This is quickly becoming a mainstream media story, but I had to blog it. You have to ask yourself, what were legislators drinking when they created this inconsistency in Georgia law.
Hall County’s district attorney says a woman who reportedly is pregnant by a 15-year-old she has since married will face a preliminary hearing November 30th.
Prosecutors still hope they can charge 37-year-old Lisa Lynette Clark with child molestation, despite last week’s marriage in neighboring Dawson County.
District Attorney Lee Darragh said the Georgia law on child molestation, which says that a person under age 16 legally cannot consent to a sexual act, does not take into consideration whether the minor is married.
In Georgia, one must be 18 to marry — or 16 with parental consent. If the couple has a child or the female can show she is pregnant, the law exempts the age requirements.
Jennifer Burt, the probate court judge in Dawson, said she reviewed the marriage application and applied the appropriate provisions under state law before issuing the license.
From the prosecutor’s standpoint, the smart way to play this would seem to be to charge her with molestation taking place prior to the marriage, rather than to get into the question of sex occurring after the marriage license has been issued. But then you’re still left with the question of why the state would approve a marriage between a child molestor and her victim. This could get squirrelly in court.
A better report is [here], but you may or may not get blocked by a (free) log-in.
Oh, I see, the US doesn’t mind when a molestor marry her victim but has a problem with two, consenting, gay adults want to marry.
Righty. Terribly logical. (Of course, when was the law ever logical.) Those gays are definitely more evil than a child molestor.
Sigh.
15 year old boy with a 37 year old woman? Wow he must be really desperate. I mean there are plenty of girls around for boys. The boy should have a preliminary hearing about screwing older women.
I see a big legal problem for the prosecutor. A spouse cannot be compelled to testify against his / her mate. Therefore proving the boy was molested will be near impossible. Any evidence between them, such as the letters, could not be introduced as they could not be validated.
This might be very disturbing to some, especially those with strong “morals”. I believe, however, that there are many more serious crimes to investigate instead of trying to break up a marriage.
I agree with tilde, consent should be the main requirement for marriage. If the consenting couple happen to be gay, so be it. I think they will be happier then the poor miserable bible thumpers inflicting their morality on others.
Tilde, calm down. Just because we lead the world is no reason to get pissy.
What an incredible waste of taxpayer money!? It must be an election year in Hall County…If this were a 15 year-old *female* and a 37 year-old *male*, perhaps it’d be worth investigation to verify that no rape occured. But in this case, it’s a 15 year-old BOY who’s involved…No 15 year-old heterosexual male would consider sex with a [likely] experienced 37 year-old woman “molestation” or any other sort of “abuse…” It’d be an enormous self-esteem boost and sexual conquest never to be forgotten… Hello, Mrs. Robinson…?
If the woman *purposefully* allowed herself to become pregnant in order to entrap the boy, perhaps there’s some crime here… Regardless, both parents are attempting to do the right thing, marry, and be responsible for raising the child…SO LEAVE ‘EM ALONE ALREADY!? Why waste taxpayer money trying to fix an unfixable problem or punish a “moral” crime that is, in fact, allowed for in state law!? The only possible outcome from this legal inquiry is a BAD one…Jail the mother, financially destroy both the mother and father, leave absolutely NOTHING in tact for the child.
Perhaps the child can become a ward of the state and we can all pay for it out of our pockets. Absolutely brilliant…
To the prosecutor…”Get a hobby.”
So if a woman is the older partner it’s okay, and if it’s a man it’s rape? Please. There are issues of maturity here. Emotionally, virtually no fifteen year old is prepared to have sex. Physically, sure. But that’s another story.
She raped an incompetent, plain and simple. The fact that he enjoyed himself only makes it statutory. He’s not ready to be a father, and a rapist shouldn’t have a child. So the kid should be adopted out.
– ME –
Give both the boy and the woman the benefit of the doubt… Let them try out their life as they (and his parents) see fit.
I’ve seen 15 y-olds with a full beard getting drunk in a bar, because nobody asked them for ID… (who would???)
Max Exter writes: “So if a woman is the older partner it’s okay, and if it’s a man [that is the older party] it’s rape?”
No… I asserted no judgment of right/wrong…I said that if the older party had been a male *it’d be worth investigation to ascertain whether a non-consensual act [i.e. rape] occurred*. This investigation is not merited in the case of the younger party being male because common sense and the “law of fluid dynamics” tells us that a frightened and unwilling 15 year old male cannot be forced to copulate until ejaculation by a female [except perhaps in rare instances of abnormal physical reaction to stress or fear by the male]. Thus, it is almost certain that the act was consensual.
With a 15 year-old female and older male aggressor, however, rape is a distinct possibility, physically speaking, and should be at the forefront of investigatory concern over-and-above any age-related legal concerns.
Whether a 15 year-old male is “smart enough” or “mature enough” to father a child is, IMHO, irrelevant…He is most certainly biologically capable of fathering children and he should be held responsible for any offspring he creates…NOT society at large via taxpayers’ money.