Child marriage

HarryCH wrote: »
Someone raised the question of the age of consent. In the US, the unrestricted age of consent ranges by state from 16 to 21 (19, 20 and 21 are rare). The federal age of consent, is, I believe, 18, relevant if people cross state lines. The whole issue is confused by matters such as "Romeo and Juliet" exceptions, parental consent, court consent, whether one party is in a position of authority over the other, and so on.

Rather than add a diversion to the (former Prince) Andrew discussion, perhaps this might be added food for thought, under the headline Why Do We Allow Child Marriage in America? in the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/01/opinion/child-marriage-us.html

More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_States

According to the article, child marriage is banned in only 16 of the fifty states, with no minimum age imposed in some places. To me, this reads as legalised child abuse; another of the gaping holes in the American constitution that some of us never knew about.

On the surface it appears that our 8 year old granddaughter could be married in California. Any thoughts on this?

Comments

  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Child marriage is a huge problem because aside from the more obvious ethical issues, children cannot get divorced even with parental permission - I am not any kind of legal expert and I'm not sure why one kind of contract is permitted for children but not the other, but regardless of that you then get the horrible situation of children legally trapped in marriages they cannot escape.

    Unfortunately even some usually-progressive voices such as the ACLU are opposed to a federal ban on child marriage.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    On the surface it appears that our 8 year old granddaughter could be married in California. Any thoughts on this?

    Your granddaughter would need parental consent and a court order. Name one judge in California who would issue such an order for an 8-year-old.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    edited November 5
    Ruth wrote: »
    On the surface it appears that our 8 year old granddaughter could be married in California. Any thoughts on this?

    Your granddaughter would need parental consent and a court order. Name one judge in California who would issue such an order for an 8-year-old.

    I'm not wild about laws that rely on "no-one would ever do that" to avoid being awful, but it does seem to be the case that California hasn't in practice married pre-teenagers in recent years. It's places like Kentucky and Louisiana that are the most troubling. It looks like a lot of states have reformed their laws since the detailed study of the data completed in 2017:
    http://apps.frontline.org/child-marriage-by-the-numbers/
    There are now only 4 states with no legal minimum (compared with 25 a decade ago), and a further 2 with the minimum at 15. All others are 16 or above.

    16 remains the minimum age for marriage in Scotland, but that's likely to rise to 18 soon. Scots law has traditionally held that adulthood begins at 16 but that is increasingly out of step with international norms that consider everyone under 18 a child.
  • North East QuineNorth East Quine Purgatory Host
    Marriage is legal at 16 in Scotland, but very unusual. In 2023, 38 men and 78 women married below the age of twenty in Scotland; I'd be interested to know how many of those were 16/17 and how many 18/19. I assume the vast majority were 18 or 19.

    I suspect most of those who do marry at 16 or 17 are members of the Travelling Community where early marriage is still the norm.

    One of the issues surrounding marriage at 16 in Scotland is that it provides an easy way to get round the age limit in England. The whole Gretna Green marriage industry arose from the fact that parental consent was not required for under-18s to marry here.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Going into my Ancestry tree, it is not all that unusual for many females to be married by 14. It is not until the mid 1800s that the age starts moving up to the late teens.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    I'm not wild about laws that rely on "no-one would ever do that" to avoid being awful, but it does seem to be the case that California hasn't in practice married pre-teenagers in recent years. It's places like Kentucky and Louisiana that are the most troubling. It looks like a lot of states have reformed their laws since the detailed study of the data completed in 2017:
    http://apps.frontline.org/child-marriage-by-the-numbers/

    Pre-teens aren't being married in California, but thousands of girls ages 15-17 are, and it's increasing. Numbers through 2021 - California isn't in the Frontline data: https://calmatters.org/politics/2023/06/child-marriage-california/

    The highest rates of US child marriage now seem to be - the data are still incomplete - in Nevada, Idaho and Utah. Why Nevada I don't know, but in Idaho and Utah I'd be looking at the Latter Day Saints pretty hard.
    Source: https://www.unchainedatlast.org/united-states-child-marriage-problem-study-findings-through-2021/

    You can't vote in the US if you're not 18, and you can't buy a drink if you're not 21. But yeah, in many jurisdictions you can be married well before that - and all too often it's just legalized rape.
    Pomona wrote: »
    Unfortunately even some usually-progressive voices such as the ACLU are opposed to a federal ban on child marriage.

    I don't begin to understand their reasoning. Something about impinging upon teenagers' rights, which is baloney because all sorts of rights are reserved for adults.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    @Ruth Nevada also has a large LDS community - the Mormon Belt spans quite a bit of the Mountain West.

    Iirc the ACLU oppose state restrictions on marriage in general, which I can understand the logic of in terms of adults but not for children.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    If they oppose restrictions on marriage for children, logically they should be fighting for children's voting rights. Plus rights to rent apartments and cars and enter into other contracts. And buy alcohol.
  • More Canadian distraction for you. For many years (until the revision of the Civil Code in the 1960s), in Québec the minimum age for marriages was 12 for girls, and 14 for boys, to match with former canon law. It's now 16-18 with the consent of the court, and a free for all from 18 on.

    I went to school with the tail end of the large franco-ontarian families, with several classmates from families of 15 or so brothers and sisters. They often had grandmothers married at 15 or 16, and one of my French tutors had a grandmother married at 14. This took place in rural societies where babies meant prospective farm help and were not cost-line items, and early marriage was commended as a way to keep illegitimacy down and teenagers busy; a large cohort never went to secondary school.

    With the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s and the modernization of Québec (and francophone Ontario and New Brunswick), and the availability of birth control, early marriage has almost totally disappeared.

    My francophone friends told me that their agèd grandmothers express delight and envy with their grand-daughters' freedom (sometimes quite explicitly!!) but were still satisfied at the decades of work in raising a large brood. The grand-daughters and great-grand-daughters listen to tales of that time with horrified disbelief.

    Under-18 marriages are apparently more common with Canadian-born people than with immigrants; the highest rates are on the prairies, possibly because of Mennonite and Hutterite and Old Believer communities.
  • Marriage is legal at 16 in Scotland, but very unusual. In 2023, 38 men and 78 women married below the age of twenty in Scotland; I'd be interested to know how many of those were 16/17 and how many 18/19. I assume the vast majority were 18 or 19.

    I suspect most of those who do marry at 16 or 17 are members of the Travelling Community where early marriage is still the norm.

    One of the issues surrounding marriage at 16 in Scotland is that it provides an easy way to get round the age limit in England. The whole Gretna Green marriage industry arose from the fact that parental consent was not required for under-18s to marry here.

    Some years back I was working for a local council, and one of my colleagues was also one of the registrars. She said that the easiest marriages to do were when people from one of the travelling families showed up to get married, despite both bride and groom being 16 about 90% of the time. Since both sets of parents (and usually the grandparents too) had been married by register at 16, they knew exactly what paperwork was required, the parents came along to give consent, and there were no complaints about the compulsory waiting period between submitting paperwork and being able to be married.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Here is a table showing the legal age to be married across the world: https://data.un.org/DocumentData.aspx?id=336

    For what it is worth, my sister-in-law was just under 18 when she married my brother. He had just turned 18. They had been together for 4 years through high school. If I recall, her 18th birthday was just three days away. She had to have parental consent. They have been married over 50 years now.
  • North East QuineNorth East Quine Purgatory Host
    There's a mistake in that list. It says that the age without parental consent in the UK is 18, and 16 with parental consent.

    In Scotland and Northern Ireland the age is 16.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    The law in England and Wales has changed since then. The minimum age is now 18. No parental consent is required as 18 is the age of majority. In Scotland and Northern Ireland I think it is still possible to marry at 16. In Northern Ireland I think for a person between 16 and 18 that requires his or her parental consent. If I have understood @North East Quine correctly, Scotland does not require parental consent for people between 16 and 18.

    However, if a person normally resident in England and Wales marries under 18, anywhere, that marriage is void in England and Wales, irrespective of whether it would be recognised in the place where celebrated.

    The law was changed in England and Wales from the end of February 2023, so as to protect minors from forced marriage, including marriages that might have taken place in countries where forced marriages are prevalent.

  • I've got a great-grandmother who married at 13, and her daughter at 16, I believe. But these were farm families, and I think that might make a difference.
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Purgatory Host, Circus Host
    What I found interesting in that list is to see the number of countries where 18 is not considered old enough.
  • North East QuineNorth East Quine Purgatory Host
    edited November 5
    Despite marriage being legal at 16, and despite having an extensive family tree, I can't think of any teenage marriages in my family. In rural Aberdeenshire / Banffshire men had several short contracts in farms before getting a permanent post, and marriage came later. It wasn't unusual for a first child to precede the marriage. Of my 8 gt gt grandmothers, only two were married when they had their first child, and one of those had been married for only 6 weeks. In my family tree of about 2000 people 1750-1900, most couples married in their late 20s.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Probably one of the greatest reasons for marriage of minors, IMHE, is an unplanned pregnancy. The United States has a very poor record of sex education and pregnancy prevention. It seems where sex education is mandatory, marriage happens later than where sex education is optional.
  • The point of the original post was not that our granddaughter is at risk of an early forced marriage - that would be exceeding unlikely. But if Kristof's article is correct, it looks as if all the parents were cult members and could find an unscrupulous judge, then it is, in theory, legally possible in some parts of the USA.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    The point of the original post was not that our granddaughter is at risk of an early forced marriage - that would be exceeding unlikely. But if Kristof's article is correct, it looks as if all the parents were cult members and could find an unscrupulous judge, then it is, in theory, legally possible in some parts of the USA.

    The Kristof article is behind a paywall.

  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Ruth wrote: »
    The highest rates of US child marriage now seem to be - the data are still incomplete - in Nevada, Idaho and Utah. Why Nevada I don't know, but in Idaho and Utah I'd be looking at the Latter Day Saints pretty hard.
    Pomona wrote: »
    @Ruth Nevada also has a large LDS community - the Mormon Belt spans quite a bit of the Mountain West.
    FWIW (if anything), the LDS Church counsels that teens should not date until they turn 16. And there’s the expectation of males doing a mission when you’re around 19; females can and often do go on missions as well. How all of that translates, if at all, to marriage ages, I don’t know, but my impression is that the expectation is marriage after one’s mission.

    If we’re going to be looking at religious groups in Utah, Nevada and Idaho with child marriages in mind, I think I’d be looking at the various Mormon fundamentalist groups rather than the LDS Church.


  • ChastMastrChastMastr Shipmate
    edited 1:59AM
    I've got a great-grandmother who married at 13, and her daughter at 16, I believe. But these were farm families, and I think that might make a difference.

    My grandmother in Kentucky was married at 13 (my parents had me when they were around 39, so there’s kind of a skipped generation there) in the early 1900s, not sure what year.

    (Googled) Aha, 1921. She was 13, he was 26. (Possibly 14 going by the dates but I’ve always heard she was 13.)
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    The highest rates of US child marriage now seem to be - the data are still incomplete - in Nevada, Idaho and Utah. Why Nevada I don't know, but in Idaho and Utah I'd be looking at the Latter Day Saints pretty hard.
    Pomona wrote: »
    @Ruth Nevada also has a large LDS community - the Mormon Belt spans quite a bit of the Mountain West.
    FWIW (if anything), the LDS Church counsels that teens should not date until they turn 16. And there’s the expectation of males doing a mission when you’re around 19; females can and often do go on missions as well. How all of that translates, if at all, to marriage ages, I don’t know, but my impression is that the expectation is marriage after one’s mission.

    If we’re going to be looking at religious groups in Utah, Nevada and Idaho with child marriages in mind, I think I’d be looking at the various Mormon fundamentalist groups rather than the LDS Church.


    Only about 32% of LDS males between 18-21 go on mission. See: https://www.deseret.com/1992/9/26/19006885/32-of-young-lds-males-serving-church-missions/

    It has been that way since the 60s.

    When they do go on mission, they or their families have to pay the full cost of the mission which is a two-year expense.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    If we’re going to be looking at religious groups in Utah, Nevada and Idaho with child marriages in mind, I think I’d be looking at the various Mormon fundamentalist groups rather than the LDS Church.

    Yeah, upon reflection that makes more sense.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    The highest rates of US child marriage now seem to be - the data are still incomplete - in Nevada, Idaho and Utah. Why Nevada I don't know, but in Idaho and Utah I'd be looking at the Latter Day Saints pretty hard.
    Pomona wrote: »
    @Ruth Nevada also has a large LDS community - the Mormon Belt spans quite a bit of the Mountain West.
    FWIW (if anything), the LDS Church counsels that teens should not date until they turn 16. And there’s the expectation of males doing a mission when you’re around 19; females can and often do go on missions as well. How all of that translates, if at all, to marriage ages, I don’t know, but my impression is that the expectation is marriage after one’s mission.

    If we’re going to be looking at religious groups in Utah, Nevada and Idaho with child marriages in mind, I think I’d be looking at the various Mormon fundamentalist groups rather than the LDS Church.


    Only about 32% of LDS males between 18-21 go on mission. See: https://www.deseret.com/1992/9/26/19006885/32-of-young-lds-males-serving-church-missions/

    It has been that way since the 60s.

    When they do go on mission, they or their families have to pay the full cost of the mission which is a two-year expense.
    @Gramps49, that article is from 1992, so 33 years ago. This article from the same newspaper two years ago suggests things may have changed in those 33 years.

    Figures I’ve seen suggest that 30+% of young Mormon men overall go on missions now, but that the percentage is much higher—80–90%—for young men from families that are very active in the Church. It’s pure speculation on my part, but I would suspect that young Mormon men from Utah are more likely than average to go on a mission.


  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    @Nick Tamen Mormonism includes the fundamentalist groups (as well as the liberal groups like the Community of Christ) - all LDS are Mormons but not all Mormons are LDS.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Despite marriage being legal at 16, and despite having an extensive family tree, I can't think of any teenage marriages in my family.

    My mum was 3 weeks shy of her 20th birthday on her wedding day. I, on the other hand, was 4 weeks past mine. Looking back further it seems that most of my ancestors married in their early to mid 20s, some of the men in their early 30s. I didn't spot any other teenagers but a lot of the marriage dates are missing.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    My Mum was 19 when she married and had me shortly afterwards. My wife and I, on the other hand were 29 and our kids were mid 20s.
  • A Feminine ForceA Feminine Force Shipmate
    edited 12:04PM
    I remember growing up in rural Ontario in the '70s and working in the corn and tobacco fields in the summers.

    Back then, age of parental consent was lower because I remember being in grade 7 (age 12 - too young to work I know but I was tall for my age and the money was very good and nobody was checking) and girls I knew who were in grade 9 were getting married to their high school boyfriends and living in a trailer on their parents' farm. That would have put them at 15 years old max.

    The reasoning behind it was the very pragmatic kind of approach to life, sex and death on the farm - they were going to have sex anyway so the parents wanted to make certain it was done, and any issue from such activity, happened within socially sanctioned boundaries. I do recall one girl I knew was married at 15 to great ballyhoo and romantical fantasizing and then divorced at eighteen. I myself couldn't imagine being an 18 year old divorcee with two children but there it was.

    I think that the legislation has changed since then, I think it's now min 16 for parental consent for boys and girls.

    AFF

  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Pomona wrote: »
    @Nick Tamen Mormonism includes the fundamentalist groups (as well as the liberal groups like the Community of Christ) - all LDS are Mormons but not all Mormons are LDS.
    Yes, I’m well aware of that, and I didn’t say otherwise. That awareness is reflected in what I said early on: “. . . I think I’d be looking at the various Mormon fundamentalist groups rather than the LDS Church.”

    That said, in the US if one says “Mormon” without any qualification such as “fundamentalist,” LDS is generally assumed. Though I should also add that the LDS Church has been trying to move away from “Mormon,” and in my first post I was careful to use “LDS” rather than “Mormon.” In my response to Gramps49, unlike my earlier post, I was not as careful in that regard.


Sign In or Register to comment.