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

[AstonUniversityPotholeDepartment]

The state of California is one of four states in the US without any minimum age threshold for marriage.

The proposed law would introduce an minimum age of 18, but it's been stalled after the California branch of the ACLU and the California branch of Planned Parenthood argued against it.

I'm dumbfounded.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/05/24/opinion-california-enables-abusive-child-marriage-but-bay-area-lawmaker-blocks-reform-effort/

extract

The United Nations considers all marriage before age 18 to be forced marriage. Child marriage is not a “right,” it is a “human rights abuse.” International Planned Parenthood Federation calls it “one of the most persistent forms of sanctioned sexual abuse of girls.”

Yet, California is one of just four states in the nation with no minimum age for marriage. Minors of any age can be married if a judge and, in most cases, a parent or guardian approve. The bill Kalra is blocking would set a minimum age of 18 to marry. It mirrors laws in 12 U.S. states from New York to Washington.

The bill has more than 30 bipartisan legislative co-authors and support from the Legislative Women’s Caucus; dozens of groups, from the California Teachers Association to the National Center for Lesbian Rights; and child marriage survivors.

(continues)

California’s current laws effectively legalize the trafficking of minors. That’s because federal law does not specify a minimum age to emigrate to the United States as a spouse or fiancé nor to petition in this country for a foreign spouse or fiancé. Instead, the federal government defers to the marriage age in the state where the couple will reside.

That means a California girl of any age can legally be trafficked for her citizenship — in other words, forced to marry an adult man from overseas so he can get a U.S. visa. It also means California men can legally import child brides of any age from overseas. (Nearly all the thousands of teens trafficked in this way are girls.)

Marriage before age 18 creates a “Kafkaesque nightmare” for minors. Their limited legal rights mean they cannot easily leave home to escape parents who are planning an unwanted wedding for them; enter a domestic violence shelter; retain an attorney; bring a legal action independently; or get help from advocates like Unchained.

Child marriage gives a “get out of jail free” card to would-be child rapists, because statutory rape within marriage is not a crime. Child marriage is a harmful practice that devastates sexual and reproductive rights. And census data shows more than 8,000 minors in California are married off every year, mostly girls to adult men.

Nevertheless, Kalra caved to pressure from the American Civil Liberties Union of California and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. Unlike their counterparts in almost every other U.S. state that have supported minimum marriage ages or stayed neutral, the two California groups support child marriage.

ACLU and Planned Parenthood are two very, very, captured organisations. They have been completely subverted by adherents of Queer Theory and its spin-offs.

That horrifying.

Can International Planned Parenthood disaffiliate the Californian lot?

ACLU and Planned Parenthood are two very, very, captured organisations. They have been completely subverted by adherents of Queer Theory and its spin-offs.

And this seems to be the number one central policy position of Queer Theory - removing any barriers to the ability of children to consent.

I'm sure some would argue that this arises naturally and organically from the ideology - it's all about removing society's rules, and individuals' freedom from society; children have the most rules, therefore removing all the rules around children will naturally be a biggest focus.

(So just as ACLU previously used to support Nazis due to their free speech principles, now they have to support child marriage due to their Queer Theory principles).

Many others argue that the direction of causality flows in the other direction, and people who are interested in children being able to consent created a huge pile of horseshit to justify it.

There seems to be no women's rights goal so basic that a branch of pseudo-progressives won't impede it. Especially not in California.

Banning child marriage is a central plank of worldwide efforts to eliminate modern slavery. This is such a mainstream goal, that the UN and UNICEF have published pages and pages of literature on its importance.

This.

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

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

in plain sight.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

This is an article from 2023, when the California branches of the ACLU were cited as instrumental in blocking that year's attempt to introduce a minimum age threshold in California.

As part of its opposition to a previous attempt to ban child marriage in California, the American Civil Liberties Union cited a lack of data and said it “unnecessarily and unduly intrudes on the fundamental right of marriage without sufficient cause.”
The organization supported previous measures by the state to enact more oversight of underage marriages, but said in 2017 “we believe that some youth can appropriately make this decision for themselves.”
A spokesperson for the ACLU of Northern California said the group’s position on child marriage has not changed.

(continues)

Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California spokesperson Jennifer Wonnacott said in a statement that the organization “strongly supports protecting youth from abuse of all kinds” but that protections against exploitation should “not impede on the reproductive rights of minors and their ability to decide what is best for them, their health and their lives.”

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.

From Why child marriage is legal in California — and the unexpected groups fighting to keep it that way - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 😭

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

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?

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.

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

They’re proud

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.

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.

Bloody hell, utterly insane.