bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
chemvictim wrote:Since nothing much is going on...prayer in schools.

This one popped up on my facebook feed, it's from near my hometown. The usual comments, blaming satanists and atheists (most do not realize those aren't the same thing). One comment that popped up a lot is if you don't like prayer, just stay home. What do you think about that? This is for a sixth grade graduation, and they cancelled it because someone complained about the praying.



Public School = NO prayer. If they want praying they should have sent their kids to private school. If a private school wants to sacrifice a goat to Odin, I'm just fine with that.

Edit: I hate the concept if sixth grade graduation. How stupid. CONGRATULATIONS YOU MANAGED TO AGE ANOTHER YEAR! just stupid.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

kylemittskus


quality posts: 234 Private Messages kylemittskus
chemvictim wrote:Since nothing much is going on...prayer in schools.

This one popped up on my facebook feed, it's from near my hometown. The usual comments, blaming satanists and atheists (most do not realize those aren't the same thing). One comment that popped up a lot is if you don't like prayer, just stay home. What do you think about that? This is for a sixth grade graduation, and they cancelled it because someone complained about the praying.



Three things:

1) Horribly written article causing some confusion which will be addressed in 3.

2) 6th grade full on graduation ceremony? Not so much.

3) Assuming it's not a private school (article was unclear -- see 1), then there shouldn't be prayer because prayer is faith-specific and as a representation of the "state," the public school should not advocate a single faith-view. If it's private, then it's fine.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

klezman


quality posts: 131 Private Messages klezman
chemvictim wrote:Since nothing much is going on...prayer in schools.

This one popped up on my facebook feed, it's from near my hometown. The usual comments, blaming satanists and atheists (most do not realize those aren't the same thing). One comment that popped up a lot is if you don't like prayer, just stay home. What do you think about that? This is for a sixth grade graduation, and they cancelled it because someone complained about the praying.



Oh, FFS. Would it be so hard to just skip the prayer and move on? Silly question, I know.

2014: 57 bottles. Last wine.woot: 2011 Wellington Cab & Merlot, Roessler 2009 Bluejay, 2010 Bell Cabernet
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim

Thanks for opinions. Not much different from my own...I think if I were a parent I wouldn't make an issue of it, but the community's reaction is kinda crazy. I find it interesting, there is something like a desperate need to have one's faith recognized by the community at large. Reminds me of Wife Swap's God Warrior...

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 188 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
chemvictim wrote:Since nothing much is going on...prayer in schools.

This one popped up on my facebook feed, it's from near my hometown. The usual comments, blaming satanists and atheists (most do not realize those aren't the same thing). One comment that popped up a lot is if you don't like prayer, just stay home. What do you think about that? This is for a sixth grade graduation, and they cancelled it because someone complained about the praying.





Just had to pop in on this.

No prayer in school? Try taking a surprise test without one!!!


Couldn't resist that old one.


But yes, no "Official" prayer, even the "under God" that is in the Pledge. Bring back the Pledge without the UG.


Okay, back to lurking ... end


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
MarkDaSpark wrote:

Just had to pop in on this.

No prayer in school? Try taking a surprise test without one!!!


Couldn't resist that old one.


But yes, no "Official" prayer, even the "under God" that is in the Pledge. Bring back the Pledge without the UG.


Okay, back to lurking ... end



I was going to mention the pre-McCarthy pledge, but figured why bother. I think they should go back to it as well. I actually mentioned to my kids Kindergarten teacher that until around the 50's there was no under god in the pledge, she just looked at me odd.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

rjquillin


quality posts: 189 Private Messages rjquillin

Really unsure what McCarthy has to do with this, as he had nothing to do with "under God", other than the words getting added during that period. Eisenhower signed a bill, introduced by a Michigan Representative, into law on Flag Day, June 14, 1954.

I recall the next school year how we then had difficulty in the phrasing and for some time "under God' was recited with commas before and after. Finally we got it correct with only the trailing comma.

Yes, I remember this from 1955. Can't remember last week, but this I still have vivid memories of; no idea why, some things are just like that it seems.

CT

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
rjquillin wrote:Really unsure what McCarthy has to do with this, as he had nothing to do with "under God", other than the words getting added during that period. Eisenhower signed a bill, introduced by a Michigan Representative, into law on Flag Day, June 14, 1954.

I recall the next school year how we then had difficulty in the phrasing and for some time "under God' was recited with commas before and after. Finally we got it correct with only the trailing comma.

Yes, I remember this from 1955. Can't remember last week, but this I still have vivid memories of; no idea why, some things are just like that it seems.



I had heard, mistakenly it seems, that it was changed because commies wouldn't say under god and thereby out themselves as commies

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj

Firstly, graduations should occur at the end of one’s high school and college education. That’s what graduation means – that’s when you get a degree or diploma. Back in the day, you were "promoted" to the next grade, with no thought of it being a graduation until you, you know, graduated. But I guess those days are gone.

As for the prayers, I’m sure these things have been going on for a long time in many parts of the country and still are. Many towns, such as this one, are heavily Christian (sometimes a single denomination) and everything that happens in the town is imbued with that Christianity, with the schools being a primary focal point. This is the way they’ve always done things, this is the way everyone (well, almost everyone) wants things to be done, the schools are supposed to be under local control darn it, and forcing them to change is a denial of who they are. Unfortunately for them, that’s the law. The Establishment Clause was put into the Constitution for a reason, and we should follow it even if we don’t feel like it.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim

School lays off all the teachers

What in the world is going on here? We all know that blaming teachers for all the world's ills is popular lately, but these teachers even volunteered to work for free. What did they do with all the money?

joelsisk


quality posts: 10 Private Messages joelsisk

kylemittskus


quality posts: 234 Private Messages kylemittskus
joelsisk wrote:and so it begins...



Don't you understand? It takes at least 8 bullets to kill someone; the first 7 just hurt a lot.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 188 Private Messages MarkDaSpark

Drive-by to stir the pot ... Wine, beer and cocktail lovers: Our lifestyle is threatened.

Do we need to lower the BAC? Or keep it the way it is?



Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 234 Private Messages kylemittskus
MarkDaSpark wrote:Drive-by to stir the pot ... Wine, beer and cocktail lovers: Our lifestyle is threatened.

Do we need to lower the BAC? Or keep it the way it is?



I don't know why I didn't post this when I read it last week. It's an issue that I don't think will split us red and blue. I'm not sure it will split us at all, actually. My gut reaction is bad idea, even if it were to save lives, which I'm not sure it will. Not to be crass or cold about lives, but there is a level of absurdity in asking police to be baby sitters instead of protectors. It used to be 1% before, right? Which as arbitrary as .08 which is as arbitrary as .05. I think we should make the drunk driving laws more stringent before we decrease the BAC.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

rjquillin


quality posts: 189 Private Messages rjquillin
kylemittskus wrote:I don't know why I didn't post this when I read it last week. It's an issue that I don't think will split us red and blue. I'm not sure it will split us at all, actually. My gut reaction is bad idea, even if it were to save lives, which I'm not sure it will. Not to be crass or cold about lives, but there is a level of absurdity in asking police to be baby sitters instead of protectors. It used to be 1% before, right? Which as arbitrary as .08 which is as arbitrary as .05. I think we should make the drunk driving laws more stringent before we decrease the BAC.

Yet another way the States are ceding sovereignty to the Federal Government for highway funds. In CA, now, for those with commercial licenses, the legal limit is 0.04%.

CT

chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim
MarkDaSpark wrote:Drive-by to stir the pot ... Wine, beer and cocktail lovers: Our lifestyle is threatened.

Do we need to lower the BAC? Or keep it the way it is?



At risk of sounding insensitive, this is stupid. Of course drunk driving is unacceptable. But .05...is that "drunk?" Are there lots of accidents occurring because of .05-.08-er's? This reeks of "think of the children!"

There has to be some consideration of the trade-off, and this one is a loser. DUI is a serious offense with very serious consequences, and now we want to bust the guy who had wine with dinner out? Bah. That guy is no more "impaired" than other drivers, under normal circumstances.

Examples of impaired driving: I'm pissed off, I'm a little tired, the sun's in my eyes, trying to change the radio, guy dressed up in a chicken suit waving a sign on the sidewalk, spider in the car (Gods forbid), cold medicine loopiness, it goes on and on.

jawlz


quality posts: 12 Private Messages jawlz
chemvictim wrote:At risk of sounding insensitive, this is stupid. Of course drunk driving is unacceptable. But .05...is that "drunk?" Are there lots of accidents occurring because of .05-.08-er's? This reeks of "think of the children!"

There has to be some consideration of the trade-off, and this one is a loser. DUI is a serious offense with very serious consequences, and now we want to bust the guy who had wine with dinner out? Bah. That guy is no more "impaired" than other drivers, under normal circumstances.

Examples of impaired driving: I'm pissed off, I'm a little tired, the sun's in my eyes, trying to change the radio, guy dressed up in a chicken suit waving a sign on the sidewalk, spider in the car (Gods forbid), cold medicine loopiness, it goes on and on.




Doesn't matter; there's nobody willing to stand up to MADD on this. When it comes to political influence on a particular subject matter, MADD is actually stronger than the NRA.

At least the Supreme Court ruled against unreasonably warrant-less blood tests earlier this year. Though honestly, if you get pulled over and the cop thinks you are under the influence of alcohol, you're screwed one way or the other.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 234 Private Messages kylemittskus
jawlz wrote:Doesn't matter; there's nobody willing to stand up to MADD on this. When it comes to political influence on a particular subject matter, MADD is actually stronger than the NRA.

At least the Supreme Court ruled against unreasonably warrant-less blood tests earlier this year. Though honestly, if you get pulled over and the cop thinks you are under the influence of alcohol, you're screwed one way or the other.



If you get pulled over and the officer thinks your driving under the influence, don't take the breath-test and call your attorney.

I didn't know that MADD had such a stranglehold.

Chem: they (the commission "figuring" this law's efficacy out) claim that this could save 500-800 lives. Of course, if I ask you to conduct a study and I'm sponsoring it, and I have a dog in the fight, the study is likely a bunch of BS, as you know as well as any of us. Somehow, people tend to ignore this fact, though.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim
kylemittskus wrote:If you get pulled over and the officer thinks your driving under the influence, don't take the breath-test and call your attorney.

I didn't know that MADD had such a stranglehold.

Chem: they (the commission "figuring" this law's efficacy out) claim that this could save 500-800 lives. Of course, if I ask you to conduct a study and I'm sponsoring it, and I have a dog in the fight, the study is likely a bunch of BS, as you know as well as any of us. Somehow, people tend to ignore this fact, though.



"People with a blood-alcohol level of 0.05 percent are 38 percent more likely to be involved in a crash than those who have not been drinking, according to government statistics. People with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent are 169 percent more likely."

First off, where do they come up with these stats? Do they test every person involved in the crash? Passengers too? The .08 is a dramatically increased risk, the .05 less so.

And here I'm going to be insensitive. Even if that 500-800 number was real and not "possibly," or flat-out made up, there are something like 30,000 highway deaths per year. I have to think this is just a money-making opportunity.

And MADD...I am so sick of these people and others like them making women and liberals look foolish. Seriously. Stop it.

klezman


quality posts: 131 Private Messages klezman

I think many of those statistics come from studies using driving simulators. Also not sure why something like this would be considered "liberal" vs "conservative".

2014: 57 bottles. Last wine.woot: 2011 Wellington Cab & Merlot, Roessler 2009 Bluejay, 2010 Bell Cabernet
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
klezman wrote:I think many of those statistics come from studies using driving simulators. Also not sure why something like this would be considered "liberal" vs "conservative".



because it has to be!

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim
klezman wrote:I think many of those statistics come from studies using driving simulators. Also not sure why something like this would be considered "liberal" vs "conservative".



Perhaps it should not be, but people tend to consider this a nanny state issue, and that nanny state = liberals.

jawlz


quality posts: 12 Private Messages jawlz
klezman wrote:I think many of those statistics come from studies using driving simulators. Also not sure why something like this would be considered "liberal" vs "conservative".



I think it's more statist vs non-statist. (edit - I see Chem beat me to saying this.)

A similar thing happened with cell phones in California - it's now illegal to drive while holding one, despite the CHP and local law enforcement citing cell phone use as a cause in just half a percent of all accidents they responded to in the years before there was any regulation.

Who cares whether or not there's a need? Something has to be done!!!!

kylemittskus


quality posts: 234 Private Messages kylemittskus

I have done a very brief review of MADD and I don't like 'em. They have HUGE salaries and spend an awful lot of money trying to get more money to pay those huge salaries and their "educational expenses" which, according to Charity Watch actually only educate about how to get MADD more $$ (my editorial interpretation, of course).

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj

I read an article last week that said that states were overwhelmingly opposing the change to .05, and that the idea would probably die for that reason. I'll have to see if I can find the article, so I can provide a link.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

kylemittskus


quality posts: 234 Private Messages kylemittskus
coynedj wrote:I read an article last week that said that states were overwhelmingly opposing the change to .05, and that the idea would probably die for that reason. I'll have to see if I can find the article, so I can provide a link.



That's a good thing (fingers crossed). A separate issue the fact that this was proposed and seriously considered at all. And money was put into every stage if that consideration, including a likely expensive study that is probably close to worthless as far as credibility goes.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger

I'm not sure why everybody seems to be focusing on MADD here; they neither support nor oppose the proposal. MADD president Jan Withers said, “[The proposed law] will take a lot of effort for a potential result that is many, many years down the line.”

In a separate statement, they said (paraphrased), 'the government needs to focus on enforcing existing laws aimed at stopping drunk driving.'

None of this is to say the other criticisms of MADD aren't well-founded. It's just that this proposed change was not conceived of or pushed by them.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 234 Private Messages kylemittskus
moondigger wrote:I'm not sure why everybody seems to be focusing on MADD here; they neither support nor oppose the proposal. MADD president Jan Withers said, “[The proposed law] will take a lot of effort for a potential result that is many, many years down the line.”

In a separate statement, they said (paraphrased), 'the government needs to focus on enforcing existing laws aimed at stopping drunk driving.'

None of this is to say the other criticisms of MADD aren't well-founded. It's just that this proposed change was not conceived of or pushed by them.



Well, we have to blame someone!

Very fair point, though. Who's stupid ass idea was this? I've got my pitchfork ready to point.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger
kylemittskus wrote:Very fair point, though. Who's stupid ass idea was this? I've got my pitchfork ready to point.


From what I've gathered, it's a recommendation by the NHTSA. I have no idea who (or what group) may have proposed it to them. Maybe it came from an internal committee or employee.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 234 Private Messages kylemittskus
moondigger wrote:From what I've gathered, it's a recommendation by the NHTSA. I have no idea who (or what group) may have proposed it to them. Maybe it came from an internal committee or employee.



Let's get 'em!!!

In other news, anyone have any thoughts on the IRS targeting "conservative" groups? From my standpoint, an agency that collects taxes is obviously going to be blue-leaning! (tongue-in-cheek, of course)

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 188 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
kylemittskus wrote:Let's get 'em!!!

In other news, anyone have any thoughts on the IRS targeting "conservative" groups? From my standpoint, an agency that collects taxes is obviously going to be blue-leaning! (tongue-in-cheek, of course)



Supposedly during the Bush admin, they targeted Dems, but I think it's unfounded and just propaganda. However, I think it was true during Nixon's terms, that they were targeting Dems.

But it seems like someone there "leaked" more than one set of tax forms (Romney and one or more of the groups targeted) to those they aren't supposed to share them with (Reid and a left-wing group).


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
coynedj wrote:I read an article last week that said that states were overwhelmingly opposing the change to .05, and that the idea would probably die for that reason. I'll have to see if I can find the article, so I can provide a link.



I also have no link, but read the same thing in the local rag (paper papers? luddite!)

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

kylemittskus


quality posts: 234 Private Messages kylemittskus

Thoughts on this?

Basically, an 18 year old girl had sex with a 14 year old girl. She's being charged with lewd acts with a minor and facing up to 15 years in prison. They offered her 2 years house arrest, classes, and registration as a sex offender.

As you can see from the photo, it seems like the accused and her family are trying to make this out to be a homosexual thing. IMO -- and I think I've made it very clear how much of a homosexual rights advocate I am -- that hurts the homosexual cause (like someone claiming racism when it clearly isn't). If this were an 18 year old male, the exact same charges would be filed. The blade cuts both ways. Equality is equality in all things.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
kylemittskus wrote:Thoughts on this?

Basically, an 18 year old girl had sex with a 14 year old girl. She's being charged with lewd acts with a minor and facing up to 15 years in prison. They offered her 2 years house arrest, classes, and registration as a sex offender.

As you can see from the photo, it seems like the accused and her family are trying to make this out to be a homosexual thing. IMO -- and I think I've made it very clear how much of a homosexual rights advocate I am -- that hurts the homosexual cause (like someone claiming racism when it clearly isn't). If this were an 18 year old male, the exact same charges would be filed. The blade cuts both ways. Equality is equality in all things.



there's a petition on change.org about this. I didn't sign it because you're right, it's a legal matter. Possibly the other girl's parents wouldn't have informed the authorities had it been a guy, but the law is the law.

Now, this kind of law is F'N stupid in the first place. I would say if the relationship was recognized by both parties prior to the 18th birthday it shouldn't be illegal to allow it to continue. Easy to get around, yes, but better than, well I'm 18 today, we gotta break up.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim
kylemittskus wrote:Thoughts on this?

Basically, an 18 year old girl had sex with a 14 year old girl. She's being charged with lewd acts with a minor and facing up to 15 years in prison. They offered her 2 years house arrest, classes, and registration as a sex offender.

As you can see from the photo, it seems like the accused and her family are trying to make this out to be a homosexual thing. IMO -- and I think I've made it very clear how much of a homosexual rights advocate I am -- that hurts the homosexual cause (like someone claiming racism when it clearly isn't). If this were an 18 year old male, the exact same charges would be filed. The blade cuts both ways. Equality is equality in all things.



The parents might have been motivated by the fact that it was a homosexual relationship, but yeah...the law is the law...it's a stupid law, but the law does not target homosexuals.

I saw some headlines for this case, I think from Mother Jones. And it was super misleading, implied that it was homosexuality that is against the law. That pissed me off.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 234 Private Messages kylemittskus
chemvictim wrote:I saw some headlines for this case, I think from Mother Jones. And it was super misleading, implied that it was homosexuality that is against the law. That pissed me off.



Sigh. That's my huge issue with this. Stupid law? Yes. But if the homosexual community (that I am completely behind) starts crying wolf every single time something unfortunate happens involving a homosexual, the real problems begin to be ignored. After all, the wolf does come in the end of the story; people were just sick of hearing about it and it not being real.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chipgreen


quality posts: 207 Private Messages chipgreen
moondigger wrote:From what I've gathered, it's a recommendation by the NHTSA. I have no idea who (or what group) may have proposed it to them. Maybe it came from an internal committee or employee.


The feds did the exact same thing with the 55mph speed limit years ago - they blackmailed the states by withholding funding for roads and highways unless they all acquiesced to the 55mph limit.

They touted all the lives and fuel that would be saved by the lower limit to validate its necessity. Yet the standard highway speeds are back to 65mph now.

Personally I am happy about that, just pointing out the hypocrisy and ridiculousness of it all.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 234 Private Messages kylemittskus

Danielle and I had our best friends over last night for our weekly dinner and we discussed the story I posted yesterday about the 18 year old girl being charged with L and L with a minor.

My mind has been changed, at least in part. One of our friends is an attorney and she has a criminal defense/family firm. She said that if a person is charged with statutory terrible act (not what the girl was charged with), it can be charged as a felony or a misdemeanor (no sex-offender registration and possibility of getting the charge expunged). L and L with a minor is always a felony. Since these two are females, they can't charge the 18 yo with statutory terrible act so she is automatically being charged with a felony. Whether or not this would be pursued if it were an 18 yo male is not important. However, the fact that it may have been charged as a misdemeanor and not a felony seems quite relevant. Thoughts?

Also, the Boy Scouts are going to allow openly gay scouts to participate but not leaders. Some dbag was saying he's disappointed because it's putting the children's safety in jeopardy. Enough of the "think of the children" already!

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

joelsisk


quality posts: 10 Private Messages joelsisk
kylemittskus wrote:Danielle and I had our best friends over last night for our weekly dinner and we discussed the story I posted yesterday about the 18 year old girl being charged with L and L with a minor.

My mind has been changed, at least in part. One of our friends is an attorney and she has a criminal defense/family firm. She said that if a person is charged with statutory terrible act (not what the girl was charged with), it can be charged as a felony or a misdemeanor (no sex-offender registration and possibility of getting the charge expunged). L and L with a minor is always a felony. Since these two are females, they can't charge the 18 yo with statutory terrible act so she is automatically being charged with a felony. Whether or not this would be pursued if it were an 18 yo male is not important. However, the fact that it may have been charged as a misdemeanor and not a felony seems quite relevant. Thoughts?

Also, the Boy Scouts are going to allow openly gay scouts to participate but not leaders. Some dbag was saying he's disappointed because it's putting the children's safety in jeopardy. Enough of the "think of the children" already!



So, agreed that the charges available may be skewed against lesbian sex, but as it still could apply for all male scenario, not sure that makes it antigay.

Still, I wouldn't think an initial felony charge would prevent a plea deal for a non-felony charge. (though I am not in the legal field, so don't know all the nuances of when it may or may not be permitted)

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger

One of the details in this case is that the parents of the 14 year-old went to the police claiming they wanted something done because they believe the 18 year-old 'made their daughter gay.' There is some debate about whether that factors into the zealous prosecution.

I think the assertions made earlier in this discussion that male 18 year-olds are routinely prosecuted for relationships with female 14 year-olds are off-base. Such prosecutions are the exception, not the rule.

When I was in high school, I knew of a few senior-freshman couples. It seemed a little weird, but certainly not felonious. Senior-sophomore was more common and nobody even thought that slightly weird. More like perfectly acceptable, at least to the high-schoolers themselves, if not their parents. I am unaware of anybody calling police or having them called for such relationships.

If a 3-year difference is perfectly acceptable, or at least not weird enough for anybody to get the police involved, then how does a 4-year difference suddenly become a felony?

I'm not saying that a relationship between 18 and 14 year-olds is good or necessarily healthy, but that reaction comes from my perspective as a parent. If it's a crime, then make it a misdemeanor, not a felony worthy of a multi-year jail sentence.

Many states now recognize just how subtly muddled these issues are, and have lessened the severity of the criminal offense when both parties are teenagers.