Gov Gavin Newsom called it a "long overdue measure to protect young Californians".

California has officially banned child marriage, with Governor Gavin Newsom signing legislation to end the practice that is still legal in 32 US states.

The new law, which will come into effect on 1 January, states people must be 18 to get married in the Golden State.

Newsom called it a “long overdue measure to protect young Californians and minors”. He signed the bill into law with Courtney Stodden, whose parents allowed her to marry a 50-year-old Hollywood actor when she was just 16.

  • fipto@lemmy.world
    251·
    2 days ago

    https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/09/california-child-marriage/

    Unfortunately, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU are pro-child marriage and they spend big to keep it legal.

    Children have a right to marry, the ACLU argues, and stripping them of that right would take away a pathway to their emancipation and independent healthcare decisions. For Planned Parenthood, the freedom for children to marry is about allowing people reproductive choice and bodily autonomy.

    But their efforts have repeatedly failed in California, where Planned Parenthood and the ACLU have lobbied hard against restricting child marriage, although those groups have largely stayed silent on the issue in other Democratic-controlled states.

    In a June opposition letter, the organization wrote, “Prohibiting minors from marrying in every case is a departure from California’s longstanding commitment to honoring minors’ ability to make important personal decisions for themselves, particularly in the realm of reproductive autonomy.”

    These two organizations are entirely misled and spreading misleading information on this issue and are harming kids (vast majority are young girls) with that rhetoric above. Emancipation and reproductive autonomy should not be tied to marriage in the first place.

    • yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.comBanned
      191·
      2 days ago

      Children’s freedom to marry? How oxymoronic. Might as well argue for selling yourself into slavery as a “pathway to emancipation.”

      Or that kids should be able to sell their own organs as a “path to financial independence.”

      • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
        414·
        2 days ago

        What is oxymoronic about a child’s freedom to marry? An oxymoron is two ideas that are contradictory expressed together. Which two words from those 3 are contradictory? I guess I can see an argument for freedom and marry if you are super anti-marriage.

        Also, do you think all marriages involving underage people are sex slavery situations?

        • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
          14·
          2 days ago

          I think any kind of legally binding commitment for kids is at best problematic, even before bringing marriage and sex into the question.

          And I think the whole emancipation angle (especially when talking about marriage as a path to emancipation, that just sounds coercive from the get go) is more of a sign of how our society at large fails kids stuck in situations they want to get out of.

          • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
            7·
            2 days ago

            Agree completely. It would be better if we dealt with both why a child needs to be emancipated and how to help them become so with adequate support systems in place that doesn’t require them to marry someone, regardless of that person’s age. I am only saying that there are reasons why a 16 year old might want to marry another 16 year old that do not involve sex slavery.

        • yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.comBanned
          1·
          2 days ago

          Marriage is literally a legal contract (or constraint). Adults sometimes enter into this contract with each other for tribal, ritualistic, or legal reasons.

          Children aren’t capable of making such a big decision, which always reflects victimization.

          Why? Because marriage is not necessary, offering zero benefits to a child and many drawbacks. So you have to ask why it’s being perpetrated. The answers are rape, religion, or sex trafficking. There are no other answers.

    • Taldan@lemmy.world
      2·
      2 days ago

      I don’t disagree with their reasoning. This is an area where we’d want studies to investigate if their argument has merit

      I think the data would show the case they’re arguing for is uncommon, making it a poor defense of child marriage, but it’s good to verify initial feelings with data

    • Deconceptualist@leminal.space
      5·
      2 days ago

      That’s interesting. I almost always side with those two orgs so I’ll have to read more about why they take this position. The way you state it sounds pretty bad.

      I remember distinctly it was like to be a teenager and realize I was every bit as capable of making rational decisions as the adults around me, and frustrated that it wasn’t really recognized. That’s not to say it was true for my peers or didn’t require being well-informed in the first place. But as a result I’m generally in favor of lessening restrictions on minors where there’s no direct harm and raising penalties on adults who manipulate or abuse them. So I’ll hold out some hope that these orgs want that but are just communicating it poorly (still a problem, but more easily solved).

      • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
        9·
        2 days ago

        Planned Parenthood is also lobbying against the billionaire tax, due to their belief it would lower healthcare funding.

          • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
            8·
            2 days ago

            Two rationales are being lobbied:

            1. The billionaires will leave the state, lowering overall taxes gathered in the long-term.

            2. The law doesn’t provide safeguards on how the money will be used, so it won’t go towards the things the law says it will.

            I think both are bullshit reasons that billionaires and their leaches use to allow billionaires to continue fucking over the world, but they sound legit to people who don’t have access to a ton of data.

    • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
      42·
      2 days ago

      I understand both orgs’ stances, honestly. I don’t think I fully agree with them, but if two 17 year old kids want to marry and have supportive parents, then I’m OK with that. Two 14 year old kids? I’m not OK with that. A 17 and 16 year old? I’m probably not OK with it but could keep an open mind. Not all underage marriages are sex slavery or pregnancy traps or arranged marriages or other harmful situations. The issue is there is not enough white area, too much black area, and very subjective grey area. There is more harm in allowing it and not enough good.

      I’m glad CA changed their laws, but I do understand the arguments against it.