Ripe & Fertile

In Defense of the Shotgun Wedding

Ripe and fertile are not words you want to hear politicians use when discussing teenagers. Ripe and fertile are words that make politicians sound like dirty old men. Other words that make politicians sound like dirty old men are supple, sexy, buxom, and voluptuous. But we’re just talking about ripe and fertile today because those are the words that New Hampshire Representative Jess Edwards used earlier this month to oppose a ban on teenage marriage. 

Until recently, the minimum age of marriage in New Hampshire was 13 for girls and 14 for boys, though such marriages were only allowed with the permission of a judge. In 2018, the marriage age in the Granite State was raised to 16 which brought it in line with most other states in the country.

There is a push, however, to raise the minimum age to 18 to protect young people, especially young women, from being trafficked or trapped in abusive relationships. The United Nations has argued that child marriage is by nature forced marriage because children can’t provide informed consent. While it might seem like child marriage is only a problem elsewhere, the non-profit Unchained At Last found that almost 300,000 children were married in the U.S. between 2000 and 2018. Most of these children were young women marrying adult men, and some were as young as 10.

Seriously? We don’t let them vote or enlist until they’re 18, we don’t let them drink or smoke until they’re 21, and we won’t trust them with a rental car until at least 25. They can’t give consent to their own medical treatment in most places or get contraceptives in some (I’m looking at you, Texas). And we’re constantly battling about whether they’re too young and impressionable for sex education and books about gay people. But sure, let’s marry them off.   

While most states let 16-year-olds marry, many don’t let anyone under the age of 18 initiate divorce proceedings. Whether this discrepancy is purposeful or just the kind of thing that happens when states write and rewrite laws over centuries doesn’t really matter. The end result is the same: a 17-year-old legally trapped in a marriage to grown-ass man and only able to leave if he fully cooperates. (Hodel, oh Hodel, Have I made a match for you! He's handsome, he's young! Alright, he's 62. But he's a nice man, a good catch, true? True. I promise you'll be happy, And even if you're not, There's more to life than that… Don't ask me what.)

In 2018, Delaware became the first state to raise the marriage age to 18. Ten additional states (CT, DE, MA, MI, MN, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT, WA) have followed, and there is legislation pending in eight more. New Hampshire is one of those.

Which brings us back to ripe and fertile teenagers and Representative Jess Edwards. In a speech opposing the proposed legislation, Edwards said this:

If we continually restrict the freedom of marriage as a legitimate social option, when we do this to people who are of a ripe, fertile age and may have a pregnancy and a baby involved, are we not in fact making abortion a much more desirable alternative, when marriage might be the right solution for some freedom-loving couples?

Essentially, Edwards is celebrating the shotgun wedding. He’s not wrong that we’re at our most fertile as teenagers and twenty-somethings, and his argument seems to be that if these nubile young things (another phrase we don’t want grown men to say) find themselves in a family way, they should be encouraged to head to the altar not the clinic.

When the video of his speech (posted to the former Twitter by a Democratic colleague) was met with backlash, he dug in. While he admitted that he used a bad phrase, he told the Daily Beast that he’d received an avalanche of hate and went on to say, “I really don't want to apologize in the face of that, because I don't want to encourage this behavior for the next guy who says the wrong word."  

He also defended himself as a person who values choice and pointed to his bona fides, most notably the New Hampshire abortion law. The “live free or die” state does not restrict abortion until after 24 weeks. Edwards told media outlets that he is personally responsible for the amendment to that law that allows for exemptions in cases in which a pregnant person’s life is in danger or a fetus has a fatal anomaly. In a statement to Newsweek, he wrote: “Our 24-week standard is MORE PERMISSIVE than at least 42 states, Canada, and all of Europe. We are essentially one of the most accepting of abortion access than the rest of Western Civilization."

His syntax was off in that missive, but his point is valid. In many ways, Edwards seems to be more of a Libertarian than a hard-core conservative Republican. A few years ago, his adult daughter served alongside him in the New Hampshire House, but as a Democrat. The two noted that they were on the same side of some issues.

That said, Edwards’s explanation of why he was defending teens’ right to marry fell a little flat. He called marriage under 18 as part of a "3-legged stool of freedom of bodily autonomy and self-determination as the couple pursues life, liberty, and happiness.” (As I said, more Ron Paul than MAGA.) He also argued that the existing law had safeguards because the teen(s) must give their consent, get parental permission, and have a judge sign off.

These safeguards don’t seem sufficient to protect girls—especially the pregnant ones that Edwards seems most worried about—from being forced to lie about their wishes by the adults in their life, whether that’s a parent or the one who knocked them up. Even without words like ripe and fertile, Edwards’s argument smacks of a girl being passed from father to husband like a possession. (Or maybe a disgraced potato? After all, they were called shotgun weddings for a reason.)

Where he really lost me, however, is when he accused the Democrats in his state of “killing marriage.” He argued, “This ban removes bodily autonomy, subjecting the young women to the whims of the legislature." Sorry Jess, I’m not getting the bodily autonomy connection. No one is saying that you have to be 18 to live in a marriage-like relationship. If they have the parental permission that would be needed for marriage, teenagers could live with a partner, have sex with said partner, and co-parent a baby with said partner. They’d just have to wait for that sometimes-hard-to-break-legally-binding-contract part.

If this were another state or another Republican lawmaker, I would probably lose my s**t and start screaming about the hypocrisy of any GOP rule maker accusing Dems of taking away bodily autonomy. Look around guys. But Edwards’ record holds up at least when it comes to abortion.

Ask me about his position on bodily autonomy for transwomen, however, and I will probably lose my s**t and start screaming about the hypocrisy of him saying he’s always for “choice.” Last year, Edwards reposted this meme equating a performer in Black face to a transwoman in “Woman Face.” He defended this position calling his stance on trans issues “pro-woman.”

Oh Jess, you disappoint, and just when I was starting to think you weren’t such a bad guy after all.