Thread

1. kazinator · 1790823944 · focus · HN ↗

   22 of these are "red" states: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North + South Carolina, North + South Dakota, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

   6 more are blue-leaning "purple": Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Nevada, New Mexico and Wisconsin.

   Only four are "blue": California (ban coming into effect 2027 as per article), Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland.

   I don't understand why the ban cannot come into effect immediately. Like, wouldn't want to spoil someone's child marriage plans in the next year or so because it would be rude?

   1. plandis · 1790826277 · focus · HN ↗

      > I don't understand why the ban cannot come into effect immediately.

      This is the default in Californias constitution:

      > Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subdivision [Article 4, section 8], a statute enacted at a regular session shall go into effect on January 1 next following a 90-day period from the date of enactment of the statute.

      There are additional legislative hurdles to enact legislation faster than that.

   2. malfist · 1790826287 · focus · HN ↗

      Kentucky had a bill up for vote this year, passed the senate but died in the house. One of the lawmakers specifically amended it to exempt cases where the child is pregnant.

      1. Aeolun · 1790827128 · focus · HN ↗

         As in, it’s fine to marry if the child is pregnant, or the opposite?

         1. malfist · 1790855446 · focus · HN ↗

            The amendment permitted marriage if the child is pregnant
      2. [deleted] · 1790827913 · focus · HN ↗

         [deleted]

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.