Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: dogbyte12
You cannot with a straight face equate a teenaged boy coming on to a teenaged girl with a teenaged boy forcing deviant and unnatural attentions on another boy. To advocate similar penalties, you have to equate the actions.

While I doubt that Justice Kennedy went so far as to suggest anything so ludicrous; it does show the danger that whatever the Supreme Court did decide, will be deliberately stretched by those with an anti-social agenda.

Frankly, I have not read the decision. But if it was premised upon "privacy," that is 9th Amendment rights--which are protected against Federal intrusion--under some theory of applicability to the States, also--that would not seem to rule out dealing harshly with those who flaunt the conduct that the 6 Justices declared private. Actually, protections from illegal searches, meant that sodomy laws were not actually being enforced, anyway, against those who actually kept their conduct private.

I guess I should stop my keyboard, until I actually see the decision. I would like to suggest a way around it; but without reading it, that would be really foolish. Of course, I can state the completely obvious: This is one more reason for Conservatives to dig their heels in and fight any appointment to the Federal Bench for anyone who is not honorably committed to traditional Constitutional values. And we are not going to be able to stop such appointments, unless we find a lot more men with the strong character of the late Strom Thurmond--who more than any other man was responsible for what Conservatives we do have on the Federal Bench--to send to the Senate.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

283 posted on 06/28/2003 11:12:24 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]


To: Ohioan
You cannot with a straight face equate a teenaged boy coming on to a teenaged girl with a teenaged boy forcing deviant and unnatural attentions on another boy.

Another person who wants to throw their comments in the ring without reading the relevant case. Why am I not surprised?

286 posted on 06/28/2003 11:21:13 AM PDT by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies ]

To: Ohioan
You cannot with a straight face equate a teenaged boy coming on to a teenaged girl with a teenaged boy forcing deviant and unnatural attentions on another boy. To advocate similar penalties, you have to equate the actions.

A 14 year old boy is highly sexualized by viewing gay porn on the internet let's say. He spots an 18 year old man, and offers to perform a sexual act on him. The 18 year old wrongly accepts the offer. His conscience gets the better of him and he goes to the police and admits to it. That is 17 years in jail.

A 18 year old man for weeks flashes a smile at a chaste 14 year old girl. He tells her that he loves her, but she replies that it is sinful to have unmarried sex. He psychologically batters her for weeks more, saying that he is her one true love, and that if she rejects his advances, she will lose him forever. He demands the same sexual act from her, oral sex. She complies, and as soon as it is completed, he laughs, and says thanks, and goodbye. She reports him to the police. He receives 15 months in jail. They go to jail today. The 18 year old guy who pressured the girl, gets out in September 2004, in time to watch all the new freshman girls enter the high school. The 18 year old gay man who allowed himself to be sodomized by the younger boy is in jail til June 2020.

If you believe justice was done there, your ideas of american jurisprudence and mine differ.

291 posted on 06/28/2003 11:33:10 AM PDT by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson