So marriage for under 18's is child abuse [Edited by MNHQ at OP's request]

[averylongtimeago]

metro.co.uk/2021/06/11/england-minimum-legal-age-to-marry-set-to-be-raised-to-18-14755845/?ito=facebook%7Csocial%7Cmetroukfacebook&fbclid=IwAR31LtTF8bXW-puruYW-sciIFpLoYsv0KsLptgQNJi2lZdfSFzQKRDdaWnc

So if teenage marriage is child abuse, how can teens consent to medical treatment?

Sorry about the Metro link!

No one needs to get married at 16. Waiting until 18 protects young women until they are old enough to leave their family homes and earn a real living so they actually have a choice. It’s still a difficult choice, turn your back on your family and strike out on your own, but at least it’s an actual option at 18.

I’m sure someone will say they knew someone who married for love at 16 and they were happily married for 94 years, but we know that statistically those cases are extraordinarily rare. Two extra years of dating isn’t going to happen those couples.

Argh, 84 years.

I find the idea that marriage before 18 is child abuse when you can consent to sex at 16 a bit odd.

@KimikosNightmare

It's a ridiculous idea. It would make no difference whatsoever to forced "marriage" which happen at the moment but which are not marriages recognised by UK civil law.

The current numbers of that age group are tiny but forced marriage is a massive problem? If that's true then it must involve over 18 year olds. Enforcing the existing law is the answer.

It's about supporting the WHO etc push to get the age to 18 around the world.

Showing agreement etc.

It strengthens their argument.

It won't change much here and may help in some cases here.

The change is not much for here and could help elsewhere so I would say why not.

Am I right in thinking that 16-year-olds can still join the army? That would be much more of a priority for me. I married when I was seventeen and separated when I was 21, because I was a right flibberty-gibbet, so I don't see the fuss about under 18s getting married, personally.

Yes they can. That is also out of line with international recommendations.

Legal age for marriage should be 18.

@Coyoacan

Am I right in thinking that 16-year-olds can still join the army? That would be much more of a priority for me. I married when I was seventeen and separated when I was 21, because I was a right flibberty-gibbet, so I don't see the fuss about under 18s getting married, personally.

Yes, they can join, also Navy and Air Force.

But they cannot be sent to active operational theatres until they are 18.

So it's all training and education until then (the Armed Forces are the biggest provider of adult education across the whole of the UK)

Thread title refers to UK - do these plans refer to Scotland too?

I think age to marry shouid be linked to the age of consent. We already have propinquity in the consent laws (between age of 13 and 15, where it is still technically illegal, but no one is going to prosecute a couple of enthusiastically mutually consenting 15 yos) but once 16 it's OK with any age unless the older person is in a position of trust (teacher, coach, minister etc)

The numbers who legally marry here with parental consent are so small that I'm far from persuaded a change would make any difference. Especially if it's not going to apply in Scotland (the permissive parents could show their support by facilitating the trip)

Just sharing this

Scotland has its own law on this. 16 year olds can marry without parental consent. The comments on The Times article when I last looked were not supportive of this and a fair few thought Scotland would not change its law.

If Scotland doesn't change, then any change in the other Home Nations is going to be meaningless in terms of who actually marries.

There is no reason why a 17 year old needs to get married! The education leaving age is now 18, it's different today. Very few marry under 18 and they are predominantly from certain sections of society, they correlate with not allowing girls to complete education. The who and un are pushing for 18 minimum world wide.

@Bramblecrumble

Well,...as a medical professional, someone is not fully competet to consent untill they are 18 (and don't have an court statement about being mentally incapible) under 18s are assessed whether or not they are 'gillick competent' for sensitive things like birth control, pregnancy etc... but they are treated differently under medical law so.... not a great comparison.

Er, no - there is a presumption that over-16s have the capacity to consent unless there is a reason to think otherwise. Maybe give your training on consent and capacity another read-through?

@Coyoacan

They can, and the navy and Air Force, my dd did. But it's always part of a training and education programme, they cannot go to war under 18. My dd won't be eligible for active service until she's 22.

motogogo well that is good at least. But still, letting children enlist in the armed services is much more shameful than letting people marry under the age of 18 IMHO.

I agree that the different ages at which young people are first allowed to do various things doesn't help the situation.

On a discussion programme about lowering the voting age to 16 someone was saying if you are paying taxes at 16 you have a right to vote.

But I thought the law had been changed to say although you could leave school at 16 you were meant to go into some sort of further education or training.

I think there is a huge difference between someone at sixteen being aware of many avenues they could take, but do wonder if they have actually lived enough life to take a decision that may impact the rest of their lives.

But would having 18 as the age of consent for just about everything actually make a difference.

In a way I agree that this discussion is in fact not necessarily addressing the issue of forced marriage, which (and I didn't know this can be underage girls if a religious ceremony) is about how help girls and young women stand up to family pressure. In much the same way as FGM relies on young women coming forward and informing on their parents, asking young women to go to the police about their parents in many instances just isn't going to happen. Not forgetting that Banaz Mahmod was not taken seriously by the police.

Her sister is one of the main instigators of this campaign.

" ... Payzee Mahmod, a survivor of child marriage who was wed in London at the age of 16, said: “While I’m celebrating this news from the government, we now need to make sure every type of child marriage is banned.

“It is crucial child marriage is made a crime so young people are protected from every type of marriage, including religious and cultural non-registered marriages, and to prevent British men from marrying children from abroad.”

Mahmod’s sister, Banaz, was murdered in an “honour” killing after leaving the husband her family chose for her when she was 17. ... "

www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/jun/11/government-pledges-to-raise-legal-age-of-marriage-to-18-in-england-and-wales

I find the idea that marriage before 18 is child abuse when you can consent to sex at 16 a bit odd.

Yes, that is odd. But I don't quite know how you'd address it - imagine if they raised the age of consent to 18. On the other hand, it means that you have the problem that if a 16 year old girl gets pregnant by her boyfriend, she can't marry him until she's 18.

I was fascinated by the Times articles, though, and had fully intended to post them myself. It is all about stopping young girls from particular ethnic and religious communities being taken out of the country at 16, forced into marriage with an older man in Pakistan (or wherever), who is then entitled to come into Britain. I guess it is at least partly about reducing immigration, as well as protecting teenage girls from abuse. Though obviously protecting teenage girls from abuse is a good thing, even if it's not the primary intention.

In much the same way as FGM relies on young women coming forward and informing on their parents, asking young women to go to the police about their parents in many instances just isn't going to happen.

Interestingly, one of the things it says in the article is that girls forced into marriage abroad have told the Home Office they don't want their husbands to be allowed into the country, but the Home Office has let them in anyway. Which is crazy.

@RoyalCorgi

I find the idea that marriage before 18 is child abuse when you can consent to sex at 16 a bit odd.

Yes, that is odd. But I don't quite know how you'd address it - imagine if they raised the age of consent to 18. On the other hand, it means that you have the problem that if a 16 year old girl gets pregnant by her boyfriend, she can't marry him until she's 18.

I was fascinated by the Times articles, though, and had fully intended to post them myself. It is all about stopping young girls from particular ethnic and religious communities being taken out of the country at 16, forced into marriage with an older man in Pakistan (or wherever), who is then entitled to come into Britain. I guess it is at least partly about reducing immigration, as well as protecting teenage girls from abuse. Though obviously protecting teenage girls from abuse is a good thing, even if it's not the primary intention.

The point about not being able to get married if pregnant is completely irrelevant- UK law does not have a legal status of illegitimatcy.

The legal age for marriage in Germany, the Netherlands and France is 18. The legal age for consent to sex is respectively 14, 16 and France finally made its mind up this year that it should even have a legal age, which it set at 15.

I'm sure other countries have equally contradictory rules.

Personally a legal age of consent to sex of 14 or 15 and that it took France until 2021 to even set a legal age is far more problematic than the tiny numbers getting married at 16 in the UK. The answer is to enforce the existing law- not raise the age of marriage.

I hope it doesn't need moving.
Some girls and boys still believe/ want to remain a virgin until they get married. Until that mindset is changed I don't think it is fair on them to delay their marriage because someone else might get forced to get married. I think we need better support for girls and boys in both situations. I would definitely support a better plan, rather than this lazy approach. We got a good legislation already, if needed they need to get enforced.

'Yes, they can join, also Navy and Air Force.

But they cannot be sent to active operational theatres until they are 18.'

They have been though. It was in the news recently.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/785374/12590.pdf

It is rare, none since 2010. Before that, there were five, 2 were within 2 days of their 18th birthday and allowed to continue, 2 were sent back, one was only noticed after 18th birthday had occurred (timing not specified)

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/785374/12590.pdf

That's not what I read.

2019

www.politicshome.com/news/article/excl-uk-broke-pledge-not-to-send-underage-soldiers-to-iraq-and-afghanistan

This is an aside really.

The ages you can do stuff have been made at different times. Some have been changed some have not. They are not consistent. They weren't all settled on as a piece.

For joining the armed forces and for marriage the WHO etc says 18.

This move on marriage is to bring us in line to support their efforts overseas.

It makes no odds to us really. Hardly any people this age get married. It might help some of them.

For me it's, not why, but why not.

@RoyalCorgi

I find the idea that marriage before 18 is child abuse when you can consent to sex at 16 a bit odd.

Yes, that is odd. But I don't quite know how you'd address it - imagine if they raised the age of consent to 18. On the other hand, it means that you have the problem that if a 16 year old girl gets pregnant by her boyfriend, she can't marry him until she's 18.

I was fascinated by the Times articles, though, and had fully intended to post them myself. It is all about stopping young girls from particular ethnic and religious communities being taken out of the country at 16, forced into marriage with an older man in Pakistan (or wherever), who is then entitled to come into Britain. I guess it is at least partly about reducing immigration, as well as protecting teenage girls from abuse. Though obviously protecting teenage girls from abuse is a good thing, even if it's not the primary intention.

Yes, I think this is really getting down to the fact that what they are trying to prevent isn't really about the age the people are getting married at. Those situations would be bad even with an older person, for several reasons.

The potential consequences of sex are as serious, more serious maybe, of getting married. You potentially become a mother with all that entails, are exposed to STIs with all the risks from that, potentially attached permanently to the partner who becomes the father of your child.

At least with a marriage you can get a divorce. And these days plenty of people just live together anyway, with again, many of the same risks.

Passing laws that are really meant to address something different, from a sideways direction, is often a bad idea.

This is an aside really

Yes, it is an aside, but it's an important one. Because the document I quote is the source document for your article.

The underlying question is whether systems are foolproof, and I think it would be foolish to say that any system is 100% proof against human error. Especially if the person concerned is actively wanting the outcome for which they are not yet age-qualified. Any of the 17yos in question could have said 'I can't go out until the next wave because I haven't had my birthday' and they would not have gone, and their COs would have been glad of it (they are avoiding a potential major disciplinary case).

It's relevant to marriage of 16 and 17 year olds, even though if they marry they absolutely marry (rather than if you join the military, you are on limited duties, training and education until 18), because of the same idea that you cannot prevent those who actively want to marry to do so. They could travel to Scotland or elsewhere, or go through a private ceremony which marries them in the eyes of their community. The first is OK in the sense that it is a proper marriage which also brings legal obligations. The second is just dressed up cohabitation in the eyes of the law.

Is it likely to be a good or a bad thing to have more such cohabitation? There are arguments both ways - it might be highly undesirable, but if (unlike admin errors which mean the military system that should work absolutely can cock it up in a handful of cases) it is unstoppable and unpoliceable, what arrangements give the better outcomes?