Release the voting information. Name and shame the people who voted against it.

Things to do in Ohio: leave.

“It’s just unbelievable that a bipartisan common sense bill that has no opposition from the public, that costs nothing, it has a $0 price tag… it harms no one except creepy men who prey on teenage girls,”

Yeah, I see the problem right there. * gestures vaguely at legislature full of creepy men who prey on teenage girls *

The douchebag that married my half-sister when she was 15–16* and he was 21–22* was from Ohio, so I'll just register my lack of surprise.

*Ages approximate because I've never been close to that side of my blood.

I'm guessing it is the same elderly white men who are also calling for younger people to be having babies that voted this down.

We need to PROTECT Children from RAPISTS! SEX TRAFFICKERS! UNDERAGED MARRIAGE! NOT having their Genitals Inspected by Strangers!

-Republican Voters LITERALLY!

US pedocracy in action.

At least it's not whatever state(s) allow 12 year olds to marry. Or whatever other horrible shit I read about some old piece of shit advocating last year. Ffs, just let the southern states go. That doesn't geographically include Ohio, but we can make an exception. A lot of midwest states who aren't in the south can go too.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140430173729/http://fuckthesouth.com/

The diarrhea must continue forever, puppies are unfeasible.

Who is the lobby for this and why the hell aren't they already on a list?

I don’t mean to make a joke about this but was there no public opposition because they are legally not allowed to vote, and thus aren’t part of the legislation.

While obviously legislation like this should pass to ban child marriages on the books. I just want people to know that this would not do much to stop the practice in the majority of cases.

It is true that it would reduce this abuse to some degree. Or at the very least give the groomed children more time to develop and realize they are being abused. It would be a good step.

However, the majority of these marriage arrangements are already in place in these communities long before they go "on the books". It is usually extremely patriarchal religious communities where women and girls are not only subject to usual patriarchal structures of our society, but to a form of oppression, different from but on the same level as an apartheid state.

These communities definitely stay protected in the rare instances of any form of law enforcement by these types of laws. But, it is on the level of black people "technically" being allowed to vote in the Jim Crow south. Getting rid of a law like this will not change to the structures of enforcement or the communities that allow these abuses to happen today. The Jim Crow south needed federal law enforcement to enforce its abolishment. That's why I make the comparison. The local law enforcement are literally the people that uphold the patriarchal structures and abuse to begin with.

Unfortunately, the real solution to these issues is not what anyone wants to hear. These communities need to be broken apart, they need fundamental reeducation, and the children of these communities need to be separated from the abusers. This often means separating children from their mothers; as the women in this society are both victims and abusers.

The adults need to be subject to mental health care and reeducation to give them the opportunity to show they can function outside of the abusive community they were born into.

These are communities built to abuse and oppress children and women. They are Nazi like societies that should be treated as such.

We have a long way to go when we can't even get a simple law like this passed. And it's really depressing.

as above so below giving devils control

“It’s just unbelievable that a bipartisan common sense bill that has no opposition from the public, that costs nothing, it has a $0 price tag...it harms no one except creepy men who prey on teenage girls”

Yep. Stay classy, Ohio...

Republicans are fixated with kids.

I think they mean something different by “family values”

It's amazing how Republicans continually do the things that highlight their passion for youth genitalia. This could have been the easiest win to try and save face for all of the shit going in, and they just doubled down. There really is no excusing that if you're a Republican you are on team pedophile. It was already clear in their support for Trump, opposition to releasing the Epstein files, and how seemingly every politician busted for CP is Republican, but they can't even do the most basic, publicly visible thing to not further perpetuate the statistically backed stereotype.

So i'm really confused. SB341 initially passed in the state senate with a small portion voting for it, and was sent to the judicial committee. The house version, HB670 was sent directly to judicial. I don't see an action that says this is dead (but going to committee is a common pathway to let bills die without any press or fanfare. Extremely common for things that the population wants but the politicians do not want to die this way.)

Almost all of the sponsors are democrats, 24 of 43 total. Only 6 republicans sponsored this of 89 in total, so clearly it's not a big priority for R.

https://legiscan.com/OH/votes/SB341/2025 / https://legiscan.com/OH/bill/HB670/2025

they buried an important word in the headline: PUBLIC opposition.

no public opposition

If you go online and insult the Epstein class you'll likely get hatemail about how you're not being fair. The opposition is very private and individualized.

Ohio is fucked. It has been. Something is fundamentally wrong with Ohio.

Senate Bill 341 would have ended a loophole letting 17-year-olds marry legal adults up to four years older than them

What's wrong with that???

No public opposition, but some very quiet private opposition? No worries, there's a method to end run around an errant legislature in most US states: https://www.ohiosos.gov/office/duties-and-responsibilities/putting-an-issue-on-the-ballot/citizen-initiated-constitutional-amendment

And this is supposed to be a developed country.

I read the article but was not really understanding WHY anyone would be opposed to ending it, so I went looking for more information. Turns out the group sponsoring the legislation, Unchained At Last, has its own site, and much more information than is in the article, as well as maps showing how many states have outlawed child marriage altogether, as well as the handful of states where you can be married at 18 but not be legally adult until 21, which is still a form of legal underage marriage.

I had my eyes opened. There is much more information on each of these in the website, but the four reasons they state for needing to end underage marriage are:

Child marriage can easily be forced marriage. The age of majority, when children become legal adults and get the rights of adulthood, is 18 or higher in every U.S. state. Children who have not yet reached the age of majority have limited legal rights and therefore can easily be forced into marriage or forced to stay in a marriage. They face overwhelming legal and practical barriers if they try to leave home to escape a forced marriage, get help from an advocate, enter a domestic violence shelter or retain an attorney. Perhaps most shockingly, children typically are not allowed to initiate a legal proceeding – such as seeking a protective order or even filing for divorce – unless they act through a guardian or other representative. The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights categorizes all child marriage as forced marriage.

Child marriage destroys nearly every aspect of American children’s lives, including their health, education and economic opportunities. It even undermines their physical safety: Individuals in the U.S. who were married before age 18 report high rates of physical, sexual, financial or emotional abuse during their marriage as well as unwanted or unplanned pregnancies.

Child marriage undermines statutory rape laws. In most states and under federal law, sex with a child that would otherwise be considered rape – in some cases, felony rape – becomes legal within marriage. In those situations, the marriage license becomes a “get out of jail free” card for a child rapist.

Child marriage can also be a form of human trafficking. Due to loopholes in immigration laws, thousands of American girls are being trafficked legally for their citizenship, forced to marry adult men from overseas so the men can get a U.S. visa. Similarly, American men are legally importing child brides from overseas.

So now the question becomes one of understanding what's in it for the Republicans in Ohio to leave the situation as-is, and I think that pretty much answers itself. Case closed.

How about instead of being baffled you just go ASK the people who voted against it why? It's not like it's a secret ballot or anything...

This feels like a game of, all together now, "Which Evil Is It??"

Is it because they are abusive pedophiles who want fodder for their kind, or is it because they are evil capitalists who want fodder for their factories?

Por que no los dos, am I right?

Tracks for Ohio

Golly I guess the resistance to it was also bipartisan huh

Not surprised, just disappointed. The state government doesn't care about its citizens, morality, or popular opinion on issues.

My ex married her first husband when she was a minor in Ohio and it really fucked her up.

Well project 2025 plans to undo child marriage laws. So they don't want to pass a law they will have to undo later (from Republicans perspective).

Am I the only one who thinks this is not such a big deal? The article says child marriage is already prohibited except a “Romeo and Juliet” provision

Senate Bill 341 would have ended a loophole letting 17-year-olds marry legal adults up to four years older than them with court approval

Someone of any age can marry an 18 year old, but if you want to marry a 17 year old you better be close in age and get a court to approve? That already prohibits child marriage while being flexible in limited circumstances. The bill would have only removed the flexibility.

You could certainly argue it’s not limited enough or I don’t know if courts are too quick to approve, but it’s not like child marriage is wide open