This is from back when they were trying to excuse all the gay sex offenders as just helping young gays discover themselves, because a 22 year old having sex with a 15 year old is somehow just fine when they are both gay. It's been a problem in the gay community forever but they refuse to acknowledge it as such.
Basically. IIRC the arguement was that romeo and juliet laws (where you don't have to register/it's not statutory rape if you are a 19 year old dating a 17 year old) didn't apply to gays because they would be charged with sodomy laws instead which aren't covered by romeo and juliet exclusions. That's why there is a section stating that whether the perpetrator knew the victim beforehand would factor into whether they would still be required to register. Problem with this "fix" is it has a buffer of 10 years, while romeo and juliet laws usually only cover age differences of 2-3 years. It's supposed to be for if you have a high school sweetheart in a different grade, not a college boyfriend who drives you to school until you get your license.
If I understand things correctly, then the age of consent is 18, and this does not change that. This is about registration as as sex offender. Online source claim, but given the complexity of the material I have not been able to verify, that this only applies to victims ages 14 and higher.
Yeah they put a video titled "we're coming for your children" from the mens gay choir.
It turned out several members who produced the video are convincted of underage sex crimes. Maybe they were "statutory" offenses and this is in response to that.
Honestly I'm a bit torn, it's always been rubbish that something like 19 and 17 (as long as it's consensual of course) is a crime, especially a "destroy you for life" kind of crime.
Romeo and Juliet laws say it is not always a crime to have sex with a minor. The purpose is to decriminalize teenage sex. Such laws generally allow someone over 14 to consent to sex, but only with someone who is no more than three years older. California does not have a Romeo and Juliet law.
In California, it is illegal for anyone to engage in sex with a minor. Even another minor. The only exception is if the parties are married. A minor cannot legally marry in California without a court order. See Family Code 302.
Age of consent means the age at which a person can legally consent to sexual intercourse. There is no age of consent in California. A person over 18 is an adult, a person under 18 is a minor.
In California, there is a Romeo and Juliet exemption for consensual sex between a minor and a person who is three or fewer years older or younger. However, this is a limited exception because it serves to reduce the conduct from a felony to a misdemeanor offense. The conduct is still illegal, but someone protected by this exception will face the possibility of smaller fines and reduced jail time.
I think they’re consistent, it’s just that the first article doesn’t consider the law mentioned in the second article as a real Romeo and Juliet law as it still considers it a crime.
The misinformation is the latest in a series of attacks on the legislation and the lawmaker who introduced it – state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Fransisco – by right-wing conspiracy theorists known as QAnon.
Their attacks against Wiener included death threats, homophobia and anti-semitism, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
That's interesting. So the San Francisco Chronicle said that the pro-bug chasing senator Weiner received death threats, homophobia and anti-Semitism?
Let's see:
“I’ve been the subject of death threats and personal attacks, threatening to decapitate me and send my head to my mother,” Wiener said Thursday during an online news conference. “This kind of slander, not just against me but against my community, is outrageous and we have to speak out against it.” (...)
Wiener said he has received hundreds of death threats and other messages attacking him for being gay and Jewish in recent weeks. He has been fundraising off the threats for his re-election campaign against Jackie Fielder, who is challenging him from the left, but Wiener said he spoke out to bring attention to lingering marginalization of LGBTQ youth.
I don't see anything about age of consent there, and i am well aware that in some places a age difference clause already exists (say, 18 year old fucking 16 year old in a place with 18 year old age of consent would not get on the register).
So, i guess someone summon a lawyer, because frankly speaking, this is the kind of degeneracy you'd expect from someone with last name Weiner, but i was never the kind to treat 26 year old fucking 17 year old as pedophilia either.
IIRC I think I posted this on r_kia2 sometime back? I remember some attorney on the board dekachin or somebody put some clarification on it or something idk. I'll dig my post up.
Sounds more like sex offenders don't have to REGISTER if they are 10 years older or less than the victim.
So a 20 year old raping a 10 year old won't have to register as a sex offender, I guess.
This is from back when they were trying to excuse all the gay sex offenders as just helping young gays discover themselves, because a 22 year old having sex with a 15 year old is somehow just fine when they are both gay. It's been a problem in the gay community forever but they refuse to acknowledge it as such.
Basically. IIRC the arguement was that romeo and juliet laws (where you don't have to register/it's not statutory rape if you are a 19 year old dating a 17 year old) didn't apply to gays because they would be charged with sodomy laws instead which aren't covered by romeo and juliet exclusions. That's why there is a section stating that whether the perpetrator knew the victim beforehand would factor into whether they would still be required to register. Problem with this "fix" is it has a buffer of 10 years, while romeo and juliet laws usually only cover age differences of 2-3 years. It's supposed to be for if you have a high school sweetheart in a different grade, not a college boyfriend who drives you to school until you get your license.
Well, no. An 18 year old raping an 8 year old wouldn't have to register either.
Age of consent doesn't appear anywhere in the text as far as I can tell.
It is California.
If I understand things correctly, then the age of consent is 18, and this does not change that. This is about registration as as sex offender. Online source claim, but given the complexity of the material I have not been able to verify, that this only applies to victims ages 14 and higher.
Comment Reported for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Comment Removed
Yeah they put a video titled "we're coming for your children" from the mens gay choir.
It turned out several members who produced the video are convincted of underage sex crimes. Maybe they were "statutory" offenses and this is in response to that.
Honestly I'm a bit torn, it's always been rubbish that something like 19 and 17 (as long as it's consensual of course) is a crime, especially a "destroy you for life" kind of crime.
Only if you are a male, female teachers often get a year or less for fucking students.
I think all states have a romeo and juliet law that covers the 19-17 issue.
According to this result they do not:
https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/criminal-defense/does-california-have-a-romeo-and-juliet-law/
But according to a different one:
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/california-statutory-rape-laws.htm
I think they’re consistent, it’s just that the first article doesn’t consider the law mentioned in the second article as a real Romeo and Juliet law as it still considers it a crime.
Oh, this is beautiful. I found an article about this from the 'fact-checkers' at USA Today (which previously claimed that the American eagle is a Nazi symbol):
That's interesting. So the San Francisco Chronicle said that the pro-bug chasing senator Weiner received death threats, homophobia and anti-Semitism?
Let's see:
source
In both cases, the said bug chaser was the one who made this claim. The claim in question was not endorsed by the San Francisco Chronicle.
Fact check: FALSE
The pedos will love this
I don't see anything about age of consent there, and i am well aware that in some places a age difference clause already exists (say, 18 year old fucking 16 year old in a place with 18 year old age of consent would not get on the register).
So, i guess someone summon a lawyer, because frankly speaking, this is the kind of degeneracy you'd expect from someone with last name Weiner, but i was never the kind to treat 26 year old fucking 17 year old as pedophilia either.
they just want to get married!
Still more stringent than Canada, which will recognize any marriages from out-of-country, even from countries with infant child brides.
IIRC I think I posted this on r_kia2 sometime back? I remember some attorney on the board dekachin or somebody put some clarification on it or something idk. I'll dig my post up.