by Rudy Cheeks

Dear Dr. Lovemonkey,

Are you still around? I was referred by a friend to your 1997 article mentioning my name, re: my second wife. As you indicated in the article, there could be other factors involved, besides significant age differences, in the termination of a relationship. Likewise, there could also be other factors, besides normal emotional motivations, bringing people together. Yardsticks of judgment as to the success or failure of any relationship should entail the conditions of the participants after the marriage -- what success have they had in life and how did the marriage play a role in that? Those whose marriage played a material part in their consequent success have, in that sense, had a very successful marriage.

Emancipation of minors is only accepted when our society, through its legal morass, seeks to throw the child away, absolving the parents from legal responsibility for the child's actions. Emancipation for those who are ready at lower than "legal ages" is not even considered, no matter how successful the child has been. Consequently, the legal system rewards only the negative and not the positive. Marriage, from this perspective (to a minor) seeks to emancipate the minor and accomplishes what the legal system is not allowed to do. Is a Ph.D. at age 24 evidence enough that an individual was qualified to be emancipated at age 17? Has an ascent from 17-year-old high school drop-out to Ph.D. at 24 ever been paralleled?

As long as we have a society that is bent upon not admitting and rewarding accomplished children by giving them significant control over their lives, we will have rebellious children who are doomed to failure -- unless they find a mentor who is willing to stand by them and make the sacrifices necessary for their success.

-- FTH

Dear FTH,

Yes, I am still around. The case being discussed here has to do with you, a school teacher, who married one of his former students while she was a minor. It was well-reported in the Rhode Island media at the time because of what was considered the scandalous difference in age and the opposition by the girl's parents to the relationship.

While not wanting to rehash the entire story, I believe that a related issue is certainly worth discussing -- are laws that protect minors at all useful? It seems that you are of the belief that laws should somehow be crafted on a case-by-case basis. In other words, the exceptional 14- or 15-year-old should be allowed to engage in activities that the law deems "adult activities" (e.g. being sexually active) because the child has proven him or herself to be mature enough to handle it.

This is a philosophical question. Certainly, I would agree that there are instances of exceptional youths. In a nation of laws, it has been decided that children need to be protected. Obviously, the laws were created with the average child in mind. Levels of maturity and responsibility are therefore decided by the yardstick of age, set by an elected legislature in a representative democracy. As has been often pointed out, our form of government is the worst, except compared to all the others.

It seems impossibly complicated and murky to decide who can do what, at what age, in a case-by-case scenario. It just can't be practically accomplished. If we could somehow do that, then I would say there are a lot of people well over 21 who have failed to show enough responsibility to be allowed to breed, qualify for a driver's license, etc. I know of no feasible system to do this. We muddle through as best we can. The best insurance that laws will be fair and reasonable is for all of us to be fully engaged in civic life. That means voting (to select the best elected officials) and paying close attention to what is happening in our communities, states and nation.

Our freedoms are therefore restricted. You seem to suggest that some sort of libertarian utopia is viable. I just do not agree. The challenge of America is to maximize freedom while still holding society together. It's an incredibly difficult balancing act and, certainly, we regularly come up short. But I can't think of any system of laws and governance that can successfully address all issues for all people. Dr. Lovemonkey is a realist when it comes to this. Despite all the disappointments, I believe that the structure of our system is basically sound.

---

Email Dr. Lovemonkey

---

Dr. Lovemonkey's archive

---