[grey_whiskers]

Anti-lib-judge Sarcasm Torpedoes ARMED. FIRE!!

Any chance we'll see Darth Vader Ginsburg (ACLU'er who favors lowering the age of consent to 12) moving to California when she retires?

I mean, Look at her. How much chance is there that anyone experienced would want her?

[grey_whiskers]

Oh, one last thought...

What will this do to anti-porn statutes in California? If an underage BJ is OK, why should it be illegal to film it or sell the films that state?

[Calpernia]

ping

[Wuli]

Under the law, an offender is any offender, including a minor of the same age; therefore the "offending" teen in a consensual act with another teen of the same age becomes a criminal, with a permanent registration as a sex offender. That was not what the legislature intended, when the law was written, but it is now how the law has been used, and the court, rightly in my view, said the law is to broad.

I don't think any parent wants to make a criminal of their own child, or that child's friend, when the "offending" act was consenual, between the two of them.

Change the law to insure you get the paedophile.

[DirtyHarryY2K]

Homosexual Agenda Ping!

FReepmail if you want on/off the ping list.

Free Republic homosexual agenda keyword search

To be included in or removed from the HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA PINGLIST, please FreepMail either DBeers or DirtyHarryY2K.

[Old-Retired-Trucker]

The only problem with California is all the Californicators that live there!

[tutstar]

Oh no! This can't be! May God render them their just due!

[trubluolyguy]

God help me but Kalifornia is like some "bizzarro world."

[SauronOfMordor]

Upon actually reading the article, I see their reasoning is that

1. Under current law, having actual intercourse with someone between 16 and 18 does not mean that you have to register as a sex offender
2. But having oral sex with (presumably) somebody between 16 and 18 does mean you have to register as a sex offender
3. It makes no sense to treat oral sex more harshly than actual intercourse.

[Texas Eagle]

California Supremes: Oral sex with kids is OK!

Well, they should know.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Let's hope good people get their names and promptly remove them from the gene pool. When our leaders don't protect us, it is our God-given duty to protect ourselves and especially our children.

[deaconjim]

Before I say anything else, let me make it perfectly clear that I think public execution is a perfectly punishment for anyone having sex (of any kind) with a child.

That being said, I agree with the judges decision. Before the flaming starts, let me explain why.

Conservatives are against allowing judges to legislate from the bench, so we certainly would not expect or allow them to try to change the law regarding having intercourse with a child. They are quite right in saying that the penalties for having oral sex with a minor shouldn't be worse than for having intercourse. The judges made the right decision, and now it is up to the California legislators to set the appropriate punishment for ALL sex with minors.

[Terriergal]

Yegads! UNfrigginbelieveable.

[newzjunkey]

16 and 17 are not legally consenting adults but it's not quite accurate to describe them as 'kids'.

[BlueNgold]

This case involved Consensual oral sex between a 16 yr old girl and a 22 yr old man. Under California law such an offense would not require registration under Megan's law if it had been 'normal intercourse', but oral copulation in the exact same circumstances required registration. That is the basis of this case. It does not affect forcible sex, rape, incest, molestation or any other offenses.

It ONLY affects cases where consensual oral sex was treated differently under the law than consensual intercourse. This was an equal protection case, and by most legal experts was considered the proper decision.

I am NOT advocating relations between 22 yr olds and 16 year olds, but the legal arguments and decision in this case appear sound.

[Carry_Okie]

Time for a referendum on these jurists...

We'll toss 'em on their ears, just like we did with Rose Bird...

OOPS! The California Repubelickin Paltry fell in love with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Oh well. Time for another iniative they'll probably ignore. Ain't democracy grand?

[Shooter1001]

A step toward lowering the age of consent to 12, a change that Ruth Bader Ginsberg espouses.

Roman Polanski come back, all is legal now.

Enter NAMBLA and Gay Rights in conjunction with the ACLU! Do I need to paint any pictures here? Queer Boyscout leaders and queer adoption rights fit right in here too.

Hillary is a proponent of something labeled 'Children's Rights' which I'm sure is 'for the children' but smells to me like transfer of authority from parents to the government. Spank your child in public and DYFS (in NJ) can remove him/her from your home into foster care. Kind of a Hillary Youth.
One little step at a time.

[cgk]

Moral Absolutes ping?

[metmom]

I'd personally much rather see those who have sex with children be dragged to the public square, have their crimes announced to society, and publicly executed.

He won't get much argument out of me on that one. I'll bet it would help with the recovery of the victim, to know that justice is done and no one will have to face the same from that animal again.