Efforts to ban child marriage in California stalled by the... ACLU?

I said 'can' not 'inevitably'.

Questions should be asked. Offering services provides an opportunity to ask them, and offer education.

It's been shown that abstinence-only education doesn't work, so given that some teens will end up having sex it's important to mitigate the consequences as much as possible. Abortion and contraception do offer mitigations; marriage does not.

I don't think that's very convincing. Do you really think that allowing minors to access contraception isn't endorsing underage sex? It goes beyond that though, it is concretely abetting it. And without even any input from parents. The person prescribing is actually doing so without any way of knowing what the child's situation is.

But I think the more important point legally is around the idea of consent.

On the one hand, a child is too young, or too likely to be exploited, to be able to understand the consequences of sexual activity.

On the other hand, the child is mature enough to be able to undertake the decision to take drugs or use devices in order to allow sexual activity while reducing the risk of biological consequences. Which by the way always includes the real possibility of pregnancy.

They are inherently tied together because the concrete reference for both is having sex.

It's worth noting too, that one of the groups opposing this, and really I think the more important one because they are actually involved on the ground, is Planned Parenthood. We all know that they pass out puberty blockers and hormones with no questions asked. Exactly the same way they treat contraception and abortion for minors. I know personally one young person who as a teen in an abusive relationship had abortions through PP four times, and I am sure that is not a unique case. No one asked a damn thing about her situation.

I think a lot of feminist are very blind to the problem here - but clearly PLanned Parenthood is not. They don't want anyone asking too many questions about the ability of minor teens to consent.

I wish I was shocked by this. These groups have been insane for some time.

Spot-on @NoBinturongsHereMate. It’s a weird logic. ‘Well, because some 13 year-olds have sex (even though it is not what is best for them) that means all 13 year-olds should be able to get married’. 🤔

Tying marriage, contraception and abortion together is a category error.

Allowing child marriage is explicitly endorsing underage sex (and all sorts of other exploitation). It does not protect children.

Allowing, and even promoting, contraception and abortion can happen alongside opposing underage sex - but with mitigation of some of the consequences if it does happen. These do protect children.

Bloody hell, utterly insane.

This.

The only people who can possibly be for the misogynistic, child abuse enabling status quo in California can be paedophiles. It's really that simple.

I'm assuming ACLU and Planned Parenthood have been infiltrated. Parents beware.

I’m still gobsmacked at the revelation there’s no federal law governing minimum marriage age…

The contrarian thought process of these supposed “civil rights groups” is astounding.

They’re proud

Aren’t they a bit embarrassed about making their support of child sexual abuse quite so obvious?

As someone said above “captured”. The only way to make it make sense is to ask “what circumstances would want an adult man to be able to circumvent child abuse laws?”
They talk about the reproductive rights of children, (WTF) but isn’t it convenient that it also protects paedophiles from prosecution. And it isn’t children driving this demand to get married- it’s the adults.

What did I just fucking read. The reproductive rights of minors? The right of a 12 year old girl to get pregnant?? So they don't believe in statutory rape?

Exactly! Not vote, drive but choose an adult sexual partner for life? Go for it? 😩

Utterly horrifying. Surely no matter your stance on abortion you must agree the best, safest thing for all minors is to abstain from sex until they're 18? As kids they should focus on being kids, playing freely, going to school, developing into independent thinking adults.
Obvs some kids will choose to be sexually active with their teen partners and as long as it's consensual, safe etc then fine.
But to legally permit marriage esp to adults just wrecks all that and as others have said it stalls that development- it's total abuse, intended to lock in lifelong inescapable abuse, not only on the sexual front but basically keeping the child hostage for life?
I actually feel sick at the thought - how has this movement got to so many people? How can women not see through this? And men! We all know the lengths child rapists go to- it's horrific- those poor girls 😭

So California rules that it's illegal for a 12 year old to accept cookies onto a device (with massive fines for the software company if it happens ) but allows marriage... Utterly insane. Poor kids.

Dear god, who the hell could accept this in good conscience. I remember vaguely there was a problem with syrian refugees and child brides.

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN29J1K7/

I actually couldn’t believe that it was a breach of a mans right not to be housed with the child he married. It also smacks of racism to me, who gives a fuck if little brown girls are married off.

Australia is currently going through convulsions at federal and state levels over VAWG. New laws are being drafted re gun control, restraining orders procedures etc.

I was very cranky at our newsreader last night saying “ … about the growing problem of women dying …”. Er, no, it’s not a growing problem. It’s only the shouting that’s getting louder.

It occurred to me that all these laws re guns, VAWG, child marriage, gender recognition etc - they are all laws written for men by men about men. As long as men are ok, the laws are ok.

The reproductive rights organization did not support past attempts at imposing age requirements for marriage because of concerns that it could set a precedent that undermines minors’ rights to seek abortions and other sexual health care.

That's interesting, and it is something that seems to keep coming up in this context. Which is to say, there is potentially a disparity around three elements here: the legal ability to consent to sex, or practically in most cases it's really just adult acceptance of sex among minors; the legal ability to consent to these kinds of sexual health care, which presume that the minors are in fact having sex; and the legal ability to consent to marriage, which historically is a way to manage the consequences of sexual activity.

In a way, the concrete substance of marriage has really been the existence of children which tie together the mother and father with all kinds of obligations, pretty much permanently. So as soon as young people in a society have been sexually active, they have generally been allowed to marry. So one disparity is, if you can consent to an activity that could create a baby with someone, can you not consent to a marriage contract?

Then the other is, if a minor is too young to be having sex at all, and they seek contraception or abortion, then they are at best a child who is at best doing something so serious that it is illegal, that parents should be able to address, and it may be they are being sexually exploited. So is it really the job of health care providers to decide that everything is ok without the parents? We all know this is the argument being made for schools and doctors helping kids transition without parental involvement - even with no evidence the parents will be a problem.

I think a lot of this came about during the permissive period of the 70s and 80s where people seemed to think that birth control had solved the problems of early sexual activity - that is, teens and even young teens could be open and sexually active and it was fine because access to bc etc meant it was risk free and natural, even with an older partner. Many people really thought even quite young teens could consent to sex, and especially among political progressives. They had little or no worry about these kinds being exploited and would have pushed the age of consent much younger. Planned Parenthood absolutely thinks that way.

i think these issues are going to keep coming up.

I would like to know what the ACLU's concerns are about this, specifically.

Historically they have never showed away from taking politically unpopular stances, and they have sometimes supported people who were quite extreme, because they were concerned with upholding some basic democratic freedom.

Now, that kind of principle seems to have largely disappeared from the organization, and I'd frankly expect them these days to restrict freedoms rather than protect them. But I'd still want to know what about this legislation they are specifically concerned with.

It looks to be the old "you can't ban anything because that would drive it underground and make it worse" argument. One that might well apply to the prohibition of alcohol but gets wheeled out for absolutely bloody everything. Especially not marriage which is a legal status therefore couldn't exist "underground" (that would just be child sex-slavery which needs punishing.)

Fucking hell. It still shocks me just how much men can hate women.

Any details on why the fuck they would so this. It is stomach churning.

Who the f*ck sees protecting children from possible forced marriage as a bad thing?! Have ACLU and PP taken leave of their senses?!

Girls are the ones who suffer in jurisdictions where underage marriage is allowed; lots of men like the idea of a child bride that they can train before she’s old enough to develop her own personality or think for herself. Lots of young girls think teenage puppy love is a basis for a happy lifelong marriage and only maturity helps them realise otherwise. Lots of strict religious families see a girl’s lot in life as being married off to an older man in the community.

I really worry at how badly subverted a lot of liberal human rights institutions are - they actively argue for legislation that harms the vulnerable rather than protecting them. This modern reticence to be seen as judgemental is undermining centuries of ethical and legislative development that benefitted society.

This is so very concerning. I mean, it is rather easy to see who benefits from blocking this isn’t it.

in plain sight.

This.

Quite frankly, the ACLU often come across as a bunch of cranks.