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.
For those who don’t understand why child marriage is usually a spectacularly bad idea for the underaged partner in one:
https://unchainedatlast.org/child-marriage-in-the-u-s/
Also includes map of which states allow underage marriage and under what conditions, as well as a map of youngest allowable marriage in that state (apparently both NM and MS have no lower limit).
Basically exactly what I expected the map, save for 2
Kudos to Oklahoma. Would not have expected them to have strong anti-child marriage laws
Shame on Illinois. Didn’t expect them to be so receptive of child marriage
Sorry to any other outliars I may have missed. Generally seems to be Republicans in favor of child marriage, with Democratic states banning it
Marriage is a contract. People can’t enter into contract under 18 without parental consent. Why is this true, but somehow a child has capacity to enter a life long contract of marriage? I get parental consent is needed for child marriage, but it still makes no sense to have a child enter a contract this intense at an age they can’t do it without parental consent. You can’t vote or serve in the military yet, but you have the capacity to enter a marriage contract? That’s fucking stupid.
Now how are Republicans supposed to get a date?
From Wikipedia:
Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Oklahoma do not allow underage marriage. The other states allow an underage person to marry in the following circumstances:
If one or more of the following apply:
- consent of the parents or legal guardians of the >minor
- consent of a court clerk or judge
- if the minor is emancipated.
Or in exceptional circumstances if one or more of the following circumstances apply:
- consent of a superior court judge, rather than a local judge, is required
- if one of the parties is pregnant
- if the minor has given birth to a child
Basically, in these places, there’s a loophole where offenders can marry their rape victims after the fact to make it look proper for the church or something. That and also allow parents or guardians to sell minors into arranged marriages.
I wonder if anyone was dumb enough to oppose this ban and if so we should list them.
An especially cruel catch-22 in child marriage is that the underage person cannot file for divorce until they’re an adult.
https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/09/california-child-marriage/
Unfortunately, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU are pro-child marriage and they spend big to keep it legal.
Children have a right to marry, the ACLU argues, and stripping them of that right would take away a pathway to their emancipation and independent healthcare decisions. For Planned Parenthood, the freedom for children to marry is about allowing people reproductive choice and bodily autonomy.
But their efforts have repeatedly failed in California, where Planned Parenthood and the ACLU have lobbied hard against restricting child marriage, although those groups have largely stayed silent on the issue in other Democratic-controlled states.
In a June opposition letter, the organization wrote, “Prohibiting minors from marrying in every case is a departure from California’s longstanding commitment to honoring minors’ ability to make important personal decisions for themselves, particularly in the realm of reproductive autonomy.”
These two organizations are entirely misled and spreading misleading information on this issue and are harming kids (vast majority are young girls) with that rhetoric above. Emancipation and reproductive autonomy should not be tied to marriage in the first place.
I don’t disagree with their reasoning. This is an area where we’d want studies to investigate if their argument has merit
I think the data would show the case they’re arguing for is uncommon, making it a poor defense of child marriage, but it’s good to verify initial feelings with data
I understand both orgs’ stances, honestly. I don’t think I fully agree with them, but if two 17 year old kids want to marry and have supportive parents, then I’m OK with that. Two 14 year old kids? I’m not OK with that. A 17 and 16 year old? I’m probably not OK with it but could keep an open mind. Not all underage marriages are sex slavery or pregnancy traps or arranged marriages or other harmful situations. The issue is there is not enough white area, too much black area, and very subjective grey area. There is more harm in allowing it and not enough good.
I’m glad CA changed their laws, but I do understand the arguments against it.
In the assembly, it looks like 8 Republicans voted against and 5 more abstained.
ACLU California Action and the City of Mission Viejo also opposed the legislation. (Click on Supporters and Opponents to read the ACLU’s opinion.)
It’s interesting to point out too that some of these states, like Oklahoma, only joined the list within the last year as well.
Weird how the USA has so much in common with countries like Saudi Arabia, yemen, Somalia
So, apparently, does France. France has the same exceptions to allow 16 year olds to marry adults. And Spain. And Italy. And virtually the entirety of Eastern Europe. Belgium has no minimum age as long as a judge allows it.
If you look at the map of where minors can get married to adults without parental consent, Scotland is more lenient than anywhere in the US. Scotland is actually one of a tiny tiny few countries that allow minors to marry adults without any exceptions required. Adults can just outright marry children in Scotland without issue. Only 7 countries in the world allow that. Most in Africa and the Middle East. And then Scotland.
Map of places where a judge can OK a marriage. I’m not saying the USA is good, but Europe has plenty of spots wheee you can technically marry as a 16 year old (or less). Worldwide problem.
I’ll never say no to a map
Yeah, marriage at 16 with parental consent is pretty commonly allowed throughout the world.
What’s going on with China? Some kind of longitude dependant system?
The minimum age differs by gender. Minimum age for men is 22, minimum age for women is 20.
I was joking, but that sounds stupid.
Y’all Qaeda lives
Its not popular - hence why it’s changing. Nuance is lost on the internet, but people really need to start chilling out about making blanket assumptions of huge swaths of people.
Its one of the “automatic assumptions” people have - that it IS illegal. So they wouldn’t bother looking it up.
Most Americans don’t have the slightest idea of what is/isn’t legal. Gotta remember, before the internet, you had to get a physical copy of your state’s statutes. These change frequently, and are quite large.
Legalinfo first started in 1994, and it took a much longer time before states have their own websites.
Yes, there are literalist religious people everywhere.
Marriage is a government tax and legal document. It doesn’t give, take, or mandate much else.
It gives predators an exception from statutory rape laws regarding their underage spouses. But I guess that’s mere substance
A comment here https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladviceofftopic/comments/8ouarp/do_statutory_rape_laws_apply_in_the_united_states/
Says that marital rape is illegal everywhere while it does exempt statutory rape in some places. If true:
To have a reasonable discussion about the topic, one must be able to rationally discuss that statutory rape is rape between consenting people where one party is considered unable to consent due to law. Marriage acts as exempting the inability to consent, making it legal.
For that to stand during a marriage, both parties must still consent, else it’s illegal marital rape.
One can argue that someone under 18 should never be able to lawfully consent, but the reality is people under 18 are constantly choosing to have sex, so a non-nuanced ban doesn’t reflect reality.
Hard lines are always nonsense, as 17.99+18 being hard illegal and 18.0+55 being totally fine, is also nonsense. So what is a good solution that protects the people who need to be protected and allows the people who want and should have their freedom? Probably isn’t one.
At what age can someone be considered able to consent “meaningfully”? What happens when someone is manipulated, groomed, or coerced into giving consent to a predatory “partner”? There are xtian cults in the US that teach their members pedophilia is Fine Actually, where the children consent to sex with adults. What does consent mean, there?
It’s easy to talk about choice and freedom, but less easy to discuss what produces a choice and what comprises freedom. Our understanding is imperfect, thus our laws are also imperfect…
Whatever the case, I think the important thing is being able to identify and stop predatory behavior and abuse. That’s something a community is more suited for than a government, unless we accept mass surveillance. Sadly, our communities at large are in a sorry state right now, but that’s a whole discussion in itself.
But Heaven forbid you marry more than one person, because then the government might send you to jail.
It originally started as a religious practice then became codified into law
Removed by mod
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?
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?
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
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
What medical decisions are being made by the child alone, pray tell? What the fuck does that even entirely mean?
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.
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.
