A long time ago, right here in New Hampshire, a gay marriage bill failed in a Democrat majority legislature. They strongarmed a reconsideration vote and passed it, despite a prevailing narrative that civil unions were enough. Gov John Lynch signed it, meddling in marriage.
I was often wrongly accused of being against gay marriage. As is their custom, they assumed without ever having read a word I’d written on the matter, and that made for excellent follow-up material, but they don’t read that either. The truth is that I was (and still am) against the state defining anything having to do with marriage. My position was (and still is) that if your congregation agrees to a same-sex union, the state’s only obligation was to protect the contract related to property rights and only if required (when brought before the courts) to settle disputes. Treat it like any other union for those purposes; otherwise, stay out of it.
Democrats don’t work that way, and now, apparently, neither do some Republicans.
New Hampshire’s GOP majority legislature has advanced a bill ending “child marriage.” I’m not saying I disagree with the idea that children should not marry. Modern culture is not arranged in a way that prepares enough of them for the responsibility. It would be unfair to expect them to get it, but until recently, with parental consent (also not something the left cares much about), New Hampshire residents as young as 13 or 14 could be married. None were recently, so I’m not clear what the problem was, but someone had a burr in their saddle. In 2018, NH raised the age to 16, and this year, the experts in Concord have decided to prohibit marriage until the age of 18 with or without mutilated genitals, as this is something Democrats (with a few rare exceptions) favor for children regardless of age.
During the marriage meddling bill debate, Rep. Jess Edwards made national news when speaking from the well of the NH House about the proposed change.
Aside from the choice of words to describe childbearing age (I’d have said “of childbearing age”), Rep. Edwards’ point is legit. The law was the way it was because young ladies could get pregnant. Both ripe and fertile. Ask any Democrat who has advocated for “sex education” for minors that involves handing out condoms and discussing abortion options with “children.” Why is that again?
Campaign donations from Planned Parenthood and Emily’s List. They are sacrificing the unborn babies of tweens to the goddess Ka-Ching! And this is the party working to normalize minor-attracted adults – who might, to paraphrase Lightbringer Barry Obama, punish someone’s daughter with a baby.
The Left has been profiting from this arrangement for years, going so far as claiming a right to privacy for the impregnated minor so their parent(s) didn’t need to find out. A practice that makes young girls of childbearing age ripe and fertile ground for pedophiles and sex offenders.
So, the Left has long insisted that we acknowledge the need for “women’s health care” (abortion) for girls as soon as they are fertile and ripe (or, if you prefer, ripe and fertile). That taxpayers subsidize it.
But let’s be offended by what Rep. Edwards said.
And while we’re in the neighborhood, early onset progressive sexualization has since produced mission creep down to grammar school grades where they no longer have time to teach grammar, reading, or math, it seems. Where children with no concept of sex or sexuality are sexualized by union dues-paying Democrat candidate-supporting (pro-abortion) adults long before these kids can understand arousal, sexual attraction, or an act that could result in … marriage as a deterrent. One that has, for longer than not, heralded the need for two parents (even at the ripe young age of thirteen) to be bonded together to ensure they take responsibility for what they’d created—a future taxpayer. Hey, someone will have to pay the interest on all that debt, but if the kid keeps the kid, there will be no marriage for you until you turn 18 ‘cuz a bunch of legislators in Concord know better.
Maybe we should rebrand it the mandatory single motherhood bill.
Or, more likely, the “It’s easier to get an abortion” bill, which was Rep. Edwards’ point.
