[Hyp]

"---- Justice Marla Luckert wrote for the court. "Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate state interest." ----

Not moral disapproval of a group... moral disapproval with an action!!! Statutory, homosexual rape. That is a reprehensible and permanently damaging action."


Is heterosexual rape any better?

[hocndoc]

Regardless, the State legislature has made laws that they find necessary to protect the children of that State. The State legislature has found that in that State, the People believe that there can be no mitigating factors for statutory rape between same sex partners.

The burden of proof that - whatever crime - is not worse than another crime should be on the one who would unilaterally change the law.

Rape is a crime that is properly defined by the State Legislature, not a judge. The Constitution's "equal protection clause does not give anyone the right - at all - to infringe on the rights of another. Neither does the Constitution provide that the Judicial branch decrees the important issues, and the legislatures only get to make laws on trivial matters.

[Paloma_55]

"---- Justice Marla Luckert wrote for the court. "Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate state interest." ----

Not moral disapproval of a group... moral disapproval with an action!!! Statutory, homosexual rape. That is a reprehensible and permanently damaging action."


Is heterosexual rape any better?

Man, this is a really good question. Really good because it forces me to admit that yes, heterosexual rape is better than homosexual rape... as if the term "better" really applies. I think a better way to put it is, homosexual rape is WORSE than heterosexual rape because it introduces a young boy to something that should never be done to him whether forced or friendly.