Translate

Showing posts with label Washington State. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Washington State. Show all posts

Thursday, December 6, 2012

And Now for Some Good News: Progress

There have been great advancements in the US and neighboring Mexico for the limited same-gender freedom to marry! This brings us closer and closer to full marriage equality.

In last month's US election, the people of three US states voted FOR this freedom to marry, and the results are taking effect! Check out this Associated Press article at mynorthwest.com...
Two by two, dozens of same-sex couples obtained their marriage licenses in Washington state early Thursday, just hours after Gov. Chris Gregoire signed a voter-approved law legalizing gay marriage.

King County, the state's biggest county, opened the doors to its auditor's office in Seattle just after midnight PST to start distributing marriage licenses. But hundreds of people had lined up hours earlier, snaking around the downtown Seattle building on a chilly December night. By 10 a.m., 364 licenses had been issued and the line was gone.
When are the weddings?

Because the state has a three-day waiting period, the earliest that weddings can take place is Sunday. 

Yay!
"This is a very important and historic day in the great state of Washington," Gregoire said before signing the measure that officially certified the election results. "For many years now we've said one more step, one more step. And this is our last step for marriage equality in the state of Washington."
Eh... not quite. It is a great day for some same-gender couples. But there are still some same-gender couples who can't marry, and polycules of any gender or sexual orientation formations can't marry. It's a great day for freedom, but it isn't marriage equality because equality just for some is not equality.

Last month, Washington, Maine and Maryland became the first states to pass same-sex marriage by popular vote. They joined six other states _ New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont _ and the District of Columbia that had already enacted laws or issued court rulings permitting same-sex marriage.
More to come!

— — —

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Good News in the US

I almost couldn't say it better than this from the Gay Marriage USA Facebook page:
Tonight was truly AWESOME! (1) The first president to support marriage equality, Barack Obama, was re-elected (2) We won marriage equality in Maine, Maryland and Washington (3) Minnesota rejected a proposed ban on same-sex marriage and (4) Tammy Baldwin became the first openly gay/lesbian person to win a US Senate position! We are moving FORWARD indeed.

I would only qualify that the limited same-gender freedom to marry, which is  what President Obama has publicly supported, is what won in most of the votes, although defeating the Minnesota constitutional amendment was also potentially good for poly people. It isn't really marriage equality unless every adult is free to marry any consenting adults (and have protections against discrimination) because equality "just for some" is not equality. There will be more freedom to marry in Maine, Maryland, and  Washington, but not full marriage equality.

It's definitely a victory and lots of progress! Congratulations to monogamist nonconsanguineous LBGT people! And congratulations to all Americans for progress!


— — —

Monday, November 5, 2012

US Can Advance Freedom to Marry on Tuesday

Tuesday is Election Day here in the US. Not only are we voting on the President, but every seat of our House of Representatives will be subject to election, as well as about a third of our Senate. Some states will have other important office and ballot measures. Of special interest to this blog is that the limited same-gender freedom to marry can advance with votes in four states.

It is important that people vote...

"Yes" on Question 1 in Maine

"For" Question 6 in Maryland

"No" on "Recognition of marriage solely between one man and one woman" in Minnesota

"Approve" Referendum 74 in Washington.

Not only will this help some same-gender couples living in those states, but it will sent an important message that we are moving towards nationwide full marriage equality sooner rather than later. None of these votes will provide full marriage equality, as there will still be many adults denied marriage rights in those states, still not allowed to marry the persons they love, but it is a step in the right direction.

The same can be said for President Obama, who has finally endorsed the limited same-gender freedom to marry. His opponent has been been regressive on this issue. We don't want to go back, we want to go FORWARD!

So if you are eligible, be sure to vote in those races, and vote for candidates for other offices who are friendliest to relationship rights for all adults.

Let's send a message that bigotry is dying out!


— — —

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Kudos to the State of Washington

Fitting for Valentine's Day, we now know when the limited, monogamous same-sex freedom to marry will be coming to the US state of Washington, not to be confused with Washington, D.C., which already has that.

Congrats to leaders of Washington for doing this, and happy pending nuptials to all who will be marrying as a result.

We will keep moving forward until the all of the US (and Canada, and everywhere else) has full marriage equality, so that an adult is free to share marriage with any consenting adults.

Happy Valentine's Day!
— — —

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Full Marriage Equality Includes All Freedoms to Marry


The good news is that more of the US is allowing more lovers access to marriage. There are several US states, such as Washington and New Jersey, in the process of moving towards the same-sex freedom to marry through legislative action. The national law, DOMA, needs to die, and there’s renewed effort to that end. But while DOMA still exists, states should move ahead.

But states should take the opportunity to bring in full marriage equality, not stopping short with just the limited, monogamous same-sex freedom to marry. States should settle their law now rather than do things piecemeal, returning to it time and time again later, because equality just for some is not equality.

States should adapt the Marriage Equality Amendment with something like this:

The right to marry or to personal consortium shall not be abridged on account of sex, gender, sexual orientation, ancestry, consanguinity, or number of participants.
— — —

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Woman Arrested on Incest Charges in State of Washington

There are several news outlets reporting, but not much information.

A 36 year old Kennewick woman has been arrested for having sexual relations with her 16 year old biological son

Blanca Negrete was arrested following the investigation of recorded phone conversations of a sexual nature between her and her son while he was in the Benton-Franklin Juvenile Center. The investigation then revealed that Negrete and her son had been engaged in sexual activity since November of 2010.

The victim has since been released from juvenile detention and the suspect, Negrete is now being held at the Benton County Jail for incest, and communication with a minor for immoral purposes.

Notice that the charge is incest, rather than statutory rape. No information is given as to why the son was in a detention facility.

From another report

While the victim was incarcerated at the Benton Franklin Juvenile Justice Detention Facility, recorded phone conversations between the victim and his mom* were of a sexual nature.

So if they hadn’t said anything during the phone calls, she may have escaped prosecution.

Another report

A 36-year-old Kennewick woman is accused of sexually assaulting a teen boy from Connell since November.

Blanca Ester Negrete was arrested Tuesday by Kennewick police and booked into the Benton County jail on suspicion of communicating with a minor for immoral purposes and sexual assault.

I’m not sure why the reports stress that she is the biological mother; perhaps to make it clear that she’s not a stepmother or adoptive mother. No information is given to indicate she has been out of his life long enough for this to be a case of Genetic Sexual Attraction. Some state incest laws treat step or adoptive relationships the same as biological relationships when it comes to making incest a crime. From what is said about the phone conversations, it sounds like this was not a matter of forcible assault, but then a dependent minor child can be coerced through other means than physical force.

The focus of this blog has always been consensual relationships between adults. The age of consent in the state of Washington is 16, but with conditions. If someone is having sex with a 16 or 17-year-old, they can be no older than 60 months older than the younger person; she has violated this, if in fact they have had sex. They can’t be in a “significant relationship as defined” (my guess is that this was violated). Foster parents are also not allowed to have sex with their 16 or 17-year-old foster children, and school teachers and administration employees can’t have sex with their 16 or 17-year-old students. (So, if you’re 21, it is okay to have sex with a 16-year-old as long as you’re a complete stranger, but not if you’re, say, the aunt. That makes sense, right?)

It looks to me like she could be charged with statutory rape, and as I’ve said before, I would support enhancing such charges if they involve a guardian. Why have a separate law for incest that also criminalizes consensual sex between minors and between adults? The law should be there to discourage and provide restitution for, and protection from, things like sexual harassment, molestation, and assault, not to interfere with consensual sex, especially not in an inconsistent way.
— — —

Thursday, September 2, 2010

The Unjust Prosecution of Katheryn Thornton

Officials in King County, Seattle should be ashamed of themselves for prosecuting Katheryn M. Thornton for having consensual sex for eighteen months with a man who was about 27 years of age when it started. Reading through the various news reports, it appears that the man, whose name is not given due to his “victim” status, could be using unjust laws against adult, consensual, consanguineous sex for nefarious reasons.

From the Seattle Times

A 54-year-old Eastside woman has been charged with first-degree incest for allegedly conducting a two-year sexual relationship with an adult son she had given up for adoption when he was an infant.

Sounds like a possible case of GSA.

Katheryn M. Thornton invited her son, now 33, to live with her near Kirkland in March 2004 after he tracked her down through an adoption agency, according to charging papers filed in King County Superior Court earlier this month.

He tracked her down. Then she invited him into her home. He could have said “no” right then and there, for starters. I wonder if he is planning to sue her and the adoption agency?

In May, the man reported the alleged incest to a King County sheriff's detective.

Why would he do this? Blackmail? Revenge? I have my suspicions.

He told the detective that the day after he moved in, Thornton "came into his room and lay next to him. He said [on] day three, she invited him into her room. He said on day four, they had sex," charging papers say.

He would have been about 27 at the time. There is no indication in the news coverage that he was of congenital or drug-induced mental deficiency. No force indicated. This was consensual. Why is this a crime?

The man said the sexual relationship lasted until March 2006, according to the charges.

Why did it last so long? Surely he is stronger than her, and able to be independent. He was probably enjoying himself.

The son, who is not being named because he is considered a victim of sexual assault, was granted a sexual-assault protection order against Thornton on Tuesday, barring her from coming within 500 feet of him, court records show.

This is convenient for him. We’ll see why later.

First-degree incest is a Class B felony. If convicted, Thornton would face a 12- to 14-month prison sentence and be required to register as a sex offender.

This is outrageous. He is just as “guilty” as she is. Can you imagine going to prison for this? Registering as a sex offender? I want to know if a child molester or rapist moves in to my neighborhood. I have no reason to fear a woman who has consensual sex with another adult.

The Associated Press picked up the story, but at least they don’t give her name in the report I saw, as they shouldn’t unless they want to come to her defense. His name should be published alongside hers, or neither name should be published. I include her name because I do want her to know there are people who are against this persecution of her.

From Seattle Weekly

And on the fourth night, mother and son had sex for the first time, beginning what would eventually become an incredibly creepy 18-month relationship.

Why is that creepy? This blogger’s bigotry is showing.

Thornton told prosecutors that she was excited to have her son living with her and that the two had an "awareness." Like many love birds, the relationship started off hot and heavy, with Thornton reporting that initially they had sex all the time, including in a locked bathroom so her other children wouldn't catch them, but eventually the amorous affections tapered off to about once every two weeks.

Sounds like many other relationships with a passionate start and ups and downs. I believe her account because he didn’t leave. It is understandable when dependents don’t leave. He was no dependent or hostage.

Given that he was an adult at the time, it wouldn't seem that the man should be considered a victim. But the King County prosecutor's office has charged Thornton with first-degree incest, a felony. And Deputy Chief of Staff Ian Goodhew says the office has its reasons.

"We're pretty conservative when we make a charging decision regarding incest," says Goodhew. "But there were a number of concerning factors weighed before filing this charge."

Those factors: the two underage kids living with Thornton.

Then charge them both with child endangerment, though I fail to see what the legal problem is given that married people, unmarried cohabitating people, and virtual strangers have sex all of the time even though there are children in the same home.

And the way she confessed to sleeping with her son with no apparent sense that it might be against the law or, ya know, morally repugnant.

It shouldn’t be against the law. And how is it morally repugnant? Merely saying it is doesn’t make it so.

Now here is where we start to get a better idea of what is really going on here…

The wheels were put in motion in May, when Thornton's son plead guilty to a (surprise, surprise) charge of child molestation.

So a child molester complains that a woman has been having sex with him for eighteen months? Hey, I agree that people should shun child molesters (which would include not having sex with them) but there’s nothing illegal about adults having sex with child molesters. It happens all of the time, unfortunately.

But it is awfully convenient that a child molester’s name is being kept out of the media now because he is a “victim.” Is he getting some sort of deal in his case for this, too?

From this report, we get…

The son said his mother's younger children knew he slept in Thornton's bedroom, but they did not know about the sex, according to the documents.

Maybe they didn’t, maybe they did. I don't think his word is worth much. Children sometimes think of their parents only have sex enough times to make them. Other children figure things out for themselves. And still others just don’t think about it at all, if they are prepubescent.

If this man is a child molester, she shouldn’t have exposed her children to him. But she isn’t being charged for that. She is being charged with having consensual sex with another adult, behind closed doors. We need these laws wiped off the books. Prosecute people for child endangerment, neglect, abuse, molestation, assault, rape, you name it. But let’s not allow consensual sex between adults to be prosecuted or illegal.

I call on any judge or jury that gets a say in this case to refuse to convict someone of a crime for having consensual sex in private.
— — —