Effort to bar child marriage in California runs into opposition

In the land where a man who has sex with underage boys and gets rewarded with his face on a stamp its amazing anyone would believe that California was tough on child marriage but on Democrat is. But kudos to him for trying. Of course he is running into stiff opposition from his liberal friends and what a shocker, the ACLU. So much for protecting "consent" as so many LGBT advocates keep claiming they care about. Of course this isn't just LGBT opposition but I doubt we will see any of them saying its wrong either. This guy is running face first into a liberal roadblock and one has to wonder why.


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.


http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...juvenile-marriages-in-California-11268497.php

 

Yeah, you should have to be at least 18 to enter a marriage. That's just stupid otherwise.

 

I have made the argument for years that the next step in the ongoing progressive cultural and sexual revolution is the abolishment of age of consent laws, or a drastic lowering of them. There are some liberal groups in existence pushing for that very goal, and as we have learned recently, antifa movements are involved with some of these groups, like NAMBLA. This isn't a fringe issue on the left, it is becoming more mainstream, and I believe it will be a lot sooner than I previously thought.

When your ideology is based around the idea of constant (and radical) change, it is only a matter of time before all possible positive changes are already made, and questionable and objectionable change becomes the focus. Look at how quickly these things happen. 50 years ago homosexuality was considered by most to be a form of mental illness. Even 20 years ago there were no mainstream Democratic politicians pushing for gay marriage. Now you're a pariah if you dare to question it. After they won that fight they didn't rest on their laurels for even a second - they immediately started pushing for transgender rights. Where do they go after this?

They will always continue pushing change in their effort to confront the status quo. That's how they measure themselves - how much change they can enact during their generation's lifetime. The more they can enact to piss off their ideological enemies, the better. And, when "if it feels good, do it" is the foundation of their debauched sexual rationale, it opens the door to many dangerous possibilities, one of which being adult/child sexual relationships. They need to continue pushing the norms further and further to more and more dangerous levels in order to stay satisfied. They've become that debauched, jumping from one perversion to another, constantly. We've seen them do this before within the last 100 years, in Weimar Germany and Amsterdam up until the 1980's, and these were arguably the two largest progressive movements in recent history, so we know where this movement is going. This will be one of their next civil rights issues, and it will revolve around the rights of children to make their own decisions. That is how they will frame this.

It is no surprise whatsoever that this law is being opposed by liberals in a liberal state, and a liberal organization like the ACLU.

 

Congratulations. You managed to find the one state where it isn't conservative Christian republicans fighting against banning child marriage.

 

I think it's 18 in most of Europe which seems about right.

 

Find one that is fighting to keep child marriage.

No more anti christian bigotry without a shred of evidence. Cite your documentation or admit you once again made it up.

 

Its exactly why they attached to the Equal Protection Clause to justify forcing gay marriage on everyone. Because a person has no age requirement.

 

The only thing stopping this from happening now is the social stigma against it in society. The left plays along, saying "children cannot give consent", but how much work would it be to change that perspective? As the country gets more Hispanic (this kind of thing is more common in Hispanic countries), I suspect this stigma is going to dull, which will give left-wing politicians more motivation to consider it as one of their policy objectives. Given the left-wing orientation of most social scientists, all that will be needed to start turning the tide would be a few "studies" indicating that children are able to give consent. Then what would the left's reason be for opposing it? Nothing. They don't have a religious or moral compass per se, as these things are just subjective constructs that can change wildly with the times (social and political pressure being the driving forces - see my point about gay marriage). They'd have to be accepting of it in order to stay "open minded" and "unbigoted" alongside their fellow progressive travelers. They aren't going to "go against science" when science is telling them it's OK. Honestly, I think it would take maybe a month for most progressives in the country to do a complete 180 on this issue.

 

And that's what I thought.

 

Please show evidence that in other states, conservative Christian republicans are fighting against banning child marriage.

 

Congratulations. You managed the find the first thread ever posted in this forum which provides you actual evidence of the predicted movement to undermine age of consent laws...

...and you couldn't bring yourself to condemn the agenda, and instead chose to launch a pathetic attack against political opponents.

 

Christie vetoed a law to stop it in New Jersey: link

A girl scout tried to get a law introduced and passed in New Hampshire, but the Republicans in their congress shut it down: link

Every single state in the US has provisions to allow minors to get married, as young as 12. This is not exclusive to one side, though there appears to be more resistance from conservatives due to concerns about accidental pregnancy and avoiding abortion, or avoiding statutory rape charges.

 

lol Christie is no Republican.

And you forgot to mention:

The top sponsor of the measure was Republican Assemblywoman Nancy Munoz, who said at a committee hearing last year that she introduced it bill after hearing “compelling” stories of minors forced into marriages for religious reasons. The bill passed the Assembly and Senate with overwhelming support.

And David Bates never once cited Christiaintiy as the reason for the rejection.

#1 I never said it was exclusive to one side.

#2 You have not proven it is Republican Christians trying to prevent the age laws being raise. Your only evidence is two very liberal Republicans that neither cited Christianity for their reasoning.

 

Well neither of those states are bastions of Christian conservatives.

 

I can't think of many minors that can't afford to wait a couple more years, even if they are fully emancipated and living on their own. I agree

 

The progressive ideology is a sadistic, violent, and immoral one. There is no morality, that's the ultimate goal. The rape of children is the next goal of the far left, because Hollywood and media is ripe with pedophiles. I promise you this, though - if the rape of children is ever made 'legal,' I will not hesitate to go beyond the pedophile made laws and see these sick savages meet their end. That's not a threat - that's a promise. I have two kids who I love more than the world, and their safety is more important to me than the sick wishes of the far left.

 

Dont forget about muslims marrying children, its not really about hispanics

 

it's so sad how the liberals let these sick sadists take over their Dem party, isn't it ?

 

Sad.... No, its just their nature. You either support rape or youre a republican.

 

unfortunately, it's what I feel it's going to come to - I hope they leftists don't go this far because to legalize child rape will be the death of them, literally.

 

Good luck attempting common sense with liberals

 

They don't have any problem with them.

 

Ouch!

 

I think they're still a little ways off from aggressively pursuing this. The far-left is on board, for reasons I described, but they know that society in general is not there yet. It's similar to how they want the complete abolition of gun ownership in this country, but pretend not to hold that position, since they know how damaging it would be politically should they express those views. So they sit there, waiting for the demographics to change, waiting for a few more mass shooting deaths to occur, etc, before they start pursuing it. The left plays the long game, and they are patient and persistent.

 

You see the leftists suppoting all of these childrens gender identity right issues, day in, and day out. There's even a thread on a "genderless" newborn ... They promote the sexualization of children every day.