"Based on our research, viral claims about SB-145 as "pro-pedophilia" legislation are FALSE. It is intended to strengthen the sex offender registry and end discrimination against LGBTQ youth." I'd love to know who wrote this article. Fucking sick ?
I think I better understand this now and see some of the reasoning. There was an example of a 17 year old girl who had sex with their 18 year old lesbian partner. The age of consent is still 18, so 18 yo lesbian was given a misdemeanor charge. But, because the sex was oral and not vaginal intercourse, the judge has no discretion on whether she has to register in the sex offender list. She automatically has to register in the sex offender list.
The goal of the bill is to expand "sex" to include oral, anal so that it would be more fair to LGBTQ.
Now, the thing I'm confused by is why the hell did they make the amendment so confusing? I feel like there's a backdoor they snuck into the bill to enable pedophilia.
"If the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor they do not have to register" how does this strengthen anything at all. What the fuck is this
Yea. That's what I mean by they made the text of the bill so damn confusing. The legal text of the bill references other articles they are amending, and those take care of the age of consent, etc... but I don't understand how the text they added at the beginning interacts with the amendments.
The goal they stated I understand, but the law they wrote in, it is too damn confusing and it implies pedophilia. That's why I think there' probably is a backdoor clause to pedophilia in the amendment.
Well the example provided is just a nice cover for what the text actually says. It's "confusing" because they have nothing/little to actually do with each other. The example that they provided to show what they "intend" to do is simply a lie. The example actually means jack shit, doesn't mean anything. What the law they passed says is what actually matters. What they have done is make a little step towards their end goal, full legalization of raping children.
https://sd11.senate.ca.gov/news/20200909-fact-check-californias-sb-145-eliminates-inequality-sex-offender-registration
"Based on our research, viral claims about SB-145 as "pro-pedophilia" legislation are FALSE. It is intended to strengthen the sex offender registry and end discrimination against LGBTQ youth." I'd love to know who wrote this article. Fucking sick ?
Looks like senator wiener. Also answered my own question
https://sd11.senate.ca.gov/sb145
Yeah I didn't notice that at first.
I think I better understand this now and see some of the reasoning. There was an example of a 17 year old girl who had sex with their 18 year old lesbian partner. The age of consent is still 18, so 18 yo lesbian was given a misdemeanor charge. But, because the sex was oral and not vaginal intercourse, the judge has no discretion on whether she has to register in the sex offender list. She automatically has to register in the sex offender list.
The goal of the bill is to expand "sex" to include oral, anal so that it would be more fair to LGBTQ.
Now, the thing I'm confused by is why the hell did they make the amendment so confusing? I feel like there's a backdoor they snuck into the bill to enable pedophilia.
"If the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor they do not have to register" how does this strengthen anything at all. What the fuck is this
Yea. That's what I mean by they made the text of the bill so damn confusing. The legal text of the bill references other articles they are amending, and those take care of the age of consent, etc... but I don't understand how the text they added at the beginning interacts with the amendments.
The goal they stated I understand, but the law they wrote in, it is too damn confusing and it implies pedophilia. That's why I think there' probably is a backdoor clause to pedophilia in the amendment.
Also "only protects voluntary sex", so if a 13 year old says it was voluntary it counts as consent? Again, the fuck is thiis
Well the example provided is just a nice cover for what the text actually says. It's "confusing" because they have nothing/little to actually do with each other. The example that they provided to show what they "intend" to do is simply a lie. The example actually means jack shit, doesn't mean anything. What the law they passed says is what actually matters. What they have done is make a little step towards their end goal, full legalization of raping children.
wow these people are loony