How To Stop Child Marriages - The Example of Delaware

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

Regarding 16 versus 18, I'm fudging that question a little due to being in Scotland where the marriage age is 16. I'm hesitant because the Scottish government's decision to reduce the voting age to 16 has been both popular and successful. With a quick search I haven't been able to find any figures on how common pre-18 marriages there are, but considering that only 3% of people aged 16-24 are married or in a civil partnership there probably aren't many. Marriages are also extremely easy to dissolve if you've lived separately for 2 years.

Returning to the USA, I was reading on Wikipedia that the age of consent is at least 16 in all states with some exemptions mainly aimed at not criminalising sex between minors (as opposed to between a minor and an adult), and also an exemption if the people are married to each other. So I'm struggling to understand how, when the girl in the OP article went to a courthouse and declared herself pregnant by a man of 32, the judge asked her if she'd like to marry him rather than ordering his arrest.

You see, I get that many people will go by the current law. In England, it's legal at 16 with a parent or guardian's consent.

But, I still think 18 (21 would be better) is the right age, because allowing marriage at 16 -- even with parental consent -- gives rise to events like this abomination where Christian homeschoolers (in 2016) gathered to arrange marriages for their teenage daughters, after "training" their daughters to accept marriage.

In 2016. In America.

Seriously.

And the "event" was to include daughters up to 20. So, I'd really favour increasingly the marital age to a higher age than 18. I said 18 because that's the age at which one is considered to have reached majority (for drinking, and voting) in England. So it's what I'm familiar with.

And, while divorce is easy (which is a good thing), it's worth considering that many of these religious communities frown on it and there's intense pressure for people to remain in (even deeply miserable) marriages. So, leaving a marriage that someone may have been pushed into may not be that easy.

Also, even if a marriage entered into at a young age wholly voluntarily, by the time the couple divorce there could still be children, leaving the couple with a tie that will last for life, and having to make custody arrangements. Divorces are emotionally draining. It's still a very hefty price to pay for a youthful mistake.

Better they wait a few more years. If it's true love, the kind that could stand the test of a long-term commitment, surely it could wait a few more years?

EDIT: Research by US State of how many people are married age 15-17 (it's most common in the Southern US, and especially Texas and West Virginia): http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... -by-state/

From the article you linked:

Two states, Massachusetts and New Hampshire, allow 12- and 13-year-old girls respectively and 14-year-old boys to marry with parental and judicial permission.

Something is rotten in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

[Uan aa Boa]

Ouch. That's a pretty scary looking event, though the organisation's website has closed so it's difficult to judge directly. Especially concerning to see the practice of the bride price being justified by an appeal to Exodus, because once you start accepting the Hebrew Bible's marriage laws as relevant it's a slippery slope to gems such as this (appropriate given the OP topic).

If a man encounters a young woman, a virgin who is not engaged, takes hold of her and rapes her, and they are discovered, the man who raped her must give the young woman’s father 50 silver shekels, and she must become his wife because he violated her. He cannot divorce her as long as he lives. Deuteronomy 22:28-29

The thing is, when most people today talk about marriage they're thinking of a freely chosen union which is an expression of love, whereas in previous centuries it tended to mean what it means in the Bible - a property transaction between a woman's father and her husband. So people taking their ideas from the Bible are talking at complete cross purposes with the rest of the world.

Ironically, although this group presents young marriage as a religious imperative, the underlying rationale is very materialistic. A woman is to be transferred from the authority of her father directly to that of her husband with no opportunity for intervening shenanigans so as to increase the chance of her being a virgin when she arrives. Ultimately this is to give men maximum confidence that the children who inherit their property are their biological children. That's why female sexual morality has always been portrayed as far more important than its male equivalent.

I don't think raising the age of marriage alone will overcome this cultural chasm. After all, the gathering in your linked article included girls as young as 13 who presumably need to wait 3 to 5 years once spoken for. Once these cults get inside your head and control your whole world I would imagine they can keep you compliant until you're 21 if forced by the law to do so. As I said before, educational opportunity is the key thing, and that's exactly what these home-schooled girls have been denied.

[The Free Joy State]

You see, I get that many people will go by the current law. In England, it's legal at 16 with a parent or guardian's consent.

But, I still think 18 (21 would be better) is the right age, because allowing marriage at 16 -- even with parental consent -- gives rise to events like this abomination where Christian homeschoolers (in 2016) gathered to arrange marriages for their teenage daughters, after "training" their daughters to accept marriage.

In 2016. In America.

Seriously.

And the "event" was to include daughters up to 20. So, I'd really favour increasingly the marital age to a higher age than 18. I said 18 because that's the age at which one is considered to have reached majority (for drinking, and voting) in England. So it's what I'm familiar with.

And, while divorce is easy (which is a good thing), it's worth considering that many of these religious communities frown on it and there's intense pressure for people to remain in (even deeply miserable) marriages. So, leaving a marriage that someone may have been pushed into may not be that easy.

Also, even if a marriage entered into at a young age wholly voluntarily, by the time the couple divorce there could still be children, leaving the couple with a tie that will last for life, and having to make custody arrangements. Divorces are emotionally draining. It's still a very hefty price to pay for a youthful mistake.

Better they wait a few more years. If it's true love, the kind that could stand the test of a long-term commitment, surely it could wait a few more years?

EDIT: Research by US State of how many people are married age 15-17 (it's most common in the Southern US, and especially Texas and West Virginia): http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... -by-state/

From the article you linked:

Two states, Massachusetts and New Hampshire, allow 12- and 13-year-old girls respectively and 14-year-old boys to marry with parental and judicial permission.

Something is rotten in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

I couldn't believe it either. Why the hell haven't they changed the law?

Fun fact: it was also 14 in Texas until 2007 (IIRC). I believe they changed it when they polygamist FLDS moved in.

There's currently a bill to raise the marriageable age in New Hampshire to 16

Ouch. That's a pretty scary looking event, though the organisation's website has closed so it's difficult to judge directly. Especially concerning to see the practice of the bride price being justified by an appeal to Exodus, because once you start accepting the Hebrew Bible's marriage laws as relevant it's a slippery slope to gems such as this (appropriate given the OP topic).

If a man encounters a young woman, a virgin who is not engaged, takes hold of her and rapes her, and they are discovered, the man who raped her must give the young woman’s father 50 silver shekels, and she must become his wife because he violated her. He cannot divorce her as long as he lives. Deuteronomy 22:28-29

The thing, when most people today talk about marriage they're thinking of a freely chosen union which is an expression of love, whereas in previous centuries it tended to mean what it means in the Bible - a property transaction between a woman's father and her husband. So people taking their ideas from the Bible are talking at complete cross purposes with the rest of the world.

Ironically, although this group presents young marriage as a religious imperative, the underlying rationale is very materialistic. A woman is to be transferred from the authority of her father directly to that of her husband with no opportunity for intervening shenanigans so as to increase the chance of her being a virgin when she arrives. Ultimately this is to give men maximum confidence that the children who inherit their property are their biological children. That's why female sexual morality has always been portrayed as far more important than its male equivalent.

I don't think raising the age of marriage alone will overcome this cultural chasm. After all, the gathering in your linked article included girls as young as 13 who presumably need to wait 3 to 5 years once spoken for. Once these cults get inside your head and control your whole world I would imagine they can keep you compliant until you're 21 if forced by the law to do so. As I said before, educational opportunity is the key thing, and that's exactly what these home-schooled girls have been denied.

Absolutely. Raising the marriage age alone is a very small drop in a huge ocean. But it's a start.

Really, (as I said earlier) mandatory state oversight of homeschoolers -- perhaps with mandated curriculum that will help children leave the cultish atmosphere and integrate socially (including comprehensive sex and consent education for boys and girls) -- is also necessary, as is free contraception and greater opportunities.

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

From the article you linked:



Something is rotten in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

I couldn't believe it either. Why the hell haven't they changed the law?

Fun fact: it was also 14 in Texas until 2007 (IIRC). I believe they changed it when they polygamist FLDS moved in.

There's currently a bill to raise the marriageable age in New Hampshire to 16

Ouch. That's a pretty scary looking event, though the organisation's website has closed so it's difficult to judge directly. Especially concerning to see the practice of the bride price being justified by an appeal to Exodus, because once you start accepting the Hebrew Bible's marriage laws as relevant it's a slippery slope to gems such as this (appropriate given the OP topic).

If a man encounters a young woman, a virgin who is not engaged, takes hold of her and rapes her, and they are discovered, the man who raped her must give the young woman’s father 50 silver shekels, and she must become his wife because he violated her. He cannot divorce her as long as he lives. Deuteronomy 22:28-29

The thing, when most people today talk about marriage they're thinking of a freely chosen union which is an expression of love, whereas in previous centuries it tended to mean what it means in the Bible - a property transaction between a woman's father and her husband. So people taking their ideas from the Bible are talking at complete cross purposes with the rest of the world.

Ironically, although this group presents young marriage as a religious imperative, the underlying rationale is very materialistic. A woman is to be transferred from the authority of her father directly to that of her husband with no opportunity for intervening shenanigans so as to increase the chance of her being a virgin when she arrives. Ultimately this is to give men maximum confidence that the children who inherit their property are their biological children. That's why female sexual morality has always been portrayed as far more important than its male equivalent.

I don't think raising the age of marriage alone will overcome this cultural chasm. After all, the gathering in your linked article included girls as young as 13 who presumably need to wait 3 to 5 years once spoken for. Once these cults get inside your head and control your whole world I would imagine they can keep you compliant until you're 21 if forced by the law to do so. As I said before, educational opportunity is the key thing, and that's exactly what these home-schooled girls have been denied.

Absolutely. Raising the marriage age alone is a very small drop in a huge ocean. But it's a start.

Really, (as I said earlier) mandatory state oversight of homeschoolers -- perhaps with mandated curriculum that will help children leave the cultish atmosphere and integrate socially (including comprehensive sex and consent education for boys and girls) -- is also necessary, as is free contraception and greater opportunities.

Isn't homeschooling somehow supervised by the State authorities, at least to make sure that the content of education is aligned with the curriculum for US schools? I mean, you can't just let any parent to teach their kids anything they like, right? Besides, what if they are not qualified to teach them anyway? Aren't there any regulations?

If there are already regulations to secure a certain quality of education, then surely new regulations can be added to the bulk to make sure that children are also receiving sex-ed classes at home, for example.

But other than that, I believe the State should take measures to discourage homeschooling and to encourage participation in regular schools instead.

[The Free Joy State]

I couldn't believe it either. Why the hell haven't they changed the law?

Fun fact: it was also 14 in Texas until 2007 (IIRC). I believe they changed it when they polygamist FLDS moved in.

There's currently a bill to raise the marriageable age in New Hampshire to 16



Absolutely. Raising the marriage age alone is a very small drop in a huge ocean. But it's a start.

Really, (as I said earlier) mandatory state oversight of homeschoolers -- perhaps with mandated curriculum that will help children leave the cultish atmosphere and integrate socially (including comprehensive sex and consent education for boys and girls) -- is also necessary, as is free contraception and greater opportunities.

Isn't homeschooling somehow supervised by the State authorities, at least to make sure that the content of education is aligned with the curriculum for US schools? I mean, you can't just let any parent to teach their kids anything they like, right? Besides, what if they are not qualified to teach them anyway? Aren't there any regulations?

If there are already regulations to secure a certain quality of education, then surely new regulations can be added to the bulk to make sure that children are also receiving sex-ed classes at home, for example.

But other than that, I believe the State should take measures to discourage homeschooling and to encourage participation in regular schools instead.

Homeschooling varies from country to country and state to state. Some have stringent measures (such as mandatory inspections and enforced regular tests to nationally-set standards) and some have no standards at all.

You can guess what I favour.

If homeschooling is really essential.

I mean, I can see occasions where it would be good for the child. A child with special educational needs might get better care, sad to say, with an educated parent, than at a mainstream school. Especially if no SEN schools are available and the child's needs are especially pronounced. But that (both the lack of funding for focused attention at mainstream schools and the lack of funding for SEN schools) is something we should attempt to fix, too.

Really, homeschooling should be an absolute last resort, IMO, and I think there should be rigorous oversight to ensure every child gets the same kind of curriculum wherever they are.

I don't favour parents being able to pull their child out of school to deliberately stunt them by denying them access to the modern world.

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

Isn't homeschooling somehow supervised by the State authorities, at least to make sure that the content of education is aligned with the curriculum for US schools? I mean, you can't just let any parent to teach their kids anything they like, right? Besides, what if they are not qualified to teach them anyway? Aren't there any regulations?

If there are already regulations to secure a certain quality of education, then surely new regulations can be added to the bulk to make sure that children are also receiving sex-ed classes at home, for example.

But other than that, I believe the State should take measures to discourage homeschooling and to encourage participation in regular schools instead.

Homeschooling varies from country to country. Some have stringent measures (mandatory inspections and enforced regular tests to nationally-set standards) and some have no standards at all.

You can guess what I favour.

If homeschooling is really essential.

I mean, I can see occasions where it would be acceptable. A child with special educational needs might get better care, sad to say, with an educated parent, than at a mainstream school. Especially if no SEN schools are available. But that's we should attempt to fix, too.

Really, homeschooling should be an absolute last resort, IMO, and I think there should be rigorous oversight to ensure every child gets the same kind of curriculum wherever they are.

I don't know if this suggestion is gonna be too naive, but I think churches need to do more, too. Considering that the overwhelming majority of people who approve of underage marriages identify as devout Christians, I think the churches could potentially play an important role in preventing underage marriages by talking to parents and persuading them that teenage marriages weren't a good idea.

But I don't think most churches are willing to do that. It could really help, if they did, however. After all, these teens probably get married in the church, right? Maybe it could make a difference if a "Reverend" himself told the parents that they shouldn't marry their kids off at such a young age.

Anyway, probably this is just my pipe-dream. Progressive churches are still not *that* common in the US, I think.

[The Free Joy State]

Homeschooling varies from country to country. Some have stringent measures (mandatory inspections and enforced regular tests to nationally-set standards) and some have no standards at all.

You can guess what I favour.

If homeschooling is really essential.

I mean, I can see occasions where it would be acceptable. A child with special educational needs might get better care, sad to say, with an educated parent, than at a mainstream school. Especially if no SEN schools are available. But that's we should attempt to fix, too.

Really, homeschooling should be an absolute last resort, IMO, and I think there should be rigorous oversight to ensure every child gets the same kind of curriculum wherever they are.

I don't know if this suggestion is gonna be too naive, but I think churches need to do more, too. Considering that the overwhelming majority of people who approve of underage marriages identify as devout Christians, I think the churches could potentially play an important role in preventing underage marriages by talking to parents and persuading them that teenage marriages weren't a good idea.

But I don't think most churches are willing to do that. It could really help, if they did, however. After all, these teens probably get married in the church, right? Maybe it could make a difference if a "Reverend" himself told the parents that they shouldn't marry their kids off at such a young age.

Anyway, probably this is just my pipe-dream. Progressive churches are still not *that* common in the US, I think.

I don't think a lack of progressive churches is the real problem. It's that people who hold these views cleave to the churches that support them.

A homophobic person would run a mile if their vicar suddenly started preaching to accept gay people and let same-sex couples marry. It's the same thing here: a parent who believes that girls should marry young, have no say in their spouse and be obedient little daughters would run from a vicar telling them that's not a good idea.

They'd declare the vicar "un-Biblical", and decide that he'd been corrupted and find a new "more Bible-based" church that supported child marriage.

Christians, I've found (and I am one, so this isn't an insult) find churches that fit their precepts, they don't fit their precepts to their church.

EDIT: Of course, for vicars/pastors/ministers/priests to speak against teen marriage might have an impact on the next generation. But their parents would still bemoan that they were totally ungodly and had "turned away from God".

[Ethel mermania]

I actually think we should be less moralistic about this when it comes to judging other cultures. There should be a minimum age to get married, even with parental consent, and 13 is too young, but there's a difference between marrying off a 13 year old to a child molester vs. getting married at 16 in a culture where that's normal.

Pretty much this.

The counter argument is that those are the kids the legislation is trying to protect.

[Purpelia]

Honestly I think that having any sort of international legal standard for ANYTHING AT ALL in regards to domestic politics is a very bad idea and only serves to oppress people and enforce globalization.

If the people of a country, or in your case a state want child marriages, or honor killings or genocide or what ever the hell they want they should be free to have that as long as they keep it contained within their borders. If you want to change it move to that country and vote for what ever party is against it. End of story.

[emphasis mine]

TIL genocide is A-OK as long as the government declares it nice and legal.

The government is irrelevant in this matter. It is the people who count. And yes, if the people of a country democratically elect genocide that will only effect their citizens living within their own borders that is perfectly fine and we should respect their choice.

It's very simple really. My right and yours to live in a country that is ordered according to our wishes only exists for so long as we are willing to defend it. And defending a right means defending that right for everyone, irregardless of how they use it. The moment you compromise on that you open the door to the right being ever more eroded on ever flimsier an excuse.

Thus if I want to keep living in my country with socialized medicine, protection from rape murder and pedophilia and what ever else it is I want in my country I have to defend your right to live in a country according to your wishes, and of everyone else to do the same with their nations.


TLDR: My defense of your rights does not hinge upon you using them to my liking.

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

[emphasis mine]

TIL genocide is A-OK as long as the government declares it nice and legal.

And yes, if the people of a country democratically elect genocide...

That is not a thing.

[Auphelia]

The end of a child marriage is a child divorce.

[Purpelia]

And yes, if the people of a country democratically elect genocide...

That is not a thing.

It could be. There is nothing preventing someone running on a campaign of kill all [minority] and getting elected and proceeding to do just that. Hitler did it.


As ugly as it sounds, the price we pay for our liberty is that we must accept others will use that same liberty for things we dislike.

[Geneviev]

That is not a thing.

It could be. There is nothing preventing someone running on a campaign of kill all [minority] and getting elected and proceeding to do just that. Hitler did it.


As ugly as it sounds, the price we pay for our liberty is that we must accept others will use that same liberty for things we dislike.

Uhh... no he didn't.

[Purpelia]

It could be. There is nothing preventing someone running on a campaign of kill all [minority] and getting elected and proceeding to do just that. Hitler did it.


As ugly as it sounds, the price we pay for our liberty is that we must accept others will use that same liberty for things we dislike.

Uhh... no he didn't.

He might have fudged and abused and ultimately completely subverted the democratic process to get to power in the end. But as far as running for office he did run on a platform of "I just failed in a revolution and wrote a genocidal manifesto that you can buy in any bookstore! Vote for me."

[Geneviev]

Uhh... no he didn't.

He might have fudged and abused the democratic process to win. But he did run on a platform of "I just failed in a revolution and wrote a genocidal manifesto! Vote for me."

Antisemitic but not genocidal. Most Germans didn't even know about the killings until after the war.

[Purpelia]

He might have fudged and abused the democratic process to win. But he did run on a platform of "I just failed in a revolution and wrote a genocidal manifesto! Vote for me."

Antisemitic but not genocidal. Most Germans didn't even know about the killings until after the war.

Well strictly speaking the word genocide didn't really exist until than. But we are doing semantics here. Point is, he was a racist radical genuinely campaigning on the platform of pogrom and racial hate and war. And the people who voted for him got exactly what was promised.

The fact he had to cheat in order to win is immaterial because his example demonstrates that anyone can run on any platform, no matter how unreasonable. And hypothetically at least anyone can win on any platform as long as enough people agree with it.


Also, the idea that most germans didn't know what was happening is a postwar myth. People knew. Or they at least had a decent idea. Especially early on before the camps started when you literally had German police being shipped east to form firing squads killing women and children and than going home to tell the wife. They may not have had all the details but the general knowledge was there.

But let's not turn this into a WW2 nazi thing. That tangent is besides the point.

[USS Monitor]

Two states, Massachusetts and New Hampshire, allow 12- and 13-year-old girls respectively and 14-year-old boys to marry with parental and judicial permission.

Something is rotten in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

Most likely people just haven't got around to changing it because it's so rare for anyone to actually try it, and it might not be that easy to get judicial permission.

I would vote to raise the minimum age if it came up as a ballot question in Massachusetts, but beyond that, eh... It's not something that actually happens very often.

[Senkaku]

Something is rotten in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

Most likely people just haven't got around to changing it because it's so rare for anyone to actually try it, and it might not be that easy to get judicial permission.

I would vote to raise the minimum age if it came up as a ballot question in Massachusetts, but beyond that, eh... It's not something that actually happens very often.

The data indicates it is in fact a thing that happens fairly often. And furthermore- your rationale for not bothering to try and prevent children from being abused is "well, it doesn't happen very often, so who gives a fuck?"

[USS Monitor]

Most likely people just haven't got around to changing it because it's so rare for anyone to actually try it, and it might not be that easy to get judicial permission.

I would vote to raise the minimum age if it came up as a ballot question in Massachusetts, but beyond that, eh... It's not something that actually happens very often.

The data indicates it is in fact a thing that happens fairly often. And furthermore- your rationale for not bothering to try and prevent children from being abused is "well, it doesn't happen very often, so who gives a fuck?"

First line from the source we were discussing: "Child marriage is rare in the U.S."

This would also be relevant to Massachusetts: "Marriage among 15- to 17-year-olds is less common in the Northeast and the Midwest."

So what data are you looking at?

[Senkaku]

The data indicates it is in fact a thing that happens fairly often. And furthermore- your rationale for not bothering to try and prevent children from being abused is "well, it doesn't happen very often, so who gives a fuck?"

First line from the source we were discussing: "Child marriage is rare in the U.S."

This would also be relevant to Massachusetts: "Marriage among 15- to 17-year-olds is less common in the Northeast and the Midwest."

So what data are you looking at?

The OP says it outright- a quarter million child marriages across America from 2000 to 2010. Rare, for a country of 300 million? Perhaps, but I'd submit that it's certainly more than enough to give us a reason to take action, even considering that some aren't coerced or abusive or have a huge age gap. It seems like a basic step to formalize it and make sure we can protect even those rare cases, because we're a civilized, advanced Western industrial democracy that believes in protecting children.

[The Free Joy State]

First line from the source we were discussing: "Child marriage is rare in the U.S."

This would also be relevant to Massachusetts: "Marriage among 15- to 17-year-olds is less common in the Northeast and the Midwest."

So what data are you looking at?

The OP says it outright- a quarter million child marriages across America from 2000 to 2010. Rare, for a country of 300 million? Perhaps, but I'd submit that it's certainly more than enough to give us a reason to take action, even considering that some aren't coerced or abusive or have a huge age gap. It seems like a basic step to formalize it and make sure we can protect even those rare cases, because we're a civilized, advanced Western industrial democracy that believes in protecting children.

In fairness to Massachusetts and Delaware, the slightly more recent data I outlined later (from Pew - here, so you don't have to search back) shows that those States have some of the lower rates of child marriage per 1000 in the US (the number of 15-17 married as of 2014, across all the United States was 57,800).

Is it still open to abuse? Yes. Is it still something I think should be stopped? Of course.

Incidentally, the lowest rate was in Rhode Island.

*Edited for clarity

[Coolao]

Well, the common sense answer would be that marriage is a legal contract, and one should be deemed mentally competent prior to entering into a contract. Typically, mental competence comes from reaching the age of majority, an emancipation by the court, or showing that the individual possesses the ability to form clear thoughts, motives, or intentions through additional means.

Beyond that, it should be the country's decision on what to base the age of majority on. In America's case, eighteen seems sufficient.

[Auze]

It's more that setting the age of consent at exactly 18, rather than 16 or 20 or whatever, is arbitrary

Yeah, well, it's what the world's advanced industrial democracies have more or less settled on, for better or for worse, and it's frankly a pretty good benchmark to roll with. You could argue that just about anything about human society is "arbitrary" if you want to, but in this case 18 seems like a fairly solid pick.

Actually, the majority of advanced industrial democracies have it at 16, tho only country in Europe to set it at 18 is turkey.

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

Yeah, well, it's what the world's advanced industrial democracies have more or less settled on, for better or for worse, and it's frankly a pretty good benchmark to roll with. You could argue that just about anything about human society is "arbitrary" if you want to, but in this case 18 seems like a fairly solid pick.

Actually, the majority of advanced industrial democracies have it at 16, tho only country in Europe to set it at 18 is turkey.

Are you sure about that?



https://www.worldpolicycenter.org/polic ... al-consent

[Ifreann]

Hey kid, you get to be an unwed mother instead of a wife; your kid gets to be an illegitimate bastard instead of a legitimate child.

Congratulations!

Thank your patronizing progressives for this.

You're welcome to this world in which single mothers may keep and raise their children, rather than being forced into a marriage or having their child stolen from them and sold abroad or fatally neglected. You're welcome to this world in which the "legitimacy" of one's birth is no longer relevant to anything.