Sarah: I’m a liberal feminist and a master’s student in Human Rights, so I was hit hard by news that the N.H. House of Representatives voted against a bill raising the minimum age for marriage of girls from 13 to 18.
I was initially appalled to learn that child marriage has been allowed in our state in the first place, a sign of my own ignorance, and even more outraged that Republican lawmakers framed this legislation as an endangerment to underage mothers in need of financial support, when in reality the bill would ensure greater safety, health and well-being of young girls across our state.
As I scanned the names of representatives who voted against this bill, my anger grew to disbelief: My own dad’s name was on the list.
Dave: As a first-time state representative, I have learned there is often little time to consider the arguments for and against a bill on the House floor before I have to vote. In early March, one of about 50 bills we voted on would have raised the minimum age for marriage to 18, up from 13 for girls and 14 for boys in current law.
I am the father of two women who are staunch advocates for women’s rights, but I voted against the bill. I decided this after hearing several other state representatives say that increasing the age for women to 18 could cause problems for young men signing up for active duty and wanting to get married before going off to a war zone.
If a new recruit’s less-than-18-year-old girlfriend, especially one who has a child, becomes married to the young soldier, his family would qualify for military pension benefits if he is killed. Despite the guidance from the Democratic caucus, which I usually go along with, to vote in favor of this bill, I decided to vote against it.
Sarah: I wrote to my dad immediately, hands shaking, demanding an explanation. He told me his reasoning, and although I understood that he thought he was doing the right thing, I told him that his vote upheld a practice that was not only dangerous for vulnerable girls who have been trafficked, raped or coerced by an older partner, but that the bill violates all major international conventions on discrimination, gender equality and children’s rights.
I tried to convey to him that while it was certainly not his intention, his actions played into a larger structure of patriarchy and oppression, a reality all men must recognize and acknowledge if they truly care about the rights and equality of the women they care about.
Dave: After the vote, I talked with one of my daughters, who gave me valuable information on the benefits of passing the bill. Her insight made me realize that protecting girls from being bullied into getting married or getting caught in human trafficking was more important than helping soldiers’ girlfriends. I have changed my mind and, if given another chance, I will vote in favor of this bill.
Sarah and Dave: This experience taught us both some valuable lessons. We learned that it is important to have all the facts before making a decision that affects the lives of vulnerable people. If it’s a decision about women, do not base your decision solely on the testimony of men.
Secondly, it taught us the unspeakable value of those in the dominant group hearing feedback from marginalized groups in a receptive and non-defensive way. When men in positions of power consult with the women in their lives about their perspectives and experiences, and when women seek honest dialogue with men about the structural inequalities women face, our communities – and in our case, our families – get stronger.
Lastly, this taught us the true importance of “reaching across the aisle,” a practice we learned is far more possible, immediate and close to home than we ever imagined.
(Sarah Freeman-Woolpert lives in Concord. Dave Woolpert lives in Henniker.)