Gov Gavin Newsom New Sodomy Reduction Bill Adults With Minors LBGTQ+???

Harry Leggs

Super Member
Stumbled on this in the News.


California law permitted judges to decide whether to place a man on the sex offender registry if he had consensual intercourse with someone 14 to 17 years old and was not more than 10 years older than the other person. However, that discretion only applied to vaginal intercourse, which LGBT advocates, including the author of the new bill signed into law Friday, argued was discriminatory toward gay men.


“This eliminates discrimination against LGBTQ youth in our criminal justice system,” the bill’s sponsor, San Francisco Democratic state Rep. Scott Wiener, said about the legislation (known as SB 145) that he proposed.


“SB 145 ends discrimination against #LGBTQ young people on the sex offender registry. Currently, these youth are forced onto the registry for consensual sex — even if a judge doesn’t think it’s appropriate — in situations where straight youth are not,” Wiener added on social media. “This discrimination destroys lives.”


Comments? Approve or disapprove? Insights?
 
Last edited:
Stumbled on this in the News.


California law permitted judges to decide whether to place a man on the sex offender registry if he had consensual intercourse with someone 14 to 17 years old and was not more than 10 years older than the other person. However, that discretion only applied to vaginal intercourse, which LGBT advocates, including the author of the new bill signed into law Friday, argued was discriminatory toward gay men.


“This eliminates discrimination against LGBTQ youth in our criminal justice system,” the bill’s sponsor, San Francisco Democratic state Rep. Scott Wiener, said about the legislation (known as SB 145) that he proposed.


“SB 145 ends discrimination against #LGBTQ young people on the sex offender registry. Currently, these youth are forced onto the registry for consensual sex — even if a judge doesn’t think it’s appropriate — in situations where straight youth are not,” Wiener added on social media. “This discrimination destroys lives.”


Comments? Approve or disapprove? Insights?
What is going on in Ca? A giant step backwards to ancient Greece?

 
You really don’t get it do you?

Do you not think laws should apply equally to everyone?

That’s what we believe in America.
 
You really don’t get it do you?
You're not helping
Do you not think laws should apply equally to everyone?
I believe there is no basis in Godless nature for equality. If you do then it is nothing more than comforting fiction and lip service. You do not demonstrate you believe in equality.
That’s what we believe in America.
So what was corrected here? You are not explaining anything.


By nature of the forms of intercourse, it is undeniable that the law was discriminatory, treating men who had voluntary vaginal intercourse with a female minor differently to men who had voluntary oral or anal intercourse with a male or female minor. However, this quest for equality makes the deeply flawed assumption that the original law was morally just, making the new law equally just by some form of ethical transitive property.

In reality, the opposite is true.
 
Last edited:
So what was corrected here? You are not explaining anything
not going to explain it to you

look up the actual legislation or any news article about it that isn’t nakedly dishonest right/wing propaganda

how do you think your ignorance of this, feigned or real, helps your position?
 
not going to explain it to you
Unable?
look up the actual legislation or any news article about it that isn’t nakedly dishonest right/wing propaganda

how do you think your ignorance of this, feigned or real, helps your position?
Well it is a discussion forum and you refuse to discuss :cool::poop:

If it is a white hetero male adult then on the offender list and if LBG....not on the offender list so they can check our white privilege. For the good of everybody because they know what is best? Utopians and anybody who sees it all differently is stupid???
 
Here's the relevant information.

The actual bill Newsom just signed:


The relevant part:

"(c) (1) The following persons shall register:
Any person who, since July 1, 1944, has been or is hereafter convicted in any court in this state or in any federal or military court of a violation of Section 187 committed in the perpetration, or an attempt to perpetrate, rape or any act punishable under Section 286, 287, 288, or 289 or former Section 288a, Section 207 or 209 committed with intent to violate Section 261, 286, 287, 288, or 289 or former Section 288a, Section 220, except assault to commit mayhem, subdivision (b) and (c) of Section 236.1, Section 243.4, Section 261, paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 262 involving the use of force or violence for which the person is sentenced to the state prison, Section 264.1, 266, or 266c, subdivision (b) of Section 266h, subdivision (b) of Section 266i, Section 266j, 267, 269, 285, 286, 287, 288, 288.3, 288.4, 288.5, 288.7, 289, or 311.1, or former Section 288a, subdivision (b), (c), or (d) of Section 311.2, Section 311.3, 311.4, 311.10, 311.11, or 647.6, former Section 647a, subdivision (c) of Section 653f, subdivision 1 or 2 of Section 314, any offense involving lewd or lascivious conduct under Section 272, or any felony violation of Section 288.2; any statutory predecessor that includes all elements of one of the above-mentioned offenses; or any person who since that date has been or is hereafter convicted of the attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the above-mentioned offenses.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a person convicted of a violation of subdivision (b) of Section 286, subdivision (b) of Section 287, or subdivision (h) or (i) of Section 289 shall not be required to register if, at the time of the offense, the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor, as measured from the minor’s date of birth to the person’s date of birth, and the conviction is the only one requiring the person to register. This paragraph does not preclude the court from requiring a person to register pursuant to Section 290.006."

So per the bolded, if you otherwise would qualify to be put on the sex offender's list by violating section 289, for example, you now do NOT have to be registered if you're within 10 years of age of the minor. So a 23 year old adult male who violates a 14 year old child according to section 289 of the California penal code does not have to be registered as a sex offender. (if that's the only relevant conviction against that person)

And what's section 289?


"California Penal Code 289 PC describes the felony crime of forcible penetration with a foreign object as penetrating the vagina or anus of a victim using a foreign object by use of force or fear, without their consent.

A conviction is punishable by up to eight years in a state prison. However, if the victim was a minor under 14 years old, then time in prison increases to 12 years.

In most cases, you would also be required to register a sex offender as a tier-three offender described under Penal Code 290 PC."


So if you're 23 and your only violation was sodomizing a 14 year old, then by this law Newsom just signed, you wouldn't have to be registered as a sex offender.
 
Last edited:
Unable?

Well it is a discussion forum and you refuse to discuss :cool::poop:

If it is a white hetero male adult then on the offender list and if LBG....not on the offender list so they can check our white privilege. For the good of everybody because they know what is best? Utopians and anybody who sees it all differently is stupid???
you look kind of silly, you know, right?

you don’t even know what you are talking about here

Don’t understand why you won’t educate yourself.

are you not even curious?

everyone that takes the 15 seconds to see what this legislation really does will see you as getting burned by right-wing propaganda again
 
you look kind of silly, you know, right?

you don’t even know what you are talking about here

Don’t understand why you won’t educate yourself.

are you not even curious?

everyone that takes the 15 seconds to see what this legislation really does will see you as getting burned by right-wing propaganda again
Don’t your hands get sweaty from clutching your pearls all the time?
 
you look kind of silly, you know, right?

you don’t even know what you are talking about here

Don’t understand why you won’t educate yourself.

are you not even curious?

everyone that takes the 15 seconds to see what this legislation really does will see you as getting burned by right-wing propaganda again
Well we both know there are a lot of things a 24 yr old adult male can do that is 14 yr old boy cannot do. The adult can buy alcohol, have a job, drive a car, have money. So it is an unequal relationship and you should know this because you say you believe in equality. :) Adults having sex with minors is statutory rape in most places in America and gets the adult on the offender list, but in Ca it gets a little fuzzy. All the influence of the LBGTQ+ seems to have a destabilizing effect in California and on science. An abasement overall. Another lowering of the bar. Now the judge gets to decide who is on the offender list and who is not? Does that not send up red flags? Minors cannot consent legally to sex with adults. It is a felony. The lesson here is in CA, (and in colleges) anything goes. Including MAPS. Minor attracted persons or pederasts. (n) Lets get pederasts on the LBGTQ+ list!!!
 
Last edited:
you look kind of silly, you know, right?

you don’t even know what you are talking about here

Don’t understand why you won’t educate yourself.

are you not even curious?

everyone that takes the 15 seconds to see what this legislation really does will see you as getting burned by right-wing propaganda again
This is.just you moaning about stuff you dont understand
 
You really don’t get it do you?

Do you not think laws should apply equally to everyone?

That’s what we believe in America.
How can vaginal intercourse between a man and a woman be equal to vaginal intercourse between a man and a man? It cant. You are unable to see the reality of the distinction between man and woman. That is why you pretend men can be women.
Sure we dont get it, its a lie.

Why are you so obsessed with wanting people to have sex at every opportunity?
 
"(c) (1) The following persons shall register:
. . . .
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a person convicted of a violation of subdivision (b) of Section 286, subdivision (b) of Section 287, or subdivision (h) or (i) of Section 289 shall not be required to register if, at the time of the offense, the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor, as measured from the minor’s date of birth to the person’s date of birth, and the conviction is the only one requiring the person to register. This paragraph does not preclude the court from requiring a person to register pursuant to Section 290.006."

. . . .
So if you're 23 and your only violation was sodomizing a 14 year old, then by this law Newsom just signed, you wouldn't have to be registered as a sex offender.
But the judge can still order the offender to register as a sex offender, as stated in the sentence I underlined.
 
But the judge can still order the offender to register as a sex offender, as stated in the sentence I underlined.
Nobody said it did not. The judge has discretion and i am not seeing how any judge would not put a 24 yr old adult man on the offender list for sodomy or even oral sex with a 14 year old boy or girl? What circumstance would prevent to adult male from being put on the offender list?
 
Nobody said it did not.
Crazy Ivan said
. . . .
So if you're 23 and your only violation was sodomizing a 14 year old, then by this law Newsom just signed, you wouldn't have to be registered as a sex offender.
as if that were the summary of the situation and nothing else was relevant.

The judge has discretion and i am not seeing how any judge would not put a 24 yr old adult man on the offender list for sodomy or even oral sex with a 14 year old boy or girl? What circumstance would prevent to adult male from being put on the offender list?
I dunno. I can't imagine it either, but, then again, I don't have much experience with this issue, fortunately.
 
The question is: why isn’t it automatic? You’re a 23 year old who sodomizes a 14 year old, not only should you go to prison for life, you obviously should be automatically out on the sex offenders list.

That this law says it’s not automatic is beyond me.
 
The question is: why isn’t it automatic? You’re a 23 year old who sodomizes a 14 year old, not only should you go to prison for life, you obviously should be automatically out on the sex offenders list.

That this law says it’s not automatic is beyond me.
1. If you could re-write your sentence, "So if you're 23 and your only violation was sodomizing a 14 year old, then by this law Newsom just signed, you wouldn't have to be registered as a sex offender," would you, or are you fine with this as it stands?

2. Seems to me like it should be automatic, too.

3. This source says that that provision for vaginal intercourse has been in place for decades. So Newsome only harmonized that old law for non-vaginal intercourse, treating vag/non-vag the same.
 
You really don’t get it do you?

Do you not think laws should apply equally to everyone?

That’s what we believe.
Next up, a Governor's proclamation saying sex by 8 before it's too late. Along with that, a Newsome sponsored local chapter of the MBLA (Man Boy Love Association).
 
Back
Top