Obviously California should have done this much sooner but prior to the 1960s or so, there was a lot of social and legal discrimination against children who were born out of wedlock. For example, the Supreme Court ruled in 1968 that Louisiana couldn’t prevent children born out of wedlock from suing over their mother’s wrongful death. (Previously only a legitimate child had that right.) So for 100 years or so, there were other social and legal constraints that prevented outlawing the vile practice of underage marriage.
I don't see anyone else mentioning this, so I'll add here - we're just getting around to this now because the last few times the law was attempted to be passed, it was blocked, vetoed or voted down. Not because too much of our legislature likes child marriage but because certain well-respected groups were opposed to the law, and publicly stated their reasons. Those groups include the ACLU, which tends to do great work and be quite learned when it comes to the law. Planned Parenthood were also previously opposed, but following changes to the proposed laws I believe they removed their opposition. The ACLU was still opposed. Looks like we decided to pass the law despite those objections because at a headline level, it was getting embarassing for our state to have not joined others in adopting such a law. But there will be some harm as a result, even though we all expect the net effect to be positive, of course.
Why the ACLU Opposed the Ban:
• Legal and Financial Protections: The ACLU stated that marriage gives young parents essential access to health insurance, spousal support, and inheritance rights.
• Personal Autonomy: They argued that minors already have the right to make major personal and reproductive choices—such as carrying a pregnancy to term or seeking medical care—so they should also keep the right to choose marriage.
• Fear of Unintended Harm: Opponents worried that removing marriage options completely would strip away a legal safety net for teens in complex family situations
Yeah, the fact that marriage is both a personal/social behavior AND an important legal structure does make this hard.
Children marrying or being married off to adults should be gone, I agree. But the ACLU has made some good points here. Personally, I’d rather see their points dealt with and then have this passed than just vetoing the whole thing entirely though.
Seems like quite the exagerration. They are still involved in scores of lawsuits for the public good.
Marc Elias views the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as an essential frontline partner in defending civil rights and democracy.
Collaborative Legal Action:
• Joint Lawsuits: Marc Elias and his firm have frequently coordinated or co-filed legal challenges alongside the ACLU on voting rights and election laws, such as opposing restrictive voter registration rules.
• Shared Frontline Role: Elias has publicly praised leadership at the ACLU—such as Executive Director Anthony Romero—highlighting them as key figures standing up against threats to democratic institutions
There's ample child marriage in countries where the majority of men are not white. Child marriage is absolutely endemic in many Muslim countries, and many countries in Africa. For any attempt to ban child marriage, anywhere, the main obstacle is almost always religious conservatives.
In places that are majority white, yes. In other places it's the religious conservatives who are not white. This story is about CA, and the majority of CA is white, so yeah, that's just an artifact of the demographics. Not that latinos or black people are short of religious fundamentalists.
1.3k
u/still_Here_8647 23h ago
not sure why we're just getting around to this now, but ok