Blount County AL Youth Minister Arrested on Multiple Rape and Child Abuse Charges

[Aufan59 168]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

SACRAMENTO —  

Discrimination against LGBTQ people in sex crime convictions will be outlawed under a new law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom late Friday evening.

The measure, Senate Bill 145, will amend existing state law that allows judges to decide whether an adult convicted of having vaginal sexual intercourse with a minor should register as a sex offender in cases in which the minor is 14 years or older and the adult is not more than 10 years older than the minor.

Currently, adults who are convicted of having oral or anal sex with a minor under those circumstances are automatically added to the state’s sex offender registry. SB 145 will eliminate automatic sex offender registration in those cases and give judges discretion to make that decision.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-09-11/sb145-sex-crimes-law-gavin-newsom-lgbtq-rights

This is a sticky one.  It allows a judge to determine if they are to be added to the sex registry.  Very close to what you believe is happening in churches.

In Minnesota a proposed bill was struck down:

The bill would amend Minnesota's Human Rights Act, which is described by the state as "one of the strongest civil rights laws in the country." The current Human Rights Act protects against discrimination based on sexual orientation, defined as "having or being perceived as having an emotional, physical, or sexual attachment to another person without regard to the sex of that person or having or being perceived as having an orientation for such attachment, or having or being perceived as having a self-image or identity not traditionally associated with one's biological maleness or femaleness."

The law also includes this caveat: "'Sexual orientation' does not include a physical or sexual attachment to children by an adult." That language would be removed under Finke's proposal.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/transgender-minnesota-lawmaker-introduces-bill-removing-anti-pedophile-language-states-human-rights-act

These developments shows some legislatures are weakening long held stances about pedophilia.  It is just the beginning.

Try reading the California one again, as your synopsis was wrong.  Judges can already determine if sex offender registry is needed in some cases.  It just equalizes vaginal, anal, and oral sex in the eyes of the law.  
 

The Minnesota one has zero impact on any law regarding pedophilia or child abuse.

 

When you said this:

6 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

but now there is legislation being proposed to allow *Minor Attracted People* an avenue to child abuse.

You were lying.  As usual. 
 

[I_M4_AU 8,914]

11 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

Try reading the California one again, as your synopsis was wrong.  Judges can already determine if sex offender registry is needed in some cases.  It just equalizes vaginal, anal, and oral sex in the eyes of the law.  
 

The Minnesota one has zero impact on any law regarding pedophilia or child abuse.

 

When you said this:

You were lying.  As usual. 
 

I said there were proposed laws allowing MAP an avenue to pedophilia, the Minnesota proposal did just that, it didn’t pass.

The California law chips away at a long standing law that protected children.  Now judges can’t automatically add people to the sex registry if the perp was within 10 years of the victim.  That is a weakening of the law.

What are the next steps?

[Aufan59 168]

26 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I said there were proposed laws allowing MAP an avenue to pedophilia, the Minnesota proposal did just that, it didn’t pass.

It did not, you liar.

26 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

 Now judges can’t automatically add people to the sex registry if the perp was within 10 years of the victim.  That is a weakening of the law.

Do you not even read what you post?  The judges already had discretion for vaginal sex, but not for oral or anal sex.  It’s just eliminating old sodomy language that discriminates against lgbtq. 
 

The next steps are for you to copy and paste some more feigned outrage that only proves you don’t even read what you post. 

Edited August 2 by Aufan59

[I_M4_AU 8,914]

3 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

It did not, you liar.

Do you not even read what you post?  The judges already had discretion for vaginal sex, but not for oral or anal sex.  It’s just eliminating old sodomy language that discriminates against lgbtq. 
 

The next steps are for you to copy and paste some more feigned outrage that only proves you don’t even read what you post. 

What? no mention of the perp being within 10 years of the victim?  You didn’t see that part?

If you’re going to call me a liar, at least don’t lie.

[CoffeeTiger 5,860]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

What? no mention of the perp being within 10 years of the victim?  You didn’t see that part?

If you’re going to call me a liar, at least don’t lie.

 

Looks like this helps prevent situations where an 18 year old senior has sex with his 16 year old high school g/f from being automatically added to the sex offender registry. 

It gives judges discretion to apply that punishment where needed and avoid it in situations where it's not required. 

California is already more strict on cases like that as the age of consent in Calif. is 18 (many southern/Republican states have an age of consent of 16), and they don't have any Romeo and Juliet laws.

The California law isn't chipping away at any protections for children. 

 

 

[I_M4_AU 8,914]

9 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

Looks like this helps prevent situations where an 18 year old senior has sex with his 16 year old high school g/f from being automatically added to the sex offender registry. 

It gives judges discretion to apply that punishment where needed and avoid it in situations where it's not required. 

California is already more strict on cases like that as the age of consent in Calif. is 18 (many southern/Republican states have an age of consent of 16), and they don't have any Romeo and Juliet laws.

The California law isn't chipping away at any protections for children. 

 

 

Yeah, that is one way to look at it.  Another is loosening the restrictions.  

[CoffeeTiger 5,860]

10 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yeah, that is one way to look at it.  Another is loosening the restrictions.  

No restrictions are being loosened though. As aufan59 pointed out it’s actually strengthening the law to include lgbtq people and close some loopholes in the law in that regard. 
 

 

 

[I_M4_AU 8,914]

2 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

No restrictions are being loosened though. As aufan59 pointed out it’s actually strengthening the law to include lgbtq people and close some loopholes in the law in that regard. 
 

 

 

The way I read it is the judge now has the authority to decide if a person that has sex with a 14 year old is eligible to be left off of the sex registry if they are within 10 years of age of the victim.  What was an automatic addition to the sex registry is now up to the judge.  How is that not loosening the restriction?

Heaven forbid we hold people accountable.

[Didba 5,502]

Romeo and Juliet laws are fairly common, though 10 years is on the high side. Giving the judge discretion though is really really good and the California law frankly seems very forward thinking in that regard. 

I know in Texas it’s a strict liability crime so you could meet someone who underage, not know it, and will 100% still be convicted. Romeo and Juliet laws keep that from happening. But if I remember correctly in Texas the age difference is only two years. 

[Aufan59 168]

16 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

What? no mention of the perp being within 10 years of the victim?  You didn’t see that part?

If you’re going to call me a liar, at least don’t lie.

What you are describing was already the law in California.  A judge already had discretion.  That did not change.  You are lying by saying that has changed.

 

The new part is equating vaginal, anal and oral sex.  Differentiating between them was an old way to discriminate against LGBTQ. 

 

 

Edited August 3 by Aufan59

[I_M4_AU 8,914]

5 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

What you are describing was already the law in California.  A judge already had discretion.  That did not change.  You are lying by saying that has changed.

 

The new part is equating vaginal, anal and oral sex.  Differentiating between them was an old way to discriminate against LGBTQ. 

 

 

I’m not saying the law changed about a judge having discretion. I’m saying the law changed about allowing a person that has sex with a 14 yo and is less that 10 years older (23) is eligible to be left off of the sex registry at the judges discretion.  10 years is a wide gap and, to me, is pedophilia.  

[Aufan59 168]

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I’m not saying the law changed about a judge having discretion. I’m saying the law changed about allowing a person that has sex with a 14 yo and is less that 10 years older (23) is eligible to be left off of the sex registry at the judges discretion.  10 years is a wide gap and, to me, is pedophilia.  

That did not change.

[I_M4_AU 8,914]

4 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

That did not change.

The measure, Senate Bill 145, will amend existing state law that allows judges to decide whether an adult convicted of having vaginal sexual intercourse with a minor should register as a sex offender in cases in which the minor is 14 years or older and the adult is not more than 10 years older than the minor.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-09-11/sb145-sex-crimes-law-gavin-newsom-lgbtq-rights

 

[Aufan59 168]

15 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The measure, Senate Bill 145, will amend existing state law that allows judges to decide whether an adult convicted of having vaginal sexual intercourse with a minor should register as a sex offender in cases in which the minor is 14 years or older and the adult is not more than 10 years older than the minor.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-09-11/sb145-sex-crimes-law-gavin-newsom-lgbtq-rights

 

Yes, it clearly states it is an existing state law that will be amended. Can you not read?

It amends it to make anal and oral sex treated equal to vaginal sex, eliminating the LGBTQ discrimination in the law.

 

Maybe to make it more clear for those who struggle to read, from your link:

 

“He noted that the 10-year age difference provision in California’s sexual offender registry law has been on the books for decades and said that none of the lawmakers criticizing the bill have attempted to change the law to address judicial discretion in cases involving heterosexual sex with a minor.”

Edited August 3 by Aufan59

[AU9377 5,995]

17 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I said there were proposed laws allowing MAP an avenue to pedophilia, the Minnesota proposal did just that, it didn’t pass.

The California law chips away at a long standing law that protected children.  Now judges can’t automatically add people to the sex registry if the perp was within 10 years of the victim.  That is a weakening of the law.

What are the next steps?

California laws are already much more strict than Alabama laws in that regard.  The age of consent in AL is 16.  Until just a few years ago, it was 14.  California's age of consent has been 18 for a very long time. 

A 26 year old can have consensual sex with a 16 year old in AL.  Those same two having sex in California would result in the 26 year old being charged with statutory rape and being placed on the registry.

[CoffeeTiger 5,860]

54 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

California laws are already much more strict than Alabama laws in that regard.  The age of consent in AL is 16.  Until just a few years ago, it was 14.  California's age of consent has been 18 for a very long time. 

A 26 year old can have consensual sex with a 16 year old in AL.  Those same two having sex in California would result in the 26 year old being charged with statutory rape and being placed on the registry.

According to @I_M4_AU’s above post he must believe that quite a few Republican dominated states have legalized ‘pedophilia’ .

 

 

 

 

[I_M4_AU 8,914]

1 hour ago, Aufan59 said:

Yes, it clearly states it is an existing state law that will be amended. Can you not read?

It amends it to make anal and oral sex treated equal to vaginal sex, eliminating the LGBTQ discrimination in the law.

 

Maybe to make it more clear for those who struggle to read, from your link:

 

“He noted that the 10-year age difference provision in California’s sexual offender registry law has been on the books for decades and said that none of the lawmakers criticizing the bill have attempted to change the law to address judicial discretion in cases involving heterosexual sex with a minor.”

I misinterpreted and thanks for pointing it out.  I still don’t like the 10 year gap, but I don’t live in California.  There seems to be a lot of people, even in California, that doesn’t like it.  All laws are not perfect.

[Aufan59 168]

13 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I misinterpreted and thanks for pointing it out.  I still don’t like the 10 year gap, but I don’t live in California.  There seems to be a lot of people, even in California, that doesn’t like it.  All laws are not perfect.

Now please tell the nice people that you were lying and we can move on.

[I_M4_AU 8,914]

6 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

Now please tell the nice people that you were lying and we can move on.

You’re so gratious, but I don’t think it is necessary.

[auburnatl1 6,108]

14 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

Now please tell the nice people that you were lying and we can move on.

I don’t think he was “lying”, he made a mistake. As soon as many hard line social conservatives see “California” the muscle memory assumption is Sodom and Gomorrah.

[Aufan59 168]

28 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

I don’t think he was “lying”, he made a mistake. As soon as many hard line social conservatives see “California” the muscle memory assumption is Sodom and Gomorrah.

He did this in other threads so I’m assuming it’s a pattern.  
 

Makes a statement, posts “support” for the statement, gets told he doesn’t understand what his “support” actually means, he says whoops but never retracts the original statement.

 

When you’re intentionally spreading lies and then say whoops, how many times can you repeat the pattern before it stops being an innocent mistake?

[Aufan59 168]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

You’re so gratious, but I don’t think it is necessary.

I look forward to your next lies that you unashamedly spread.