So let me guess, somehow if it was the "Justice's" daughter, the fact that she was not married when she was raped would not count?
It’s California.
Seems vaguely Muslim in some way. Unmarried women? [shrug] fair game.
This case is too complex for the Democrat mind. There’s no GBLT angle to it, and the woman was in a bed ~
So let me guess, somehow if it was the "Justice's" daughter, the fact that she was not married when she was raped would not count?
Is this really part of the California criminal statutes? It kind of hard to believe that this little wrinkle has escaped the notice of California’s army of lawyers for all these years.
Insanity. Some of those sitting on that Appellate Court need to be replaced.
I was wondering how she couldn’t immediately tell it was a stranger. I guess she was only half awake. Did he stop immediately once she realized, or what?
The law is inapplicable beccause the legal status of women has changed since 1872. Back then, a woman couldn’t vote, and couldn’t do a lot of business things without being the ward of a man, usually her father or husband. Thus the rape law actually had to do with the rights of the husband over the sexual ownership of his wife, and her status as his legal ward.
Needless to say, those restrictions no longer apply to women, and so this law, which operated in accordance to those restrictions, also cannot apply. If a specific statute is needed, the legalization of women’s right to vote would do, or any other law having to do with the lifting of these restrictions.
This is a purely political ruling by a liberal judge and a defense attorney to continue to promote the concept that women are oppressed in a male-dominated society. It’s an abuse of the judicial seat in order to promulgate a meme lie on behalf of a political party that panders to idiot women.