News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/09/california-child-marriage/
Unfortunately, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU are pro-child marriage and they spend big to keep it legal.
These two organizations are entirely misled and spreading misleading information on this issue and are harming kids (vast majority are young girls) with that rhetoric above. Emancipation and reproductive autonomy should not be tied to marriage in the first place.
Children’s freedom to marry? How oxymoronic. Might as well argue for selling yourself into slavery as a “pathway to emancipation.”
Or that kids should be able to sell their own organs as a “path to financial independence.”
What is oxymoronic about a child's freedom to marry? An oxymoron is two ideas that are contradictory expressed together. Which two words from those 3 are contradictory? I guess I can see an argument for freedom and marry if you are super anti-marriage.
Also, do you think all marriages involving underage people are sex slavery situations?
I think any kind of legally binding commitment for kids is at best problematic, even before bringing marriage and sex into the question.
And I think the whole emancipation angle (especially when talking about marriage as a path to emancipation, that just sounds coercive from the get go) is more of a sign of how our society at large fails kids stuck in situations they want to get out of.
Agree completely. It would be better if we dealt with both why a child needs to be emancipated and how to help them become so with adequate support systems in place that doesn't require them to marry someone, regardless of that person's age. I am only saying that there are reasons why a 16 year old might want to marry another 16 year old that do not involve sex slavery.
Wow
I don't disagree with their reasoning. This is an area where we'd want studies to investigate if their argument has merit
I think the data would show the case they're arguing for is uncommon, making it a poor defense of child marriage, but it's good to verify initial feelings with data
That's interesting. I almost always side with those two orgs so I'll have to read more about why they take this position. The way you state it sounds pretty bad.
I remember distinctly it was like to be a teenager and realize I was every bit as capable of making rational decisions as the adults around me, and frustrated that it wasn't really recognized. That's not to say it was true for my peers or didn't require being well-informed in the first place. But as a result I'm generally in favor of lessening restrictions on minors where there's no direct harm and raising penalties on adults who manipulate or abuse them. So I'll hold out some hope that these orgs want that but are just communicating it poorly (still a problem, but more easily solved).
Planned Parenthood is also lobbying against the billionaire tax, due to their belief it would lower healthcare funding.
How the fuck do they come up with this conclusion?
Two rationales are being lobbied:
The billionaires will leave the state, lowering overall taxes gathered in the long-term.
The law doesn't provide safeguards on how the money will be used, so it won't go towards the things the law says it will.
I think both are bullshit reasons that billionaires and their leaches use to allow billionaires to continue fucking over the world, but they sound legit to people who don't have access to a ton of data.
I understand both orgs' stances, honestly. I don't think I fully agree with them, but if two 17 year old kids want to marry and have supportive parents, then I'm OK with that. Two 14 year old kids? I'm not OK with that. A 17 and 16 year old? I'm probably not OK with it but could keep an open mind. Not all underage marriages are sex slavery or pregnancy traps or arranged marriages or other harmful situations. The issue is there is not enough white area, too much black area, and very subjective grey area. There is more harm in allowing it and not enough good.
I'm glad CA changed their laws, but I do understand the arguments against it.