A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. 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.
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.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
Meanwhile, in el norte...
(Also, you have to be 18 to get divorced in almost every state.)
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.
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.
It's official, California is grosser than Alabama
California? Dawg...
No minimum age limit is absolutely insane. Is there like a Romeo and Juliette style age limit for the partner or is it just...
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.