I am sorry, but the legislative intent of "age of consent" laws has always, always been to discourage "adults" from having sex with "children" (age of consent).
The legislative intent of such laws was never, and until now in Kansas, used to legally prosecute two minors who "consented" to have sex with each other.
The purpose of the new draconian approach, may have very noble and moral motives (discourage sexual relations by teens and children), however the blunt instrument of making criminals of two teens, where no force and no adult was involved seems not only not good sense but contrary to what most parents, even religious parents, would want to see happen to their own children. Even now, when an unmarried 17-year-old girl has consenual sex with an unmarried 18-year-old-boy, rarely is the boy prosecuted for "statuatory" rape. Why? Because such a prosecution is generally, in such a case, in contradiction of the spirit of the intent of the "age of consent" law; even though it conforms to the "letter" of the law.
I would think both sets of parents would look at the criminalization of their children as state authority gone too far.
That state authority and the dollars behind it would be put to better purpose as added attention to education and public relations programs encouraging abstinance.
You make a great point. Yes, morally I want to do all I can to keep sex education from being taught in the schools, and yes I want my kid's school to teach abstinence only, but I do see your point:
Having the State label a 15 year old a criminal for a stupid mistake is over the top.
However, I kinda see this extreme right reaction as a response to the extreme left reaction of teaching children how to have sex.
Both are wrong.