California Supreme Court ruling on sex crimes criticized as unfair to gays

  • metta

    Posts: 39090

    Jan 31, 2015 7:04 AM GMT
    California Supreme Court ruling on sex crimes criticized as unfair to gays

    http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/01/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-sex-crimes-criticized-as-unfair-to-gays/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2015 5:38 PM GMT
    metta8 saidCalifornia Supreme Court ruling on sex crimes criticized as unfair to gays

    http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/01/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-sex-crimes-criticized-as-unfair-to-gays/


    Yes, I can understand the dissenters' argument, but I think it's the kind that invites criticism of judges as latter-day counters of angels on pinheads. How about if everyone just shows some couth and doesn't engage in any sexual contact w/ minors, period?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2015 9:20 PM GMT
    MGINSD said
    metta8 saidCalifornia Supreme Court ruling on sex crimes criticized as unfair to gays

    http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/01/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-sex-crimes-criticized-as-unfair-to-gays/


    Yes, I can understand the dissenters' argument, but I think it's the kind that invites criticism of judges as latter-day counters of angels on pinheads. How about if everyone just shows some couth and doesn't engage in any sexual contact w/ minors, period?


    That was well said! Interesting to see the Court basically fess-up to judicial activism.
  • jeepguySD

    Posts: 651

    Feb 01, 2015 1:16 PM GMT
    First of all, adults should not be having sex with minors...period. But the LGBTQ Nation article is incomplete. This excerpt from the original LA Times article adds a little more depth to the discussion:

    Sexual intercourse "is unique in its potential to result in pregnancy and parenthood," Justice Marvin R. Baxter wrote for the court. "The support of children conceived as a result of unlawful sexual intercourse provide more than just a plausible basis" for distinguishing the sex crimes.

    What this seems to say is that it's okay for straight people to have sex with 16- and 17-year-olds if a pregnancy results, and the adult is willing to support the child (or is it more accurate to say "children" since one of the parents is still a minor?). In other words, it condones "unlawful sexual intercourse" if it results in teen pregnancy. This alone seems backwards.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2015 1:53 PM GMT
    MGINSD said
    metta8 saidCalifornia Supreme Court ruling on sex crimes criticized as unfair to gays

    http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/01/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-sex-crimes-criticized-as-unfair-to-gays/


    Yes, I can understand the dissenters' argument, but I think it's the kind that invites criticism of judges as latter-day counters of angels on pinheads. How about if everyone just shows some couth and doesn't engage in any sexual contact w/ minors, period?


    That's not the point. We have bad people out there and they're going to commit crimes. And as with all crimes, the punishment must fit the severity of the offense. So you're telling me you think a consensual blowjob deserves a harsher penalty than busting some kid's asshole open (which also is the highest risk of contacting HIV?) Come on dude.....maybe we should also start arresting people for parking offenses and let drunk drivers go free. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2015 3:20 PM GMT
    Comment under the Article
    jamessavik • 2 days ago


    The California Supreme just went full retard.

    Penetration isn't nearly as serious as oral sex??? The act that spreads HIV and causes pregnancy is legally "preferable" to oral sex?

    Is this from the Onion? Please tell me it's from the Onion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 02, 2015 12:21 AM GMT
    jeepguySD saidFirst of all, adults should not be having sex with minors...period. But the LGBTQ Nation article is incomplete. This excerpt from the original LA Times article adds a little more depth to the discussion:

    Sexual intercourse "is unique in its potential to result in pregnancy and parenthood," Justice Marvin R. Baxter wrote for the court. "The support of children conceived as a result of unlawful sexual intercourse provide more than just a plausible basis" for distinguishing the sex crimes.

    What this seems to say is that it's okay for straight people to have sex with 16- and 17-year-olds if a pregnancy results, and the adult is willing to support the child (or is it more accurate to say "children" since one of the parents is still a minor?). In other words, it condones "unlawful sexual intercourse" if it results in teen pregnancy. This alone seems backwards.


    I don't think that's what the court is saying. I think their point is that because vaginal sexual intercourse uniquely can result in pregnancy, which involves a serious lifelong obligation to raise a child, judges have discretion as to whether to require registration in that situation. No doubt in real life that discretion would be based in significant part on whether the perpetrator has assumed responsibility for the child that came about as a result of the crime. The court held that the possibility of a child resulting from vaginal intercourse makes it different enough from other types of sex acts to provide a "rational" basis to uphold the law's distinction. From that point of view it has nothing to do with gay vs. straight ... although the dissent clearly felt the practical impact would result in unconstitutional and irrational discrimination.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 02, 2015 5:51 AM GMT
    Lol, the majority of the justices are democrat.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 02, 2015 11:34 AM GMT
    Ah yes. Pedo lobbying creeping in under the disguise of "gay rights activism".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 02, 2015 3:08 PM GMT
    AaronH20P saidAh yes. Pedo lobbying creeping in under the disguise of "gay rights activism".


    And people wonder why I don't support the gay community more.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Feb 02, 2015 9:29 PM GMT
    Radd said
    AaronH20P saidAh yes. Pedo lobbying creeping in under the disguise of "gay rights activism".


    And people wonder why I don't support the gay community more.

    I always figured it was because you dislike gay culture and fems.