Effort to bar child marriage in California runs into opposition

child bride

If you’re going to allow minors to “choose” their sex and mess with their biology because they “deserve” it, then they are certainly entitled to make other adult decisions.

From SF Chronicle: A Bay Area legislator was shocked when he learned from a young constituent that while Californians cannot legally consent to sex until they are 18, they can — with the permission of a parent and a judge’s order — get married at any age, even if their spouse is many years older.

“I thought, that can’t be true in California,” said state Sen. Jerry Hill, a Democrat from San Mateo. “We found that it is true in California and true in many states throughout the country.”

But Hill’s resulting proposal to bar juveniles from getting hitched has been watered down after it prompted strong objections from civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union.

As the emotional fight unfolds in Sacramento, there’s no agreement even about a basic piece of information — how many minors get married each year in California. People who want to limit such marriages say the total is in the thousands, while those who oppose the bill say that’s vastly inflated.

The state doesn’t keep such numbers, and even efforts to change that are running into resistance.

Within the past year, elected officials in several states have pushed to restrict juvenile marriage, with a law passed last month limiting matrimony by minors in New York to 16- and 17-year-olds who have become legal adults emancipated from their parents, and one in Texas holding the line at age 17 — with a judge’s permission.

Hill wanted California to set a strict line at age 18, but the effort encountered swift opposition from fellow legislators, as well as groups that include the ACLU and Planned Parenthood.

While SB273 is still alive and moving through legislative committees, amendments have removed any age restriction. The measure in its current form increases family court oversight to ensure that a minor’s marriage isn’t coerced, including a requirement that judges interview individuals privately.

It’s a compromise, Hill said, but still a positive step. “It’s our responsibility to protect those kids,” he said.

Among those disappointed by the result of the compromise is Sara Tasneem of El Sobrante, who said the amended bill won’t help children and will only make elected officials feel like they did something.

Tasneem was 15 when her father, who belonged to a cult in Southern California, introduced her to a man 13 years her senior. She was forced to marry the 28-year-old in a religious ceremony that evening. Six months later, at 16, she was pregnant and legally married in a civil ceremony in Reno.

“A person who marries a 15-year-old, there’s obviously something wrong,” said Tasneem, now 36. “Putting that label of husband and wife makes something disgusting and not OK seem normal and OK.”

As a teenager, Tasneem dreamed of becoming a lawyer. Instead, she became a mother, with two children by age 19. She would ultimately defy her husband and return to school, and later file for divorce.

“Once you leave your childhood, there’s no going back to it,” said Tasneem, now a business student at Golden Gate University in San Francisco. “All those opportunities and freedom of being a child are gone.”

Activists aiming to stop such marriages say they occur across demographic groups, spurred by religious reasons, cultural norms, pregnancy, financial incentives or, in some cases, to protect someone from statutory-rape accusations because marriage circumvents the age-of-consent requirement.

Nationally, about 5 of every 1,000 children ages 15 to 17 were married as of 2014, according to U.S. census data analyzed by the Pew Research Center — figures that don’t specify where the marriages occurred. Activists for age restrictions estimate that California sees about 3,000 marriages per year that include a minor.

The ACLU and other opponents say that estimate is inflated, noting that just 44 petitions for juvenile marriage were filed in Los Angeles County — which has a population just above 10 million — over the past five years.

The focus of efforts should be on abusive and coerced relationships, regardless of marital status, said Phyllida Burlingame of the ACLU’s Northern California chapter.

Read the rest of the story here.

DCG

Advertisements

34 responses to “Effort to bar child marriage in California runs into opposition

  1. Why not let the children run the country? A sure way for the US go to hell!

    Liked by 3 people

  2. Minor girls being sold to older males is common in parts of Mexico and
    now thanks to immigrant invasion in California. One father sold his
    15 year old daughter to another man for the promise of a case of beer,
    which was never delivered. The father went to the local police in
    California about the non-delivery. When arrested for selling his
    daughter, the father explained that such practices were common
    in the region of Mexico where he came from.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. We should not be allowing children to decide their sex and we should not allow children under the age of 18 to marry. What we are seeing creep into this country is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. There are only 2 countries that have not signed on to this UN controlled initiative which when adopted takes away all parental rights to decisions made for their children and also gives the UN control over your countries welfare programs. The 2 countries that have not adopted this UN agenda are the US and Somalia. Obama and Hillary tried REALLY hard to get this passed in the US but were not successful but you see what they are doing????? It is being passed by piece meal so at the end of the day the agenda gets adopted in our country without ever approving the UN Convention. WAKE UP. They always get what they want one way or the other.

    Liked by 5 people

  4. If you’re going to allow minors to “choose” their sex and mess with their biology because they “deserve” it, then they are certainly entitled to make other adult decisions.

    This is exactly what Kinsey had in mind with his fraudulent sex reports. They were lies designed to influence public opinion and policy, to normalize homosexuality and sex with children. Kinsey was warned that his methodology was critically flawed, but he knew what he was doing.

    He was back by Margaret Sanger and the rest of the secular, and even religious, humanist crowd, who hated God and purposed to attack His bulwark, the family. By twisting the meaning of the Separation clause of the 1st Amendment they have succeeded all too well.

    So now this Dem legislator finds out first hand the satanic roots of his own party. Hopefully it will be an life-changing eye-opener.

    Despite how bad things are, we now have an opportunity to work. Let us “work while there is still light.”

    Liked by 5 people

    • According to Dr. Judith Reisman’s research (she has written several books on Kinsey) Kinsey was a predatory sodomite and pederast. His “methodology” was no methodology at all. He and his “researchers” buggered little children and babies and stated they “reached climax” because they were screaming during the torture. The screaming meant, to him, they were experiencing orgasms.
      The Kinsey Institute for “Sex, Gender and Reproduction” is funded (to this day) by Indiana State University and the Rockefeller Foundation –as it was from the beginning in 1941.
      Kinsey used homosexuals, prostitutes, pederasts and pedophiles as his “typical American man and woman” test subjects. This was to make normal Americans think (as was the game plan of Hugh Hefner and his ilk) they were NOT normal because they didn’t behave like depraved, immoral, and indecent perverts.
      Dr. Reisman’s books are available at used book sellers, and she has her own website. drjudithreisman (dot) com.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Exactly, and most, if not all, of Kinsey’s subjects were taken from prison populations, where sexual and moral values were skewed either due to being a perp, or due to having one’s boundaries broken due to victimization.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Why not give children the right to vote and hold any political office? Governor of California?

    Liked by 3 people

  6. Kids under 18 should not decide anything!! What a mess I was at that age. I am lucky to be alive at 60 years old.

    Liked by 4 people

  7. Just as a note, I always dislike seeing the word “allow” used in connection with “government”. We derive our rights from God, the government either supports those or opposes them, but they do not bring them into being.

    Society either supports ideas such as this or it doesn’t. The governments of those societies may be the instruments of control used to enforce or oppose the society’s wishes.

    That said, as a society, we’ve attached arbitrary ages to when we recognize people as adults in making decisions. These vary from state to state. It seems to me that these “marriages” are a technical way to get around laws designed to protect children.

    I agree with “Paul” (above) that this is just a little too convenient. In all of these social engineered changes language is important. That is why we have the buzzwords and catch phrases. Don’t repeat them.

    Liked by 5 people

    • lophatt . . . Excellent addition to this post . . . “We derive our rights from God, the government either supports those or opposes them, but they do not bring them into being!!!!”

      Liked by 3 people

  8. “But Hill’s resulting proposal to bar juveniles from getting hitched has been watered down after it prompted strong objections from civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union.”

    So according to the degenerate ACLU, although children under age 18 don’t have the right to vote, the ACLU thinks kids age 1-17 have the “civil right” to marry. I can just see pedophiles and pederasts salivating over legalizing child-adult marriages — the way to legalize pedophilia is to “marry” the child, female or male (“gay” marriage).

    Liked by 7 people

    • Sort of begs question of their motives, eh? I’m sure it’s “all about the children”. I mean, really! Just step back and look at this. Western Civilization left beastiality and now they want to force a return. Who would want to do this to Western Civilization…..? Oh, I know.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Dr Eowyn . . . thank you for bringing up that slippery slope that no doubt we will slide down.

      Liked by 4 people

  9. Pingback: Effort to bar child marriage in California runs into opposition — Fellowship of the Minds – afrappacino

  10. Oh God, this is nauseating to say the least. It seems to be a way for pedophiles to circumvent all laws of decency to commit a crime and the states as well as the pathetic self serving ACLU is putting their stamp of approval on it. Just who are these people? They need to be exposed. I doubt the majority of the people of this country are in the know about this.

    Liked by 5 people

  11. Pingback: Effort to bar child marriage in California runs into opposition — Fellowship of the Minds – NZ Conservative Coalition

  12. I’m sure the ACLU’s pandering to a certain constituency…

    Liked by 6 people

  13. For millenia, girls became marriagable at around 15 (think Quinceanera), but teen marriage hasn’t been a thing anymore in the West for quite some time.

    What is this forum’s opinion on the optimal age for marriage?

    I’ll start by throwing out some slightly, but not entirely, arbitrary #s. Girls: 17-23. Guys: 20-29.

    I invite others’ input.

    Liked by 2 people

    • optimal age? 30!

      Most people aren’t fully mature until their 30s, if even that. LOL
      Also, we live longer nowadays.

      Liked by 2 people

      • I’m inclined to agree with you-under 30,most people are still learning what to do and NOT do to HAVE a successful marriage. (SOME at 30 STILL don’t know what to do…) Unfortunately though,this won’t matter,since unless there’s an EASY way to skirt the law,many pre-30’s will just “live in sin”,because “they want what they want”,legal or not. Thanks LibTards,for the crash-dump of Morals and Ethics.

        Liked by 2 people

    • By 30, both spouses have gotten too accustomed to choosing whatever they want, and will have a harder time learning to compromise.

      Also, it’s almost impossible for kids these days to remain virgins until 30, and we know that premarital șex is a HUGE precursor to divorce.

      The reason kids are maturing so slowly these days is because society doesn’t expect them to. Encourage them to marry young, then gather around them as family and community, and they will thrive. It’s how it always used to be.

      Liked by 1 person

      • For what it’s worth, in this theatre, biology/sociology/man-made legal systems are differing points of the human spectrum–w/each working in opposition against the others. Biologically, a female human is born w/all reproductive eggs she will EVER have. By age 30 (a good marriageable age suggested by some here) these eggs are ancient & ability to reproduce/deliver a healthy child is so narrow, esp if it is a first pregnancy, that it threatens our survival as human beings on Earth due to diminished reproduction. Additionally, a female ends reproductive abilities after a certain number of years…but a male never does.Too– The female human is built to reproduce at a very very young age…12, 13…even though, through the thousands of years of humans on Earth, life expectancy has risen, reproductive years have maybe doubled…..none of this has affected the sociology of sex & reproduction. Sociologically, here in the West, our mores strive to promote an age of sexual activity/marriage that allows participants to succeed/maintain a family. But…the biology asserts itself: it appears that, on the whole when considering not just the USA–but the entire world of cultures….it has not affected codified laws made by man. You might say that we are still in the “stone age” on marriage /reproductive-inducing laws.

        No changes in laws here or there expected soon. Period.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Good point about the aging of a woman’s eggs. That’s why some career women are freezing their eggs, to be fertilized and implanted later.

          With the dizzying speed of science-technology changes, I fully expect marriage and natural-childbirth and -conception to disappear. The legalization and rapid acceptance/approval of “gay” marriage is both a symptom and a hastening of the demise of marriage as an institution.

          Liked by 1 person

        • All good points. I suppose the argument has at least somewhat to do with “life’s purpose” as opposed to cultural sensitivity. For most of human existence women didn’t have much to say about this if they were to have children. “Careers” outside of parenting, were virtually unheard of or confined to “spinsters”.

          Biologically girls are set up to be at their most physically attractive at a young age. They are strongest to survive childbirth and the duties of rearing children as well. Setting aside “equality” and social conditioning, there is competition for mates. Girls instinctively want the strongest breeding stock for their children.

          As adults we know that, as we mature, we should grow in wisdom and make better helpmates. We think of it as being about “choices”. If we don’t like the choice we made we should be able to change it.

          This is really not as its been over time. There still is a lot to be said for people viewing marriage as lifelong and resolving oneself to staying in a marriage for life. It is about the health of the children and not so much about the happiness of the parents.

          If we were actually back in those times I might look at this differently. We’re not, however, and I suspect this has more to do with buying kiddy brides than it does forming life mates. It is a good time to think about whether life is solely about one’s self or something higher.

          Liked by 1 person

    • For normal women, the age should be anywhere from 18-29 and for normal men, anywhere from 21-35, but the earlier the better. The problem is that young people are no longer normal. They’ve been infantilized AND oversexed at the same time, a very bad combination. The pressure to have sex at an early age outside of marriage has driven people to promiscuity and to greatly lessening their chances to being able to bind with one person for a long lasting relationship — meaning for life. They’ve lost touch with what it means to be women and men and to procreate, not only for the good of society, but for their own good as well. The social engineers (Frankfurt School, etc.) in the latter part of the 1800s onward, who wanted to dismantle the family and Western, (read Christian) society knew this.

      Like

    • Given the data available, anyone 18 and under, especially in the U.S. is more likely to be mentally, and emotionally, unfit for marriage, and thus unfit to be a parent, one should not rely solely on the body’s measure of reproductivity as a determining factor, the body can be artificially matured (and I would say that it is, by the dumping of synthetic estrogens and other compounds in the water supplies via recycled water systems and the overwhelming amount of birth control pills which aren’t fully metabolized by the body, being dumped into the supply, among other factors.) A girl as young as 5 was able to produce a child, apparently as a result of molestation by her dad, the child was subsequently raised as her brother. That she was biologically viable at that age due to some bizarre circumstance by no means suggests she was fit to be a parent or have a family, the same goes for 10-17 year olds, I would posit, of either gender.

      One needs to account for more than biological viability in determining these things, how is the culture in which they live, how is the health of the mind of the individual, how is their emotional health? (a person can be biologically, and mentally mature, but still be prepubescent, so to speak, emotionally.) Another factor to consider is the quality of life, both of potential children born between two individuals, (can they provide for a child, more than just food, can they invest love and intelligence into raising a child?) and of the couple in question, the same questions apply for their relationship.

      The average american male and female are decidedly prepubescent at the age of 18 or below, a 14 year old of either gender is going to have an “insane” phase, and I would posit is unfit for sex, much less marriage, let alone reproduction, despite their bodies potentially being viable, 16 is still underdeveloped as far as mental and emotional maturity goes, and while this factor can vary individual to individual (and we should remember that people are individuals here.) perhaps even seeing someone in their teens 17-19 be mentally mature along with being biologically mature, and possibly even emotionally mature, (or mature enough to realize their problems in those areas and be able to deal reasonably with them.) the general population isn’t going to have anything but biological maturity going for them. Even if mental emotional and biological maturity are achieved there is still a question of provision, such as providing food shelter and Love for a child, ultimately getting all of these factors nailed down is rare, and becomes rarer by leaps and even orders in magnitude the younger the individual is.

      Ultimately however, given the whole scenario of reproduction etc. child marriage is irrevocably also a matter of child sex, as one part of marriage as such is sexual intercourse, if a child of 16 is unfit for sex outside of marriage, they aren’t going to be fit for it within marriage, marriage does not cause mental or emotional maturation, the presence of a ring does not magically mature the individual. That the ACLU etc. is fighting against setting a hard age limit for marriage is, by what we just established, fighting for not setting a limit on children having sex, either with each other or with adults, and that sets a very disturbing premise, one that I think should be highlighted to types like the ACLU, and the population in general, to illustrate the slithering deception in which they are actually engaging.

      I would here state that I personally don’t think marriage has a requirement for procreation, much less that reproduction is a commandment for marriage (for if it was, how could the barren or the accidentally sterile keep it when not physically able to? God is not so short-sighted.), if one marries solely to have children then they do their spouse a disservice, and disrespect, and do so to their children as well. Marriage, as I understand it, is about more, and based on more, than merely trying to populate, that said though, the complexity of Marriage means it is not something that a child can ever partake in, whether they are biologically mature or not.

      Liked by 1 person

  14. Just whose civil liberties are the ACLU and Planned Abortions protecting? The sight of older males “marrying” children should shock anyone with an ounce of decency. If we are to prevent this obscenity from occurring, teenage girls younger than 18 shouldn’t be ‘for sale’ or married.

    Liked by 3 people

    • I might ask just what they’re doing involving themselves in moral and/or religious matters? Knowing the sort of values they represent is disturbing.

      Liked by 2 people

      • There’s a massive push (Open Society, CAIR, NGO’s, Foundations, Civil Rights groups, Black Lives Matter, Pink hat feminists, etc.) to desensitize and program acceptance by the population, of every evil, immoral, degenerate practice antithetical to our traditional culture. Softening us up, so to speak…

        Liked by 1 person

  15. The canon law of the Catholic church states that a woman must be a minimum of 14 and the male must be a minimum of at least 16 to wed. Any marriage which is not entered into freely is absolutely null.

    I would bet that any girl in California who is forced to wed before 18 can get out of it, as it is viewed as a contract by the state, and a minor cannot be bound to a contract.

    I would go for 18, unless the minor has been emancipated (meaning responsible for oneself). Thirty is way too old. Childbirth is easier on younger women’s bodies, and they have more energy to take on the tasks of a family. At the age of thirty, a woman loses about 10 percent of her fertility per year until it is too late.

    Have your kids while you are young enough to raise and enjoy them, and save the careers until after your most important work is done.

    Like

    • I’ll go with canon law. If one believes (as I do) that marriage is a sacrament and a religious “state”, it isn’t a civil matter at all. In fact, at least initially, government didn’t and shouldn’t have much at all to do with it.

      There were obviously civil considerations such as property, etc.. Beyond that, government had no right to meddle with religious belief or practice. I suppose, as people no longer have a faith that they practice, this leaves a void. Government is only too happy to fill any void.

      “We” are the ones who decide who and how to “protect” those needing protection. If “we” decide to use government for that purpose, we can. I suggest that using government for ANYTHING should be carefully considered.

      As we discuss routinely here in many different ways, there is an active and ongoing action to destroy our collective culture. Whether one believes or acknowledges that makes no difference. Unless we refuse to cooperate it will happen.

      We have to stop asking for permission. We have to stop asking government to “solve” our problems. There ARE problems that government should address. If we stopped using government for everything there would be time and resources available to correct things needing correction.

      Like

  16. Pingback: Atelier Cologne – afrappacino

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s