“How old was Mary?”: How dozens of Oklahoma Republicans fought a bill banning child marriage

36 GOP lawmakers cited everything from the Bible to Socialism to oppose a bill preventing minors from getting married

I’ll be speaking at Revival of Reason 2026, an event in Atlanta sponsored by Black Nonbelievers, on June 12-14. If you’re able to attend, please consider buying tickets now!

…

This newsletter is free and goes out to over 24,000 subscribers, but it’s only able to sustain itself due to the support I receive from a small percentage of regular readers. Would you please consider becoming one of those supporters? You can subscribe via Patreon or the Subscribe button below! You can also make one-time donations through Venmo or PayPal.

---

The good news is that Oklahoma recently became the 17th state (along with Washington, D.C.) to ban child marriage.

The bad news? It wasn’t unanimous. In fact, 36 Republicans in the State House voted against the legislation, reminding everyone that they’re perfectly fine with adults forcing themselves upon children who aren’t legally old enough to make decisions for themselves.

Their excuses were downright embarrassing.

State Rep. Jim Olsen, who argued in favor of child marriage

Senate Bill 504 shouldn’t have been controversial. All it did was remove the underage exceptions to the law about how marriage can only occur between legal adults. From now on, it won’t matter if your parents (or other authorities) agree to it or if you’re pregnant. No marriage until you’re 18. Simple. That’s a big deal because children are sometimes pressured by their parents to marry early or they feel forced into marriage because of teenage pregnancy. Plenty of adults enter into marriages that don’t pan out, but it’s perfectly rational to say a decision that important should only be made by adults.

Taking an impregnated middle- or high-schooler and pressuring her into getting married to her classmate—at an age when both of them barely understand how their own bodies work—isn’t a love story. It’s Purity Culture run amok. They didn’t have much of a childhood. They barely had time to develop crushes. They probably haven’t gone through a break-up. Why should we assume they have the maturity to understand their options as wedded adults?

Let’s not pretend they can easily end the marriage either. The sort of Christians who advocate for child marriage also condemn divorce regardless of the reason. So child marriage is very much about trapping people into relationships before they’re old enough to know any better.

That’s why this wasn’t merely symbolic legislation. According to the advocacy group Unchained At Last, “nearly 315,000 children as young as 10 were married in the U.S. between 2000 and 2021—mostly girls wed to adult men.”

But that didn’t stop a number of Republican legislators from making a series of bizarre arguments against the bill.

State Rep. Justin Humphrey argued that this law was getting in the way of parental rights… and causing abortions.

Representative, you know I love ya. But you think that you know better than parents? Do you think the government should make decisions for parents over family? You think we have that authority?

… Let’s take a situation where a girl was already pregnant. She’s already done that. Do you think that that person who is pregnant, who is not allowed to get married, is much more likely to have an abortion? So if we’re worried about abortion, don’t you think we’re actually causing that?

It’s quite literally the government’s job to create and enforce sensible regulations. And considering how shitty many parents can be, some basic restrictions like not being allowed to enter your children into marriages when they’re barely old enough to think for themselves should not cramp anyone’s lifestyle.

Also, why the hell would not letting children marry lead to more abortions? Those are two separate things that don’t have anything to do with each other. If this bill preventing underage marriage leads you to have an abortion, it’s because you were going to get one regardless.

State Rep. Derrick Hildebrant argued that this bill contradicted the Bible. And we can’t have that happening, can we?! He added that this bill was destroying potential families.

Mr. Speaker, how about Hebrews 13:4: “Let marriage be held in honor among all.” Does “among all” mean now only those who are 18 and older? Or is marriage honorable except in every case that this bill removes?

… How about pregnancy? “Pregnancy can pressure minors into marriage!” If a young couple is expecting a child, both families support the marriage, should the law then forbid them from forming a stable home? I think not.

He got the last three words right.

Who the hell cares what the Bible says, much less a cherry picked verse? By his logic, parents should be allowed to force kids into marriage at any age. Hell, why not perform the ceremony when they’re fresh out of the womb?

And if your idea of a “stable” family involves 16-year-old children and any possible babies they’re having, probably with no direct means of support, your brain is broken. (Keep in mind many of these conservative Christians believe a same-sex couple with solid careers, nice home, and adopted children are inherently unstable.)

Humphrey, an elected representative in the government, later returned to argue that government is always the problem and no one should listen to them. And then he claimed this was about imposing Socialism upon the masses. (He also referred to himself in the third person, which is just plain weird.)

I just wanna ask everybody, What the Humphrey is this all about?! Guys, there’s one thing I know. It’s when government shows up and says they’re there to help, you know what I’m gonna do? I‘m gonna run. ‘Cause I’ll guarantee you they seldom help…

… A lot of people have said this is about pedophilia. This bill has nothing to do with pedophilia! This bill has absolutely nothing to do… because we have… we have bills that protect that. This bill has been on the books for a long long time!

… You know what Socialism looks like? It’s when the government comes in and tells you what you gonna do. Socialism is when they go after the family. That’s what we’ve seen going on in other states. That’s what we see this state trying to become. It’s an attack on the family. And guess what? I see this as an attack on the family. We are a Republican state. We’re a red state. But we’re a red state with blue regulations. It is time we shut down the blue regulations and we take it back. Right here is where we need to plant the flag. Right here is where we say government can’t come in and tell me what I can and cannot do with my family.

Leave it to Republicans to argue that government can’t help… when they’re the ones in control of the government. Ronald Reagan was wrong to say it. So is Humphrey. And if he thinks government is this useless, he should resign since he’s quite literally preventing it from helping people. You only need to look at the Democratic Socialism of Zohran Mamdani in New York City to see all the ways government can actually work for people instead of being an obstacle to everything.

State Rep. Jim Olsen then made the point that the biblical Mary was underage. (That’s it. That was his whole point.)

Let me throw another thing for us to think about: How old was Mary when she married Joseph?

… Does that mean we should normally have people getting married under 18? No. No it doesn’t. But it does point out that it might not be wise to say that there shall be no exceptions!

See?! If you prevent child marriage, you could be interfering with future imaginary virgin births! (I’m not sure referencing a non-consensual pregnancy is the mic drop moment he seems to think it is.)

It’s incredible, in a way, that most of their Republican colleagues didn’t buy these unconvincing arguments. The final vote for the bill in the House was 51-36 (after the Senate had already unanimously approved it). Governor Kevin Stitt chose not to sign it or veto it, perhaps fearing backlash from conservative Christians, but because of the overwhelming numbers here, it didn’t make a difference.

But that still led to incredible headlines like this one from Oklahoma Watch:

Great branding for Republicans, truly.

The party that doesn’t give a damn about the Epstein files doesn’t care about child marriage either, because their Christian God taught them pedophilia isn’t always a bad idea.

“I think they’re really stretching,” [Democratic Rep. Cyndi] Munson said when asked about representatives’ response to the arguments on the House floor. “Marriage should wait until adulthood. And we don’t want to exploit children, especially young girls getting married, and having parents have a say over that.”

The irony is that this bill wouldn’t have passed without the backing of the majority of Republicans in the state legislature, yet the takeaway is that dozens of conservatives wanted to protect the possibility of child rape more than they wanted to give up control of when people can get married.

The new law will go into effect on November 1.

And as the Freedom From Religion Foundation Action Fund points out, if Oklahoma can pull this off, why can’t everyone else?

There is no religious right to marry a child. There is no parental right to shackle a child into an abusive marriage. There is no judicial discretion worth preserving if the result is a child spouse who cannot enter a shelter, sign a lease, hire a lawyer, file for divorce or safely escape.

The solution is simple: Minors cannot marry, no exceptions.

Not 17 with a permission slip. Not 16 with a judge’s nod. Not younger with a pregnancy excuse. Not “emancipated” on paper while still blocked from the basic tools of escape.

If Oklahoma can do it, so can California and every other holdout.

---