Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Academic Blogs -> The Faculty Lounge

Academic

: The Faculty Lounge

The Law of Twilight

By Kevin Maillard

"What's this Twilight thing the kids are talking about?"

The Twilight Saga?s story of forbidden love and moody 17-year olds has struck frenetic chords with over 85 million enthusiastic readers.  Apparently, most of these fans were present at this weekend?s opening of New Moon, the second installment of the trilogy.  Earning a record-breaking $140 million, fans of the series lined up the day before the premiere, and tickets in many theaters sold out long before the first day.  Omnipresent at these suburban multiplexes and city screens were the hoards of screaming tweens and shrieking teens.  Most come for the Twilight plot itself, and most also come to watch the pretty characters who play the assortment of vampires, students, and werewolves. 

Quick summary of the film: Bella, newly 18 and human, falls in love with an eternally 17-year old vampire Edward.  (Edward does not drink human blood, only animal, so is he considered a humanitarian?) Abstinence is a recurring theme, as the couple must restrain themselves from physical passion lest Edward drink her blood. Edward leaves Bella to protect her from his vampire siblings, and in his absence, she falls for Jacob, a Quileute Indian who is also a werewolf.  Edward returns from his absence, and she must pick between them. Tempted by Jacob?s permanently naked torso, she holds out and chooses Edward. Bella wants to become a vampire so they can be together without danger, and Edward says he will do it if she marries him.

Are there any important legal issues to talk about here?

This vampiric paean to teen angst is perfect for the adolescent romantic, because it hits upon two familiar themes: unrequited love and superlative forever-type relationships.  As she chooses between her two otherworldly suitors, one of them (Edward) offers safe love and companionship under the condition of marriage.  He tells her that it will be forever, which is entirely true because vampires can live a long time.  Edward has been un-alive since 1918 when he was ?transformed? from a 17-year old to an eternally youthful drinker of blood.  So forever, in the case of Edward and Bella, is just that?eternity.

This brings up a host of legal questions that test the legal reality of their hometown of Forks, Washington: Are they too young to marry? Can a person consent to being killed?  What if they ever came across some ?irreconcilable differences?? Can a marriage license endure forever, in the case of eternal vampires?

Edward?s eternal youth could be problematic for marital age requirement.  The legal age for marriage in Washington State is 18, although children younger than 18 may marry with parental consent. If Edward is forever entombed to a life of aesthetic and monochrome teendom, he will never reach this age.  Perhaps he could get permission from his father, Dr. Carlisle Cullen, but that option seems absurd since both of them are centuries old.  But then, Carlisle may formally observe statutory requirements while deferring to Edward?s own wishes.  It follows that Edward could overcome the age standard if his father blindly cooperated.

Bella?s should be happy that they live in Washington state.  Assisted suicide is permissible, but with limits.  The new ?Death With Dignity? Act permits doctors to prescribe lethal does of medicine to terminally ill patients with less than six months to live. Bella requests to be bitten so that she can join the vampire world and live happily ever after (literally) with her draculaic teen husband.  Under teen epistemology, ?death? has a different meaning than the statutory one.  One is more social or emotional; the other is literally terminal.  Perhaps she ?cannot live without him? or she would ?just die? at the thought of them not being together. Nevertheless, she is a perfectly healthy, albeit sad and mopey, teenage girl with no physical infirmities that would allow her to die with dignity.

But most interestingly, what happens if Bella changes her mind after the transformation?  Say she no longer wants to be ?forever? with Edward, and she has a reverse-Twilight with a human once she becomes a vampire?  Or she and Edward cannot agree on certain subjects and they want to take a break from each other?  If forever is a mighty long time, can she really consent to the irreversible transformation?

Perhaps by accepting Edward?s offer of marriage she is assuming the risk of certain death and possible dissolution.  She knows that youthful life as she knows it will change, and that she will neither age nor sleep for all of eternity.  Even her understanding of ?til death do us part? takes on a very different meaning.  But still, her interest in marriage cannot enslave her to matrimonial perpetuity.  It would be a constitutional failure to sacrifice her fundamental right to marriage just because, as the kids do, she said ?bite me.?

 

 

 

Full post as published by The Faculty Lounge on November 25, 2009 (boomark / email).