing history is a bad thing in more ways than one. Not knowing history consistently causes this inaccurate myth, and not knowing the history of discovering the metaphysical leads back to a narrow world in which marrying children as they're knocked up seems like a good societal idea to some.
The science is bad here too, as it's missing. We now know that humans do not become psychologically mature until their twenties. Yes, they're able to reproduce earlier, but that's due to aboriginal conditions being part of our DNA. Our DNA, in that instance, is hedging the bets in times of plenty, basically. It's not demanding that you marry at 15.
Which gets into an undercurrent here.
There is a conservative, for lack of a better way to put it, or perhaps a religio-conservative movement out there right now that argues for really early marriage, although it's hesitant to do it openly. Not early teen ones, but early ones, and its fine with teenage marriages in the upper ranges. Where that's concentrated in some, but not all, of its backer, you'll inevitably get; "and. . . well, if they're a little younger. . . that's okay" sneaking in.
Even the blog posts notes that there are "perverse" religious movements that push children towards marriage.
Written through the blog post is something else, but oddly it doesn't really come straight out and say it. That argument is that some teenagers get pregnant, and younger than 16, and therefore, if they elect to get married in their child's interest, they should be allowed to do so.
That's about the only argument in here that makes sense in any fashion, but frankly the number of teens getting pregnant is dropping. And, on psychological maturity once again, making that sober decision at age 15 or younger, a this bill would allow, is putting an immature mind in a bad spot. While the post likes to gush about young marriages, as in:
Only a generation ago, people were regularly ready for marriage by the age of 15, not 16, and still today many Wyoming couples are celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary after having been married prior to 15. Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is pertinent, here. "1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. 2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. 3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State." As evidenced by the wide differences between states, the age of 16 is an arbitrary limitation that may serve as a general rule, but cannot be absolutely enforced without violating the "full age" standard of Article 16. HB 7 would arbitrarily strip away that right from people who actually have a legitimate reason to marry, and who desire to give their child a stable and loving home. This is unjust both to child and parents.
Last prior thread:
No comments:
Post a Comment