LGBTQ activists work to block child sex trafficking bill in California

[RileyG]

No, what I'm saying is that a straight 19 year old guy isn't any more/less likely to be hooking up with a 17 year old romantic partner than his gay counterpart, but the latter is more likely to get the book thrown at them.

Per data I posted earlier, gay guys were 4x more likely to receive harsh sentences for a consensual encounter involving an age gap of less than 3 years, compared to their straight counterpart.

No surprise here.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, what I'm saying is that a straight 19 year old guy isn't any more/less likely to be hooking up with a 17 year old romantic partner than his gay counterpart, but the latter is more likely to get the book thrown at them.

Per data I posted earlier, gay guys were 4x more likely to receive harsh sentences for a consensual encounter involving an age gap of less than 3 years, compared to their straight counterpart.

That's not at all the issue I'm concerned about...

Why in the world is there a 10 year gap on this starting at age 14? It literally allows 24yos to sleep with 14yos and not register as sex offenders.

That's not a good law. If you're trying to draw a grey area for 17yo and 19yo people then make it a 3 year gap starting at 17.

Otherwise the whole blah blah blah 17yos and 19yos is spurious. It's nonsense.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That's not at all the issue I'm concerned about...

Why in the world is there a 10 year gap on this starting at age 14? It literally allows 24yos to sleep with 14yos and not register as sex offenders.

That's not a good law. If you're trying to draw a grey area for 17yo and 19yo people then make it a 3 year gap starting at 17.

Otherwise the whole blah blah blah 17yos and 19yos is spurious. It's nonsense.

Is the new law itself allowing for a 10 year age gap?... Or was that a bad law that California already had, and this latest provision just removes the differences under the law between gay and straight?

For instance, if there was an exemption that let any underage person comsume alcohol, it'd be a bad law.

However, it'd be worse if that exemption was only allowed for one group and not another, because then it becomes a issue of equality under the law.

Obviously this is just an exaggerated example, but if the law was "21 to drink, but we'll allow an exemption and "wiggle room" for 18 year olds provided they're not <insert demographic specific thing here>", that'd be worse than a law that just flat out allowed all 18 year olds to drink.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

No surprise here.

It usually has to do with perceptions pervasive in the area or among the parents.

Teenagers sneaking off to "hook up" isn't any less common in hetero situations, but the parents (especially in certain areas) tend to see it very differently.

For instance, if someone's 16 year old son is found to have been with a 19 year old college girl, that's less likely to be labelled as "predatory" (or something they need to "save face" for) by the parents than the gay equivalent.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Is the new law itself allowing for a 10 year age gap?

It seems to be the new law allows for a 10 year age gap...starting age 14.

There was no gap prior to the law regarding the registration of sex offenders, was there?

If there was....then the argument you're making now doesn't make any sense.

Edit- Let's just sort of rational think this out shall we?

1. Problem- as you describe it- 19-17yo relationships are punished unfairly when involving non-white non-hetero relationships.

2. Solution- pass a law allowing an age gap for which those who fall inside that gap don't have to register as sex offenders and subsequently ruin their lives.

3. Practice- law passed starting at age 14yo with a 10 year gap to age 24yo.

See? Had the age gap law preventing registration existed, we wouldn't have the problem described in #1. If those are the ages that someone determined would impact the gay/minority communities the most than I repeat, there's something wrong with those communities.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Calif. activists oppose bill harshening penalties for child sex trafficking, solicitation

A state House committee went on to pass a heavily amended version of the measure.

ktxs.com

and DEI was used as a justification for Democrat Assembly members to vote against the measure

Why California Assembly Democrats blocked a child trafficking bill — and why they reversed course

Some Democrats stiffly oppose any legislation to increase criminal penalties.

www.capradio.org

No surprise there

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It seems to be the new law allows for a 10 year age gap...starting age 14.

There was no gap prior to the law regarding the registration of sex offenders, was there?

If there was....then the argument you're making now doesn't make any sense.

Edit- Let's just sort of rational think this out shall we?

1. Problem- as you describe it- 19-17yo relationships are punished unfairly when involving non-white non-hetero relationships.

2. Solution- pass a law allowing an age gap for which those who fall inside that gap don't have to register as sex offenders and subsequently ruin their lives.

3. Practice- law passed starting at age 14yo with a 10 year gap to age 24yo.

See? Had the age gap law preventing registration existed, we wouldn't have the problem described in #1. If those are the ages that someone determined would impact the gay/minority communities the most than I repeat, there's something wrong with those communities.

So it seems that the proper solution would be to allow for a rigid 3 year age gap, and have the laws specifically worded so they're agnostic of sexual orientation and remove "judicial discretion" on such matters provided it was consensual and the 3 year gap isn't violated.

... because that's really where the concern is, that a judge in conservative district will take liberties with "discretion", and throw the book at a gay 19 year old for circumstances where they wouldn't for a straight 19 year old.

Often times, parents are behind it as well... If their 16 year old son hooks up with a 19 year old woman, they may not be pleased, but they won't try to label it as predatory. As where, if it's a 19 year old guy their son hooks up with, they will, for selfish reasons of trying to protect their own reputations because "if the town and fellow church members find out my kid's gay, it'll reflect poorly on me, so we'll pretend it's a case where some deviant preyed on our kid"

 

[Laodicean60]

The Reason magazine article is why Libertarians can't win elections

Too bad the libertarians aren't as extreme as the other parties. Classifying myself as an independent I'm tired of the lies and extremism on both parties. We love our ears being tickled.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So it seems that the proper solution would be to allow for a rigid 3 year age gap, and have the laws specifically worded so they're agnostic of sexual orientation and remove "judicial discretion" on such matters provided it was consensual and the 3 year gap isn't violated.

When I thought that's what we were originally discussing it wasn't quite so objectionable.

... because that's really where the concern is, that a judge in conservative district will take liberties with "discretion", and throw the book at a gay 19 year old for circumstances where they wouldn't for a straight 19 year old.

Well if that's where the concern is...then they shouldn't have made exceptions for 24yos preying on 14yos and said it protects gay people.

It's a pretty sick law.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Well if that's where the concern is...then they shouldn't have made exceptions for 24yos preying on 14yos and said it protects gay people.

It's a pretty sick law.

If that is what the law is, indeed, allowing, then I'd concur that it's a problem. However, the underlying problem would be the overarching law itself, not the fact that gay activists want gays to be given the same leeway as straight people on certain matters.

For instance, if there was a new law that was allowing 15 year old to buy pot, that's a problem. However, if the previous law restricting it was being implemented in a way by judges where only <demographic XYZ> was getting the full brunt of that previous law, and everyone else was getting a slap on the wrist, it's not an unreasonable first step for XYZ activists to demand that they get the same leeway as everyone else (even if the thing in question isn't a good thing) via codifying that leeway into the law.

 

[Hazelelponi]

but the latter is more likely to get the book thrown at them.

But the law allows for a 24 year old to sleep with a 14 year old so if you're arguing this law disproportionately affects gay men or black men you're literally saying there's a lot of gay men sleeping with children under the age of 13 when they are over the age of 25.

Are you saying this is an issue in the gay community? Gay adult men chasing after children?

Then your worried the "book" might get thrown at them?

Honestly, it should be. This is neither normal or okay. If someone 25 and over is chasing after children 13 and under there's something seriously wrong with them.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If that is what the law is, indeed, allowing, then I'd concur that it's a problem. However, the underlying problem would be the overarching law itself, not the fact that gay activists want gays to be given the same leeway as straight people on certain matters.

I don't disagree. I posted a news article...I haven't looked exactly at the writing of the law, however I don't think it's likely multiple articles got those details wrong. I don't think gay people should be punished anymore than hetero people.

For instance, if there was a new law that was allowing 15 year old to buy pot, that's a problem. However, if the previous law restricting it was being implemented in a way by judges where only <demographic XYZ> was getting the full brunt of that previous law, and everyone else was getting a slap on the wrist, it's not an unreasonable first step for XYZ activists to demand that they get the same leeway as everyone else (even if the thing in question isn't a good thing) via codifying that leeway into the law.

We all understand on some level the line is arbitrary....not meaningless but at some point a person has to be legally responsible for their decisions.

I think most people, while it probably differs from person to person, are understanding that some sort of gray area exists the closer both parties are to the arbitrary line. Maybe for some people it's 3 months...others 3 years....but a gray area nonetheless wherein perhaps any punishment is likely worse than the "crime".

What I don't expect most people to agree with is the idea that we should sort of legally extend the gray area to 10 years spanning 14yo to 24yo. That's wild...and I'd like to know how those numbers were acquired.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

But the law allows for a 24 year old to sleep with a 14 year old so if you're arguing this law disproportionately affects gay men or black men you're literally saying there's a lot of gay men sleeping with children under the age of 13 when they are over the age of 25.

Are you saying this is an issue in the gay community? Gay adult men chasing after children?

Then your worried the "book" might get thrown at them?

Honestly, it should be. This is neither normal or okay. If someone 25 and over is chasing after children 13 and under there's something seriously wrong with them.

No, that's not what I'm saying

The reason for the contesting and changes in the law was because "judicial discretion" was creating two sets of rules, in essence, via two sets of outcomes.

Gay 19 year olds aren't any more or less likely to seek a 16-17 year old romantic partner than their straight counterparts, however, they are more likely to get legally punished for it due to judicial biases and parental reactions to the situation. (Based on outcomes in other states)

The original verbiage in the bill in question was opening the door for that same thing to happen, which was why people protested it.

A 10 year age gap is too wide in my personal opinion, however, if that is what their flawed law is going to allow for, then it needs to be applied equally, and that equal treatment under the law needs to be codified

 

[dzheremi]

If you're 24 and sleeping with a 14 year old, you deserve to get the book thrown at you no matter what your sexual orientation is.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

If you're 24 and sleeping with a 14 year old, you deserve to get the book thrown at you no matter what your sexual orientation is.

I would agree...

However, laws like the one originally proposed, when worded vaguely, have been sweeping up 19/16 and 20/17 situations in the net, and gay people were getting the brunt of that at a disproportionately high rate despite the fact that it's just as common in hetero situations.

It'd be like saying that if Irish people were getting stiff DUI penalties when everyone else was getting a slap on the wrist (despite equitable rates of offense), and they protested the law and asked for a blanket relaxing of laws just to remove the disparity, and then someone replied dismissively with "oh, so Irish people think it's okay to drink and drive?!?"

No, they just wouldn't want their tribe to be the only ones getting the book thrown at them when everyone else gets to skate on it.

 

[dzheremi]

I understand that, Rob. That's why I limited myself to saying that 24 year olds sleeping with 14 year olds deserve to get the book thrown at them, not 19 year olds sleeping with 17 year olds. Many places have the latter covered under so-called Romeo & Juliet laws. California is notable for not having such a law on the books.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I understand that, Rob. That's why I limited myself to saying that 24 year olds sleeping with 14 year olds deserve to get the book thrown at them, not 19 year olds sleeping with 17 year olds. Many places have the latter covered under so-called Romeo & Juliet laws. California is notable for not having such a law on the books.

Many states do have Romeo and Juliet laws, which I did actually reference in one of my previous posts a few pages back, but noted that some of those states actually had it written into those laws that the Romeo and Juliet exemptions only covered situations where the "participants were of the opposite gender", or left it up to the judicial discretion for whether or not it was to be applied for situations where the age gap was less than 3 years, which caused disparity in outcomes in those states in terms of sentencing. (I believe Kansas and Utah were the two states specifically referenced in my previous post but I'd have to go back and look)

Edit, here's the post where I referenced it

LGBTQ activists work to block child sex trafficking bill in California

https://ktxs.com/news/nation-world/california-activists-oppose-bill-making-child-sex-trafficking-a-felony-lgbt-activists-in-california-are-opposing-a-bill-which-would-increase-the-penalties-for-soliciting-sex-with-minors-the-bipartisan-measure-sb1414-would-make-it-a-felony-offense-for and DEI...

www.christianforums.com

 

[rjs330]

I would agree...

However, laws like the one originally proposed, when worded vaguely, have been sweeping up 19/16 and 20/17 situations in the net, and gay people were getting the brunt of that at a disproportionately high rate despite the fact that it's just as common in hetero situations.

It'd be like saying that if Irish people were getting stiff DUI penalties when everyone else was getting a slap on the wrist (despite equitable rates of offense), and they protested the law and asked for a blanket relaxing of laws just to remove the disparity, and then someone replied dismissively with "oh, so Irish people think it's okay to drink and drive?!?"

No, they just wouldn't want their tribe to be the only ones getting the book thrown at them when everyone else gets to skate on it.

Look if that's really rhe problem they didn't need this law. What they needed to do was standardize sentences. If gya people are receiving harsher sentences then fix that. And you do t so that by allowing a 10 year difference. That just legalizes predator behavior, gay or not.

Take discretion out of the picture and make it 3 years and your done.

Activists are not looking for that though. They obviously wanted greater leeway to have sex with much younger teens. That's the point and that's what makes it sick. There were probably hetero pedophiles who also wanted this. But if someone is going to be at the forefront of of this then they are going to get the brunt of the criticism and in this case it's well deserved. There are far too many perverts who want to have sex with younger kids.