.
.
.
Many "Progressives" bristle when it's said that, "ONLY one political Party has consistently tabled bills that would lower the age of consent, decriminalize certain deviant sex acts and protect pedophiles....and YES, sadly that's the Democrats."
However, that is undeniably true.
While Red Alabama looks to mandate chemical castration for pedarists, many Blue state Legislatures look to lower, or eliminate age of consent laws.
As an example, California's Democrat legislature passed a bill, SB-145 that some have charged would, "protect pedophiles."
Snopes called the charge that SB-145 was a "pro-pedophile bill" "MOSTLY UNTRUE."
WHY?
Well, existing California law permits individuals convicted of having non-forcible vaginal intercourse with a minor (within certain age parameters) to seek discretionary relief in court from automatically having to register as sex offenders. SB-145 extends that exception to people convicted of having non-forcible oral or anal sex with a minor.
While SB-145 wouldn't shield anyone from the requirement of registering as a sex offender, it would leave that decision, in "eligible cases," to the discretion of the presiding judge.
There were two ways to go with SB-145, one would be to look at the existing exception as wrong, but they chose the other...EXPANDING that exception and they just happened to expand it in a way that permits favor.
FACT is the charge against California's SB-145 is actually Mostly TRUE.
Many have argued that, "age of consent laws were much lower, or non-existent in the 19th Century."
Yes, we've evolved from the days when farm families Married off daughters as young as 14 so a large farm family could be groomed.
Today we do not enforce contracts for those under 18. They are considered not to have developed adult judgment. That's the primary reason for modern age of consent laws.
With most of the media leaning Left, they have generally backed the Democrat's position on the matter.
Often outlets take issue with the few cases where 18 y/o boys are charged as sex offenders for sexual relations with their 16 y/o girlfriends, as this article does (https://rewire.news/…/legislating-teen-sex-age-consent-law…/). Many, like this article are written by women, so as to make the appearance of males looking to lower the age of consent less obvious.
More telling is that even in the above article, Martha Kempner had to acknowledge that, "Now, in fairness, neither of these boys went to jail just for having sex with an underage girl, there were aggravating circumstances – one punched his girlfriend’s father and both violated judges’ orders to stay away from the girls."
Oh yes, there's all that, which hardly induces much sympathy for her lament that, "While the young men were teenagers themselves, at 18 the law considered them adults, whereas their girlfriends at 14 and 15 were under the legal age of consent."
SHOCKER! Law protects 14 and 15 y/o girls from sex with adults!
Yes, the age of consent is 18.
Again, there are two possible solutions to this, one would be raising the age of consent to 20, or 21, the other is lowering, or eliminating the age of consent.
Why reflexively argue for the latter?
Why even take issue at all. Most states treat males under 21, with younger girlfriends differently than those over 21...UNLESS they slug Dad, violate court orders, or transport a minor across state lines and such.
That's why the charge against "Progressives," as being "pedophile friendly" is actually Mostly TRUE.
.
