Is The ACLU Arguing That Age of Consent Laws Are
Unconstitutional?
Attribution:
Clayton Cramer's BLOG (see
source Web site below.)
"It seems from this article that this is the case. The case
involves an adult man convicted of having sex with a 14-year-old boy.
The ACLU's argument is that because the law punishes heterosexual
sex with a child under 16 less severely than homosexual sex with a
child under 16, the law is discriminatory. Okay, I can understand
their reasoning (equal protection) and still disagree.
But because the ACLU has to dance to the tune of their masters,
it wasn't enough to argue that this was an equal protection violation.
{Kansas Attorney-General] Kline cited a footnote in the ACLU's brief
for Limon, in which it said teenagers have a well-established "liberty
interest in being free from state compulsion" in making personal
decisions about sex and marriage.
"I'll tell you what: I would be deeply offended if, when
my daughter turns 13, she walks out the door to meet her 30-year-old
boyfriend, and I say 'no,' and she says, 'I've got a 1-800 number
for the ACLU; it's my constitutional right,' " Kline said. "That's
their argument. They have to live with it."
While Lange acknowledged the ACLU said teenagers have the right
to make personal decisions about marriage and sex, she said the state
can override that right if it can show it has a compelling state interest
-- such as protecting children.
Does anyone seriously believe the ACLU is going to find
any compelling state interest in preventing adults from having sex
with 14 year olds after arguing that teenagers "have the right
to make personal decisions about marriage and sex"? Why do teenagers
have this right, but no younger? Why not six year olds (if a molester
has enough candy)?"
Attribution for copy within this border:
Clayton Cramer's BLOG; http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2003_10_12_archive.html