all 37 comments

[–]MezozoicGay 18 insightful - 4 fun18 insightful - 3 fun19 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

They are finally starting implementing their main plan?

[–][deleted] 19 insightful - 2 fun19 insightful - 1 fun20 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

ok from my reading, this is having sex offenders who sodomize or force sodomy, have oral sex with genitalia and the anus or force oral sex, as well as commit sexual penetration or force it, not have to register as any tier sex offender if it’s 1. their first offense 2. if there is 10 years or less between victim and perpetrator. UHHHHHHHH is this legit?

additionally is the red crossed out bits about global tracking of offenders things that were going to be passed in this bill and have been edited out, or are they cancellations of existing policy?

[–]joeytundra[S] 13 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

It's legit and this senator is putting it back up. He's also claiming it somehow discriminates against the LGBT?

[–][deleted] 18 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 0 fun19 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

holy shit this is a mess and one fucked up perspective...

The issue in question concerns how the law views different types of sex crimes involving minors. Under existing law, illegal sexual relations between a teenager age 15 and over and a partner within 10 years of age do not automatically require the offender to go onto the sex offender registry if the offense in question involves vaginal intercourse

So because we let men have "dubious consensual sex" with female children, we have to open the door to everyone? holy hot shit, a 24 year old and a 15 isn't necessarily assumed wrong or illegal? never moving to California. Knowing this, it really sets the perspective that they are working towards making pedophilia legal, or at least, less punished.

**Edit "disproportionately targets LGBT young people for mandatory sex offender registration since LGBT people usually cannot engage in vaginal intercourse" There's a B and an L in that acronym. T doesn’t describe what parts they have or how theyre using them. The laws talk about sexual penetration, not intercourse. why is he referring to a law about having sex with children as intercourse?

[–]slushpilot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

penetration, not intercourse. why is he referring to a law about having sex with children as intercourse

Good point, "inter-" implies a mutual exchange.

[–]MurkyMilk 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

"Intercourse" is just a dry, technical sounding term for "sex". 15-year-olds certainly do this, as much as we hate it.

[–]slushpilot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yes, when they are close to the same age of course. Otherwise it's not really mutual because of the age/power dynamic, and using that word is implying the wrong thing. It's a euphemism trying to hide the nature of the relationship.

[–]MurkyMilk 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, but "intercourse" implies nothing beyond PIV and some movement. It doesn't imply anything about age or consent or anything else. It's a word that can be used when someone has sex with a horse. So your concern is unwarranted here.

[–]tuesday 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

omg. that's awful! I bet he's just itching to legalize rape.

[–]nopointdenyingitnow 16 insightful - 2 fun16 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

This very same guy is the original author of SB 132, which, if it passes at the Assembly this month, would allow MtF transwomen to be incarcerated in women's prisons purely on the basis of self-id (NO efforts to transition being relevant).

I just gotta brag, 'cause I been at this for hours: I've left detailed messages about SB 132 with fifty-five California Assembly members' secretaries (out of eighty total Assembly members). That's not even counting the, uh, like 50-or-so answering machines I left messages on.

[–]BEB 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)


[–]vitunrotta 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

WOW. A round of applause for you! Hell hath no fury like a woman who wants justice. Great job.

[–]Shinjin_Nana 14 insightful - 5 fun14 insightful - 4 fun15 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

What is it with dudes named Weiner that want to creep on kids? First anthony and now scott.

I have my eye on them.

[–]RedditExPat69 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

the far-right was spot-on about all of this being a slippery slope and where it would lead us.

[–]lairacunda 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

By "this" you mean what exactly? Gay marriage? The decriminalization of gay sex? The far-right has been saying that about almost everything LGB for a long time. Usually they are wrong.

[–]RedditExPat69 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

'this' being that "up next will be the normalization of pedophilia".

Spot. On.

[–]lairacunda 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The far-right is wrong about a lot of things. Historically it is also wrong about the LGB Liberation movement which it has opposed since its inception. Also, they are opposed to trans but for the wrong reasons. The irony here is that the trans agenda is inherently conservative because it enshrines sex-based stereotypes just like the far right and the religious right. What the right wants and what radical feminists want are at opposite ends. You're basically arguing that decriminalizing SSA led to pedophilia. That is insanely homophobic and ignores that most pedophiles are men who prey on girls.

[–]RedditExPat69 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm not arguing anything. I'm just pointing out that their prediction was correct.

[–]LasagnaRossa 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Conservatives make many prophecies, and some of them turned out true, that's it.

[–]jet199 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It wasn't really a far right idea, more a religious conservative one. A lot of the far right are gay so they aren't going to be speaking against their own interests.

[–]RedditExPat69 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

fair and good point. The louder the complaints about the evil gays, the more likely the complainer is a pillow biter himself.

[–]BEB 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Scott Wiener, and his wingwoman, Toni Atkins, are a clear and present danger to women's rights in the state of California.

Between the two of them they have also managed to browbeat, bribe or threaten the California state legislature enough to pass laws that are incredibly damaging to public health and free speech.

Wiener is behind the law that lessens the punishment to a misdeameanor for KNOWINGLY infecting someone with HIV.

And also the law that allows men to self-identify as women and access women's nursing home and longterm care facilities.

Wiener is also behind the law that makes mis-gendering punishable by a year in jail and(or?) a $1000 fine.

And he's a Democrat who claims to represent LGBTQ+++

According to an expose of Wiener's donors by a California housing organization, Wiener gets money from Gilead Sciences, the makers of Truvada, the HIV prophylactic.

Gilead Sciences also sponsors the transgender march on Washington DC.

So Wiener seems to be knee deep in transgender lobby funding. Let's hope that California voters wake up and get him and Atkins out.

Actually the whole Democratic contingent of the California state legislature needs to be voted out because not one (that I can think of) stands up for women against Trans, Inc.

[–]MurkyMilk 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Wiener is also behind the law that makes mis-gendering punishable by a year in jail and(or?) a $1000 fine.

Jesus Christ! This is a literal thoughtcrime. WTF!

[–]worried19 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Wiener is also behind the law that makes mis-gendering punishable by a year in jail and(or?) a $1000 fine.

Where is this a law? In California?

[–]BEB 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Yes, the misgendering law is in California with a one year in jail or (and?) a $1000 fine.

But there's also a misgendering law in New York City, with a $250,000 fine.

I have been told by a First Amendment (Free Speech) lawyer that it wouldn't stand up in court, but the California state legislature went ahead and passed it anyway, and then Democratic Governor Brown signed it into law.

When I called to, very politely, protest the misgendering law, Governor Brown's office hung up on me.

[–]worried19 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Is this the one?

This is in an employment context. Thank God it doesn't appear to be aimed at the population at large. Although I'm sure they would do that if they thought they could get away with it. Still it's fucking ridiculous to threaten employees with jail time or fines. In order to test it to fight it, there need to be people who don't mind losing their jobs for a political cause. This would not go over well if the general public knew about it.

[–]BEB 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, that's the law.

Yes, of course the trans lobby deliberately starts its assault on free speech on people who can't afford to lose their jobs and yes, only the Conservative press reported on it (that I saw.)

[–]tuesday 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Weiner sounds like a grade A creep.

[–]BEB 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I can't even begin to tell you what a creep Scott Wiener is, and how insulting his office, and many offices of the California state Democrats are when you call them to tell them to stop attacking women's rights.

Toni Atkins, his partner in crime in many of these transgender demands bills, is a lesbian. Obviously a self-hating lesbian.

But between them they seem to have California state Democrats under their thumbs.

[–]Eurowoman24 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

so it's ok for a 15 year old to hook up with a 25 year old? no sane adult would be interested in a kid. Too lazy to read the whole thing how exactly is this a disadvantage for LGBT people? is this the new equivalent of pulling out the race card/calling something racist every two seconds?

[–][deleted] 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It looks like in a lot of his policy changes on Wikipedia he believes is stopping the government from singling out people. So if you knowingly infect someone with HIV and they don't know or consent to it, according to the state of California, you're being discriminated against because you have HIV. This again is insinuating people with HIV have unsafe sex frequently to the point of spreading the infection.

A lot of his policies seem focused on sex laws which is concerning.

"In 2017, Wiener originated three bills centered around HIV and LGBT issues. He co-authored Senate Bill 239, which lowered the penalty of exposing someone to HIV without their knowledge and consent from a felony to a misdemeanor.[52] Wiener said that the laws had unfairly singled out HIV-positive people.[53] The bill passed and was signed by Governor Jerry Brown on October 6, 2017.[54]"

The Wikipedia also says that saying this bill support pedophiles is a QAnon conspiracy theory, despite many law firms taking stances against it. It's not a conspiracy theory to see how these laws hurt the youth, and it doesn't take many heads put together to see that maybe California shouldn't have laws that 10 years of difference between a minor and an offender if it means they depend on the will of the judge to have them marked a sex offender even when convicted. This is a let down to all youth who have been victims. Also his wikipedia said he was taking a drug that helps prevent HIV infections in his earlier political career to help stop negative views about it. If you dont need the medicine, why are you even taking it?! just having the money to splurge?

[–]MurkyMilk 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

so it's ok for a 15 year old to hook up with a 25 year old? no sane adult would be interested in a kid.

Well, I keep reading (especially right here on GC) that people's brains aren't mature until age 25 or even higher. There is almost always a strange, unspoken insinuation that the age of consent should probably be raised to 25, but of course this has a corollary, too -- that 18-25 year olds are not adults.

[–]Eurowoman24 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I remember being those ages and even at 21 I had no interest in 12 year olds. It's sinister and speaks to a more sinister agenda in my book

[–]BEB 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

TBH I've never seen anyone suggest that the age of consent be raised to 25. I think people are mentioning 25 because it's relatively recent research that found that the human brain keeps developing until then. Before people were thought to have fullly-matured brains in their late teens, then early twenties.

I think people who have grown children (and those who remember their own lives honestly) can see that human beings do really stupid things throughout their lives, but youth is usually the extra-special dumb time. Especially adolescence because of the hormonal and body changes.

No matter what, Scott Wiener is a woman-hating creep.

[–]Eurowoman24 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

it's true people's brain and personality isn't fully mature and for personality basically set in stone till around 25. I don't know about raising the age of consent but insinuating that a 5,8,10 year difference between partners is completely ok at that stage of life is ludicrous.

[–]LucasAlolu 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It is more what I call "Adulteen"(or in Portuguese "Adultescente"). When the person has all the necessary abilities to live for themself, but yet has problems making serious decisions. The best time to try working in several areas and study before establishing a job, a marriage, etc.

[–]lairacunda 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So they think it's okay for a 20 y.o. to have sex with a 10 y.o.