Thread

California bans child marriage, a practice still legal in 32 US states

83 points · 136 comments · dabinat

avazhi · 1790824731 · focus · HN ↗
Goes without saying nobody should be married before they're 18 (or probably 25, for that matter, but that's another story), but it seems performative and disingenuous to call this 'child marriage'. A child is a person who hasn't yet reached puberty - clearly that isn't applicable to, say, a 17 year old.
It would be more accurate (but of course garner less headlines) to say California has made it unlawful for a minor to get married.
Also see the technical definition of child here: <a href="https://archive.org/details/mosbysdictionary09edunse/page/344/mode/2up?q=345" rel="nofollow">https://archive.org/details/mosbysdictionary09edunse/page/34...
This pits the developmental/medical definition against legal status. Nevertheless, under the technical definition a child is necessarily a minor but not every minor is a child.
Thus, saying that California banned minors from being married would cover both cases accurately and be less clickbait-worthy, while saying 'California bans child marriage' is not fully accurate because it doesn't convey the full extent of the ban (viz., minors).
As a side note in the legal profession when discussing wills and estates the term 'minor children' is used for a reason.
1. lazyasciiart · 1790825037 · focus · HN ↗
  No, it wouldn’t. The youngest known girl to give birth was 5 years old. Was she, in your opinion, a child?
  1. avazhi · 1790825292 · focus · HN ↗
    Not it wouldn't what?
    EDIT: Can't reply: 'You're posting too fast'
    lazyasciiart · 1790825392 · focus · HN ↗
    Be more accurate.
2. itslennysfault · 1790825246 · focus · HN ↗
  Considering...
  > In the state, there had been no legal age to wed, allowing children to get married as long as their parents consent and a judge signs off on the nuptials.
  I don't even think the headline was sensationalist.
  1. avazhi · 1790825488 · focus · HN ↗
    My point was that saying 'California bans child marriage' is less accurate than 'California bans minors from being able to wed', since the latter (arguably) encompasses a larger group of people. I don't think most people consider a 16 or 17 year old a child in the way a 5 or 8 year old is a child. Put another way, an 8 year old girl being forcibly married to, say, a 30 year old man (as happens in certain places in the world) is, I would put to you, much more offensive and viscerally disgusting than a 17 year old girl being married. Neither should be lawful, but child marriage conjures up images of actual children, surely.
    selcuka · 1790825686 · focus · HN ↗
    > I don't think most people consider a 16 or 17 year old a child in the way a 5 or 8 year old is a child.
    Did you read the article? There was no minimum age before this bill, so yes, they banned child marriage (by all definitions of it).
    > In the state, there had been no legal age to wed, allowing children to get married as long as their parents consent and a judge signs off on the nuptials.
    wallst07 · 1790849214 · focus · HN ↗
    In practice though, did any children (by OPs definition) actually get married, or were they all pubescent minors?
    You could say the same thing, "California bans babies from marriage" technically true but wrong in context.
3. selcuka · 1790825418 · focus · HN ↗
  > A child is a person who hasn't yet reached puberty - clearly that isn't applicable to, say, a 17 year old.
  This is incorrect. According to UNICEF, "a child is any person under the age of 18." [1]
  > California has made it unlawful for a minor to get married.
  There was no minimum age limit in California before this bill.
  [1] <a href="https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/convention-text-childrens-version" rel="nofollow">https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/convention-te...

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.