Harry Leggs
Super Member
So you refuse and instead resort to abuse? Where does the bill mention gays? You made the claim?
Gov Gavin Newsom New Sodomy Reduction Bill Adults With Minors LBGTQ+???
- Thread starter Harry Leggs
- Start date
Lastdaysbeliever
Well-known member
Stumbled on this in the News.
Gov. Newsom signs controversial bill into law reducing penalties for sexual relations with minors
California’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed a controversial new law regarding judges' discretion on whether or not to add individuals to the state’s sex offender registry who have committed sodomy with minors.www.washingtonexaminer.com
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?
Shameful is what it is. And "Wiener"...right...appropriate name for the writer of this abject, debased and deviant law based on another abject, debased deviant law. How more depraved can American society become...
Romans 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Last edited:
So what if they dont identify with the date they were assigned at birth?
Harry Leggs
Super Member
Yup. Do not suppose they would make the ten year gap in the Ca law under discussion. Sounds like a slam dunk for making the sex offender list in Georgia.
What do you want me to do? Do a quick Google search for you?
What would that accomplish?
the purpose of the legislation is clear and obvious
Would need to specify it, the law isnt based on what people feel
Harry Leggs
Super Member
Straight sex results in babies whereas the other type associated with Gay men does not. More often then not a minor girl gets pregnant and daddy is an adult. That may have been the reason for judges discretion. This is from Jan. 2015. It also references a high number of sex offenders in Ca along with living problems. They cannot live in certain areas. It makes their life a living hell. I would leave them on for a limited amount of time and if law abiding remove from the list for certain offenses that are less severe. Say ten yrs on and then off as opposed to a lifetime on the list.
California Supreme Court sex-crime ruling criticized as unfair to gays
The California Supreme Court decided Thursday that adults convicted of engaging in unforced oral sex with minors must register as sex offenders — while those guilty of sexual intercourse with minors may not have to.
www.latimes.com
Gus Bovona
Well-known member
Crazy Ivan
Well-known member
I don't get the question. It seems to me that what I wrote was accurate, based on the reading of the law. I am not a lawyer of course, but it seems like the words in the law hold that if your only violation was sodomizing a 14 year old (if you're 23), then California law doesn't require you to be put on the sex offenders list. I wish it DID require that, because any adult doing anything sexual like that to a minor not only should go to prison, but should obviously be put on a sex offenders registry.
So what am I missing? What are you getting at?
Gus Bovona
Well-known member
I think I explained this in another post, but I'm happy to do it again. Coming at the end of your long-ish post, and prefaced by the word "So," your sentence meant that one could not be put on the sex offenders list. However, judges could still put someone on the list at their discretion through another subsection of the law. So your statement was misleading.
Crazy Ivan
Well-known member
No. It’s just that they’re not *required* to be out on the sex offenders list. They still *could* be, but it’s not required. I already addressed this point when I said that it SHOULD be AUTOMATIC, not the discretion of a judge. I never said they “could not be” (as in the law forbade them to be) on the list. It’s shameful that it’s not automatic.
Gus Bovona
Well-known member
It's OK, it was a small semantic point, as long as you agree that the judge could still put them on the list, and we both agree that it really should be automatic, we're good.