SB 156 would raise the minimum age for marriage in South Dakota by changing the state’s marriage-license rules. Under current law, an unmarried person who is 18 or older may marry, and a person age 16 or 17 may marry with notarized consent from a parent or legal guardian. The bill removes the existing statute that specifically allowed a minor to obtain a license with parental or guardian consent, and it revises related provisions governing who may consent to marriage and who may solemnize a marriage.
In practical terms, the bill would narrow or eliminate the ability of minors to marry under the current consent-based framework. It also updates the penalty provision for officiants who knowingly perform an unlawful marriage, including marriages involving a person below the legal age of consent without required consent. The measure is focused on marriage licensing and solemnization procedures in Title 25 of the South Dakota Codified Laws.
Impact
The bill would amend §§ 25-1-9 and 25-1-33 and repeal § 25-1-13, thereby changing the state’s marriage-age rules and removing the explicit statutory pathway for a minor to marry with parental or guardian consent. This would affect county registers of deeds, marriage license applicants, parents or guardians of minors, and officiants who solemnize marriages. The practical legal effect is to tighten the conditions under which a marriage license may be issued to younger applicants and to align enforcement provisions with the new age requirement.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests mixed but ultimately insufficient support for the bill. It received a favorable committee vote of 4-2 on February 13, but then failed on a later vote of 16-19 on February 18. With no committee transcript provided, the record indicates the proposal was supported by a meaningful minority but did not secure majority approval. Overall, the bill appears to have been viewed as a policy change with some support, but not enough consensus to advance.
Contention
The main point of contention is the bill’s treatment of minors’ ability to marry with parental or guardian consent. Supporters likely view the measure as a child-protection reform that raises the marriage age and closes off underage marriage exceptions, while opponents may have concerns about restricting family consent, preserving existing marriage options for 16- and 17-year-olds, or altering long-standing marriage procedures. The split votes indicate disagreement over whether the state should eliminate or preserve the current consent-based exception for minors.