[forkies]

http://www.ljworld.com/section/state...l/story/180094

[TeknoTurd]

Here comes the ACLU.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by TeknoTurd:
Here comes the ACLU.

Yep, a pervert pedophile is in trouble. Time for them to jump into action I'm sure.

[TeknoTurd]

God forbid NAMBLA doesn't have a right to assemble.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Did you even bother reading the article? It's not about "pervert pedophiles," and it isn't about NAMBLA. It's about how the law should treat like cases the same.

This was a couple of teenagers who engaged in consensual sex. Kansas has a "Romeo and Juliet" law that would make the same conduct by a heterosexual couple the same ages not subject to criminal penalties, but this kid got 17 years. If heterosexual teenagers who have consensual sex are not criminals, why should homosexual teenagers be criminals for doing the same thing?

I don't have a problem with statutory rape laws, but I do have a problem with laws that apply in a discriminatory manner. The law should apply to everyone, equally.

[vmarks]

The law must be applied equally.

Men do not make laws. They do but discover them. Laws must be justified by something more than the will of the majority. They must rest on the eternal foundation of righteousness. That state is most fortunate in its form of government which has the aptest instruments for the discovery of law.

Calvin Coolidge, to the Massachusetts State Senate,
January 7, 1914

[ebuddy]

The additional penalty probably involves sodomy no? In other words, if two heteros have sex, it generally isn't anal. If the two heteros engaged sodomy, would it be an enhanced penalty equal to that of the two involved in this case?

Overall, I agree with Simey, I'm not in favor of giving a homosexual 17 years in prison for an offense that would cost the heterosexual one year. That's simply not right. Having said that however, this particular 18 year old kid has two other similar instances on his record. He needs to keep his dx in his pants. 17 years will keep him from seeking out and engaging more children as this seems to be a trend for him. Ultimitely, if this kid wants to be treated fairly by the Court of Law, he needs to quit breaking the law in this manner. He's become relatively reckless. Honestly, how many 14 year olds did we do when we were 18? I can only speak for myself, but the answer would be...NONE. Let alone THREE. eesh.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
The additional penalty probably involves sodomy no? In other words, if two heteros have sex, it generally isn't anal. If the two heteros engaged sodomy, would it be an enhanced penalty equal to that of the two involved in this case?

Overall, I agree with Simey, I'm not in favor of giving a homosexual 17 years in prison for an offense that would cost the heterosexual one year. That's simply not right. Having said that however, this particular 18 year old kid has two other similar instances on his record. He needs to keep his dx in his pants. 17 years will keep him from seeking out and engaging more children as this seems to be a trend for him. Ultimitely, if this kid wants to be treated fairly by the Court of Law, he needs to quit breaking the law in this manner. He's become relatively reckless. Honestly, how many 14 year olds did we do when we were 18? I can only speak for myself, but the answer would be...NONE. Let alone THREE. eesh.

Factually, the case involved consensual oral sex. But that is irrelvant. The statutory rape law concerned doesn't distinguish and, of course, sodomy laws per se are unconstitutional. So it doesn't turn on what specifically they did.

All that matters here are the ages of the participants. Kansas has decided to make an exception in the law where the adult is within a certain number of years of the minor. Whether that is good policy or not in light of the questions you raise about a 14 year old being sexually active is a different question. The fact is Kansas law does look less harshly on a 18 year old having sex with an 14 year old than it does, for example, a 25 year old having sex with a 14 year old. Lots of states have similar "Romeo and Juliet" laws. In my view they are probably sensible compromises between protecting minors from adults, and the reality that minors do have sex.

The problem is that Kansas' Romeo and Juliet law only applies if it is Romeo and Juliet, not Romeo and Julian. That's discrimination pure and simple. Either the law has to apply equally to protect Juliet as much as Julian, or it needs to be repealed entirely. Romeo is no more a criminal because he is gay than a straight Romeo.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Did you even bother reading the article? It's not about "pervert pedophiles," and it isn't about NAMBLA. It's about how the law should treat like cases the same.

This was a couple of teenagers who engaged in consensual sex. Kansas has a "Romeo and Juliet" law that would make the same conduct by a heterosexual couple the same ages not subject to criminal penalties, but this kid got 17 years. If heterosexual teenagers who have consensual sex are not criminals, why should homosexual teenagers be criminals for doing the same thing?

I don't have a problem with statutory rape laws, but I do have a problem with laws that apply in a discriminatory manner. The law should apply to everyone, equally.

Round here several states have modified rape laws in a smilar manner. A few years ago, some woman slipped a guy something in a drink (one of the many date rape drugs) and 'raped' him. According to the courts, it's not rape, because she didn't penetrate him.... the victim must be penetrated for rape to transpire. Date rape drugs aren't normally detectable, so that wasn't an option either. Unless a woman penetrates a man, it could be technically legal in your area.

Of course if strong physical means are used, it could be assault. But a date rape drug makes it the perfect crime.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Men do not make laws. They do but discover them. Laws must be justified by something more than the will of the majority. They must rest on the eternal foundation of righteousness. That state is most fortunate in its form of government which has the aptest instruments for the discovery of law.

Do not, or ought not? It seems to me that men make laws all the time, and often not in the best interests of the people they're supposed to be serving.

[deomacius]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The problem is that Kansas' Romeo and Juliet law only applies if it is Romeo and Juliet, not Romeo and Julian. That's discrimination pure and simple. Either the law has to apply equally to protect Juliet as much as Julian, or it needs to be repealed entirely. Romeo is no more a criminal because he is gay than a straight Romeo.

I would tend to think there should be an uneven application of the law. A gay male would have more opportunity for inappropriate contact with a boy than a straight male with a young female. I mean, would most people look askance at a man and a boy spending lots of time together or just assume they were buddies, a relative or a mentor? Abuse is more likely to go unnoticed.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by deomacius:
I would tend to think there should be an uneven application of the law. A gay male would have more opportunity for inappropriate contact with a boy than a straight male with a young female. I mean, would most people look askance at a man and a boy spending lots of time together or just assume they were buddies, a relative or a mentor? Abuse is more likely to go unnoticed.

That doesn't make any sense. It's not a matter of discovery. Right now, Kansas law in effect condones sex between an 18 year old and a 14 year old girl. That's how the law works. It's not protecting the 14 year old girl from the 18 year old boy and whether or not it is harder for her to get it on with an 18 year old than it would be for two boys has nothing to do with it. The law says if an 18 year old boy has sex with a 14 year old girl it is no big deal. It's only a big deal if they are of the same sex.

Give me a rational reason why it is so much worse for a 14 year old boy to have sex with an 18 year old boy than it is for a 14 year old girl to have sex with an 18 year old boy. Do you just value underage girls girls less than underage boys?

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Do not, or ought not? It seems to me that men make laws all the time, and often not in the best interests of the people they're supposed to be serving.

Me thinks that's changing. Especially in the north east.

On the federal level, it's still a mans world (though it looks to be changing slowly). But on the state/municiple level, women have a lot of power these days.

Look at the reforms they have had in just a couple years, and it shows a large pull towards a balance. Legistlation on Rape, womens rights, sexual harssment.... all powered by women. And moved very quickly.

Women still aren't at equality on the federal level, but on the state level, they are quickly catching up (and rightfully so). Very progressive, and active.

I think women get less attention though, since they tend to be less controvercial (by today's standards). Most of the laws they propose are pretty universally backed (tougher legistlature for murder, rape, child molestation). They are very protective, and ones that very few would debate as bad laws.

Men on the other hand... tend to go a bit further (prohibiting gay unions, fine for blowing your nose behind the wheel of a car , cracked headlight laws... bla bla bla).

Women tend to have a very simple agenda on who they want tougher laws against... and it tends to be very well respected. So nobody questions it.

Men tend to be more diverse... and in some cases, just plain wacky.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by deomacius:
I would tend to think there should be an uneven application of the law. A gay male would have more opportunity for inappropriate contact with a boy than a straight male with a young female. I mean, would most people look askance at a man and a boy spending lots of time together or just assume they were buddies, a relative or a mentor? Abuse is more likely to go unnoticed.

As if there are no men mentoring younger women?

Father Daughter
Teacher Student
Coach Athlete
Brother Younger Sister

Just a few I can think of... I'm sure we can go pages if we all really thought about it.

Don't kid yourself... abuse of an young female by an older man in their life is not at all uncommon. Not by a longshot.

The odds of a strait male and a young female being in a situation is statistically greater than a homosexual and a young man. Just because there are more heterosexuals.

Sex drive is equal on both orientations.

As a sidenote, most child molesters who commit homosexual molestation actually identify as heterosexual.

[TeknoTurd]

Did you even bother reading the article? It's not about "pervert pedophiles," and it isn't about NAMBLA. It's about how the law should treat like cases the same.

This was a couple of teenagers who engaged in consensual sex. Kansas has a "Romeo and Juliet" law that would make the same conduct by a heterosexual couple the same ages not subject to criminal penalties, but this kid got 17 years. If heterosexual teenagers who have consensual sex are not criminals, why should homosexual teenagers be criminals for doing the same thing?

I don't have a problem with statutory rape laws, but I do have a problem with laws that apply in a discriminatory manner. The law should apply to everyone, equally.

I was actually referring to a past victory of the ACLU. Not this article.