this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2023
282 points (96.1% liked)

politics

19103 readers
3652 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

About 300,000 children and teens were legally married in the United States between 2000 and 2018, according to data from Unchained at Last, a nonprofit that works to help women and girls in forced marriages.

Laws prohibiting minors to marry have struggled to pass. Only 10 states have a law prohibiting people under 18 from marrying.

Pushback to setting 18 as a minimum age for marriage comes from both conservative and progressive groups.

all 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 156 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Earlier this year, for instance, a bill that would have prohibited minors from getting married in West Virginia was rejected by Republicans in the state Senate. Some opponents of the bill argued that teen marriage was part of West Virginia’s culture.

Great argument, guys

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

One of them even said that he personally knows 12 year olds that got married and defended it by saying "Guess what? They're still married."

No shit, probably because she's still a teenager who's probably saddled with a couple of kids by now and no financial support if she tried to leave.

[–] chaogomu@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Some states that allow child marriage, don't allow divorce until both parties are 18.

No way, that's a thing? How can this be justified if true? (Not from the U.S so I'm pretty surprised)

[–] TheJims@lemmy.world 97 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Republicans

The party of forced birth for child brides.

[–] EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And forced birth for raped children as we’ve already seen since Roe v wade was flipped

[–] paintbucketholder@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Republicans: "This would never happen, even if Roe v. Wade got overturned!!!!"

Republicans: overturn Roe v. Wade, pass laws that prohibit abortion in case of rape

Republicans: "Well, nobody wants that, but it's the law of the land, and we just have to abide by it!!!"

[–] EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

It didn’t even take a year to start seeing death and lives destroyed.

[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 81 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

The use of the term "progressive" here is infuriating. No one who actually wants progress is okay with kids getting married.

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

Surprised you’re the first to bring that up (and that I didn’t get more downvotes on the post). I don’t think many progressives are out here defending child marriage, although as another commenter shared on this thread in their personal story, there are rare occasions where it may have an upside. The groups named in the story aren’t usually ones you’d think of as aiding and abetting child abuse.

[–] Reptorian@lemmy.zip -4 points 1 year ago

Can confirm. And in support of changing age of consent when it comes to sexual matters to 21. I'm also against huge age gaps regardless of whether the people are adults or not.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee -5 points 1 year ago

No true Scotsman fallacy, with a massive number of upvotes. No attempt to address the argument, just empty and thoughtless virtue signaling.

[–] thantik@lemmy.world 62 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I married my first wife when she was 16 and I was 18, because she was put in foster care due to her mom beating the living shit out of her constantly. We did it as a method of emancipating her so she could get out of the system and adopt her sister who has cerebral palsy, and they had separated in the system.

The foster system is alllllll sorts of fucked. My situation is pretty unique though, and I'm not arguing that underage people should be allowed to marry. That shit is wild, and it's mostly religiously based.

A bit unrelated but you are a legend for doing that. Good on you for helping save some kids. And agreed, the foster system is broken in thousands of pieces.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

And that's very noble of you, but in general, these children are girls being married to much older men, sanctified by their church. And that's what Republicans want to preserve as part of their Handmaid's Tale worldview.

[–] joyjoy@lemm.ee 56 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

This isn't 16 year olds marrying their girlfriend/boyfriend after getting knocked up. This is 16 year olds marrying 30 year olds (after getting knocked up)

[–] atempuser23@lemmy.world 45 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The worst part is specifically so the 30 year old doesn't go to jail. This is a legal loophole for adults to have sex with children.

[–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

It's a "you broke it you bought it" law from the days when children were property (apparently including today)

[–] Grass@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Wasn't there also some weird loophole that prevents married minors from getting a divorce?

[–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

It's not a loophole it's the while point

[–] kale@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 year ago

Minors can't sign a contract. Their parents have to sign for them. Maybe that's related?

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

(after getting knocked up)

and getting knocked around, probably.

[–] imPastaSyndrome@lemm.ee 46 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] BruceTwarzen@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

There is a lot of reading involved for that one word answer.

[–] HornyOnMain@kbin.social 39 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Steve@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Not technically, no. Pedophilia is a sexual attraction to prepubescents. Teens aren't prepubescent, outside of those with medical disorders.

Even if they were married, I would still call sex with them satutory rape though. And since they haven't reached the age of consent, I wouldn't think they could legally sign a marriage contract either. So I have no idea how any of this is even really possible as the law currently stands.

[–] CADmonkey@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I have no idea how any of this is even really possible as the law currently stands.

I think I know how it happens, if one doesn't want their day to be more depressing, one should stop reading now...

I know someone who got married at 15 years old. I remember her being pregnant when I met my wife in 2007. As I recall her mom had to sign something for permission. The woman is in her early 30's now, her husband is mid-40's. They don't have the best relationship, but they've been married a long time and have four children, they've been in a few self-inflicted bad spots and have managed to make it. I don't know the specifics, but it appeared that the girl had a decision between a guy with a job who liked her, and a mom who was too busy chasing men and doing drugs to take care of her children.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

Honestly surprised at the list of worst states.