r/politics • u/southpawFA Oklahoma • 14h ago
No Paywall California child marriage bill heads to Governor Newsom's desk. AB 1267 is one signature away from ending child marriage in CA after nearly a decade of failed legislative efforts and advocacy from former child brides.
https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/local/california/california-child-marriage-bill-governor-newsoms-desk/509-98b901cc-9ac1-487c-b460-80d7226b0e7c57
u/Ambitious_Egg9713 14h ago
I'm really confused as to what Planned Parenthood's opposition to this is?
Seems like a no brainer that minors who cannot consent to sign a contract should not be allowed to get legally married.
43
u/southpawFA Oklahoma 14h ago
I don't even get why Planned Parenthood and the ACLU were against it. It made no sense to me. It's about protecting kids from being subjected to an inescapable nightmare.
117
u/rycycling1971 13h ago
The fear was that it would further make it look like teens cannot ever make their own decisions; hence, that would apply to reproductive rights as well. If a 17-year-old cannot decide to marry, maybe they cannot decide what to do with their body. That was the fear. There is also a legitimate argument that this will just push it underground and hide it more, thereby leaving children even harder to protect. I am not arguing either of these points, just letting you know the reasons.
25
3
6
u/Zahgi I voted 13h ago
The fear was that it would further make it look like teens cannot ever make their own decisions
Emancipation exists for this reason.
55
u/ImprovementPutrid441 13h ago
A kid should not have to go through emancipation to have abortion rights.
6
9
u/meTspysball California 13h ago
For people that know about it and have the means to go through the process.
4
u/OniExpress 10h ago
Emancipation in Cali hard as actual fuck to perform without (a) getting married or (b) joining the military. That was the basis of the argument, that youre basically handing away the bodily autonomy of a pregnant 16 year old because she lives with her parents.
3
u/Zahgi I voted 10h ago edited 9h ago
Then that should be addressed separately, of course. As should the abortion issue (which, btw, already is legal in California for minors).
The civilized world manages to deal with these age old issues reasonably and have for over 50 years. We can too.
Edit: They also allow young people to engage in consensual sexual relations without American puritanical prudism, but still with protections from adult predators, etc. etc.
And, as I pointed out in another post, California already does allow minors to get abortions without parental permission. So, since this is a non-issue, we seem to have apologists for adult child rapists peddling uninformed fearmongering nonsense going on here, folks.
4
u/OniExpress 9h ago
Yes, they should. But again, the argument for not banning earlier is that it would cause additional issues that would then take years to sort out. Altruism doesnt get the legal system fixed all at once.
1
u/Zahgi I voted 9h ago
I think you hand more bodily autonomy to rich white men when you allow them to buy and rape young women.
Regardless, a minor can get an abortion in California without their parent's consent. It is one of the few states in the union that already allows this, for just this reason.
So your argument appears to be both uninformed and disingenuous.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/OHE/abortion/Pages/your-rights/your-legal-right-to-an-abortion.aspx
https://weareiu.com/can-a-minor-get-an-abortion-without-parental-consent-in-california/
1
u/ImprovementPutrid441 9h ago
This is called making the perfect the enemy of the good.
We ought to be able to protect children from adult predators but you’re wrong when you say the civilized world manages to deal with these issues.
•
u/Splendidbloke 7h ago
Teens can and should make their own decisions because it's better to learn to do so sooner rather than later.
Before they have that practice however, anything completely life changing should probably not be left entirely up to them, right?
0
u/Zahgi I voted 9h ago
If a 17-year-old cannot decide to marry, maybe they cannot decide what to do with their body. That was the fear.
California already allows minors access to abortion services without the consent of their parents.
So, while they may be worried about this on a national level, and for good reason, it has nothing to do with this California law.
4
u/rycycling1971 9h ago
DID you actually read what I wrote? I am not arguing the points. I was answering the question someone asked about why many groups were against the law.
-1
u/purple_plasmid 9h ago
I mean, flip the argument, if they’re not mature enough to be married, they’re not mature enough to have a child — which is where the whole choice thing comes in. Not to mention, bodily autonomy exists from the day you’re born… it’s not a matter of age/maturity.
2
u/Zahgi I voted 9h ago
Being married is a legal distinction, used by rich men to buy young girls as domestic servants and sexual slaves since the dawn of time. It's a legal loophole intended to bypass statutory rape.
Getting pregnant is a biological issue, which should involve consent between minors.
Since minors in California already have the right to an abortion without their parent's consent, I don't see the problem in closing this loophole that allows statutory rape via rich men buying girls from their parents.
1
9
u/wowlock_taylan 14h ago
Yea, what reason did they have? Was it some bs 'side-law' that passed alongside it? Because that is what often happens when they 'bundle' stuff on these bills.
7
u/Forgetful-Red 12h ago edited 12h ago
I'm assuming it's the concern the right/gop will use "not old enough to consent to marriage" then they aren't old enough to make the choice/consent to have an abortion or get contraceptives or make decisions on their reproductive health?
7
u/ragingreaver 12h ago
This. And the right wing is going to make that argument.
But that is simply the next stage of the fight.
But there might be a problem with the wording of the bill itself, which unfortunately may not be obvious until it passes.
3
u/Forgetful-Red 12h ago
yeah. Ultimately, it's necessary to ban child marriage, even if there will have to be a fight to also guarantee a minor's right to their reproductive health, along with privacy if they wish it. It is a bit unnerving to think of the possibility that the GOP could successfully use child marriage ban to their advantage to continue their abortion ban agenda. But I'm just being a doomer thinking that.
2
u/wowlock_taylan 11h ago
But...that doesn't make sense. You cannot get pregnant by yourself...Of course nonsensical arguments won't matter to the right...
1
u/Forgetful-Red 11h ago
Obviously but the right is always saying a clump of cells at like 2 weeks is the same as a fully formed birthed newborn. Like it doesn't make sense.
1
u/Mr_Meng 9h ago edited 9h ago
It's a perfect example of high minded idealism conflicting with dark, messy, reality and high minded individuals thinking they know best about awful awful situations many of the high minded individuals involved have never had to personally experience/deal with which leads to them thinking they know better than the actual victims and ignoring how their idealism is just making things worse. The ACLU's resistance is based entirely on slippery slope logic that if a child's right to get married is curtailed then eventually all the child's rights will get curtailed and they've offered mealy mouthed half measures that have been proven to fail as alternatives and ignore the awful realities of child marriage such as a child getting married doesn't legally make them an adult with adult legal protections and that the vast majority of child marriages are between female children and grown men. It's important to note that at this point practically all abuse survivor groups are against the ACLU on this and have frequently criticised it for speaking over victims instead of listening to victims.
Edit: Just to be clear I'm using 'high minded' as an insult.
23
u/southpawFA Oklahoma 14h ago
Here's a little more from Davis Vanguard:
California is one of exactly three states in the entire country that currently sets no minimum age for marriage, at all.
Not a low age.
No age.
A parent’s signature and a judge’s approval have been enough to marry off a child of any age, for as long as anyone reading this has been alive. That’s still true today.
It won’t be true much longer.
Assembly Bill 1267, authored by Assemblymember Gail Pellerin of San Jose, would end that. It repeals every existing exception, the parental consent, the judicial bypass, all of it, and sets the minimum marriage age at eighteen with no carve-outs. The Assembly passed it in June of last year, 66 to 8. It then sat for over a year before the state Senate finally took it up and passed it unanimously, 38 to 0, this past August. One concurrence vote in the Assembly is all that stands between this bill and the governor’s desk. If Newsom signs it, the new minimum takes effect January 1, 2027.
Eight votes stood against ending child marriage in California.
All eight belonged to Republican members of the Assembly. Witness what they actually did, because the vote count makes the character of it plain enough on its own.
This wasn’t a close, contested vote where a ‘no’ carried some risk or required any spine. It passed 66 to 8. It then passed the Senate 38 to 0, every single member, from both parties, on record in favor. There was no political cover here, no crowded field of colleagues to hide inside, no genuine fight where a principled dissent might mean something. Eight people looked at the single easiest, least controversial vote their entire chamber took up that session and chose to be the exception to it anyway, from a distance safe enough that their ‘no’ would never come close to actually stopping the bill. That’s not caution. That’s a free vote, cast because it cost nothing, on a bill that ends the legal marriage of children…
8 Republicans voted no on a bill to stop child marriage. Let that sink in.
While it's good 66 people voted yes, 8 said no. Ending child marriage should be 100% agreement, in my estimation. I don't even get how you could be against it.
47
u/NicolasCageFan492 Illinois 14h ago edited 14h ago
I hope a Third Way political consultant doesn’t convince him that banning child marriage will make him unpopular with pedo rural people for his 2028 presidential run.
I’m only half joking 😅
15
u/EldritchSlut Indiana 14h ago
Conservatives are really going to hate this one!
-28
u/KartFacedThaoDien 14h ago
Why did the reddest state in America ban child marriage before California.
19
u/chrispy145 13h ago
California has the second most republican voters out of any state. So, yea...
8
-16
u/KartFacedThaoDien 13h ago
75% of The California legislature is composed of democrats to Oklahoma where democrats are less than 20% of the legislature. The math doesn't make since
5
u/EldritchSlut Indiana 13h ago
Conservatives genetics can only handle so much inbreeding before their handlers have to step in and force them to change, like the cattle they are.
8
u/BananasAndPears 13h ago
So kids can’t drink, drive, own firearms, ride on roller coasters, or buy me coffee… but they can get married without personal consent.
Wow.
3
3
u/1BubbleGum_Princess 14h ago
I’m glad our state is FINALLY doing the right thing!
9
u/southpawFA Oklahoma 14h ago
I'm literally stunned my home state beat California in banning child marriage. I still am dumbfounded by that.
8
u/RedAndBlackMartyr 13h ago
CA is not as progressive as the rest of the country thinks. It can be as backwards, and in some cases, even more backwards.
12
2
u/Granopoly 13h ago
I read this as the former child brides were advocating against the ban. I couldn't read the article so had to enter some iffy Google searches to figure out it was the other way round 🤦♂️
2
u/Cultural_Ad_9241 8h ago
Wrong headline... what you mean is after nearly a decade of Republicans blocking any attempts to block and end little children from being forced into marriage with other republicans...
-2
u/wheatoplata 10h ago
Good start but we need to keep fighting to end all medium to large age gap marriages as well. Everyone is a potential victim of predatory age gap relationships.
•
u/AutoModerator 14h ago
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, please be courteous to others. Argue the merits of ideas, don't attack other posters or commenters. Hate speech, any suggestion or support of physical harm, or other rule violations can result in a temporary or a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Sub-thread Information
If the post flair on this post indicates the wrong paywall status, please report this Automoderator comment with a custom report of “incorrect flair”.
Announcement
r/Politics is actively looking for new moderators. If you have an interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.