Hot on the heels of California Governor Gavin Newsom signing a new law regarding sex offender roles into effect, conservative wonks and the generally hysterical have accused him and the state of California of legalizing pedophilia. Spoiler alert: that is not the case.
Openly gay Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener sponsored the bill, known as SB 145, in the legislature. The legislation relates to a judge’s discretion on whether or not to add someone convicted of sodomy with a minor to the sex offender roles. Prior to the passage of SB 145, judges could decide whether to place a man on the registry if he had consensual intercourse with someone age 14-17 and was not more than 10 years older than the other person. That discretion, however, pertained only to vaginal intercourse.
Related: Meet the guy who hopes to become California’s first openly bisexual state legislator
In other words, the Washington Examiner reports, the law had a double standard for men committing heterosexual sodomy as opposed to homosexual sodomy. SB 145 ended that inequity by extending a judge’s discretion regarding sex offender rolls to all forms of sodomy, thus eliminating the preferential treatment of heterosexual offenders.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
“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,” Sen. Wiener explained on social media. “This discrimination destroys lives.”
Needless to say, Sen. Weiner’s words go unheeded by critics of SB 145 who claim the new law somehow legalizes pedophilia. It doesn’t. The statutes prohibiting sex with minors remain firmly in place, and have not changed. The new law relates only to placing a convicted statutory rapist on the list of sex offenders. Rather, it eliminates the harsher penalties for same-sex offenders.
Catholicslutbox
10 years seems like a large gap, regardless of orientation.
I can wrap my head around 16/17, it’s the aoc in some states, but 14/15? That’s too young, even for those of the same age. Some are barely hitting puberty…
The U.K. aoc was 16 for heterosexual relations but 18 for homosexual until 2000…
jayhalleaux
Age of consent is still 18 in California. A 24 year old sleeping with a 14 year old is still a crime. It just leaves placing an offender into the sex registry at the discretion of the judge. If the minor states that it was done with their consent weight will be given and we may not putting someone permanently on the registry.
Liquid Silver
Well, at least it’s consistent, if not sensible.
controversial2019
“Prior to the passage of SB 145, judges could decide whether to place a man on the registry if he had consensual intercourse with someone age 14-17 and was not more than 10 years older than the other person.”
Here in the UK, we have “statutory rape”. That is where someone has sad with a minor and the minor was a willing participant. We call it statutory rape because the law says that’s if you’re a minor, the sex cannot be consensual (you are “too young” to know what you’re consenting to thus you cannot consent).
Is it not the same in the US? The way they use “consensual” makes it seem like they accept that the minor can “consent”?
14 and 23 is very different; I’m surprised that the range is 10 years and that the age starts so low. One can argue that a 17yo, one day off their 18th, is no different to an 18yo and so willingly having intercourse with an 18 or 19yo is “no big deal” (though still illegal), but to say that “discretion” is available for a 23yo having intercourse with a 14yo seems ridiculous. That minor is 4years away from being legal, that adult is far too old.
I think I’ve heard before that some states have it where if the minor is 16 or 17 and the offender is <2yo older then it is “accepted” (and I don’t think many people would really have an issue with a 17 and 19yo), but this California one seems a bit broad and worrying.
BaltoSteve
Ah.. I think i can see the confusion. The law concerns the sentencing portion, not the charges themselves. Think on this. A 23 cis man goes to an 18+ event, meets a very well developed (physically) 15 year old cis girl who says she is 18. He takes her home and she consents to have sex. Her parents find out. They bring charges against him. He goes to trial, found guilty and charged with statutory rape. During the sentencing, the judge takes into account the fact he met her at an 18+ event, she admits to giving consent, and she admits having said she was 18. The judge has the discretion to NOT have him registered as a sexual offender. He is still charged, but is not on the sexual offenders’ database. However, prior to this, with the same ages and circumstances, but they are both the same gender, registering as a sexual offender was automatic during sentencing. This change gives the judges uniform discretion during the sentencing portion.
controversial2019
@BaltoSteve
I completely get the making it equal bit, I just felt that the age range was a bit wide to give discretion on.
I was coming at it from a blinkered “If a 23yo is choosing to do it, knowingly, with a 14yo, there shouldn’t be the chance of discretion” – and I guess this law still allows for that, but I’m hoping that in such circumstances discretion would not be granted.
But now that you’ve mentioned it, it makes sense that there will be times when someone might be led to believe that the minor is not a minor (such as in your example) and thus discretion would be reasonable.
I think Americans generally look more mature (physically) than Brits too. My partner and I have seen on numerous occasions news stories or documentaries or articles where the person is (e.g.) 14 and had you asked us their age we’d have said 19 because they look how our 19yo look. So with that in mind, it makes more sense.
Thanks BaltoSteve 🙂