Judge: No credible evidence underage sex always harmful

Witchita Eagle ^ | 2/9/6 | ROXANA HEGEMAN

[MineralMan]

I'm commenting on this article...as posted. Did you read it?

[Galveston Grl]

We need to act before the judge dies. We need to stop these activist judges and their liberal minions with political and social action.

[MineralMan]

In Kansas, actually, common law marriages are legal when the girl is just 12...even now. Here's some more information:

"In addition to statutory law, Kansas is one of the few states in the union that recognizes Common Law Marriages. The age required for Common Law Marriage in Kansas is lower than that required for a statutory marriage by K.S.A.23-106, above. For Common Law Marriage, the female must only be 12 years old, the male 14."

[jwalsh07]

Certainly. What's more I've read the Kansas law, the Tenth Circuits reasons for the overruling of Judge Marten's injunction and scads of posts stating that the main issue of the court case is consensual sex between kids under 16.

Of course that isn't the main issue in the case, the 10th Circuit has already slapped down the activist Martens and you have yet to post the millions of kids prosecuted for having some kind of consensual sex when both are under 16.

Why is that?

[MineralMan]

"you have yet to post the millions of kids prosecuted for having some kind of consensual sex when both are under 16.

Why is that?"

---

Because I have no reason to do so. I'm commenting on the article, not prosecutions in Kansas.

[jwalsh07]

Because I have no reason to do so. I'm commenting on the article, not prosecutions in Kansas.

:-} Whatever.

[Oztrich Boy]

Since the law was passed in 1982, there must have been millions of prosecutions of consensual sex between two kids under 16. Why don't you find us one

Irrelevant. What is under examination is

a 2003 opinion issued by Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline's opinion requiring health care providers and others to tell authorities about consensual sex by underage youths.

[MineralMan]

Whatever....yes....well, here's what the Kansas Attorney General said, as quoted in the article:

---

Assistant Attorney General Scott Hesse, who is representing Foulston in the lawsuit, said in his closing arguments that Kansas is looking out for the health of its children through the statute, which falls under its child protection laws.

"It is a crime to have sex with minors and it is a crime for minors under 16 to have sex. ... Since it is a crime, it is also a cause for mandatory reporters to report the crime," Hesse said. "

---

When the Attorney General says it's a crime for teenagers to fool around with each other, and when a D.A. thinks it's a crime to fondle, then we have a problem. That you do not see the problem is not my concern.

[MarcusTulliusCicero]

I agree. The legislature, as many state legislatures (and the federal one, as well) passed a very vague statute. It is done purposely for just this reason - i.e. they get to hold a press conference in which they claim to have solved some big problem when they've really just tap-danced around the edges. If the legislature had truly meant to solve the problem, they could easily have produced a clearly worded statute. But that would have required they actually take a stand and that would mean they might offend one constituency group or another. So the statute gets tossed to some judge who is supposed to consult a crystal ball to figure out the intent of the legislators when they crafted their vague statute.

From this article (and it doesn't give a whole lot of detail on the state attorney's presentation, just the writer's interpretation of the judge's reaction to it!) it would appear that the state's arguments are of the "everybody knows it" variety rather than actual fact. If consentual sex among minors is harmful, it should be relatively easy to produce studies or statistics demonstrating that. For the judge to ask the state to do so doesn't seem to me to be unreasonable or to smack of some hidden pedophilic motive.

[kenth]

And slavery used to be legal also.

I was just about to pose that same analogy. Just because something was once legal, or not explicitly illegal, doesn't mean it's right.

[GrandEagle]

Now that is the most well-put narrative I've seen. I agree.
(You can take that (my agreement) and a buck and a half, and get a cup of coffee - but none the less, I agree)

Cordially,
GE

[Galveston Grl]

Oh my goodness... In New Hampshire it is illegal to walk with your shoes untied. The point being - common law "marriage" would require a 12 and 14 year old to live together outside of marriage and that just does not happen now a days so it is not a legal issue. In New Hampshire they don't prosecute or arrest the man with his shoe untied even though it is on the law books.

[Semper Paratus]

How would the judge feel if a 45 year old asked his 12 year old grandaughter over for a sleep-over?

[Oztrich Boy]

How would the judge feel if a 45 year old asked his 12 year old grandaughter over for a sleep-over?

And that is an inevitable consequence if 15 year olds are not permitted to grope?

[MineralMan]

Lots of things are formally illegal, but not prosecuted...until someone wants to prosecute for some reason.

For example, it's illegal in Kansas for kids under 16 to have sex with each other. Everyone knows it's going on, but there aren't prosecutions for this.

Ah...but, when the Mayor of Salina catches his 15-year-old daughter having sex with the 15-year-old son of a sharecropper, the law suddenly has someone to prosecute. That's a hypothetical case, of course, but similar things have happened many times across this country.

That's why vague, "unenforced" laws need to be taken off the books. They're "unenforced" until it's convenient for someone to use them to enforce some other agenda.

Now, you may think, as does the DA mentioned in the article, that some pimply faced boy feeling up his girlfriend is a crime. I don't think that way. But, under this law, a prosecution could take place. I'd hope the jury would laugh the case out of court, but you never know.

Think back on your teen years. Did you do anything you could have been prosecuted for while you were a teenager?

[Oztrich Boy]

D'oh!

That should be And that is an inevitable consequence if 15 year olds are permitted to grope?

[Busywhiskers]

"no credible evidence that underage sex is always harmful."

Is this supposed to be a legal test? The question ought to be If the judge isn't a complete moron, he is certainly well on his way.

[Galveston Grl]

I did not address what I think about boys "feeling up" girls. This case is not about feeling up girls. It is about libeals muddying the waters on what was intended by the law - to protect other people's children from sexual secrets with amoral government officials and child molestors.

[MineralMan]

"I did not address what I think about boys "feeling up" girls. This case is not about feeling up girls. It is about libeals muddying the waters on what was intended by the law - to protect other people's children from sexual secrets with amoral government officials and child molestors."

Read the article. I'm writing about the article. Anything else is another discussion.

[Jim Noble]

But the question the judge is considering is whether the people of Kansas, acting through their representatives, really determined the State should concern itself with a couple of 15 year olds getting to second base.

And how, pray tell, would a judge determine such a thing?

I mean, by using the legitimate tools of a judge, acting within his constitutional powers.