Guest column by Norman Woods, Family Voice
Published by The Dakota Scout – 5/26/26
Are you tired of the campaign attack ads yet? It’s impossible to open social media without seeing a crazy accusation, and the latest doozy is a string of texts and mailers claiming that South Dakota state senators voted in favor of child brides. What they actually voted for was more parental involvement, judicial safeguards and telling Bill Gates to take a hike.
Here’s what really happened.
Last year, a group connected to The Gates Foundation, Feminist Majority Foundation and American Atheists, among others, introduced a piece of legislation that would prohibit anyone from getting married until they are 18. Right now in South Dakota 16- or 17-year-olds can get married if there is written consent given by their parents – a safeguard to ensure someone isn’t being forced into a marriage.
Proponents of the legislation argued that we need to ban these marriages for a number of reasons, including the possible “loss of reproductive rights” for the girls who get married. Yes, you read that correctly. The Gates Foundation and its allies warned that when there’s a married father involved, a girl might be less likely to get an abortion, and they tried to sell this as a “bad” thing.
During the legislative hearing on a previous marriage ban, HB1154, former lawmaker Gary Cammack flipped the script and reminded lawmakers what’s actually at stake here in South Dakota. He pointed that committing to marriage and family stability is a good and healthy thing – and that safeguards already exist in our laws.
He pointed out that he has “a little personal experience” on this topic, because his wife was 17 when they got married, and he was just a few years older. “I think it stuck,” he joked, noting that they’ve been married for more than 52 years and have raised four sons and welcomed 10 grandkids.
These are the kind of marriages that Bill Gates and his posse wanted to prohibit, and the South Dakota Senate said “no.”
When we talk about marriage, and the laws that impact it, we must remember what marriage is for, and why the state regulates it in the first place. Marriage serves three key functions in society: It protects women, civilizes men and provides the best outcomes for the children who are born from it. Study after study shows that being raised by your married mother and father remains one of the strongest predictors of long-term stability and success for children.
There are three key reasons why the South Dakota Senate rejected the marriage ban:
The bill could have increased abortions
We know that partner support is often the primary factor deterring girls away from an abortion decision, so leaving the door open for the young man step up, commit to marriage and embrace fatherhood was the smart thing to do. Had the bill passed, the state would have been telling the young couple “You are required to have this baby out of wedlock.” That sends the wrong message and creates another barrier to young men fully committing to fatherhood.
The ban would have raised the age of marriage but not the age of consent
The legislation would have raised the legal marriage age to 18 while leaving the age of consent to have sex at 16. In other words, our laws would have explicitly disconnected sex and marriage, and told young people: “You can hook up, but you can’t get married.” That’s a backwards message for a state that claims to value family formation and responsibility.
The bill did nothing to catch abusers
Supporters of the legislation claimed banning 17-year-olds from getting married would protect girls from abuse, but the bill did nothing to catch the purported bad actors.
So what did the Legislature do after rejecting the bill? They passed new safeguards instead.
The legislation passed in 2026 made three changes to our laws. The bill added additional parental oversight, ensuring that both parents of the minor believe the marriage is a good and healthy step forward. Second, it added the option of judicial oversight. If one or both parents are not available or willing to give consent, a judge would be tasked with ensuring that the relationship was in the best interest of both parties. Finally, the law established a strict age-gap limit: the couple cannot be more than four years apart in age.
These reforms brought our laws in line with a number of other states. For example, Montana requires two counseling sessions and a meeting with a judicial officer. Georgia, Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Missouri and Florida all have age-gap restrictions tied to young marriages.
These safeguards were the prudent response instead of imposing an all-out ban on something that wasn’t causing a problem. By the proponents’ own admission, there had only been one example in 20 years of a marriage involving a significant age gap. The rest of the marriages? Couples averaged a four-year age gap. This means that South Dakota has hundreds of examples of young couples that have, with parental oversight, chosen to marry and build a stable family.
When you cast your vote this spring, you can have confidence that your senator stood up to outside activists and told the East and West coast elites to keep their ideas on marriage to themselves. As Marco Rubio once said: “The greatest tool to lift children and families from poverty isn’t a government spending program. It’s called marriage.”
Norman Woods is the director of Family Voice – a South Dakota advocacy organization promoting faith, family and public policy engagement.
Original post LINK
The Dakota Scout Homepage LINK
