LGBT Activists in CA Begin Incrementally Lowering the Age of Consent Under the Radar

[bodecea]

SteadyMercury still doesn't get the point that they did this illegally...ofcourse it's not fascism as long as it promotes faggotry.

How was it done "illegally"?

 

[SteadyMercury]

SteadyMercury still doesn't get the point that they did this illegally...ofcourse it's not fascism as long as it promotes faggotry.

No, the point is in the title of the thread. It claims there has been an under the radar attempt at changing the age of consent.

In fact the case seems to be the Threadstarter doesn't know how to read, so made a fail of a thread.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I think I get it, you didn't understand that there is both removed text and additional text added in to replace it.

Sorry about that, didn't realize you were already highlighting the fail or the OP.



>>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Tell you what, show me what you believe the text of 301 and 302 will say after the proposed changes are made. I'll be glad to either admit I misread the additions/removals or I will point out your misunderstanding.

Who was lining out the age of consent as 18 and why, regardless of what's showing up in the in the final text? And, are they allowed to redact initiave law in draft or final stage without the permission of voters? [the answer to that rhetorical question is "NO".]

For the expressed reason of gender blending language [without permission] it sure seems odd that the draft got the ages penned out too. I see this as a foreshadow of things to come in the the dictatorship of California....and by trend and example...the rest of the country eventually through the activist-courts.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Sorry about that, didn't realize you were already highlighting the fail or the OP.

No worries, it appears the OP has decided the only response to his misunderstanding is to keep pointing at the source, as if that will somehow magically make his false claim true.

 

[WorldWatcher]

SteadyMercury still doesn't get the point that they did this illegally...ofcourse it's not fascism as long as it promotes faggotry.

#1 What part of the OP Title and follow on posting do you not get about lowering the age of consent?

#2 SB 1306 does nothing "illegal". Prop 8 is unconstitutional as ruled on in Federal Court and the SCOTUS allowed that ruling to stand as the final word, therefore that section of the California Constitution is invalid and the legislature is free to amend statutory law all they want.



>>>>

 

[SteadyMercury]

Who was lining out the age of consent as 18 and why, regardless of what's showing up in the in the final text?

This was already explained to you. I'll try again...

The text was altered to remove gender specific references. If you'd bother to read the responses in this thread (by more than one person) you'd understand that your claim some change to the age of consent for marriage has happened is completely false.

The final version still has the same age limits. You appear to now be in some denial over that fact.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Who was lining out the age of consent as 18 and why, regardless of what's showing up in the in the final text? And, are they allowed to redact initiave law in draft or final stage without the permission of voters? [the answer to that rhetorical question is "NO".]

They aren't changing "initiate law", they are changing Statutory Law - that is what the Family Code is.

For the expressed reason of gender blending language [without permission]

They don't need permission (i.e. from the voters) as there is no valid overriding "initiative law" that applies. The only "initiative law" was Prop 8 and since that is unconstitutional it is invalid.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

OK, time for the commute.


>>>>

 

[SteadyMercury]

 

[bodecea]

Sorry about that, didn't realize you were already highlighting the fail or the OP.

No worries, it appears the OP has decided the only response to his misunderstanding is to keep pointing at the source, as if that will somehow magically make his false claim true.

Welcome to the OP's world.

 

[Peach]

Sorry about that, didn't realize you were already highlighting the fail or the OP.

No worries, it appears the OP has decided the only response to his misunderstanding is to keep pointing at the source, as if that will somehow magically make his false claim true.

Welcome to the OP's world.

Object to any marriage you do not approve of, boycott the wedding, do not send a gift, and ignore anniversaries.

 

[Silhouette]

No worries, it appears the OP has decided the only response to his misunderstanding is to keep pointing at the source, as if that will somehow magically make his false claim true.

Welcome to the OP's world.

Object to any marriage you do not approve of, boycott the wedding, do not send a gift, and ignore anniversaries.

That's not how the initiative system works in CA. You don't "ignore" intiatives or redact them or revoke them. You introduce a new initiative to do that with the voters' approval.

You don't get the excersize of fascist rule and you don't get to line-out age requirements either. And if you do even in a draft form, you're announcing to the state you're trying to rule that your next play is to tamper with the age of consent.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That's not how the initiative system works in CA. You don't "ignore" intiatives or redact them or revoke them.

This is true.

However there is no valid initiative enforce. Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional and the SCOTUS allowed that decision to stand. When a State law is ruled unconstitional under the Federal constitution it is no longer valid. Under Article VI Paragraph 2, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land when a subordinate law is ruled invalid it no longer is functional.

...you don't get to line-out age requirements either.

The age requirements REMAINED THE SAME no ages in section 301 or 302 of the Family Code (Statutory Law) was changed. They were 18 before and the remained 18. For anyone under 18 before they needed a judges order, now if they are 18 or below they STILL NEED A JUDGES ORDER.

Before Section 301 said "18 years or older", guess what? Section 301 still says "18 years or older".

Before Section 302 said "an male or female under the age of 18..." must obtain a court order, guess what? Section 302 now says "An unmarried person under 18 years of age..." must obtain a court order.




That makes no changes to the ages.



>>>>

 

[Political Junky]

Teen Marriage License Laws, Minors Requirements, by State

One can be married at the age of 14 in some states in the US.

 

[bodecea]

Teen Marriage License Laws, Minors Requirements, by State

One can be married at the age of 14 in some states in the US.

Which is totally creepy.

 

[Peach]

Teen Marriage License Laws, Minors Requirements, by State

One can be married at the age of 14 in some states in the US.

Which is totally creepy.

To me, yes, but California is not changing the law so gay Americans can molest teenagers(.)

 

[bodecea]

Teen Marriage License Laws, Minors Requirements, by State

One can be married at the age of 14 in some states in the US.

Which is totally creepy.

To me, yes, but California is not changing the law so gay Americans can molest teenagers(.)

We all know it isn't...but the OP has a lying Thread to defend.

 

[Inevitable]

I disagree with lowering the age of consent and will fight against it. That being said the op was mistaken because that is nit the goal of the revisions to California law.

 

[NLT]

Yeah...homosexuality & pedophilia are two different things. Pshhhh

Yes they are....because most pedophiles go after girls. And sad to say....their own family or friends.

You always bring up pedos and family and little girls hmmmmm?