How staged sex crime fooled Supreme Court

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | October 24, 2005 | Joseph Farah

[Boiler Plate]

Consider this. There is a California state congressman(democrat) currently putting through legislation to lower the legal voting age from 18 to 12. You can take it from there.


Here is the film version of that senario.

"Wild in the streets"

http://iafrica.imdb.com/title/tt0063808/

[anton]

I'd prefer to have our courts respect the constitution and vote for legislators who would repeal bedroom prohibitions. Wouldn't you?

[Mulch]

What!?
There are some things that rational people should just know without having to be told. To even consider that a 12-year old has the wherewithal to engage in voting or contract negotiations, let alone sex, is contemptible.

You provide yet another example for me why I'm not a libertarian.

[VRWCmember]

That's a strawman. There is a clear legal definition for "adult," so your use of quotes is interesting.

Not as regards to consent; there is NOT a clear legal definition for "adult". Age of consent laws vary from state to state. 16 is common. 14 is less common but available in some states. In others it is 13. Under "privacy" arguments, many liberals are trying to get age of consent eliminated altogether or lowered to 12 and in some cases lower. Darth Bader Ginsburg believes that all age of consent laws should be abolished or the age of consent lowered to 8 or 12. (She is on record as having argued such a position for the ACLU.)

This conversation is only about the government regulating what adults can do on their own property. Kids are a strawman, and a lame one at that.

Actually trying to say this is about "what adults can do on their own property" is something of a strawman. The law in question has nothing to do with whether you are on your own property or not. It has to do with whether or not the government can criminalize a particular behavior. Admittedly, regulation of this behavior and enforcement of the law is problematic at best when "consenting adults" engage in this behavior in the privacy of their own bedrooms. But that isn't really what this discussion is about since several individuals conspired to lure police into witnessing two conspiring adults engaging in the prohibited behavior and refusing to stop when ordered to do so.

There is a clear legal definition for "adult," so your use of quotes is interesting. Children do not have full legal rights, and as such the government has the right to regulate certain of their behaviors. There are, therefore, not relevant to this conversation.

What I find "interesting" is that your position appears to be that laws governing sexual activity with children are legitimate because the "government has the right to regulate certain of their behaviors" while I favor laws against pedophilia based on the responsibility of government to protect children from sexual predators.

[VRWCmember]

Is it the government's place to regulate those actions?
Yes. That is (statutory) rape. Thank you for the easiest question in this thread.

But thanks to the Lawrence decision, perhaps it is not such an easy question. Lawrence was the first step on a slippery slope that could eventually overturn any state laws against incest, polygamy, and possibly even pedophilia. Bader-Ginsburg is on record that statutory rape laws and age of consent laws are discriminatory and should be abolished. So, when those laws start getting challenged on a "privacy" or "discrimination" question, then the "statutory rape" status of the action is called into question. Is it STILL the government's place to regulate (or prohibit) those actions.

[DBeers]

You are the ones who want to make sex between two consenting adults illegal, not me.

One does not need to make illegal all legitimate sexual acts to make illegal illegitimate sexual acts.

You are advocating homosexual sodomy -period. The rest of your arguments are moral relative straw men...

[jwalsh07]

What the journalist-turned-prosecutor-turned-judge-turned-journalist found, after interviewing most of the key players, including those in the Texas homosexual subculture that produced the case, is that the Supreme Court, possibly for the first time in history, ruled on a case "with virtually no factual underpinnings."

Hardly. Roe v Wade, Doe v Bolton, Griswold v Ct etc, etc.

In fact SCOTUS jurisprudence from about 1940 to the present is one big bad joke.

[DBeers]

Seems to me that your beef is with anyone who would lower the age of majority. I would agree, since I don't think that most kids are ready for those responsibilities at such an age. But if that's what a state wants, a state should be allowed to do it. It's their business where they want to draw the line between adult and child. It has no real bearing on the conversation except to raise some sort of emotional hackles.

There seems to be a disconnect? The 'state' is not some ethereal arbiter... The 'state' like the federal government is the people -not the judiciary. The people have repeatedly spoken YET the judges overule in favor of what -the lowest common denominator? The judges surely do not respect the people when they consider sodomy to be an unalienable right or when they insert themsel;ves into moral questions reserved to the people...

[TypeZoNegative]

The means don't justify the end. Yes, the sodomy law is more of the nanny government interfering with your life, but to make up a fictitious case to promote your agenda is low.

[rdb3]

>>I do not think that it is the government's place to regulate the actions of two or more adults entered into consentingly.

>What about one or more "adult" and one or more non-adult adolescent?
What about one or more "adult" and one or more pre-adolescent who is really really curious and wants to try the experience?

Is it the government's place to regulate those actions?

I specifically stated "two or more adults entered into consentingly." The operative words are "adults" and "consentingly."

Since what you ask does not specifically include consensual adults only, my answer would be "yes". NAMBLA arguments find no love here. I know you're not saying that, but that's why I said "yes".

Then again, I wouldn't use the term "regulate" or anything similar that gives an air of legitimacy. I believe that if a non-adult + adult are involved, it's a crime. If no consent is given, that, too, is a crime. Two or more consensual adults? Government should back off. I may find what two or more adults choose to do consensually morally repugnant, but that is not what should make it a crime.

I'll leave that at that.

If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

The government has no right to regulate sexual acts between two consenting adults. To do otherwise is to support a "nanny-police-state".

Either-Or logical fallacy.

[Paul C. Jesup]

You need to read more of this thread.

[Paul C. Jesup]

but to make up a fictitious case to promote your agenda is low.

The Georgia court case I am talking about happened.

[Paul C. Jesup]

You are advocating homosexual sodomy -period.

No, I advocate freedom for adults to have sexual relationships with other consenting adult.

You advocate tyranny.

[Vinnie]

Exactly,
IMHO any decision made on a faked 'crime' should be invalidated.

[Paul C. Jesup]

"Hypocracy" (sic)? WHAT HYPOCRISY? I stated factual information and NO opinion. Ergo, there is no "hypocrisy", other than your own!

See post 80 of this thread.

[Paul C. Jesup]

You need to read a little further down post 123 about "mob rule"/majority rule.

[Paul C. Jesup]

I suppose if they were having "consensual sex" with your 12 year old son, you wouldn't want the goverment invading their privacy?

What part of "two consenting adults" do you not understand?

[Paul C. Jesup]

Just answer the question. Does the geovernment have the authority to prohibit prostitution between two consenting adults?

Well you could do some book research on this in comparing Navada with the rest of the U.S. on this issue.

[COEXERJ145]

Farah is about 2 years behind the time. It was known when Lawrence v. Texas was being argued that it was a setup all along just like Roe v. Wade.