The New Hampshire GOP lawmaker also said that he would not "apologize to the haters" for describing 16-year-old girls as "ripe."

A New Hampshire Republican lawmaker who has been under fire for defending child marriage has lashed out at his “haters” while insisting that his stance is “pro-choice.”

State Representative Jess Edwards inspired outrage last week after describing underage teenage girls as “ripe” and “fertile” while arguing against a bill to raise the age of marriage in the Granite State from 16 to 18. The bill passed by a vote of 192-174 despite objections from Edwards and others.

…

Edwards described critics of his underage marriage stance as “an army of control freaks that want to entice a pregnant woman into an abortion rather than allow a marriage” in a Facebook post on Monday.

  • breadsmasher@lemmy.worldEnglish
    104·
    11 days ago

    There is no good way to spin this. Reads like a very poor attempt at a republican “gotcha”

    1. “Im pro choice too. Are you now anti choice? gOtcHa” - idiots
    2. Those legitimately defending it because they want to … marry … children - vile predators
    3. “Entice abortion instead of marriage” - remember he is talking about a minor who has been a victim of SA. This bill isn’t about “allowing women the choice to marry and keep the baby”. Its about legitimising sexually assaulting a minor, impregnating them, and then marrying them to make it all “legal and above board”

    Conservatives, personally I do not agree with assaulting and marrying children. How can anyone ever defend this? Come defend your reps position. Or maybe wake up and realise this insanity will never stop while you continue to vote these predators into government

    • Funderpants @lemmy.ca
      66·
      11 days ago

      False equivalencies are conservative bread and butter, make it look like your opponent does what you do because conservatives wont care, but liberals might. Back when I had more energy for social media, when I would see stories like this I would tell a little story I made up to make the point.

      A conservative drives to his opponents house in the middle of the night, taking a can of gasoline he dumps gas all over the front of his opponents house. Striking a match, he gleefully lights the house ablaze. Thankfully, the opponent is not home, and the police and firefighters respond quickly. The conservative is being arrested and put into the back of the police car just as his opponent turns up the driveway. The media circus turns their cameras to the car pulling up the lane, then back to the conservative who yells “see my opponent there, in that car, well he uses gas too " . The chyron on Fox now reads: " Hypocrite liberal gets whats coming to him” on CNN you have: “Gas controversy erupts in flames”

      What I’m saying is, it doesn’t matter how outlandish the equivalency is, you can be guaranteed conservatives will make it, and that the media will bothsides it for them.

      Edit: Yes I do a bit of self-cringe when I reread that story.

      • PeepinGoodArgsEnglish
        18·
        11 days ago

        Edit: Yes I do a bit of self-cringe when I reread that story.

        Why? That’s actually a very good example.

        • Funderpants @lemmy.ca
          12·
          11 days ago

          I first wrote that story out 10 or more years ago, so it feels like a product of my youth, a cartoonish caricature that’s so on the nose I should be a little embarrassed I couldn’t come up with something more subtle. I’m my own worst critic though.

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
    19·
    11 days ago

    You know…. I wonder if the FBI would take a tip and investigate him.

    You know. Just to make sure he’s not sexually assaulted any kids in his orbit.

    • VindictiveJudge@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      11 days ago

      I’m not actually sure the FBI would be able to do anything about it if he is. There is no federal age of consent, just state ages of consent. Now, if he takes pictures while doing it, that’s absolutely a federal crime.

  • Monkey With A Shell@lemmy.socdojo.com
    12·
    11 days ago

    Edwards described critics of his underage marriage stance as “an army of control freaks that want to entice a pregnant woman into an abortion rather than allow a marriage”

    The guy goes on about personal freedom but then puts it as an either/or that someone gets pregnant and they have one of two choices…

    • lolcatnipEnglish
      1·
      11 days ago

      I doubt they all personally want to fuck children, but they want children to be fucked.

  • Delusional@lemmy.world
    5·
    11 days ago

    So this guy has shown that he is not smart in the slightest and doesn’t understand basic shit so he should obviously be removed from office and never allowed anywhere near children or in any position of authority ever again. That’s what would happen in a perfect world.

    • lolcatnipEnglish
      1·
      11 days ago

      Better yet, people like him would just not exist.

    • barsquid@lemmy.world
      5·
      11 days ago

      No, they do, they are doing some fascist shit trying to make words and phrases have no meaning.

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    4·
    11 days ago

    I used to think minimum age requirements for marriage were unnecessary: who would do that? I only read about it in fundamentalist communities that were inherently repressive, so it seemed like just part of the bigger issue.

    I still wonder how you can be bound by a co Tracy you’re too young to legally agree to, and where are the parents and authorities on this