Bride or Crime Victim?

Last night, while listening to talk radio, the host mentioned a Colorado case involving a young woman who had entered into a common law marriage at the age of 15 with a 38 year old man. The state court of appeals ruled that she was old enough to marry, based on English common law, reversing a lower court decision that she was too young to marry at 15.

While the three-judge panel did not set a specific minimum age for such marriages, it said they could be legal for girls at 12 and boys at 14 under English common law, which Colorado recognizes.

I googled marrigeable age for other states, and came up with a few states that allow marriage under certain circumstances for very young people: Massachusetts with 12 for females, 14 for males, New Hampshire with 13 for females, 14 for males, and New York and Alabama with 14 for both sexes.

This left me scratching my head in puzzlement. With all the recent attention and focus on laws against pedophilia, molestation, and sexual predation, this ruling doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense, especially considering that the groom in this case is serving a prison term for a sexual assault on a child, unrelated to this case.

This is also contrary to the PROTECT Act of 2003 signed by President Bush, which defines illicit sexual conduct as including commercial sex with anyone under 18, and all sex with anyone under 16. Previous US law was less strict, only punishing those having sex either in contravention of local laws OR in commerce (prostitution); but did not prohibit non-commercial sex with, for example, a 14 year-old if such sex was legal in the foreign territory.

The sources I googled also noted that marriageable age and age of consent differ in many jurisdictions, with the marrigeable age sometimes being lower than the age of consent.

I don't get it. A marriage license magically nullifies what would otherwise be considered pedophilia, molestation, and/or statutory rape? This doesn't make any sense; if you're considered old enough to get married, you're old enough to consent to sex, married or not.

In a country that's jumped on the "stamp out sexual predators" bandwagon, some courts convict 18 year old boys who have sex with their 15 year old girlfriends, but it's OK with them if a 38 year old convicted sex offender has sex with a 15 year old because they say they're "married". You can't have it both ways. Either a 15 year old is capable of consenting to sex or she isn't. Whether or not she is married should be a moot point.

Some have called for life imprisonment and even the death sentence for those convicted of sexual crimes. Many of these same people make little distinction between violent offenses, discrepancy in age between those involved, or consent given in the case of statutory offenses.

I'm sorry, but an 18 year old having consensual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend isn't a crime in my book and shouldn't even be compared with a 40 year old man who brutally rapes a ten year old girl. Yet, in many jurisdictions both men would have to register as "sex offenders", and potential employers and landlords would not take the time to distinguish between the two before refusing both men employment and lodging.

While it is absolutely essential to protect children from sexual assault by adults, it is a mistake to apply a broad brush to this issue. Because this is such an emotionally charged issue, it is of vital importance that laws and penalties enacted for such offenses be based on rational principles with a sound legal footing, and not based on emotion. It is essential to classify different forms of sexual offenses and to assign penalties that fit the crime.

Thoughts?