Res Ipsa wrote:DT, it’s remedial math. California has more Muslims than New Jersey because California has way more people than New Jersey.
Right. But what matters is the child marriage rate, not the Muslim rate. The large Muslim population could be contributing a lot to child marriage in CA.
Res Ipsa wrote:What you have is exactly zero evidence that the law in California has anything to do with Muslims. You just made that up in your bigoted little brain.
Back to New Jersey, the governor in 2017 said, “I agree that protecting the well-being, dignity, and freedom of minors is vital, but the severe bar this bill creates is not necessary to address the concerns voiced by the bill’s proponents and does not comport with the sensibilities and, in some cases, the
religious customs, of the people of this State,” Christie said in his veto message.
I suspect law-makers in CA think the same thing. If not, then why isn't California stopping child marriage?
Res Ipsa wrote: You actually have no idea how many marriages of minors are performed each year. You don’t know how long the law in California has been that way. You think it’s outrageous that California isn’t doing anything without even looking to see whether California has done anything.
Okay. Please explain. Why is California not doing anything to stop child marriage? Can you give me a reason.
Res Ipsa wrote: You haven’t bothered to look for or consider why forbidding marriage for folks under 17 might be a bad thing. All you have is ignorance, bigotry, and a couple factoids you’ve latched onto that confirmation bias tells you support your bigotry.
Child marriage is not always a bad thing? So explain why the legal age of consent in California is strictly 18 with
no close in age exemption? Why not 16 or 17 like many US states? It makes no sense.