Only viable argument was for age of consent due to current established laws.
But this was yet another proof of them trying to push that age of consent younger and younger.
On a personal level, I think the only laws that should exist are Romeo and Juliet laws, and that age difference is almost always 2 years or less anyway. Very rare in school for a 16 year old and 13 year old for example, but 14/15 is more common, and for 17 year olds that tends to mean 15-17.
Basically, in most instances the Romeo and Juliet laws would have an 18 year old with a 16 or 17 year old, both past the age of consent in most -- or a lot of -- states.
So my question is this: If it's rare to see a wider age gap in school, because kids don't tend to interact much more than a grade above or below them, why do they keep trying to push the age of consent lower, and the "acceptable" age gap wider?
There is obviously something nefarious to that. It's not simply becoming less prudish as a country. There is something there that they are trying to accomplish and it still surprises me that leftists willfully ignore this
This post is WRONG. Research CA SB-145 for a few minutes. It appears to relate to whether automatic sex offender registration will be required vs a judges discretion. I don't see ANYWHERE where it legalizes sex with a minor. PROVE THAT IT DOES. I believe this is misinformation, and spreading misinformation hurts the cause.
I find that when people talk about the law, it's good to listen to lawyers instead of pundits. This opinion by a law firm goes through in some detail precisely what the law says and how it might apply to various situations. It offers a lot more clarity than that archived half-article you've now posted 3 times.
It seems pretty clear, the effort here was to decriminalize men who prey on teenage boys and allow a path for them to evade current statutes requiring them to register as sex offenders.
It also seems pretty clear the issue is the age of consent being 18 when what they really seem to want is a Romeo + Juliet law that reduces the age of consent for young adults and allows teenagers to have sex like they've been doing for centuries without it becoming a criminal act. However, instead of actually advancing a sensible act, he pushes this small bill which just seems aimed at keeping himself and people like him off the sex offender registry when they knowingly violate laws intended to protect minors. Dude wants to hunt 15-year-old teens and have it be legal.
You should check on what the law actually includes. It doesn't apply to 8 year olds, or anyone under 14. Unfortunately this meme loses credibility by using an example that can so easily be shown to be wrong.
He has a certain... I don't know... Look about him. I can't quite put my finger on it.
faggot?
Guarantee that's not the only "tribe" he belongs to...
Easy there, goyim!
Ah yes. That's it.
😆
Every
Single
Time. Yet the muh Isreal people on here will continue to deny.
Both should be, but I'll settle for the "right" one.
The nose knows.
Which one of them are you talking about?
Only God and Jesus. These demons are pure evil
Pedophile. This is despicable.
This is why God invented guns!
And flamethrowers
And wood chippers
Wait, what?! When was this law passed??? Why is this the first I’m hearing off this… off to research…
Its a few years old but this doesn't apply to 8 year olds, the minimum age was 14. (Which is still bad enough.)
Only viable argument was for age of consent due to current established laws.
But this was yet another proof of them trying to push that age of consent younger and younger.
On a personal level, I think the only laws that should exist are Romeo and Juliet laws, and that age difference is almost always 2 years or less anyway. Very rare in school for a 16 year old and 13 year old for example, but 14/15 is more common, and for 17 year olds that tends to mean 15-17.
Basically, in most instances the Romeo and Juliet laws would have an 18 year old with a 16 or 17 year old, both past the age of consent in most -- or a lot of -- states.
So my question is this: If it's rare to see a wider age gap in school, because kids don't tend to interact much more than a grade above or below them, why do they keep trying to push the age of consent lower, and the "acceptable" age gap wider?
There is obviously something nefarious to that. It's not simply becoming less prudish as a country. There is something there that they are trying to accomplish and it still surprises me that leftists willfully ignore this
Human trafficking. Not joking, wouldn’t be surprised to see consent to “sex work” become a thing.
Spot on.
Obvious and nefarious. Bingo.
Yeah, it also puts sodomy into the requirements for registry, it didn't used to be.
Signed into law in 2020:
https://archive.ph/nNTMn
He looks like he just saved himself from a few things.
Why are their last names always "Wiener"? Did they pick these specifically to let people know exactly what they are?
These people are fucking sick and need to die.
Wiener?
Is there significance to "if she becomes Vice President", or is that just a weird typo? (ok, now I realize this is a post prior to the election)
Weiner
Nice hearse in the background...
“If she becomes VP?”
The bill was signed into law in 2020.
https://archive.ph/nNTMn
Sick and disgusting! Remember G*d's wrath on Sodom & Gomorrah. https://cornerstonefellowship.tv/media/2phqmpp/sodom-and-gommorrah
Have to charge federally
This post is WRONG. Research CA SB-145 for a few minutes. It appears to relate to whether automatic sex offender registration will be required vs a judges discretion. I don't see ANYWHERE where it legalizes sex with a minor. PROVE THAT IT DOES. I believe this is misinformation, and spreading misinformation hurts the cause.
Why is everyone named Wiener a fucking pedophile sex pervert???
That's absolutely wrong but a few years difference around the 17 / 18 line might be fine
Incremental steps; it has been all along. Think this is the last step? Guess again.
Here's a synopsis of the law. While I don't agree with it, it does not legalize pedophilia:
https://archive.ph/nNTMn
I find that when people talk about the law, it's good to listen to lawyers instead of pundits. This opinion by a law firm goes through in some detail precisely what the law says and how it might apply to various situations. It offers a lot more clarity than that archived half-article you've now posted 3 times.
https://www.dlawgroup.com/california-senate-bill-145-misguided/
It seems pretty clear, the effort here was to decriminalize men who prey on teenage boys and allow a path for them to evade current statutes requiring them to register as sex offenders.
It also seems pretty clear the issue is the age of consent being 18 when what they really seem to want is a Romeo + Juliet law that reduces the age of consent for young adults and allows teenagers to have sex like they've been doing for centuries without it becoming a criminal act. However, instead of actually advancing a sensible act, he pushes this small bill which just seems aimed at keeping himself and people like him off the sex offender registry when they knowingly violate laws intended to protect minors. Dude wants to hunt 15-year-old teens and have it be legal.
Wrong.
No. May be a way out in court then, they will not be able to prove a child can even give true consent. Maybe, I’m just a common lass
You should check on what the law actually includes. It doesn't apply to 8 year olds, or anyone under 14. Unfortunately this meme loses credibility by using an example that can so easily be shown to be wrong.
This is just beginning.... pass something that will eventually slide into legalizing pedophilia.
They were ALWAYS AFTER our KIDS