this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2026
189 points (98.5% liked)

politics

30114 readers
2956 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 1 points 44 minutes ago* (last edited 43 minutes ago)

I read the article but was not really understanding WHY anyone would be opposed to ending it, so I went looking for more information. Turns out the group sponsoring the legislation, Unchained At Last, has its own site, and much more information than is in the article, as well as maps showing how many states have outlawed child marriage altogether, as well as the handful of states where you can be married at 18 but not be legally adult until 21, which is still a form of legal underage marriage.

I had my eyes opened. There is much more information on each of these in the website, but the four reasons they state for needing to end underage marriage are:

Child marriage can easily be forced marriage. The age of majority, when children become legal adults and get the rights of adulthood, is 18 or higher in every U.S. state. Children who have not yet reached the age of majority have limited legal rights and therefore can easily be forced into marriage or forced to stay in a marriage. They face overwhelming legal and practical barriers if they try to leave home to escape a forced marriage, get help from an advocate, enter a domestic violence shelter or retain an attorney. Perhaps most shockingly, children typically are not allowed to initiate a legal proceeding – such as seeking a protective order or even filing for divorce – unless they act through a guardian or other representative. The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights categorizes all child marriage as forced marriage.

Child marriage destroys nearly every aspect of American children’s lives, including their health, education and economic opportunities. It even undermines their physical safety: Individuals in the U.S. who were married before age 18 report high rates of physical, sexual, financial or emotional abuse during their marriage as well as unwanted or unplanned pregnancies.

Child marriage undermines statutory rape laws. In most states and under federal law, sex with a child that would otherwise be considered rape – in some cases, felony rape – becomes legal within marriage. In those situations, the marriage license becomes a “get out of jail free” card for a child rapist.

Child marriage can also be a form of human trafficking. Due to loopholes in immigration laws, thousands of American girls are being trafficked legally for their citizenship, forced to marry adult men from overseas so the men can get a U.S. visa. Similarly, American men are legally importing child brides from overseas.

So now the question becomes one of understanding what's in it for the Republicans in Ohio to leave the situation as-is, and I think that pretty much answers itself. Case closed.

[–] daannii@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Well project 2025 plans to undo child marriage laws. So they don't want to pass a law they will have to undo later (from Republicans perspective).

[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 1 points 26 minutes ago

project 2025 plans to undo child marriage laws.

I'm pretty familiar with Project 2025, but I don't recall that. The actual Project 2025 manifesto, 🤢 Mandate for Leadership 🤮 mentions marriage in a number of ways, including same-sex and even interracial marriage, but there's nothing in it about child marriage at all that I know of or can find, just a lot of self-righteous hyperbole about cis-het marriage and the family unit being the root of all good, blah blah blah.

I just checked it again to be sure, and yeah, marriage is not ever mentioned adjacent to anything regarding the age of the participants.

I'm not trying to challenge you, they're guilty of almost everything they've ever been accused of and far more that's even worse, but can you tell me where you got that from? Because if they're going to start this too I'd like to know more about it.

[–] FunnyUsername@lemmy.world 15 points 7 hours ago

they buried an important word in the headline: PUBLIC opposition.

[–] Prove_your_argument@piefed.social 13 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

So i'm really confused. SB341 initially passed in the state senate with a small portion voting for it, and was sent to the judicial committee. The house version, HB670 was sent directly to judicial. I don't see an action that says this is dead (but going to committee is a common pathway to let bills die without any press or fanfare. Extremely common for things that the population wants but the politicians do not want to die this way.)

Almost all of the sponsors are democrats, 24 of 43 total. Only 6 republicans sponsored this of 89 in total, so clearly it's not a big priority for R.

https://legiscan.com/OH/votes/SB341/2025 / https://legiscan.com/OH/bill/HB670/2025

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 11 points 5 hours ago

it's not a big priority for R.

If Republicans have one priority, it's fucking children.

[–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 18 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

It's amazing how Republicans continually do the things that highlight their passion for youth genitalia. This could have been the easiest win to try and save face for all of the shit going in, and they just doubled down. There really is no excusing that if you're a Republican you are on team pedophile. It was already clear in their support for Trump, opposition to releasing the Epstein files, and how seemingly every politician busted for CP is Republican, but they can't even do the most basic, publicly visible thing to not further perpetuate the statistically backed stereotype.

[–] justaman123@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago

It's literally any day now before they just become mask off about it. Like they have about the two tiered justice system

[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 12 points 8 hours ago

How about instead of being baffled you just go ASK the people who voted against it why? It's not like it's a secret ballot or anything...

[–] Janx@piefed.social 52 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

“It’s just unbelievable that a bipartisan common sense bill that has no opposition from the public, that costs nothing, it has a $0 price tag...it harms no one except creepy men who prey on teenage girls”

Yep. Stay classy, Ohio...

[–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 6 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

I agree with that quote, but I would be morbidly interested to see the male to female split on the pedophilic marriages. I assume it's heavily skewed towards creepy men, but Id guess there have been some creepy women too.

[–] hovercat@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

In a recent 2024 study:

...between 2000 and 2019. Over 75 % of all married children in each state were girls. Girls married men who were an average of 4 years older than they were, and the age gap was substantially larger when girls married than when boys married.

[–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Thanks. I assumed it was heavily that way, but 75% is probably lower than I would have guessed.

I bet the ratio is something like 500:1

When you look up child marriage statistics in the us the numbers are much higher than you would expect though.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

Who do they think is voting on the bill exactly?

[–] NM_Gringo@lemmy.world 56 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Republicans are fixated with kids.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 22 points 12 hours ago

They are nazi pedophiles, like their pedofuhrer.

[–] zeppo@lemmy.world 22 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

I think they mean something different by “family values”

"Think of the children"

The repugnicans need to stop thinking about children so much

they mean their family has value, as in: if I sell off my daughter this guy is gonna give me enough money that i'll be happy.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 4 points 10 hours ago

Golly I guess the resistance to it was also bipartisan huh

[–] Unquote0270@programming.dev 8 points 12 hours ago

And this is supposed to be a developed country.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Am I the only one who thinks this is not such a big deal? The article says child marriage is already prohibited except a “Romeo and Juliet” provision

Senate Bill 341 would have ended a loophole letting 17-year-olds marry legal adults up to four years older than them with court approval

Someone of any age can marry an 18 year old, but if you want to marry a 17 year old you better be close in age and get a court to approve? That already prohibits child marriage while being flexible in limited circumstances. The bill would have only removed the flexibility.

You could certainly argue it’s not limited enough or I don’t know if courts are too quick to approve, but it’s not like child marriage is wide open