In May Californa Passed SB145

[CodeKansas]

Epstein's Law.

 

[Ezekiel 25:17]

No, currently for 14-17 year olds you can have vaginal sex with other teenagers without going on a sex offenders list. Which makes sense right, we all were fukking around that age. But they felt like it was unfair to LGBT folks because of course they can't have vaginal sex. So they changed the law to include them. Seems pretty fair to me. But this is the coli where nikkas automatically blow a gasket whenever gay issues come up so I'm sure this will be blown out of proportion.

Yeah that's what I figured.

 

[5thbornpowerseed]

These democrats....

 

[True Religion BuddhaMan]

So they block the police brutality bill but pass this

 

[paperbag]

No, currently for 14-17 year olds you can have vaginal sex with other teenagers without going on a sex offenders list. Which makes sense right, we all were fukking around that age. But they felt like it was unfair to LGBT folks because of course they can't have vaginal sex. So they changed the law to include them. Seems pretty fair to me. But this is the coli where nikkas automatically blow a gasket whenever gay issues come up so I'm sure this will be blown out of proportion.

"14-17 year olds with a partner within 10 years of their age" this isnt about 15 year olds having sex with a 17 year old

 

[Macallik86]

I can't make sense of this and I think a lot of folks are over reacting. No way they'll let a 24 mess with a 14 year old and not have him register.

This.

Yet people are posting about 21 year olds sleeping with 11 year olds.

Judges already get are the final say when it comes to vaginal sex. They made the EXACT same rule for anal/oral and now everyone is saying that it is wrong.

KTSE about vaginal sex being ruled on by judges as well or move along. They aren't changing the law, they are making things discretionary across the board instead of just vaginal sex

 

[Tryna Makit]

Sexual deviants trying to normalize being deviants.....LGBTQ...P...the Pedophiles want in on the action

 

[Ducktales]

15? Wtf... the rest are ridiculous as well... 16 and 17 should not be acceptable and are disgusting (and I’m not talking about a 18 and 19 year old messing with 17)...but as young as 15?

Anyone who defends this is a deviant period

 

[Gold]

Did anybody actually read the article?

Breh.. they going the wrong way with this. If anything they should tighten those sex offender laws, not make them more lax.


Who thinks to themselves "oh he raped a minor, but at least it wasnt anal so no problem "

 

[Gold]

I can't make sense of this and I think a lot of folks are over reacting. No way they'll let a 24 mess with a 14 year old and not have him register.

If they only have vaginal sex, no. I mean im going by the letter of the law.

So if you fukking minors vaginally in california... ur not a sex offender

 

[Ezekiel 25:17]

If they only have vaginal sex, no. I mean im going by the letter of the law.

So if you fukking minors vaginally in california... ur not a sex offender

Again, I don't think this is the case, just a misunderstanding. No adult is getting away with sex with a minor

 

[8WON6]

According to Wiener, SB 145 would not change the legality of the forms of intercourse and would not change the potential sentence for having sex with an underage person. Instead, the bill would give judges the ability to evaluate whether the accused be required to register as a sex offender.

letting judges decide when to call somebody a sex offender and not having a hard lined standard seems like it's going to protect these creepy ass cacs. You're gonna have judges only enforces this shyt on certain people.

 

[Macallik86]

Breh.. they going the wrong way with this. If anything they should tighten those sex offender laws, not make them more lax.


Who thinks to themselves "oh he raped a minor, but at least it wasnt anal so no problem "

It should be a max of a 5 year age difference starting @ 15 if you ask me.

But if the basis point is the original law, then there shouldn't be any type of sex that gets a pass while other sex doesn't.

 

[dj-method-x]

"14-17 year olds with a partner within 10 years of their age" this isnt about 15 year olds having sex with a 17 year old

did you read the article posted in the OP?

"Currently, for consensual yet illegal sexual relations between a teenager age 14 to 17 and a partner within 10 years of age, “sexual intercourse” (i.e., vaginal intercourse) does not mandate that the offender to go onto the sex offender registry; rather, the judge has discretion to decide, based on the facts of the case, whether sex offender registration is warranted or unwarranted. By contrast, for all other forms of intercourse — specifically, oral and anal intercourse — sex offender registration is mandated under all situations, with no judicial discretion.

This distinction in the law — which is irrational, at best, as it treats oral and anal sex as somehow worse than penile-vaginal sex — disproportionately targets LGBTQ young people by mandating sex offender registration for forms of intercourse in which they engage. For example, if an 18-year-old straight man has penile-vaginal intercourse with his 17-year-old girlfriend, he is guilty of a crime, but he is not automatically required to register as a sex offender; instead, the judge will decide based on the facts of the case whether registration is warranted. By contrast, if an 18 year old gay man has sex with his 17 year old boyfriend, then the judge *must* place him on the sex offender registry, no matter what the circumstances."

 

[Gold]

It should be a max of a 5 year age difference starting @ 15 if you ask me.

But if the basis point is the original law, then there shouldn't be any type of sex that gets a pass while other sex doesn't.

I agree 1million percent.

It shouldn't be "homosexuals should get away with it too"

It should be, "no one should get away with it"