Well, Francois, it would certainly matter if you married when you were 28. Here in Pennsylvania, the 17 year old would not have been a problem, legally. Sensibly, I think, Pennsylvania also does not criminalize sex between someone of at least 14 with someone no more than 4 years older; kids are going to have sex, so the best public policy is to prevent them being taken advantage of by older people, whereas someone who just was their age is less likely to victimize them.
These are formative years, but for the J.W., there is little in the way of a right-of-passage. It's not as though they should aspire to move out of the parental home to a college dorm; even getting a full-time job is seen as a failure to more straight to pioneering. Meanwhile, those who like this young man do move out are socially stunted, because they really only have the other single "young people" in the congregation to associate with - most of whom are married or gone by 18 or so. This 23 year old may have been no more mature than a 17 or 18 year old.
Nonetheless he should have paid attention to the laws of Caesar, even if he was going to break the less than reasonable laws of Brooklyn. The 14 year old was too much, and without that he may not have even been prosecuted; and as for the 17 year old, he should have waited - until she was 18, or until he could get a hotel room across the border in Pennsylvania.
The god of the dolphins has flippers.
Should be "rites of passage"