That moment when you're so "pro freedom and civil rights" as the ACLU that you end up supporting child marriage which allows children to get raped. Like seriously, how hard is it to understand there's a bit of a difference between a minor making a medical decision for themselves versus tying themselves to another person (often unwillingly) for years with a high amount of difficulty to get out and said other person being allowed to rape them.

Does California's legislative website not have testimony available? I can't find it on the 2017 bill to read what the ACLU was so worried about. I don't know how it makes sense for them to describe it as a "slippery slope." And "slippery slope" is a type of logical fallacy.

Usually when the ACLU has something to say, it's worth paying attention to. In particular I notice what most of these horror stories have in common is a young woman who was forced or coerced into marriage with an older man. The ACLU is calling for better oversight rather than the removal of a right. That's a typical position for the ACLU to take, as they consider the striking of any right a serious matter that shouldn't be taken simply because the state is too lazy to solve a problem properly. Where I disagree with the ACLU is the notion that teenagers should have greater access to dramatic, binding, life-altering contracts. If a 16 year-old wants to get "married" so their child isn't born out of wedlock, fine. I have no problem with that, just as I don't have a problem with people in the 16-19 year-old range having consensual sexual relationships. 18 is an arbitrary line in the sand and it's absurd. You know what else is absurd? Locking an 18 year-old into a marriage contract that is difficult to escape in a few years when they mature and realize it was a horrible mistake. Or a student loan contract. Or a credit card contract. Or a military enlistment contract. Or any other of the many predatory and unfair legally binding leashes that are attached to brand-new adults under the unique absurdity that once the line in the sand has been crossed they're fair game. And the ACLU wants to extend that courtesy to 13-year-olds? Get outta here.

As long as Jesus wants there to be child brides and not Warren Jeffs or David Koresh, it's OK. /s

You could easily write a bill that bans underage marriage and also spells out the rights of minors to seek abortion care and have authority over other bodily autonomy issues. Why is this so hard ACLU? Republicans scream fake platitudes about protecting children but when a proposal comes along that actually does, you’re against it? Please make sense. It’s not okay what is being done to these young girls…

unchainedatlast DOT com shows the minimum legal age by state. In California, there is no minimum age. Shockingly, that makes it worse than North Carolina, which became a destination wedding spot when it allowed marriages at age 14. In NC, the age is now 16.

Paywall

Yeah no that’s exactly what I expected.

i realize this is a point made frequently, but i am genuinely concerned about how many on the far christian right yell that LGBTQ+ are trying to abuse children, when the far christian right is genuinely fighting laws to ensure children cant get married. the level of denial seems too extreme to not be on purpose

Strange and exotic foreigners with quaint but scary customs