Thread · HN Continuity

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.