Under N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2, an 18-year-old commits a crime if he or she has sex or sexual contact with a 13-year-old, but under N.J.S.A. 37:1-6, a 40-year-old man may marry a 13-year-old girl if the girl's parents and a family court judge approve. If the girl is 16 or older, all that is required is parental approval; the court has no power to prevent the marriage. Recently, the Legislature passed a bill (A-3091) prohibiting all marriages involving persons under 18, irrespective of parental consent. Gov. Chris Christie conditionally vetoed the measure, requesting that the Legislature allow marriages involving 16- and 17-year-olds, provided that the parents consent and the family court approves.

More than 3,000 marriages involving children younger than 18 have taken place in New Jersey between 1995 and 2012, according to evidence provided to the Legislature by Unchained At Last, a charitable organization that advocates for laws prohibiting child marriage and assists those who have been forced into such marriages. Most of these unions were performed for religious reasons; others were sought by parents whose daughters were pregnant and who opposed their having an abortion. Child brides (most of these marriages involve girls) would appear to be an anomaly in 21st century America. However, according to the Unchained At Last website, thousands of minors across the country are coerced or emotionally browbeaten into such marriages each year.

There are strong objections to allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to marry under any circumstances. They cannot legally buy alcohol or vote, yet they are considered capable of setting up a household, not to mention starting a family, as long as their parents permit—or, what is most likely, insist. As Gov. Christie observed in his conditional veto statement, in a society where 16-year-olds have sex without parental knowledge (let alone permission), and may obtain abortions without parental consent, the absolute prohibition against their marrying is arguably inconsistent. Although the conditional veto will not change matters for these older teenagers, we urge the Legislature to accept his proposed changes so that young teenagers will be protected. It is at least a first step in the right direction.