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

New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) (L) and Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX) lead a group of fellow Republicans through Statuary Hall on the way to a news conference on the 28th day of the federal government shutdown at the U.S. Capitol on October 28, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla

New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Every January 1st, many Americans face their failings and resolve to do better by making New Year’s Resolutions. Wouldn’t it be delightful if Congress would do the same? According to Gallup, half of all Americans currently have very little confidence in Congress. And while confidence in our government institutions is shrinking across the board, Congress is near rock bottom. With that in mind, here is a list of resolutions Congress could make and keep, which would help to rebuild public trust in Congress and our government institutions. Let’s start with:

1 – Working for the American people. We elect our senators and representatives to work on our behalf – not on their behalf or on behalf of the wealthiest donors, but on our behalf. There are many issues on which a large majority of Americans agree but Congress can’t. Congress should resolve to address those issues.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two groups of glass figures. One red, one blue.

Congressional paralysis is no longer accidental. Polarization has reshaped incentives, hollowed out Congress, and shifted power to the executive.

Getty Images, Andrii Yalanskyi

How Congress Lost Its Capacity to Act and How to Get It Back

In late 2025, Congress fumbled the Affordable Care Act, failing to move a modest stabilization bill through its own procedures and leaving insurers and families facing renewed uncertainty. As the Congressional Budget Office has warned in multiple analyses over the past decade, policy uncertainty increases premiums and reduces insurer participation (see, for example: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61734). I examined this episode in an earlier Fulcrum article, “Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis,” as a case study in congressional paralysis and leadership failure. The deeper problem, however, runs beyond any single deadline or decision and into the incentives and procedures that now structure congressional authority. Polarization has become so embedded in America’s governing institutions themselves that it shapes how power is exercised and why even routine governance now breaks down.

From Episode to System

The ACA episode wasn’t an anomaly but a symptom. Recent scholarship suggests it reflects a broader structural shift in how Congress operates. In a 2025 academic article available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), political scientist Dmitrii Lebedev reaches a stark conclusion about the current Congress, noting that the 118th Congress enacted fewer major laws than any in the modern era despite facing multiple time-sensitive policy deadlines (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5346916). Drawing on legislative data, he finds that dysfunction is no longer best understood as partisan gridlock alone. Instead, Congress increasingly exhibits a breakdown of institutional capacity within the governing majority itself. Leadership avoidance, procedural delay, and the erosion of governing norms have become routine features of legislative life rather than temporary responses to crisis.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump’s ‘America First’ is now just imperialism

Donald Trump Jr.' s plane landed in Nuuk, Greenland, where he made a short private visit, weeks after his father, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, suggested Washington annex the autonomous Danish territory.

(Ritzau Scanpix/AFP via Getty Images)

Trump’s ‘America First’ is now just imperialism

In early 2025, before Donald Trump was even sworn into office, he sent a plane with his name in giant letters on it to Nuuk, Greenland, where his son, Don Jr., and other MAGA allies preened for cameras and stomped around the mineral-rich Danish territory that Trump had been casually threatening to invade or somehow acquire like stereotypical American tourists — like they owned it already.

“Don Jr. and my Reps landing in Greenland,” Trump wrote. “The reception has been great. They and the Free World need safety, security, strength, and PEACE! This is a deal that must happen. MAGA. MAKE GREENLAND GREAT AGAIN!”

Keep ReadingShow less
The Common Cause North Carolina, Not Trump, Triggered the Mid-Decade Redistricting Battle

Political Midterm Election Redistricting

Getty images

The Common Cause North Carolina, Not Trump, Triggered the Mid-Decade Redistricting Battle

“Gerrymander” was one of seven runners-up for Merriam-Webster’s 2025 word of the year, which was “slop,” although “gerrymandering” is often used. Both words are closely related and frequently used interchangeably, with the main difference being their function as nouns versus verbs or processes. Throughout 2025, as Republicans and Democrats used redistricting to boost their electoral advantages, “gerrymander” and “gerrymandering” surged in popularity as search terms, highlighting their ongoing relevance in current politics and public awareness. However, as an old Capitol Hill dog, I realized that 2025 made me less inclined to explain the definitions of these words to anyone who asked for more detail.

“Did the Democrats or Republicans Start the Gerrymandering Fight?” is the obvious question many people are asking: Who started it?

Keep ReadingShow less