Judge: No credible evidence underage sex always harmful

Witchita Eagle ^ | 2/9/6 | ROXANA HEGEMAN

[starfish923]

Thanks for you input however checking the state laws about underage sex wasn't where I was going at all. The point I was making was the mixed bag of laws that we do have and point to the mixed attitudes we have about teenagers.

I think that the entire attitude about underage sex -- that is, with 16-17 year olds, bears re-thinking.
Imho, it wouldn't do us ANY harm to RE-THINK our current attitudes about "teens" as "children."

[Mind-numbed Robot]

I guess most of us were criminals, then, when we were teenagers.

Not me! As hard as I tried my record stayed clean. Well, there was this one time when three older girls MADE me do things but that shouldn't count.

[rzeznikj at stout]

I was under the impression he was looking to nullify the entire law--that's probably why.

After rereading the article and your post--I agree.

[Jaded]

Another problem with this is that it seems there is more intent to prosecute the boys. And then what, they become registered sex offenders for life for being young and ... amorous?

[MineralMan]

"Imho, it wouldn't do us ANY harm to RE-THINK our current attitudes about "teens" as "children.""

Actually, that's been an ongoing practice since the 1950s. The laws regarding people between the ages of 13 and 19 have changed radically since then. When I was growing up, the age of majority was 21 in California.

We're rethinking this stuff all the time. I remember when the "emancipated minor" law came into being in California.

The law never stands still.

[katana]

Let me guess. Clinton appointee?

[zook]

Are we cousins? My granny was maried at 13 to a man in his 20s.

[Psycho_Bunny]

heh....If I had a dime for every time I've misread an article at FR...

[liberte]

Great, Judge! I'll come by the house to pick up one of your kids tonight. Say 7 o'clock?

[Oztrich Boy]

The people of Kansas, acting through their representatives, have determined to outlaw this behavior.

But the question the judge is considering is whether the people of Kansas, acting through their representatives, really determined the State should concern itself with a couple of 15 year olds getting to second base. (Even if a Janet Reno wannabe thinks they should)

[little jeremiah]

There is a vast gulf of moral difference between animalistic and exploitative sex between underages kids, and a young teenage girl marrying. As people have mentioned before, and on this thread, in previous generations girls often married by their mid teens, usually to a young man a bit older than them. Some of our grandparents were these ages.

Marriage and illicit sex can't be compared.

[jwalsh07]

This is very strictly and narrowly a question of whether or not someone is granted discretion not to prosecute two 17 yr olds who had sex the day before their 18th birthdays.

No it's not. And asserting that it is just clouds the issue. There is no law in Kansas proscribing "two 17 year olds" from having sex, be it a day before their 18th birthday or a day after there 17th birthday.

[MineralMan]

"There is a vast gulf of moral difference between animalistic and exploitative sex between underages kids, and a young teenage girl marrying. As people have mentioned before, and on this thread, in previous generations girls often married by their mid teens, usually to a young man a bit older than them. Some of our grandparents were these ages.

Marriage and illicit sex can't be compared."

---

But they can often be linked. My maternal grandmother was married at age 14. Six months later, she gave birth to my mother and her twin brother. They weighed almost 8 pounds each.

You do the math. Yes, there were lots of early marriages. And many of them involved the discreet use of a shotgun.

[jwalsh07]

I think that the entire attitude about underage sex -- that is, with 16-17 year olds, bears re-thinking. Imho, it wouldn't do us ANY harm to RE-THINK our current attitudes about "teens" as "children."

Yes by all means, lets give 13 year olds the right to vote.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

... are felons and, quite likely, the lawmakers who voted for this bill!

A way many harmful bills are passed, not just this one, is the implication that if you are not in favor of the bill then you are in favor of the activity it prohibits. That is how we end up with the obviously dicriminatory affirmative action bills and many of the other "politically correct" legislation.

If you oppose a bill banning sex between the underaged, whatever arbitrary age that may be, you are in favor of sex by the young and by extension, sex between older men and young girls. Hard to vote against that.

The same with affirmative action - if you don't favor affirmative action it is implied that you favor discriminating against blacks. Oppose hate crimes legislation and you favor hate crimes, etc.

Bad logic and intimidation by the left, usually, have put us in precarious positions as a society in some cases.

[Galveston Grl]

I'll bet he does have sympathy for muddying the waters around adults having "consensual" sex with other people's children!

But lets look at what is causing all this mess. We have liberals who are always prying into and attempting to manipulate the sexuality of children. They have been encouraging kids to have sex at younger and younger ages by omitting moral education from sex education and talking about sex in a positive way - without talking about the negative consequences. They try to get kids to talk dirty to them during "sex education" and in sex surveys. To get the kids to talk to them - strangers - about sex, they have to play "cool" as in "you can tell us, we don't judge it." Asking a twelve year old "have you ever had sexual intercourse, oral sex, etc." is none of the State's business and so teachers should not have to worry about reporting that which is private. Liberals then use the special sexual status with other people's children and the permission of activist judges to put minor children on birth control and give them abortions behind their parent's backs.

In reaction we have elected officials who are trying to stop liberals from sexualizing other people's young kids through literature, sex ed and sex surveys in an amoral social atmosphere. They passed a law that it is not legal to have sex under age 16 so that liberals can not encourage them to have sex in school - engage in a illegal activity. They can't take other people's young kids secretly to abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood for birth control because they are required to report a "crime." We get twisted in knots trying to curtail liberals from sexually treating, controlling and corrupting minor children in direct opposition to their parent's values and desires.

A child who is raped or molested by an adult (a criminal offense) is different than having consensual sex with peers - which is not the State's business when considering reporting of a crime.

The problem to begin with was activist judges permitting liberals to assert a "right" to talk dirty to other people's kids in immoral ways when parents objected. Then they gave liberals the right to give other people's kids abortions and birth control in secret from their parents. Instead of removing judges from the bench who did this; we try to pass new laws - be more clever - to legally stop the abuse.

In a different kind of society, parents would harm a teacher(s) who talked dirty to their kids and that would have been the end of the argument about whose morals are taught to other people's children by teachers. Teachers would be fearful of messing in taboo areas of culture. Liberals definitely respond to fear as we see with the cartoons, but without fear, they have no moral or ethical self control.

[jwalsh07]

I get the impression that a number of people didn't read this article. The judge is correct.

About what? Certainly not about issuing an injucntion against the AG's opinion on the law. The Tenth Circuit overturned that decision about a week ago stating that the AG's opinion and the law both had a rational basis. Which means that Judge Marten won't be making any new law in Kansas toto.

[Galveston Grl]

When were kids allowed to marry at age 12 in the US? You are just sayin'...

[jwalsh07]

You have consturcted a strawman to argue against. Your strawman is that Kansas prosecutes minors having underage sex and that is the purpose of the law. Since the law was passed in 1982, there must have been millions of prosecutions of consensual sex between two kids under 16. Why don't you find us one?

[photodawg]

Judge Marten, there is also no credible evidence that prostitution is always harmful.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////


Well said. How about under age prostitution, under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, while driving a car without a license? (just kidding!)

Perfect example of the slippery slope you travel when you try to legislate from the bench. nice point.