Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

One Year After Total Child Marriage Ban, New Hampshire Considers New Exceptions

New Hampshire lawmakers to vote on adding a military exception to the state’s child marriage ban, which was passed last year with no exceptions.

News

One Year After Total Child Marriage Ban, New Hampshire Considers New Exceptions
Equality Now

A new child marriage bill in New Hampshire is drawing attention from lawmakers and activists across the United States. Last year, the New Hampshire Legislature passed a landmark bill, amending the law to prohibit child marriage under the age of 18 without exceptions. The long fought for legislation was widely celebrated, despite some lawmakers in the state previously supporting child marriage. Now, during the current 2025 legislative session, lawmakers will vote on a proposal to amend the law by creating a military exception for 17-year-olds.

Child marriage, defined as a formal marriage or informal union before the age of 18, is a harmful practice that puts the lives, health, and futures of children at risk. Around the world, 12 million girls are married each year before they turn 18, often to adult men much older than they are. This practice is recognized internationally as a human rights violation and a form of violence against women and girls.


THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MARRIAGE AT 17 VS 18

In the United States, nearly 300,000 children, primarily girls, were legally married between 2000 and 2018 – some as young as 12. In New Hampshire alone, approximately 215 minors were married between 2000 and 2023, before the law was amended. Records from the New Hampshire Department of State show that 83% of these cases involved girls married to adult men.

Marriage before 18 years of age, including at 17, can entangle minors in a web of legal obstacles, effectively trapping them in marriage until they turn 18. Minors are generally unable to enter into binding contracts, file lawsuits independently, or hire an attorney, all of which are critical should one wish to leave a marriage. Moreover, domestic violence shelters will often turn away persons under the age of 18, and CPS and youth shelters are not designed to deal with issues of child marriage. These factors make a marriage age of 18 years without exception crucial.

Last year, when the New Hampshire legislature passed SB 359, which raised the marriage age in the state to 18 without exception, the state was hailed by many for significant progress after more than seven years of advocacy.

HB 433 threatens to undo that progress, by allowing 17-year-olds to marry active-duty service members of any age, and permitting 17-year-old active-duty service members to marry anyone 17 or older, undermining the protections against exploitation and harm established by SB 359.

HOW DOES CHILD MARRIAGE IMPACT GIRLS?

Child marriage remains legal in 37 US states. According to The United Nations (OHCHR), the practice has profound impacts on the health of survivors, as well as that of any children born of such marriages, including higher rates of adverse sexual and reproductive health outcomes and in some cases, increased risk of maternal mortality.

Girls married before the age of 18 have reported high rates of physical, sexual, financial, and/or emotional abuse during their marriages, often resulting in poor mental health, including feelings of isolation, depression, and suicidal thoughts and behaviors.

Child marriage disrupts education and limits economic attainment, trapping girls in a cycle of poverty with little chance of becoming economically independent or secure. Girls who marry are more likely to drop out of high school, earn less over their lifetimes, and live in poverty than their peers who marry at later ages. Moreover, child marriage can easily result in the loss of bodily autonomy and reproductive rights, with survivors forced to have sex and endure pregnancy and childbirth without their consent.

WHY DOES BILL HB433 PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS FOR MILITARY MEMBERS?

Proponents of HB 433 argue that it ensures minors married to service members can access military benefits. However, service members can already designate any beneficiary for life insurance and death benefits, regardless of age or marital status. Other benefits, such as health and housing, do not justify child marriage and only perpetuate a lifetime of dependency. Teens deserve access to health and housing resources that do not require them to enter an adult sexual relationship with lifelong impacts.

Child marriage is just as dangerous in the military context as in civilian life, and all minors deserve equal protection against human rights abuses, regardless of whom they marry. Long periods of separation, frequent relocations, and the emotional strain associated with military life could further exacerbate the vulnerabilities faced by minors in such marriages.

WHAT COULD HB 433 MEAN FOR CHILD MARRIAGE LEGISLATION MORE BROADLY?

Allowing for a rollback on an existing “no exceptions” child marriage law could set a dangerous precedent, weakening protections for minors and encouraging other states to follow suit.

Similar to how the overturning of Roe v. Wade led to widespread rollbacks on reproductive rights, this legislation risks creating a ripple effect, where countless laws designed to protect vulnerable populations are revisited and diluted.

This exception would undermine international human rights standards, which condemn child marriage as a harmful practice.

HOW INTERNATIONAL LAW CAN PROTECT AGAINST CHILD MARRIAGE

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, one of the few treaties that the United States has ratified, requires the consent of both parties to marriage. The United Nations Human Rights Committee thereby recommended the United States in December 2023 to “adopt measures at all levels in order to prohibit marriage under the age of 18.”

THE NEXT STEPS FOR CHILD MARRIAGE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE

Legislators in New Hampshire have until June 13, 2025, the end of their current legislative session, to review, potentially amend, and vote on HB 433.

In the meantime, Unchained At Last, a national survivor-led nonprofit organization dedicated to ending forced marriage and child marriage in the United States, has led members of the National Coalition to End Child Marriage, including Equality Now, in submitting testimony to The New Hampshire House of Representatives in opposition of the bill.

“Equality Now strongly opposes HB 433, which would lower the legal age of marriage to 17 if

either party is an active-duty service member,” wrote Anastasia Law, Programme Officer for North America at Equality Now, in written testimony to New Hampshire Legislators. “We urge New Hampshire legislators to reject HB 433 and uphold the protections recently established under SB 359.”


Read More

The Trump Administration’s Plan for Protecting Consumers? Politely Ask Companies to Behave.

Russell Vought, the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, testified before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs in July.

Samuel Corum/Sipa USA via AP Images

The Trump Administration’s Plan for Protecting Consumers? Politely Ask Companies to Behave.

In mid-July testimony before Congress, Russell Vought boasted that, as the acting head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, he’d refashioned the agency’s approach to pursuing banks and other financial companies accused of exploiting Americans — the role Congress had created for the agency after the 2008 economic crash.

Vought had spent the first 18 months of the new Trump administration trying to dismantle the bureau, much as he and other appointees had done with the U.S. Agency for International Development. At CFPB, he’d ordered mass layoffs, tried to choke off the bureau’s funding and ended the lease on its headquarters, attempting to make good on his vow to put civil servants “in trauma.” But federal courts blocked Vought’s efforts to close the CFPB, with a judge at one point saying the administration had acted with “complete disregard” for Congress.

Keep ReadingShow less
A man walks with a ship behind him

man walks near the Punta Cardon refinery, on Jan. 23, 2026. Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world with an estimated 303 billion barrels.

(Jesus Vargas/dpa via ZUMA Press/TNS)

Americans should be concerned about the fine print on Trump’s new oil deal

So, it was a war for oil after all.

On social media Friday, President Trump announced that the United States and Venezuela have struck an agreement for “THE BIGGEST OIL DEAL IN WORLD HISTORY.”

Keep ReadingShow less
​Teal shoes are displayed outside Naval Medical Center Portsmouth

Teal shoes are displayed outside Naval Medical Center Portsmouth in April 2018 as part of Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month.

Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Kris R. Lindstrom/U.S. Navy

Military Sexual Trauma Survivors Can’t Sue the Government. A New Bill Could Change That.

When Mayra Diaz opened the door of her Army barracks room in 2022, she didn’t realize it was the beginning of the end of her military career.

She had never met the soldier standing in front of her, Sgt. Greville Clarke. She didn’t know he had sexually assaulted three other women on base over the past 15 months, including one he threatened at knifepoint.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Horizontal photo of a DEMOCRATIC PARTY FLAG

Horizontal photo of a DEMOCRATIC PARTY FLAG with a stylized DONKEY with 3 white stars on blue top of donkey and two red feet. Flag is laying on top of a red, white, and blue American Flag.

Getty Images

How to Define the Democratic Party - Left or Centrist?

Labels can be misleading and misused. The label "Centrist" is empowering because it signifies you are mainstream, not extreme, a place where all people can come together. To be labeled "Left" is to place you outside the mainstream, extreme; left connotes a kind of kookiness as well as—horror of horrors—Socialism.

But are the labels accurate? For most of the 20th century, the Democratic Party was, without question, the party that championed the working man, the average person—the people. But they were nevertheless firm capitalists—they were not Socialists.

Keep ReadingShow less