Posted on 10/21/2005 11:04:48 PM PDT by NapkinUser
Statute 21-3505. Criminal sodomy.(a) Criminal sodomy is:
(1) Sodomy between persons who are 16 or more years of age and members of the same sex or between a person and an animal;
(2) sodomy with a child who is 14 or more years of age but less than 16 years of age; or
(3) causing a child 14 or more years of age but less than 16 years of age to engage in sodomy with any person or animal.
(b) It shall be a defense to a prosecution of criminal sodomy as provided in subsection (a)(2) that the child was married to the accused at the time of the offense.
(c) Criminal sodomy as provided in subsection (a)(1) is a class B nonperson misdemeanor. Criminal sodomy as provided in subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) is a severity level 3, person felony.
History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-3505; L. 1983, ch. 109, § 5; L. 1992, ch. 298, § 23; L. 1993, ch. 253, § 6; July 1.
Statute 21-3522. Unlawful voluntary sexual relations.
(a) Unlawful voluntary sexual relations is engaging in voluntary: (1) Sexual intercourse; (2) sodomy; or (3) lewd fondling or touching with a child who is 14 years of age but less than 16 years of age and the offender is less than 19 years of age and less than four years of age older than the child and the child and the offender are the only parties involved and are members of the opposite sex.
(b) (1) Unlawful voluntary sexual relations as provided in subsection (a)(1) is a severity level 8, person felony.
(2) Unlawful voluntary sexual relations as provided in subsection (a)(2) is a severity level 9, person felony.
(3) Unlawful voluntary sexual relations as provided in subsection (a)(3) is a severity level 10, person felony.
History: L. 1999, ch. 164, § 38; July 1.
Note that as it pertains to 21-3505 that ONLY (a)(2) and (a)(3) are felonies -very interesting -- IF it was homosexual consensual sodomy rather than statutory homosexual rape it would have been a misdemeanor... It looks like you have been hoodwinked or you are attempting to hoodwink with the unfair sentence targeting homosexuals spin? The law was challenged by the ACLU for one reason and one reason only -furtherance of the homosexual agenda to legitimate the illegitimate -in this case by judicial fiat...
No, I'm saying statutory rape of a minor should be prosectuted the same whether it's same sex or opposite sex rape.
I am not, myself in agreement with the acceptability of homosexual acts being on the same page with heterosexual acts, but I do believe and understand that that is what has been ruled by SCOTUS when they overturned the TX law against sodomy. And, no one can deny all the anti-discrimination laws everywhere that include sexual oreintation and sexual misorientation. It is apparent from the above that homosexuality is on the same legal playing field as heterosexuality, as much as I deplore and despise this status. And, the next/current push is obviously "Pedophilia Legality and Equality".
"If it was Afghanistan they would have brought him out to the "soccer field" aka Execution stadium, and beheaded him, then putting it on exhibition in the town square...or as they did to others...castrate them and hang them from telephone poles..."
Sadly, having read many responses on here - I get the impression that there are some who would support that approach.
Just changing my tag line
Perhaps, but the issue for many is whether it should be allowed to remain so. About that, my comments earlier were directed: the concept involved and minding those.
Because homosexual activism hinges everything upon driving that wrongful assumption as fact. The issue that is unacceptable about this Kansas decision, as with similar elsewhere, is that the area of human sexuality has been reduced to whatever is willed by whomever upon and with whomever else, and that violates the average regard for human sexuality. And yet it is also the basis upon which homosexual activism rests it's entire legal efforts: that it is of equality with heterosexuality and therefore, not noteworthy as to any exceptions, differences, and even to many, due special accommodations.
We hve special accommodations, for instance, that allows some retarded humans to marry and reproduce, given that they display capabilties of parenting and independent living, and yet that area of accommodation isn't based upon a deviation of sexuality so much as an accommodation for limited ability humans.
With homosexuality, it's not about accepting or seeking special accommodations based upon a limiting factor but upon the fact that they are "of equal status" with heterosexuals, that their behaviors and lifestyles are one and the same to anyone else's, that the sexual deviations involved are, to their view, "normal" within society and society's laws.
Along those lines, just look at what the homosexual activist (for lack of a better term here, the person defending and proliferating her point of view that homosexuality is due equal treatment as heterosexuality) has to say: she summarizes the entire issue socially and legally as it being a case of people "not liking homosexuals" (or not).
It's not a case of not liking homosexuals or of liking them. It's a case of social and moral acceptability of the human existence involved, the behaviors that those states produce -- society still represents "laws" and laws, society.
It isn't about policies that punish and degrade (as this homosexual activist, that article, seems to conclude it is, and does so wrongly -- to my view, represents the worst among humas going, alleging that people "like" or "don't like homosexuals" and therein the problem of proof and law, as she views it, lies). It's about society protecting quality of life, or not.
The court must be impeached.
The ACLU is to blame.
The same court that would hand down such anti-civilization trash as a legal ruling will, in other matters, be delighted to provide special rights for those whose, ummmmm, distinction is the more than curious view that Mr. Happy should be found in the nether regions of the digestive system of othersat its outlet (same sex or otherwise) or inside those of the same sex.
The court has enshrined the homosexual agenda in Kansas Law. Dorothy better get Toto to Nebraska or back to Oz or he's next!
As to Equal Protection of the laws, don't be so simplistic. We are not required to sentence shoplifters and mass murderers to identical terms just because both are criminals. The crimes are entirely different and so should be the punishments. There may be and are rational classifications separating different classes of criminal perps.
The adult male who engages in sex, oral or genital, with a 15-year-old female comes in several categories, as well. Generally, states deem such sexual behavior as statutory rape, punishable as such. If you imagine that judges will not take other circumstances into consideration in sentencing, you are naive. A forcible rape of a fifteen-year-old girl by a fifty-year-old man will be more harshly treated than a "consensual" and, indeed, enthusiastic fifteen year-old victim of a seventeen-year-old boyfriend type. Many states have laws saying that there must be a minimum difference in age between perp and victim (typically two years) which is another perfectly reasonable classification. What do you do as to the 15 year-old male perp/but also victim and the 13 year-old female victim/perp? In worshipping the false god of a specious consistency, will sentence each as though they were 50 year-old perps?
Certainly punishment ought be visited upon one who heterosexually victimizes children of any sort but far more drastic punishment is due to the homosexual perp as one who adds perversion to statutory rape. The absence of violence or the threat of same or of other forms of duress will certainly count in favor of more lenient treatment of a perv/perp than might be meted out where violence or duress were factors but that does not mean that there should not be extra severity for perv/rape compared to hetero/rape. Let it be noted that ANY rape is a perverted act but that homoperversion adds special extras that deserve substantial extra punishment.
Which brings us to the fudgepacker vs. normal hetero dichotomy. If my language offends, too bad. Mere language is not remotely as offensive as the perversions of the lavenderly inclined and "active." Homosexuality is ALWAYS inherently disordered behavior. Arsenic is not food but poison. Homosexuality is not sexuality but a particularly vile perversion designed to dehumanize and pervert/recruit the victim and objectify the victim for the absolutely perverted pleasures (sexual and dominance) of the probably sadistic perp.
We might want to honor tradition by not imposing 17-year sentences on the despicable perps of homosexual rape of the young but forcing them to drink hemlock as did Socrates. If hemlock is hard to find, then Old Sparky can provide a final illuminating and most electrifying experience for the perv/perps.
"Hate crimes statutes" of the sort you suggest are a life support system for the curious notion that the abuse of the human digestive system for pseudosexual pretenses is somehow analogous to being a victim of racist crimes as a result of an actual condition of conception. If you operate under the delusion that homohoopla is a condition of birth, then prepare to offer "equal protection" to drunks who drive who "really cannot help it because they are genetically predisposed to be drunks" (more likely than a genetic predisposition to making anal whoopee). No hypocrisy at all. In fact, we can do without "hate crimes statutes" altogether and focus on crime rather than unpopular thought and special "victims." It is a gross and entirely unwarranted insult to racial minority group members to analogize them to perverts.
Homosexual behavior always has been deemed a crime without reference to age of the perps/victims. Our enlightened left bank social snob courts, observing the apparent popularity of homohoopla among the enlightened cafe and poery sets, are deconstructing that bulwark of western civilization that has traditionally hammered the perverts in our courts of law. Homosexual perversion ought to forever be the object of harsh criminal legislation. If the pervs don't like it, let them move to France or "Old Europe" or other centers of Moslem culture in which culture the anal raping of ten-year old boys has always been a pastime for the cream of that particular kind of society.
I support laws targeting homosexuality and laws targeting murder and laws targeting bank robbery and laws targeting muggers and laws targeting the pseudosexual exploitation of youth or the actually sexual exploitation of youth oir other forms of rape as well. No hypocrisy whatsoever when you understand that homosexual activity is as inherently criminal as other (malum in se) crimes and more so by far than most. BTW, hypocrisy is the favorite charge of liberals directed at people of normal values and sensibilities consistent with Western Civilization (generally known as "conservatives").
You may be a libertoonian but you are no conservative.
Along with the key, I would throw away the relevant amputated body parts of the perp. As you note, the 14 year-old was apparently in an institution for the developmentally disabled and was, ummmm, not up to par intellectually (read more defenseless than the ordinary victim). What's next, a program to facilitate the sexual abuse of the mentally ill, those in coma, the catatonic so long as the abuse is of the lavender variety????
Even the Taliban were right about some things. Wouldn't we like to drop Hillary into a Taliban camp with or without a parachute???? They would know what to do with Her Satanic Majesty. They may be Islamofascisti but they are not without some uses.
Keep a careful eye on your cats and dogs and tropical fish. If liberals have their way, all of them are targets for pervowhoopee. It is just cruel and unusual to take note that the victim was a canary and to punish accordingly! NOT!
As to equal protection being a red herring, see #88
tag line fix, retry
Thus speaketh a KSC Justice-ette in obiter dicta
I maintain that this dumbass is 180 degrees wrong.
The State's ONLY interest is in moral disapproval; she erroneously concludes "group" for "individual," forgetting that acts are done by actors, not "groups."
Or is this merely a layman's way of stating that 'the law is an ass'?
Seven or is it nine justices on SCOKAN all imitating the scarecrow in search of a brain.
Gosh, Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore!
God bless!
"Age of consent in Slovenia is 14 years"
And you agree with that? It should be 16, in my opinion. But it varies by state. In New Mexico the age of consent is 13 and in Wyoming it's 19.
Not a very smart post by you, in my opinion.
I don't really agree with the law, but I don't find it too meek either.
Our age of consent is a bit different from most other countries. It's still illegal for a 14 and 18 year old to sleep around. But in case of a 14 year old and 16 year old it is legal, because we all know it would happen whether the law is there or not; we just try to prevent them from screwing up their lives for good (like getting pregnant, getting any STI,...).
Kids are kids, and they'll do stuff (and let's not even start on that abstinence bs); the best we can do is make sure that they play it safe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.