Openly Gay Alabama Lawmaker Threatens To 'Out' Colleagues' Extramarital Affairs

[Adam]

I'm comfortable with the definitions currently in the law, as long as there are so-called "Romeo and Juliet" provisions.

Please tell me that doesn't mean "suicide pact."

[Celeste Chalfonte]

Please tell me that doesn't mean "suicide pact."

No, what relevance would that have? R&J laws are designed to correct for the vengeful parent factor. Before such laws, if a 16-year-old girl and her 17-year-old boyfriend were having sex, and they had it again on his 18th birthday, it instantly became statutory rape. Of course, the girl didn't complain. The parent who had been pissed off about them screwing took the opportunity to ruin the boy's life by hauling him up on a sex offense that would stay with him the rest of his life. Romeo and Juliet laws generally hold that if the kids are within 3 - 4 years of the same age, the fact that one is still a minor while the other technically an adult doesn't change consensual sex into rape.

[Adam]

No, what relevance would that have? R&J laws are designed to correct for the vengeful parent factor. Before such laws, if a 16-year-old girl and her 17-year-old boyfriend were having sex, and they had it again on his 18th birthday, it instantly became statutory rape. Of course, the girl didn't complain. The parent who had been pissed off about them screwing took the opportunity to ruin the boy's life by hauling him up on a sex offense that would stay with him the rest of his life. Romeo and Juliet laws generally hold that if the kids are within 3 - 4 years of the same age, the fact that one is still a minor while the other technically an adult doesn't change consensual sex into rape.

Well, to be perfectly frank, I was trying for a little humor. Oh well. If you have to explain the joke....


But, I am glad for the clarification on "Romeo & Juliet" provisions. I've never actually heard them called that before.

[phillygirl]

I'm comfortable with the definitions currently in the law, as long as there are so-called "Romeo and Juliet" provisions.

Agreed. I threw off a prosecutor at a seminar about 10 years back when I questioned him on what would happen if the female was the older of the two. This was before all the "hot for teacher" stories that we have in the news. I could see it had never dawned on him that the female could be the older and that he wasn't necessarily comfortable with prosecuting her in that context.

[80zephyr]

I'm comfortable with the definitions currently in the law, as long as there are so-called "Romeo and Juliet" provisions.

Are you OK with this one?

New Hampshire The age of consent is sixteen. With parental consent and the consent of the judge, males can marry at age fourteen and females can marry at age thirteen. Common law marriage is not recognized. - See more at: http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/s....XFGj3fBc.dpuf

Mark

[Celeste Chalfonte]

Are you OK with this one?

New Hampshire The age of consent is sixteen. With parental consent and the consent of the judge, males can marry at age fourteen and females can marry at age thirteen. Common law marriage is not recognized. - See more at: http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/s....XFGj3fBc.dpuf

Mark

I don't live in New Hampshire. I don't know what circumstance prompted their lawmakers to choose those ages. The law could be left over from a time when customs were diffferent. Or it could be due to a specific population they have.

13-year-olds and 14-year-olds have consensual sex. I would oppose anyone forcing a 13-year-old to marry a 30-year-old, but I also thought it was stupid to prosecute that South American peasant who married the 14-year-old he had been betrothed to (with both her consent and her parents') before they immigrated (legally, AFAIK) to the US.

When I was 15, I dated a boy from a farm outside Grundy, VA. He wanted to get married and his parents thought it was a great idea. Needless to say, I didn't and neither did my parents, but his family and just about everyone around them were farmers and had married at 15 (give or take a year) since time immemorial. They were, by the way, white Americans who had lived there in the mountains for as far back as the US Census goes.

Now, do I want a 14-year-old in MY family getting married? Hell no! Is it inherently wrong? Only if it's coerced.

[phillygirl]

I don't live in New Hampshire. I don't know what circumstance prompted their lawmakers to choose those ages. The law could be left over from a time when customs were diffferent. Or it could be due to a specific population they have.

13-year-olds and 14-year-olds have consensual sex. I would oppose anyone forcing a 13-year-old to marry a 30-year-old, but I also thought it was stupid to prosecute that South American peasant who married the 14-year-old he had been betrothed to (with both her consent and her parents') before they immigrated (legally, AFAIK) to the US.

When I was 15, I dated a boy from a farm outside Grundy, VA. He wanted to get married and his parents thought it was a great idea. Needless to say, I didn't and neither did my parents, but his family and just about everyone around them were farmers and had married at 15 (give or take a year) since time immemorial. They were, by the way, white Americans who had lived there in the mountains for as far back as the US Census goes.

Now, do I want a 14-year-old in MY family getting married? Hell no! Is it inherently wrong? Only if it's coerced.

And we agree again. Quite frankly, if a 13 and 15 year old have sex, and one gets impregnated and they want to marry, and their parents agree, I have no problem with it. The chances of the father being involved with the mother and child are increased under that scenario, and therefore the whole family will be better off in the long run. Would I want my child to do so? No. But I would encourage, if the baby was going to be kept rather than adopted, that the teenagers try to keep some kind of relationship going.

[scott]

Living heirs to challenge.

Ah.

I thought it was because she wouldn't take a cheap settlement (that still allowed her a VERY lavish lifestyle).

[phillygirl]

Ah.

I thought it was because she wouldn't take a cheap settlement (that still allowed her a VERY lavish lifestyle).

No. If you're going to go for the big, nearly dead, fish....check out the heir situation, especially when the wheelchair is only for comfort, not because he's completely dead in that region. Have to do a real risk benefit analysis.

[80zephyr]

I don't live in New Hampshire. I don't know what circumstance prompted their lawmakers to choose those ages. The law could be left over from a time when customs were diffferent. Or it could be due to a specific population they have.

13-year-olds and 14-year-olds have consensual sex. I would oppose anyone forcing a 13-year-old to marry a 30-year-old, but I also thought it was stupid to prosecute that South American peasant who married the 14-year-old he had been betrothed to (with both her consent and her parents') before they immigrated (legally, AFAIK) to the US.

When I was 15, I dated a boy from a farm outside Grundy, VA. He wanted to get married and his parents thought it was a great idea. Needless to say, I didn't and neither did my parents, but his family and just about everyone around them were farmers and had married at 15 (give or take a year) since time immemorial. They were, by the way, white Americans who had lived there in the mountains for as far back as the US Census goes.

Now, do I want a 14-year-old in MY family getting married? Hell no! Is it inherently wrong? Only if it's coerced.

You seem to have looser morals than I thought. Is there anything that should be illegal in your eyes?

Mark

[phillygirl]

You seem to have looser morals than I thought. Is there anything that should be illegal in your eyes?

Mark

People getting married is immoral?

[Adam]

The very best thing that can possibly happen with this forthcoming Supreme Court ruling is that they declare that marriage is the sole purview of the states and that there is nothing in the Constitution about marriage at all, and therefore the federal government may have nothing whatsoever to do with marriage at all under any circumstances.

The ramifications of such a ruling would be absolutely fantastic. Best thing that will have happened to this country in 100 years or more.



And if that means that Connecticut lets 8-year-olds marry ten-year-olds or lets Utah have marriages between three men and eleven women, then so be it. That's their problem, not mine.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

You seem to have looser morals than I thought. Is there anything that should be illegal in your eyes?

Mark

Oh, horrors, Philly, pipsqueak thinks we're women of loose morals! And me all out of damns to give.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

The very best thing that can possibly happen with this forthcoming Supreme Court ruling is that they declare that marriage is the sole purview of the states and that there is nothing in the Constitution about marriage at all, and therefore the federal government may have nothing whatsoever to do with marriage at all under any circumstances.

The ramifications of such a ruling would be absolutely fantastic. Best thing that will have happened to this country in 100 years or more.



And if that means that Connecticut lets 8-year-olds marry ten-year-olds or lets Utah have marriages between three men and eleven women, then so be it. That's their problem, not mine.

It's always a crapshoot to try to predict what the Supreme Court will do, but I read an excellent analysis that said Roberts will write the opinion and use the "rational basis" test, thus limiting the scope of application. They really can't kick it back to the states, since they've allowed federal court findings to stand in several of the cases, AND Supreme Court precedent already establishes marriage as a fundamental right.

Actually, to rule that way (that states can't prohibit equal marriage rights) would be a very conservative decision. Most states'-righters miss the the 4 words after "to the states...." They are, IIRC, "or to the people." That doesn't mean "to the electorate, which gets to decide what rights their neighbors have." It means that if the government is not specifically given the power to do something, that power ("right") belongs to the individual. Because the founders were all about individual liberty.

ETA: The part from "Actually, " on is mine, not part of the analysis I mentioned.

[Adam]

It's always a crapshoot to try to predict what the Supreme Court will do, but I read an excellent analysis that said Roberts will write the opinion and use the "rational basis" test, thus limiting the scope of application. They really can't kick it back to the states, since they've allowed federal court findings to stand in several of the cases, AND Supreme Court precedent already establishes marriage as a fundamental right.

And the Supreme Court has reversed its own decisions before.

I'm not making some sort of prediction here, but I am pointing out declaring something "precedent" in the Supreme Court is probably useless. In my observation, the Supreme Court doesn't typically take up decisions that it's already made unless it's re-considering the basis of those decisions.

Actually, to rule that way (that states can't prohibit equal marriage rights) would be a very conservative decision.

Of course it would be. It would be recognizing the Tenth Amendment for a change and not pretending that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't just say "states are hereby abolished."

Most states'-righters miss the the 4 words after "to the states...." They are, IIRC, "or to the people." That doesn't mean "to the electorate, which gets to decide what rights their neighbors have." It means that if the government is not specifically given the power to do something, that power ("right") belongs to the individual. Because the founders were all about individual liberty.

ETA: The part from "Actually, " on is mine, not part of the analysis I mentioned.

But the electorate gets to make the decisions about the state or the locality. Sure, rights devolve to the individual, and in MOST circumstances that will be the case: what sort of house to build, what sort of car to drive, etc. are individual decisions, but what the speed limits are on the streets and things like where and how and when school goes on. No one who is a big believer in states' rights ignores that latter portion; it's just that we understand that it doesn't actually mean what you're claiming it to mean.