Friday, December 23, 2011

What Century Is It Again?

Here's a case from Ohio in which an adult was prosecuted for having consensual sex with another adult, and the courts think that's just fine.

Lowe was charged with one count of sexual battery for engaging in sexual conduct by means of sexual intercourse with his 22-year-old stepdaughter, in violation of Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.03(A)(5), which makes it a crime to "engage in sexual conduct with another, not the spouse of the offender, when . . . [t]he offender is the other person's natural or adoptive parent, or a stepparent, or guardian, custodian, or person in loco parentis of the other person." Lowe moved to dismiss the charge in the trial court, arguing that the facts alleged in the indictment did not constitute an offense under Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.03(A)(5) because there was a "clear legislative intent to have the law apply to children, not adults"

That would make sense.

Lowe also argued that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him because the government had no legitimate interest in regulating sexual activity between consenting adults.

He was sentenced to 120 days of incarceration and three years of community control and was classified as a sex offender. A sex offender. Do you really think he's a threat to you?

The court thinks consensual sex is destructive to relationships.

Unlike sexual relationships between unrelated same-sex adults, the stepparent-stepchild relationship is the kind of relationship in which a person might be injured or coerced or where consent might not easily be refused, regardless of age, because of the inherent influence of the stepparent over the stepchild.

That's Discredited Argument #20.

Ohio's paramount concern is protecting the family from the destructive influence of intra-family, extra-marital sexual contact.

How is it a destructive influence? They talk as though sex is bad. Perhaps they are doing it wrong?

I'm not the only person who found this to be a bad decision by the court.

Thank goodness the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals didn't buy Paul Lowe's excuse in his habeas petition for why he should be released from prison, where he's been cooling his heels, hanging out with the Wrong Crowd and eating s---ty food for more than six f---ing years! For having sex with someone he knew simply because he was once married to her mother!
This is why we need a Marriage Equality Amendment that will make it clear that we can't have crazy provincial laws that interfere with the rights of consenting adults to have sex or to marry.
— — —

1 comment:

  1. Ok, am I reading that law right, or does it specify extra-marital sex only, so that if he was married to her it would have been legal?

    I'll assume there is another law somewhere making it illegal for them to marry, otherwise that is piling idiocy on top of asshattery.


To prevent spam, comments will have to be approved, so your comment may not appear for several hours. Feedback is welcome, including disagreement. I only delete/reject/mark as spam: spam, vulgar or hateful attacks, repeated spouting of bigotry from the same person that does not add to the discussion, and the like. I will not reject comments based on disagreement, but if you don't think consenting adults should be free to love each other, then I do not consent to have you repeatedly spout hate on my blog without adding anything to the discourse.

If you want to write to me privately, then either contact me on Facebook, email me at fullmarriageequality at protonmail dot com, or tell me in your comment that you do NOT want it published. Otherwise, anything you write here is fair game to be used in a subsequent entry. If you want to be anonymous, that is fine.

IT IS OK TO TALK ABOUT SEX IN YOUR COMMENTS, BUT PLEASE CHOOSE YOUR WORDS CAREFULLY AS I WANT THIS BLOG TO BE AS "SAFE FOR WORK" AS POSSIBLE. If your comment includes graphic descriptions of activity involving minors, it's not going to get published.