California bans child marriage, a practice still legal in 32 US states

toomuchtodo

https://unchainedatlast.org/

djvu97

It was legal in the first place?

kazinator

22 of these are "red" states: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North + South Carolina, North + South Dakota, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming. 6 more are blue-leaning "purple": Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Nevada, New Mexico and Wisconsin. Only four are "blue": California (ban coming into effect 2027 as per article), Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland. I don't understand why the ban cannot come into effect immediately. Like, wouldn't want to spoil someone's child marriage plans in the next year or so because it would be rude?

NewJazz

Non paywalled article https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/09/child-marriage-ban-n...

walrus01

Still allowed at age 16 in Alabama. Roll tide... ... I guess....

kyleee

Circumcision next?

avrong

https://archive.is/VKoo5

zeroonetwothree

You can’t enter into other contracts until 18 so why was marriage an exception?

jerkstate

still legal in 32 states, and Scotland and Northern Ireland, BBC

NDlurker

I don't get how child marriage can be legal. Like, yeah, they get permission from their parents. But does the fact that they're married negate other laws??? I mean, it's still rape. It's still like child abuse. Does marriage = emancipation?

avazhi

Goes without saying nobody should be married before they're 18 (or probably 25, for that matter, but that's another story), but it seems performative and disingenuous to call this 'child marriage'. A child is a person who hasn't yet reached puberty - clearly that isn't applicable to, say, a 17 year old. It would be more accurate (but of course garner less headlines) to say California has made it unlawful for a minor to get married. Also see the technical definition of child here: https://archive.org/details/mosbysdictionary09edunse/page/34... This pits the developmental/medical definition against legal status. Nevertheless, under the technical definition a child is necessarily a minor but not every minor is a child. Thus, saying that California banned minors from being married would cover both cases accurately and be less clickbait-worthy, while saying 'California bans child marriage' is not fully accurate because it doesn't convey the full extent of the ban (viz., minors). As a side note in the legal profession when discussing wills and estates the term 'minor children' is used for a reason.

dofm

FWIW the situation in the UK, that the BBC doesn’t mention, is similarly muddy. In England and Wales, since 2022, the minimum age is 18. Previously it was 16 with parental consent, which is the situation in (the rather more religious) Northern Ireland. In Scotland the age is 16 and parental consent is not required. So, well into the 20th century young English couples would flee across the border and get married there; most famously at Gretna Green, a town just inside the border. Scottish marriages involving English/Welsh people under 18 are now not legal.

xvxvx

Campaigners always use examples of old men marrying young girls but that’s not common at all. 96% of children getting married were 16 or 17, and 85% of the adults marrying those children were 18-23. Not quite the horror show that campaigners push. I agree that no one under 18 should be getting married, I just question their tactics.

legitster

> In the state, there had been no legal age to wed, allowing children to get married as long as their parents consent and a judge signs off on the nuptials. > There was also no mechanism for people under 18 to get divorced and many girls say they were trapped in abusive and predatory relationships. Call me misguided, but I don't necessarily see 16 year old and 20 year getting married as equally problematic as the provided examples of 30+ year age gaps. I think the real issue people are dancing around right now culturally is that these extreme age gap relationships are beginning to make everyone feel very uncomfortable. The difference between a 17 year old and and 18 year old doesn't make them feel less gross and exploitative.

accountrequired

There is an argument that people should marry when they are (*both*) younger. More time to be fruitful and multiply. More time together, instead of encouraging high "body counts" and high-risk behavior. Delaying marriage is not as altruistic as it sounds.

GeekyBear

It's interesting when states like California decide that those under 18 are too young to make a decision on marriage, but old enough to decide that they want to have sex change surgery. It seems like you would come to the same conclusion on the question of "how old you have to be before you can make your own decisions" on both issues.

jmyeet

Let me describe a few ways why child marriage should be prohibited without any exceptions anywhere: 1. When a minor marries someone of age, their spouse becomes their legal guardian until they become of age (or become emancipated, which is a difficult process generally). Why is that an issue? Well, in abuse situations, it can be incredibly hard for the minor to leave their spouse who is their legal guardian. It's not much different to runaway children being returned to their parents, even when their parents are the source of the abuse. Certain states are worse for this than others, so called "reunification states" where they will absolutely try and return you to your legal guardian unless there's clear and convincing evidence why they shouldn't; 2. A lot of child marriages happen so an adult can escape a statutory rape or rape charge as prosecutors don't tend to prosecute when it's a spouse. It should be noted that spousal rape only became a crime in all 50 states of the US around 2005 (IIRC) and this only really picked up steam around 1990 or so; 3. Because of this lack of power, it creates a whole host of other problems, such as exploitation to the point of trafficking. Politically, preserving child marriage is a uniquely Republican issue [1]. [1]: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/repu...

em-bee

how does that protect 18yr olds from being forced into marriage? a 16yr old can not consent but an 18yr old can? i was hardly any smarter at 18 than i was at 16. in my opinion the problem is not the consent or lack thereof, or the age, the problem is the inability legally or maturity wise, to say "no". with the right culture and support there is nothing wrong with getting married early. the problem comes from arranged marriages, especially if there is a large age difference. instead of setting a minimum age, which does not help much, it should be easier to refuse, and even if agreed, it should be possible for anyone under say 25 to simply have a marriage annulled or a divorce if there are obvious problems (such as the age difference). but if both are young, then marrying young has its benefits. the younger we are the more adaptable we are, and that helps to build a relationship and makes it easier to get along. the idea that we should be fully matured adults before getting married doesn't actually work, because living together is part of the process of maturing, and the older you are the more difficult is it to develop certain skills and attitudes that you need for a successful marriage. in china, people get married much earlier than in the west, but they also have strong family and social support for doing so.

NordStreamYacht

The specific age will always be controversial because laws require specificity but social norms are varied. (Quantum levels vs continuous functions.) In some societies it's okay to marry 6-year-old girls. Slightly more rational societies link it to puberty in the female. Indeed, their leaders have written entire books to justify such behaviour.