Voidable marriages and special sessions

Is a special session necessary on this new marriage law? There's no doubt that the law needs revising, but whether a special session is necessary is up for debate. I tend to think the matter can wait, but only the governor can make that decision. This latest debate has provided some fodder for the Internet and several media outlets, but the truth is that even if the Code Revision Commission reverses its action and replaces the two "nots" to Act 441, it doesn't give rise to a $19,000 per day special session in my opinion.

Colorado, West Virginia, and Wyoming all allow for minors to marry at any age subject to the marriage being deemed voidable. Likewise, Ark. Code Ann. § 9-11-105 (unaffected by Act 441) declares that marriages here in Arkansas by males under 17 and females under 16 are voidable.

Additionally, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania have laws on their books allowing for minors of any age to marry so long as the parties obtain consent from parents and a court of competent jurisdiction. Otherwise, the marriage is void ab initio. Massachusetts can't really decide what the minimum age to marry is in that state (if any).

Before 2006, Kansas didn't have a minimum age. Also until 2006, Georgia allowed the marriage of two people of any age without consent if the female was pregnant. Even in neighboring Texas, §2.103 of the Family Code allows for a minor of any age to marry even if a parent doesn't agree if he or she can get the permission of a district court judge (and see also Texas AG opinion, 1974, H-216). Several others allow for minors of any age to marry under "special circumstances."

Even if Arkansas enacts a strict minimum age of 18 to marry with no exceptions, the Arkansas Supreme Court has ruled that the annulment of a marriage due to lack of age is merely voidable and not mandatory on the Court. See Mitchell v. Mitchell, 219 Ark. 69, 239 S.W.2d 749 (1951); Hood v. Hood, 206 Ark. 1057, 178 S.W.2d 670 (1944).

I don't think there's a need to convene the legislature to fix what is already the law in three states and similar to the law in 11 others, but that's up to the governor. There's no doubt, though, that several statutes in the marriage subchapters of the Family Code need to be revised at the next opportunity. If you're interested in reviewing the statutes in these other states, here are links:

Massachusetts Gen. L. Ch. 207 §7, 24, 25
Colorado Rev. Stat. 14-2-106(b)
West Virginia Code § 48-2-301(e), (f)
Wyoming Stat. §20-1-102
Arizona Rev. Stat. Ann. 25-102
California Family Code §302
Connecticut Gen. Stat. 46b-30
Idaho Code § 32-202
Louisiana Children's Code Art. 1545, et seq.
Maine Rev. Stat. Ann. 19-A §652
Mississippi Code Ann. § 93-1-5(d)
New Jersey Rev. Stat. 37:1-6
Nevada Rev. Stat. 122.020, 025
Pennsylvania Stat. Ann. Tit. 23 §1304(1) to (2)