UNICEF comes to Wyoming

Ham-handed uniformity oppresses the human family

According to Wyoming law, “Marriage is a civil contract between a male and a female person to which the consent of the parties capable of contracting is essential. Further, the law reads: “At the time of marriage the parties shall be at least sixteen (16) years of age except as otherwise provided” (W.S. 20-1-101,102).  There are two exceptions to this. First, if either person is a minor (under 18), he or she must have the consent of a parent or guardian. Second, if under 16, a Wyoming judge must also approve the marriage.

But the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) holds that “formal marriage or informal union before the age of 18, is a fundamental violation of human rights…” That is a huge claim that many of our grandparents and parents would hotly dispute. Nevertheless, in 2018 UNICEF USA launched a “campaign to end child marriage.” And in the following two legislative sessions (2019 and 2020), former representative, Charles Pelkey, submitted two failed bills to change Wyoming’s law accordingly.

This year, Representative Dan Zwonitzer (R-Cheyenne) is trying again. HB 7 “Underage marriage-amendments” would not allow minors to marry even with parental consent unless a judge approves and would absolutely forbid any exceptions under the age of 16. As the 2023 legislative session approaches, it offers an excellent opportunity to think about the intersections of marriage, parental rights, and the state’s interest in protecting minors from sexual abuse.

Even though I think that we should ultimately defeat HB 7, I want to commend its sponsor and co-sponsors for their desire to prevent the sexualization of our children. Wyoming parents are fed up with government actors and non-governmental organizations that interfere with their delicate work of guiding children through the tumultuous years of puberty. These legislators, it seems, recognize that the state does, indeed, have a legitimate interest in placing restrictions on marriage.

Wyoming law places limits on marriage precisely because the conjugal union between a man and woman always has the inherent possibility of conceiving a new Wyoming citizen. The Wyoming Constitution (Art. 1, Sec. 2) requires us to protect that person from harm and to protect the right to be raised and loved by his or her own father and mother. For a concise and vigorous discussion of why this is an unalienable right of every child, visit ThemBeforeUs.com and click on the tab, “Children have rights.”

Precisely because every child has the right to be brought up by the two people who conceived him or her, both people involved must have the ability to consent. Mature, informed, and uncoerced consent guards both the bodily autonomy of each parent and the right that the child has to their love. The state, as guarantor and protector of natural rights, has the obligation both to make sure the parents give true consent and to hold them to keep their marriage vows for the sake of the children.

These are the issues at stake whenever marriage is the subject of legislation, litigation, or executive policy. The state must recognize the rights of the child to be protected, nurtured, and raised. It must protect the rights of both parties to consent to the sexual union. It must protect the rights of both father and mother to protect and guide the adolescent child into a marriage of his or her own. Marriage policy that fails in any of these obligations is bad policy.

HB 7 rightly sets out to protect children from sexual exploitation. It also attempts to strike a balance between a maturing person’s freedom to contract a marriage and his or her lack of maturity to give true consent. But it fails to protect the obligation—and, therefore, the right—of parents to protect and guide their own children through this delicate time between childhood and adulthood that we call adolescence. Thus, while it is well-meaning, HB 7 ultimately fails the test of good legislation.

UNICEF’s claim that “formal marriage or informal union before the age of 18, is a fundamental violation of human rights…” is a bridge too far. By its own reckoning, there are, currently, 650 million people who were married before the age of eighteen. Without regard to any other factor than an arbitrary decree, it would nullify the marriages of 1/10th of the world’s population.

Such a draconian, top-down approach comes naturally to the United Nations. Globalism will always be at odds with families. Globalism replaces wisdom, experience, and love with a mathematical fiat. It runs roughshod over the freedom of mature adults to marry while treating any parent that might question its arbitrary judgement as an enemy of the human race.

A subsidiarian approach to legislation is more sane. This recognizes that, as a rule, parents love children more than the state ever could. Subsidiarity governs with a light touch—leaving as many decisions to the family as practicably possible. It only interferes with the parent-child relationship in the case of child abuse. Such an approach could greatly improve HB 7.

Legislators should remember, first of all, that conjugal consent is not only to the marriage contract but, more fundamentally, to the care and raising of children conceived—whether within marriage or not. For that reason, enforcement of statutory rape laws, coupled with abstinence education, should be part of the discussion.

Legislators can also amend child-abuse statutes to clarify that it is a criminal offense to force children to marry. Then, to prevent the rare instances when parents might be involved in such child-abuse, legislators should extend the statute of limitations well past the victim’s 18th birthday.

Lacking evidence of any forced marriages in Wyoming, it would be unjust to strip all children of their right to marry young, and to strip all parents of their right to consent. Rather, legislators should balance the protection of pre-adolescent children, the rights of young adults, the parental obligation to advise and consent, and the legitimate interests of the state. That is good law.