The Durham Investigation failure

[Mountain Man]

Looking it up, it appears that the bill is sponsored by a Republican, Dan Zwonitzer. They forgot to mention that. And that at the third reading only 3 democrats voted yes for it.

Bill text. https://www.wyoleg.gov/Legislation/2023/HB0007

According to other sources, it seems the bill has four Republican sponsors:

https://legiscan.com/WY/sponsors/HB0007/2023

It's further worth noting that under the current law, marriage is already illegal for those younger than 16, so the push back against the bill has nothing to do with allowing old men to marry little girls, like Starlight and his disreputable source suggest; rather, it's a desire to protect young couples who might become pregnant:

"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," Capitol Watch writes in its analysis. "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."

https://krcgtv.com/news/nation-world...o-life-consent

Emphasis mine.

[Starlight]

I'm at a loss how this Wyoming thing has anything to do with the Durham investigation.

The thread had sidetracked, like so many TWeb threads do. The thread had ended up talking about how more Republican politicians than Democratic have tended to be pedophiles/groomers.

[Starlight]

Looking it up, it appears that the bill is sponsored by a Republican, Dan Zwonitzer. They forgot to mention that.

As HA noted, they did mention that.

Previously, democrats had sponsored a similar bill a few years back, but it failed.

And that at the third reading only 3 democrats voted yes for it.

Check your source. There are 5 Democrats in the Wyoming house, and all 5 voted yes on the 3rd reading. The Wyoming House is 92% Republican.

[Starlight]

it's a desire to protect young couples who might become pregnant:

"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," Capitol Watch writes in its analysis. "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."

https://krcgtv.com/news/nation-world...o-life-consent

Emphasis mine.

I have no problem with people who have a child young, getting married once they're adults, and raising it together. But I do have problems with parents forcing their child into a marriage, and with sex offenders escaping justice through these force marriages.

[Mountain Man]

I have no problem with people who have a child young, getting married once they're adults, and raising it together. But I do have problems with parents forcing their child into a marriage, and with sex offenders escaping justice through these force marriages.

Okay, but since the legislation does not advocate forced marriages, or provide a way for sex offenders to escape justice, I'm not sure what relevance this has.

[Starlight]

Okay, but since the legislation does not advocate forced marriages, or provide a way for sex offenders to escape justice, I'm not sure what relevance this has.

Some of the Republican & Christian advocacy around opposition to the law is that parents should be able to force their child into a marriage if the child gets pregnant.

If an underage girl gives birth there would often be an investigation and prosecution, because there was clearly a sex offence that led to it. However the law has a loophole for married couples. So if the underage girl gets pregnant and then the couple gets married before the child is born, that blocks the sex offence investigation, and is part of the reason for opposition to this law change from Republican and Christian circles because they want to continue to support blocking the pedophilia sex offence investigations via marriage.

[Sparko]

I have no problem with people who have a child young, getting married once they're adults, and raising it together. But I do have problems with parents forcing their child into a marriage, and with sex offenders escaping justice through these force marriages.

I agree. The objections/arguments by the republicans were very weak.

[Mountain Man]

Some of the Republican & Christian advocacy around opposition to the law is that parents should be able to force their child into a marriage if the child gets pregnant.

If an underage girl gives birth there would often be an investigation and prosecution, because there was clearly a sex offence that led to it. However the law has a loophole for married couples. So if the underage girl gets pregnant and then the couple gets married before the child is born, that blocks the sex offence investigation, and is part of the reason for opposition to this law change from Republican and Christian circles because they want to continue to support blocking the pedophilia sex offence investigations via marriage.

Do you have a source showing that some groups have advocated for forced marriage? The one source I managed to find says that some groups wish to leave the option of marriage open to a young couple who becomes pregnant;it says nothing about forcing a young couple to get married against their will. In fact, the current legislation says that any marriage involving a 16 year old must be a approved by a judge, and any marriage involving a minor is explicitly prohibited.

[Sparko]

Do you have a source showing that some groups have advocated for forced marriage? The one source I managed to find says that some groups wish to leave the option of marriage open to a young couple who becomes pregnant;it says nothing about forcing a young couple to get married against their will. In fact, the current legislation says that any marriage involving a 16 year old must be a approved by a judge, and any marriage involving a minor is explicitly prohibited.

There is nothing stopping them from getting married when they are older or taking care of their child when they aren't married. But if the male is older, say 18 and the female is 15, for example, then they shouldn't be allowed to be married at all and he should be tossed in jail for statutory rape.

[CivilDiscourse]

If an underage girl gives birth there would often be an investigation and prosecution, because there was clearly a sex offence that led to it.

Unless of course it involves an underage boy...but don't let reality stand in the way of your 15 minutes of hate.

[Starlight]

Unless of course it involves an underage boy...but don't let reality stand in the way of your 15 minutes of hate.

How systems handle that sort of case tend to vary by region. I don't know what the situation is in Wyoming at the moment with regard to that sort of case.

It's not '15 minutes of hate', it's exemplifying yet another case of Republicans being lax on groomers and pedophiles.

Although, on that subject, it constantly irks me that Republicans not only let Jim Jordan stay in congress, they have him in leadership, despite him ignoring a hundred cases of it under his watch when he was a coach despite multiple kids reporting to him it was happening, so they clearly don't care. I see no evidence that the Dem party and voters would allow someone to stay on in their party who had turned a deliberate blind eye to multiple reports of grooming and pedophilia from kids under their charge. Nor would Dem voters support a presidential candidate who was on tape saying he sexually assaulted women, so it seems to be just something Dem voters have far more in the way of morals on than Republican voters.

[Mountain Man]

There is nothing stopping them from getting married when they are older or taking care of their child when they aren't married. But if the male is older, say 18 and the female is 15, for example, then they shouldn't be allowed to be married at all and he should be tossed in jail for statutory rape.

The law already on the books would prohibit an 18 year old from marrying a 15 year old.

I'm not necessarily defending the legislation or the opposition to it. I'm just trying to clear up the facts instead of relying on Starlight's, shall we say, "creative interpretation".

[Mountain Man]

...it's exemplifying yet another case of Republicans being lax on groomers and pedophiles..

Of course that's false. According to Wyoming law, it's illegal for 15 year olds and younger to marry, and for a 16 year old to marry requires the approval of a judge. That's the current legislation, so opposing the amendments up for debate does nothing to enable groomers and pedophiles, which you would know if you actually bothered to read the law instead of lapping up the garbage being spoon fed to you by The Young Turks.

Oh, and I also noticed you have not provided any source to support your claim that opponents to the amendments are in favor of forced marriage of minors. Did you forget, or are you still desperately looking for it?

[firstfloor]

What I find most remarkable is that Evangelical Christians are FOR the forces of Evil:

House Republicans are right that politicization of the Justice Department has been a jaw-dropping abuse of power. They’ve got the wrong culprit, however. As a blockbuster New York Times article made clear, then-Attorney General William P. Barr and special counsel John H. Durham engaged in unethical, abusive manipulation of the Justice Department in pursing the baseless conspiracy theory that the intelligence community had conducted a witch hunt of then-President Donald Trump in connection with Russian manipulation of the 2016 election.

WaPo

[CivilDiscourse]

Of course that's false. According to Wyoming law, it's illegal for 15 year olds and younger to marry, and for a 16 year old to marry requires the approval of a judge. That's the current legislation, so opposing the amendments up for debate does nothing to enable groomers and pedophiles, which you would know if you actually bothered to read the law instead of lapping up the garbage being spoon fed to you by The Young Turks.

Oh, and I also noticed you have not provided any source to support your claim that opponents to the amendments are in favor of forced marriage of minors. Did you forget, or are you still desperately looking for it?

Technically, under 15, it requires a judges consent.