The South Dakota Catholic Conference opposes Senate Bill 156, a proposal to eliminate a parent’s ability to consent to the marriage of a son or daughter who is 16 or 17 years of age.
South Dakota’s marriage law, like most other states, provides that persons who are 18 years of age or older are “capable of consenting to and consummating a marriage.” However, a person who is age 16 or 17 may enter a marriage with the consent of a parent.
Marriage among teenage minors is increasingly rare in modern American society, which is characterized by a period of prolonged adolescence that is unusual in comparison to most cultures throughout history. In the practical experience of the contemporary Catholic Church in the United States, very few persons under 18 would be considered by their pastors to be sufficiently mature to enter the marriage covenant.
Nevertheless, “few” is not the same as “none,” and this points to an underlying problem with SB 156: it contains no exceptions. Because of variations in family upbringing and cultural environment, young people do not grow in maturity along a consistent timeline. Thus, a particular 17-year-old might have greater maturity than many 19- or 20-year-olds. The Canon Law of the Catholic Church recognizes this natural variability and permits marriage among young persons under the age of 18, even while this is rare in practice.
Not infrequently in our modern culture, a young couple under age 18 may desire to get married due to an out-of-wedlock pregnancy. It can certainly be said that marriage under these circumstances is not always in the best interest of the parties involved. Some would no doubt argue it is rarely the best choice. But to say it is never the best choice is to ignore practical experience and impose an unjust limit on the freedom of families to make the most live-giving choice amidst difficult circumstances.
Pope Francis has stated, “Children have a right to grow up in a family with a father and a mother capable of creating a suitable environment for the child’s development and emotional maturity.” The process of discerning whether and how two young, unmarried parents can provide a “suitable environment” for the upbringing of a child is not easy. An absolute prohibition on marriage for young people in these circumstances does not consider what may be in the best interests of the couple, or the unborn child they have conceived. In this regard, we cannot ignore the fact that unborn children who are conceived out of wedlock are especially vulnerable. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), more than 87 percent of abortions are performed on women who are unmarried.
SB 156 would also establish an inconsistent standard in law that breaks the connection between marriage and sexual union. Current state law provides that a young person may consent to sexual intercourse at the age of 16. Whether intended or not, passage of SB 156 would result in a situation where the state of South Dakota is telling young people that they are not considered sufficiently mature to enter a marriage under any circumstances, even with parental approval, while also telling them they have unrestricted freedom to be sexually active. When minors engage in sexual activity outside of marriage it obviously can lead to consequences that last a lifetime – e.g., contracting a sexually transmitted disease, becoming pregnant, etc.
Proponents of SB 156 argue that raising the marriage age to 18, with no exceptions, is necessary to prevent abusive parents from coercing their minor children into a marriage they do not want. They also argue that older men may “marry” an underage female as a cover for facilitating human trafficking. These concerns deserve to be taken seriously. However, there are many tools state governments have at their disposal to detect bad actors without a complete prohibition on marriage. For example, several states require a proceeding of judicial review, whereby a court will determine if marriage is in the best interests of a minor.
In the Charter of the Rights of the Family, the Church articulates its view of the right to marry:
Every man and every woman, having reached marriageable age and having the necessary capacity, has the right to marry and establish a family without any discrimination whatsoever; legal restrictions to the exercise of this right, whether they be of a permanent or temporary nature, can be introduced only when they are required by grave and objective demands of the institution of marriage itself and its social and public significance; they must respect in all cases the dignity and the fundamental rights of the person. (Charter on the Rights of the Family, 1983, Article 1(a), emphasis added).
We believe SB 156 fails to appropriately “respect… the dignity and the fundamental rights of the person” by substituting the judgment of the state for the judgment of parents, families, and the Church as to when two persons have sufficient age and maturity to become married.