Summary
Colombia has banned child marriage after 17 years of advocacy and eight failed legislative attempts, closing a 137-year legal loophole that allowed minors to marry with parental consent or cohabit as informal spouses.
The new law, “They are Girls, Not Wives,” aligns Colombia with international standards and makes it one of 12 Latin American countries to entirely prohibit marriage under 18.
Advocacy groups celebrated the historic victory but emphasized the need for policies addressing poverty, machismo, and systemic inequalities that fuel child marriage, particularly in rural and Indigenous communities.
Meanwhile, in el norte…
(Also, you have to be 18 to get divorced in almost every state.)
It’s official, California is grosser than Alabama
Wanted to do some joke about the only worse thing than people producing child mariage laws seems to be the people picking colors for this map.
No minimum age limit is absolutely insane. Is there like a Romeo and Juliette style age limit for the partner or is it just…
My first thought was what’s up with California?
I could find a bunch of articles talking about the usual stuff like conservatives and evangelicals arguing in favor of avoiding a ban, but Planned Parenthood and the ACLU are also frequent supporters of avoiding a ban on child marriage. The only reasoning I could find was “we don’t have enough data,” but I’m struggling to think of any positive things about allowing it. From the articles, it sounded like fringe religious beliefs and questionable things regarding immigration laws, but I am skeptical the pros of allowing child marriage for those outweigh a number of cons I could name.
I wasn’t able to find any actual articles from PP or ACLU themselves about it, so does anyone have any insight? This seems a bit out of character for both orgs.
and questionable things regarding immigration laws
I mean… there have been some regrettable cases in Germany directly after the law declaring foreign sub-18 marriage to be invalid, like 16/18yold asylum seeker couples getting separated. There’s a difference between saying “we don’t recognise that, you’ll have to marry again under German law” and “we’re putting you in two different accommodations in two different states because you can’t possibly be a family unit and that’s how the dice fell”. You can’t just blindly assume they’re not heads over heels for each other, no matter how arranged and young the marriage was, you have to look at the individual case and if everything checks out treat them eg. analogous to siblings when it comes to accommodation.
It looks like they tried to change it in 2017 and the bill got compromised down to some safeguards that don’t amount to much.
I found some articles characterizing ACLU’s position as viewing it as a slippery slope to taking away access to abortion or other reproductive healthcare. I get why that kind of thing is something they’re worried about, but I really don’t see how it applies in this situation.
It’s still causing harm, and I really don’t see who it’s helping. Pair the law with strong protections for reproductive rights for people of all ages, maybe even as a proposition. It’d probably be pretty popular, though I also expected the proposition to ban prison slavery to be popular too.
I saw the mention of it protecting abortion rights, but I was confused about that because as far as I know, nowhere requires someone to be married for abortions or any type of healthcare.
The quotes and comments I saw made it sound like the stance was this doesnt happen enough we should risk losing any rights unnecessarily, but I feel there should have been some specifics mentions what those rights they’re protecting actually were. The stats seem all over the place too, from as low as IIRC around 50 child marriages since 2019 to an estimated 1600.
This all seems like something people should have some real facts and figures on, but that I cant find them is really raising my eyebrows for a number of reasons.
Strangely, the age of consent is 17 in Colorado, so you can get married but not consent? This must be something outdated perhaps.
Think of it from the patriarchy sense:
If you’re married, it means you implicitly consent.
So yeah. 50+ year old men can marry 13 year old girls and not rape them. Because the Bible says so.
California? Dawg…
Great news. Crazy it took that long to for this to happen
How is it crazy, when America still allows it? Good for Columbia, but we need that too.
or cohabit as informal spouses.
So, just straight-up pedophilia!
Well the downside to the “you break [the virginity] you buy it” mindset (aside from the literal objectification) is that having to formally marry the child also means the child is formally married to (and stuck with) the pedo. At least the informal version is probably less legally complicated to flee from.
But I was told Latinos are too machismo for women’s rights!
whites, even “progressive” ones, will say anything to distract from the fact that the only group supporting fascism en masse (in the US and the rest of the world) are themselves
Wow look… casual racism
lmao, predictable
anti-white racism is not a thing. racism is a system of domination white people (or rather the people who would go on to call themselves white) invented to facilitate colonialism
and yes, white people are the only ones overwhelmingly supporting fascism because fascism’s main promise is to maintain (and reinforce) white supremacy and racism. it’s not hard to understand
Oh look. Racist defends racism and doubles down.
You’ll fit right in when Trump takes over.
