That's false. Statutory rape does not apply to married couples, and minors can get married with parental consent and / or a court order.

I'd also call bullshit on this anecdote and most of the ones in this thread: the most common age of consent in the US is 16, not 18 and specifically, in Texas, it's 17, meaning that there are two different ways that this particular story doesn't add up.

I could be mistaken, but I believe the Federal rule sets the age at 18 for defining child pornography, and I believe that rule preempts state rules.

So even if it's legal to have sex with a 16-year-old in Texas (under State law), it's illegal to produce, possess or distribute pictures of that child (under Federal law).

The act could have happened months before hand, just after the guy turned 19 and the girl was still 16, or in a jurisdiction that ignores the Romeo and Juliet clause. Or the entire thing could have happened years before when he was 17 and she was 15, with the parents only finding out about it after she turned 16 and the investigation another year later turned up evidence to support that theory.

Also, the GP to this thread never stated that the guy would be a convicted statutory rapist for sleeping with his wife, but that he would have been a statutory rapist who's victim is the person who is now his wife.

There's plenty of ways this could have worked to the guy's disadvantage. There's really only one way it can be false.

Sorry I wasn't clear, I didn't mean to say this is used to cover young married couples, I meant to say that because these frontier states have histories of young marriages, that they have liberal laws in regards to age of consent.