Anonymous #2 1w

California’s child marriage statistic was 5.5 per 1,000 15-17-year-olds from 2010-2014. Similarly, TN (Red) is also at 5.5, but AR (Red) is at 5.6, OK (Red) is at 5.8, NV (Swing, most recently Red) is at 5.9, TX (Red) is at 6.9, and WV (Red) is at 7.1

7

Anonymous OP 1w

Are we arguing rates of child marriage or child marriage law? That still puts California at #6 highest rate in the country and the highest in overall numbers of child marriages.

-2

Anonymous #2 1w

Both. Even at the 6th highest rate, a Republican state which is as important as CA and seen as Republicans’ beacon of red success has a 25.5% higher rate of offense when adjusted to account for population. As for the law itself, I don’t defend child marriage whatsoever. That being said, let’s talk about it. To get married underage, you need: consent from one parent of each child, a family court services interview, an interview with a juvenile court judicial officer

3

Anonymous #2 1w

The latter interview requires separate interviews of each party to ensure they are freely choosing marriage, in some cases premarital counseling with certificate of completion and proof of compliance, date of divorce (if applicable), an application fee, and a 30-day waiting period. Along with questionnaires that must be filled out and signed in the presence of a notary. ALL THAT for a marriage license. That’s not even mentioning that it all comes down to the judges’ discretion.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

And do those protections apply under sharia law?

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Yes. The 1st Amendment is not unrestricted or absolute. You cannot send pornography in the mail because it’s obscene speech, which is not protected by freedom of speech. You cannot defame, commit perjury, or spread libel either. Freedom of religion is able to be restricted also. You can’t ban Muslims from practicing Sharia Law outright, but you can ban each thing individually for all citizens.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

For example, look at Native Americans. Some groups had a ritual known as a sweat lodge, dehydrating themselves to the point of hallucination. The government banned the use of sweat lodges for all Americans which meant Natives couldn’t use them in ceremony, but exemptions have been made in recent years. Same thing with Peyote. California still has statutory rape and corruption of minor laws, which would absolutely inhibit what you’re pretending is an issue

5

Anonymous OP 1w

What if, say, someone were to replace New York law with sharia law?

-1

Anonymous #2 1w

and it still puts red states as the top 5. whats ur point here?

1

Anonymous #2 1w

You cannot be this dense. Statutory crimes are state offenses, and a city mayor has 0 sway over it. Even if that was his “secret agenda” he’d be literally unable to do so as mayor

2

Anonymous OP 1w

They literally tried it in McKinney lol

0

Anonymous #2 1w

And i literally cannot find what you’re talking about. Care to elaborate?

4

Anonymous #2 1w

no they didn't 😭 yall are so uneducated, thats why you fall for propaganda so easily

1

Anonymous OP 1w

https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-signs-law-banning-sharia-compounds-in-texas

1

Anonymous #3 1w

https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-signs-law-banning-sharia-compounds-in-texas Talk about uneducated, you don’t even know about EPIC City

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Well, regardless of what the website says, let’s look at some facts and logic (Republicans’ worst nightmare!). 1. The wording for the legislation is all-encompassing and there are two parts that actually make it extremely progressive. They say “business entity” which could make corporate towns like Musk’s become legally grey. They also prohibit discrimination for renting, which is literally covered by the Civil Rights Act (Ask Trump, he’s pissed he can’t refuse to rent to black ppl anymore)

1

Anonymous #2 1w

2. Abbott literally made the whole Sharia Law thing up. The organizing entity has never once publicly said anything supporting it lol

1

Anonymous OP 1w

You’re saying those things as if I’d disagree with any of them. And Trump didn’t discriminate against black renters, there was no proof of racial discrimination. Read the case and verdict.

0

Anonymous #2 1w

That’s a misrepresentation of the verdict. In fact, there was no verdict because Trump settled out of court. Part of the settlement was that Trump didn’t need to admit wrongdoing. Plenty of testimony against him though, including the doorman being told to tell black people that rent was double what it actually was. I’d recommend you to read it, but you probably won’t because the FBI files on the case are over 400 pages

6