California has officially banned child marriage, with Governor Gavin Newsom signing legislation to end the practice that is still legal in 32 US states.

The new law, which will come into effect on 1 January, states people must be 18 to get married in the Golden State.

Newsom called it a "long overdue measure to protect young Californians and minors". He signed the bill into law with Courtney Stodden, whose parents allowed her to marry a 50-year-old Hollywood actor when she was just 16.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -21 points 1 month ago (25 children)
  • [–] 15 points 1 month ago (8 children)
  • [–] 18 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    That commenter just wants to be sure their child bride isn't packing a surprise for the bedroom.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -20 points 1 month ago* (4 children)

    I don't think kids should get married OR make potentially permanent medical decisions (including plastic surgery like breast enhancement)

    But that's just me. Now fantasize about child brides some more, maybe you can find one in Palestine and get him a boob job in California.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 23 points 1 month ago* (15 children)

    Lmao imagine thinking practicing medicine is the same as being a kiddy fucker.

    Maybe try not getting your world beliefs from Epstein.

    A good chunk of modern transphobic propaganda exist to keep us as a sex-trafficked underclass for the Epstein class' pleasure.

    Maybe stop fucking contributing?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    Do you think all underage marriages involve pedophiles? Do you not think there are some 16 year olds who legitimately want to get married to each other? Have you ever known a 16 year old?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    So do you think allowing two kids to make an obviously bad fucking decision is the same as allowing them to take medication prescribed by a psychiatrist?

    Or only when that medication makes you personally uncomfortable because it doesn't fit into your agenda?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    I have no agenda here. You are arguing with the wrong person. I'm only pointing out that not all marriages involving 16 year old kids is a pedo situation. You called a person a pedo supporter for making a (really stupid) medical argument. I don't support allowing 16 year olds to get married, but I don't support calling people pedo supporters for understanding there are nuances and significant edge cases.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Between 2000 and 2021, nearly 315,000 children were legally entered into marriage across the U.S. The vast majority [86%] were girls wed to adult men.

    You're right—only 4 in 5 underage marriages involve pedos. A fabulous argument for keeping it legal

    Source

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    "86% were girls to adult men."

    Now, in that 86% of marriages, how many of those girls were 17 and how many of those adult men were 18 or 19? Even a 20 year old marrying a 17 3/4 year old girl is not a pedo situation, though it is a situation that merits significant scrutiny.

    I don't support allowing 16 year olds to marry. I am only replying to the idea that any marriage involving a 16 year old is a pedo situation. Even if every single one of your 4 in 5 involve men over 20 and girls under 17, that is still a significant number of marriages that do NOT involve pedos. Again, I'm not arguing for it being legal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Now, in that 86% of marriages, how many of those girls were 17 and how many of those adult men were 18 or 19?

    The source covers this, I highly recommend reading it. "An overwhelming majority – some 86% – were girls [aged 16 or 17], and most were wed to adult men an average of 4.02 years their senior."

    I'm also not saying every situation is a pedo situation; just that problematic (safe to say, predatory) situations represent a too-large percentage. In many cases, these girls are groomed or abused for some time before marriage.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    https://www.hrw.org/feature/2022/09/13/how-do-states-measure-up-child-rights

    Research by Unchained at Last finds that over a quarter million children, some as young as 10, were married in the US between the years 2000-2018. Most child marriages in the US are girls marrying adult men. In fact, many of these marriages occurred at an age or with a spousal age difference that would typically be considered sexual violence.

    Nearly 300,000 minors, under age 18, were legally married in the U.S. between 2000 and 2018, this study found. A few were as young as 10, though nearly all were age 16 or 17. Most were girls wed to adult men an average of four years older.

    There is no legitimate reason for a 16 year old to be marrying someone 20+ years old to get around statutory rape laws, much less ten year olds.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    I agree with everything you say here. I'm not even arguing that underage marriage should be legal. I'm only telling the person I replied to that just because an organization or person thinks there are reasons that allowing 16 years to be married doesn't make them a "kiddie fucker" who gets their info from Epstein.

    I also never brought up a 16 year old marrying a 20 year old. I only mentioned that there are a decent number of underage marriages that do not involve pedos. There might be a legitimate reason for a 16 year old to marry another 16 year old, though there is an argument about whether they can enter into an adult contract at 16.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)

    I don't read that the way you did. I thought it was poking fun of politicians where they say you can be an adult and make medical decisions at 16 but if you want to be 16 and get married then no you can't make adult decisions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

    So do you think allowing to kids to marry, is the same thing as allowing a kid to follow psychiatric advice from an actual doctor?

    Especially after that kid received a diagnosis from a practicing therapist?

    Seems like one of those things is following sound medical advice from two people with literal fucking doctorates.

    The other is a bad decision enabled by dipshit parents who shouldn't be having kids.

    If a kid wanted to get fucking cancer treatment against their jahovas witness parents wishes, you probably wouldn't have a fucking problem with it either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    No, they're not the same. I think the original poster was pointing out that you can't say "you're an adult" at 18 when it comes to getting married, then say "you're not an adult" when you want to make medical decisions at 18.

    At 18 or whatever legal age, you make all your decisions, politicians don't get to pick and choose based on their lifestyle choices.

    Should probably be 21, weird you can sign up to go fight a war but can't smoke or drink.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (3 children)

    What medical decisions are being made by the child alone, pray tell? What the fuck does that even entirely mean?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

    At 18? Any? They could be emancipated, could decide to get on birth control or have an abortion in private, maybe they want a vasectomy? Who cares, it's their choice. Vaccines for instance. Blood transfusions or donate blood? The list goes on, maybe they have webbed feet and want to split them but mama loves Jesus and doesn't want to let her get the surgery? It's really none of our business, that's why we set an age where they can do these things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    And that's the exact problem with child marriage: a minor does NOT become legally emancipated by the mere act of marrying. They simply switch their parent or legal guardian with their older spouse, whose consent they must still have for the exact same procedures. They don't just stop being a minor because they got married.

    It's not just medical procedures, but anything requiring the ability to sign a contract: applying for a restraining order, hiring an attorney, even going to a shelter requires you to either be an adult or a minor accompanied by an adult.

    Who cares, it’s their choice.

    Yet all those things you listed as being available to legal adults are still NOT a married minor's choice. It's still their parent's or guardian's or older spouse's choice.

    https://unchainedatlast.org/child-marriage-in-the-u-s/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    We're talking about two different things. One, where an 18 year old would be an adult in the eyes of the law and can make his or her own medical decisions (after speaking to a professional ideally) and whether an 18 year old is of sound mind and body to consent to a marriage. It's either all or nothing.

    My point before was, people will say you can be an adult and get married, but not be an adult to make your own decisions about medical. Which is bonkers.

  • source
  • parent