政治 · 童婚禁令

加利福尼亚州将终止童婚审批制度——但要等到1月

纽森签署法案,规定结婚和注册伴侣关系的最低年龄为18岁,且不设例外。该规定将于2027年1月1日生效——但不会自动解除此前的婚姻。

播出 文字 阅读需 8 分钟139 个来源HeyDay News Desk · About usWatch report

通过 RSS 关注

原语言视频

文字实录 · 正在加载

译自英文原文。

新闻追踪第 4 天

1 篇报道60 家媒体139 个来源

加利福尼亚州已决定,父母同意或法官批准都不足以授权儿童结婚。但在1月之前,这些批准仍是合法途径。州长加文·纽森于2026年9月30日签署了该州不设例外的童婚禁令;禁令将于2027年1月1日生效。签署法案结束了立法斗争,但尚未终止现行的批准制度。 2 22 21

由圣克鲁斯市民主党州众议员盖尔·佩勒林起草的AB 1267,为加利福尼亚州新发放的结婚许可证和新设立的注册伴侣关系规定了18岁的最低年龄。将注册伴侣关系纳入其中,堵住了未成年人绕开婚姻、转而通过另一条法律途径建立关系的可能,而不只是把他们从婚姻引向其他形式。加利福尼亚州被称为第18个通过全面童婚禁令的州,此前已有17个州实施了不设例外的禁令。 2 22

关键事实

  1. 18新婚姻和注册伴侣关系的最低年龄 222
  2. 2027年1月1日禁令生效日期 2221
  3. 第18个通过不设例外禁令的州排名 285

1月这一日期已确定。已通过的法案没有紧急条款,因此根据加利福尼亚州的通常生效日期规则,该法案将于次年的1月1日生效。关于此前婚姻的条款也明确将2027年1月1日定为分界日期。纽森称这项措施“早就该通过”,并表示:“今天,加州的孩子们比以往任何时候都更加安全。”不应将这番庆祝误认为禁令立即生效。 22 21 2

在此之前,加利福尼亚州没有法定的最低结婚年龄。未成年申请人需要取得法院命令,并获得每一位未成年当事人至少一名父母或监护人的书面同意。法院认为有必要时,可以要求申请人接受婚前辅导。2018年的改革增加了司法面谈和家庭法院服务部门面谈,但保留了以许可为基础的制度。AB 1267以统一的年龄要求取代了这一制度。 7 10 85

最低年龄规定背后的选择

这项立法的核心区分,在于成年人批准婚姻与儿童自由选择婚姻之间的差别。佩勒林在签署声明中讲述了幸存者如何难以求助、寻找律师、离家,或逃离本应保护他们的成年人。他们的证词并不能证明每一桩未成年人婚姻都受到胁迫,而是指出了旧有保障措施的一个弱点:年轻人可能依赖那些本应保护他们免受伤害的成年人。 2

他们告诉我们,在一段并非自由选择的婚姻中做孩子意味着什么。他们讲述了被表面上的同意掩盖的胁迫和虐待。

盖尔·佩勒林 2

Unchained at Last和加利福尼亚州妇女与女孩地位委员会是该法案的发起方。倡议人士考特妮·斯托登出席了签署仪式,并承诺将继续努力,直到美国全部50个州都保护儿童免于结婚。这场倡议的论点本身已足够有力,无需声称尚未衡量的结果:阻止新的、依法获准的童婚,不等于证明虐待有所减少。 2

另一方确实提出了关于自主权的论点。美国公民自由联盟加州行动组织反对AB 1267,理由是未成年人的个人决策权、生育自主权,以及与《第三号提案》相关的结婚基本权利。此前的争论也曾将婚姻视为获得解放的一条途径。反方论点则是,表面上的选择可能受到依赖关系和胁迫的限制,而个案审批程序无法可靠地解决这一问题。最终通过的方案是设定最低年龄。 7 39 59

不过,加利福尼亚州计划生育协会并未对这项法案正式表示支持或反对。若称其反对2026年的这项措施,就会把它的中立立场与此前的改革争论混为一谈。该组织发言人解释说,组织会逐项评估法案;面对联邦政府对其健康中心的打压,组织优先关注医疗资金和服务可及性。这是在解释立法优先事项,并非反对AB 1267的内容。 85 59

最终通过婚姻禁令的投票中,投票的立法者一致赞成:参议院于8月19日以38–0通过,两名参议员未投票;众议院于8月26日以78–0同意参议院修正案,一名议员未投票。2025年6月众议院较早的一次66–8表决,涉及的是AB 1267最初关于健康与安全许可的主题,而不是婚姻禁令。婚姻相关条款于2026年取代了原主题。纽森签署的法案登记为《2026年法令》第850章。 42 53 23

为何这些数字对不上

加利福尼亚州的历史记录远没有新年龄规定那么明晰。《洛杉矶时报》报道,根据公共卫生部和州登记官2019–2025年的数据系列,涉及至少一名未成年人的结婚许可证有88份。这是一个不完整的上报统计,并非经过审计的全州普查。部分县未上报、法院命令缺失,以及年龄和性别信息不完整,都限制了这些数据能够说明的问题。参议院司法委员会的分析列出了逐年记录的数字,从个位数到17不等;该分析并未独立核实88份许可证这一总数。 14 7 131

《时报》还报道,洛杉矶县在2014–2025年向未成年人发放了51份许可证。这些数据不能加到全州统计中:它们涵盖州内一个县,且时间段不同。司法委员会2017年进行的一次抽查发现,洛杉矶县在五年间批准了44份未成年人结婚申请。获批的申请、发放的许可证和登记的结婚证书衡量的是不同阶段,并非可以互换的已完成婚姻总数。 14 15 7

长期估算显示,历史规模可能大得多,但回答的是另一个问题。全国性组织Unchained At Last汇编或估算出,2000–2018年间有297,033名未成年人结婚,其中232,474条记录来自各州实际数据,另有64,559条为估算数据。该组织估算加利福尼亚州有23,588名未成年人结婚,仅次于得克萨斯州。全国范围内,86%是女孩,且大多嫁给成年男性;几乎所有未成年人都在16或17岁,但也有些人年仅10岁。这些全国性发现不能直接套用到加利福尼亚州近年的许可证数据上。 63

Equality Now引用了Unchained At Last后来的一项估算,称2000–2021年间加利福尼亚州约有34,875名女孩结婚。这是倡议组织对女孩人数的估算,并非所有未成年人或加州发放许可证数量的官方统计。该组织采用的计算方法,是将基于调查得出的全国未成年人婚姻比例应用于加州人口数据,而不是汇总该州的结婚证书。加利福尼亚州在20世纪80年代停止在结婚证书上记录年龄,因此历史行政数据并不完整。 27 15

审慎的结论不是说某个数字推翻了另一个数字。它们的时间段、统计对象、方法和缺失记录各不相同。基于调查的历史研究可能涵盖在其他地方举行的婚礼;近期行政统计则可能漏掉本应记录的婚姻。两组数据都无法证实“加州每年目前约有9,000名未成年人结婚”这一说法。2018年之后公布的记录,也无法支持这样一种描述:15岁女孩经常嫁给30多岁的男性。立法分析所描述的是16岁和17岁的未成年人,且年龄差小得多。 15 104 7

1月不会改变什么

新法律不会自动解除此前缔结的婚姻。修订后的《家庭法》第2210条为2027年1月1日之前依据原第302条或第303条在加利福尼亚州缔结、符合条件的婚姻规定了具体例外。这些婚姻不会仅仅因为一方未满18岁就成为可撤销婚姻。这并不保证所有此前的婚姻都有效:包括欺诈和胁迫在内的其他适用婚姻撤销理由仍然存在。 22 90

AB 1267也不会自动使所有在加州以外缔结的未成年人婚姻无效。该法案没有修订《家庭法》第308条;该条规定,在缔结地合法的婚姻在加利福尼亚州也合法。新禁令管辖的是加利福尼亚州发放结婚许可证和建立注册伴侣关系;对于它与婚姻承认及可撤销性规定之间的关系,不应将其简化为对所有州外婚姻一概而论的声明。详细的法律说明依据的是经立法程序通过的文本;签署情况和法案编号则有公告及立法追踪记录为证。 22 46 23

AB 1267取消了原先要求提交法院命令的手续,并废除了未成年人婚姻年度报告规定。但该法案保留了一项单独的一次性审查,审查对象是2019–2024年提交的结婚证书,报告须于2027年9月1日前提交。目前尚无证据表明该报告已经完成,而且它可能有助于弄清历史上报系统漏掉了多少信息。 22 7 135

已知

  • 加利福尼亚州已立法规定,新发放的结婚许可证和新设立的注册伴侣关系最低年龄为18岁,且不设父母或司法例外。 222

未知

  • 全州完整且经核对的历史总数仍未确定。

后续

  • 法律禁令将于2027年1月1日生效;历史结婚证书报告须于2027年9月1日前提交。

这项变化之所以意义重大,恰恰是因为它针对明确的问题。在加利福尼亚州,父母和法院将不再有权批准未成年人缔结新的婚姻或建立注册伴侣关系。此前的婚姻不会就此消失,幸存者所描述的障碍也不会因一纸签署而消失。该州选择的是预防,而非再设一道许可程序。1月将是这一选择正式成为适用规则的时间。

播出原貌 19 行
  1. California has approved a child-marriage ban with no parental or court exceptions.
  2. But the prohibition begins January 1, 2027, leaving the existing approval system in place until then. The change also closes the domestic-partnership pathway for minors.
  3. How many children did the old system allow to marry, and which marriages will the new law leave untouched?
  4. Parents and judges will lose the power to authorize new underage marriages and domestic partnerships in California. Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 1267 on September 30, 2026. California becomes the eighteenth state to adopt a complete child-marriage ban, following seventeen states that already prohibited it without exception. The measure governs new California marriage licenses and the establishment of domestic partnerships. Including partnerships matters: they will not remain an alternative legal route for minors.
  5. California currently has no statutory minimum marriage age. Instead, an underage applicant needs a court order and written consent from at least one parent or guardian of each underage party. A court can require premarital counseling. A 2018 reform added judicial and Family Court Services interviews, but still did not establish an age-eighteen floor. The new law replaces that individualized permission system with a uniform age requirement.
  6. The January start date is settled, not merely tentative. The act contains no urgency clause. California's ordinary effective-date rule, in Constitution Article Four, section eight, and Government Code section 9600, puts this regular-session law into effect January 1 of the following year. Its language governing earlier marriages explicitly uses January 1, 2027, as the dividing date.
  7. A parent's permission does not establish that a child freely chose a marriage. The survivor testimony behind this legislation described coercion, abuse, and barriers to asking for help, finding an attorney, leaving home, or escaping the adults meant to provide protection. That does not establish that every underage marriage involved coercion. It identifies the risk an approval system can miss: a child may depend on the same adults from whom protection is needed.
  8. Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, a Democrat from Santa Cruz, authored the bill. Unchained at Last and the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls sponsored it. Advocate Courtney Stodden attended the signing; the survivor-led campaign's stated goal extends to protection from marriage in all fifty states. These are arguments and goals for protection, not evidence that the law has already reduced abuse.
  9. The final marriage-ban votes were unanimous among legislators voting. The Senate passed the measure thirty-eight to zero on August 19, with Catherine Blakespear and Monique Limón not voting. The Assembly concurred in the Senate amendments seventy-eight to zero on August 26, with one member not voting. The enrolled version was dated August 30, and the bill reached the governor September 3 at four p.m. It was signed and chaptered September 30 as Chapter 850, Statutes of 2026.
  10. The earlier sixty-six-to-eight Assembly vote was not a vote on banning child marriage. That June 2, 2025 vote, with five members not voting, concerned AB 1267's original health-and-safety licensing subject. The marriage language replaced it in the Senate in 2026. Older licensing titles and committee-status entries therefore do not describe the final enacted law. The correct bill number is AB 1267, not the isolated erroneous reference to AB 1276. Earlier complete-ban proposals in 2023 and 2024 died in committee.
  11. ACLU California Action opposed the bill over minors' personal decision-making, reproductive autonomy, and the fundamental right to marry associated with Proposition Three. Earlier debates also treated marriage as a route to emancipation. Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, however, took no formal support or opposition position on this bill. Calling it an opponent of the 2026 measure conflates that neutral position with earlier debates. The organization prioritized health-care issues amid the defunding of its health centers and the Trump administration's and congressional Republicans' attacks on health care. That legislative-priority explanation was not an objection to this bill's substance. No lobbyist appeared in the 2026 hearings to defend a right for minors to marry. The enacted answer to the autonomy debate is a minimum age, rather than another individualized approval process.
  12. Eighty-eight licenses involving at least one minor were recorded in a statewide reporting series for 2019 through 2025. That figure is incomplete, not an audited census. Early county nonreporting sometimes appeared as zero. A missing court order could prevent a minor marriage from being reported, and missing information left some ages and genders incomplete. The legislative analysis gives annual recorded totals ranging from single digits to seventeen; it does not independently establish the eighty-eight-license aggregate. Published post-2018 annual records describe sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds and relatively small age gaps. They do not establish a pattern of fifteen-year-old girls routinely marrying men in their thirties.
  13. Los Angeles County separately recorded fifty-one licenses issued to minors during 2014 through 2025. That is a county figure over a different period, not another total to add to the statewide eighty-eight. County and state records for overlapping years have not always matched, and exact endpoint dates beyond those years are not established. A 2017 court spot-check identified forty-four Los Angeles County minor-marriage petitions granted over five years. Those were FL-910 petitions—not verified licenses or completed marriages—and the exact calendar or fiscal window is not established. A petition, a license, and a registered marriage certificate measure different stages.
  14. A national historical compilation counted or estimated 297,033 minors married between 2000 and 2018. It combined 232,474 entries from actual state data with 64,559 estimated entries. California's estimate was 23,588 minors, second after Texas in that compilation. Nationally, eighty-six percent were girls, mostly marrying adult men. Nearly all minors were sixteen or seventeen, although some were as young as ten. Those are national findings, not demographics to apply to California's recent license records. A later estimate put roughly 34,875 girls married in California between 2000 and 2021. That is an advocacy estimate of girls—not an official count of all minors or California-issued licenses. It applies a survey-derived national minor-marriage rate to California demographics instead of adding up the state's certificates.
  15. The historical estimates and recent license tallies cannot be compared as if they measured the same thing. California stopped including ages on marriage certificates in the 1980s, limiting historical administrative coverage. Survey-based marriage histories can include marriages solemnized elsewhere and carry sampling and estimation uncertainty. Different periods, populations, methods, and missing records prevent a clean comparison. Rounded descriptions of more than thirty-four thousand or about thirty-five thousand are related restatements, not independent official totals. None establishes that roughly nine thousand minors currently marry in California each year.
  16. The law also removes paperwork tied to the old exception. Officiants will no longer have to return a minor-marriage court order with the license, because that licensing pathway is being repealed. Annual local reporting and the State Registrar's annual minor-marriage compilation are repealed too. A separate, one-time examination of historical marriage certificates remains required.
  17. Earlier marriages are not automatically dissolved by this law. Family Code section 2210 retains minority as a possible ground for declaring a marriage voidable, but makes a specific exception for qualifying California marriages entered under the former court-order and consent provisions before January 1, 2027. Those marriages are not voidable solely because a party was under eighteen. That is not a guarantee that every earlier marriage is valid. Other annulment grounds—including a prior living spouse, unsound mind, fraud, force, and physical incapacity—remain available when applicable.
  18. Out-of-state marriages are not automatically invalidated either. AB 1267 does not amend Family Code section 308, which provides that a marriage valid where contracted is valid in California. The new floor governs California's issuance of marriage licenses and establishment of domestic partnerships. Its interaction with recognition and voidability rules in individual cases cannot honestly be reduced to a blanket claim that every underage marriage contracted elsewhere becomes invalid in January.
  19. January ends the approval route for new child marriages and partnerships; it does not erase earlier marriages or the obstacles survivors described. The historical number remains unresolved because incomplete administrative records and modeled estimates do not yield one comparable total. Health and Safety Code section 102233.1 remains intact, requiring a one-time examination of marriage certificates transmitted during 2019 through 2024. That report is not established as completed. It may clarify how many historical marriages the reporting system missed, and it is due September 1, 2027.

来源

139 个来源60 家媒体2 篇通稿

来源地图

追溯本篇报道的依据。图谱展示其关联;下方链接可打开本文引用的来源。

来源图谱将在您阅读时加载。

探索完整的新闻编辑室图谱 ↗

译文更新于

修订记录

  1. r1首次发布。