What Kinsely has wrought.
I think this is a definitive quote from an activist judge. I couldn't be more clear. This jurist is not interested in applying the law, but in creating or ignoring it.
Therein lies the problem. Facially neutral but gender biased in application.
Almost makes you wonder if Judge Marten has a thing for young girls (or boys), doesn't it?
There is no credible evidence that underage driving is always harmful.
There is no credible evidence that drug use is always harmful.
There is no credible evidence that polygamy is always harmful.
There is no credible evidence that underage alcohol consumption is always harmful.
Judge Marten sounds like a card carrying member of NAMBLA.
District (Federal) Judge ..V.. Kansas (state)
States Rights on the chopping block again !
Absolutely disgusting!
"Foulston testified that any underage sexual contact between minors, such as the fondling of a girl's breasts, needs to reported. "
Oh, please! Two high school kids groping each other in a car is a crime, now? My word!
I guess most of us were criminals, then, when we were teenagers.
That's the trouble with such laws. While they mean well, they fail in their purpose if they are this inclusive. Yes, cases of sexual abuse of minors should always be a criminal act.
Getting felt up in a car by your boyfriend, however, doesn't fit the description.
When will lawmakers learn that laws need to be specific? Laws that overgeneralize the description of an act are always subject to being thrown out. Describe what you want to be against the law, and in detail, or risk the entire law being tossed.
DISCUSSION ABOUT:
"Judge: No credible evidence underage sex always harmful"
There is no "evidence" that some unelected judge gets to make law, it's high time this judicial anarchy is ended!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be included in or removed from the MORAL ABSOLUTES PINGLIST, please FreepMail either MillerCreek or wagglebee.
Clinton appointee.
This is what I've heard Dr. Laura say many times (paraphrasing):
The younger you become sexually active - even within your own age group - and the more partners you have, even more "serious" relationships like say a series of live-ins, the more likely you are to never be able to develop a committed, normal, family-producing relationship. This applies to both males and females.
In fact, some of the saddest calls are from young men - early to mid-twenties who are already concerned that they aren't connecting emotionally with any of the young women they date.
I have the impression it may not be "fixable" as the younger you are when you experience something the deeper the impression made on your psyche.
The judge in KS may not think that's any big deal but gee, I don't know, blighted lives seem important to me and certainly to those who are living them.
Here's a judge who rejects the legislator's conclusions that, for reasons the LEGISLATOR decides to accept, certain acts should be illegal.
IOW, his whole approach is "I disagree with the law" so I don't have to uphold it. I can be a super legislator. I can disregard the judgement of the people's elective representatives since I know better.
This is what the libs want: judges who simply feel they do not have to follow the law if they don't want to.
Where does it say it's necessary for the state to prove it's harmful?
Isn't it the job of the legislature to write the laws, and the judiciary to find if activities conform to these laws?
Rather than trying to decide whether the law is justified or not?
Clinton strikes again. His appointments are like a systemic disease. They just keep coming back again and again.
No controlling coital authority??
good, if they are mature enough to choose to have sex legally they are mature enough to execute when they kill someone.
This is none of the judge's business.
Whether it is always harmful, sometimes harmful, or never harmful is immaterial. The people of Kansas, acting through their representatives, have determined to outlaw this behavior. There is no Constitutional restraint on their power to do so.
Therefore, the factual or actual consequences of the behavior are not an issue.