O'Reilly, ACLU differ greatly on Kansas teenage sex case

[Ladewig]

Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline appeared on O'Reilly's show and claimed that the ACLU's efforts to overturn a recent case "is remarkable assault on the authority of the family."

story (http://www.cjonline.com/stories/100103/leg_kline.shtml)

The ACLU sees it as discrimination against gays and lesbians. O'Reilly sees it as asserting "a constitutional right for minor/adult sex." Bill O'Reilly talked about this appeal on this morning's Howard Stern show. (Please consider that appearance my entry for the 2003 "politics' strangest bedfellows" award).

I have to side with the ACLU on this one because they are not proposing a new law but rather are arguing that the law is applied unevenly.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Ladewig
Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline appeared on O'Reilly's show and claimed that the ACLU's efforts to overturn a recent case "is remarkable assault on the authority of the family."

story (http://www.cjonline.com/stories/100103/leg_kline.shtml)

The ACLU sees it as discrimination against gays and lesbians. O'Reilly sees it as asserting "a constitutional right for minor/adult sex." Bill O'Reilly talked about this appeal on this morning's Howard Stern show. (Please consider that appearance my entry for the 2003 "politics' strangest bedfellows" award).

I have to side with the ACLU on this one because they are not proposing a new law but rather are arguing that the law is applied unevenly.

Exactly. The only one who claimed that it was an issue of "Constitutional right for minor/adult sex" was the attorney general, and it was a total strawman.

The ACLU argument is very clear in this case: they deserve the same punishment as a heterosexual case would get. If it was an 18 year old boy and a 14 year old girl, it would be a minor punishment. But because it is an 18 year old boy and a 14 year old boy, he gets 17 years. That type of oversight in the law needs to be corrected.

[Upchurch]

Okay, I'm going to show off my lack of legal knowledge.

Does the ACLU have sue the state of Kansas over the entire law, or could they just sue over the unequal application of the "Romeo and Juliet" portion of the law? Does anyone know if that is what they are doing?

edited to add:
The ACLU's take on the suit (http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=13297&c=41&SubsiteID=19)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Upchurch

The ACLU's take on the suit (http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=13297&c=41&SubsiteID=19)
from the articleshortly after he turned 18 he performed consensual oral sex on another teenager ...{snip}...Limon was convicted under the much harsher state sodomy law.Do "sodomy laws" refer to any homosexual intercourse or only to the act of sodomy intercourse itself?

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Ladewig

O'Reilly sees it as asserting "a constitutional right for minor/adult sex." Bill O'Reilly talked about this appeal on this morning's Howard Stern show. (Please consider that appearance my entry for the 2003 "politics' strangest bedfellows" award).


You can always count on O'Reilly to misrepresent anything the ACLU says. Whenever I hear a diatribe from him about the ACLU I automatically check the ACLU side to determine the truth.

Sad that this liar is allowed on the air.

Lurker

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Upchurch

from the articleDo "sodomy laws" refer to any homosexual intercourse or only to the act of sodomy intercourse itself? All you ever wanted to know about Kansas' sodomy statute:

http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/kansas/kansas.htm

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
All you ever wanted to know about Kansas' sodomy statute:
All that and too much more. Thanks

[Tmy]

I listened to the Stern interview. Bill did say somthing like "the ACLU wants to make it ok to have sex with children" Now that I know what the case is about I am disgusted with his misleading comments

I like to hate Bill. I listen to his show and usually he drives me crazy. Hes full of s**it when he calls himself an independant. When 90% of your views are conservative, you're conservative.

The STern interview was really goood. He let Bill have it and they talked about the ususal. AL Frankin, gansta rap, etc....


He kept going on with his usual excuse about protecting "the children". He sounds like Mrs. Lovejoy from the Simpsons.. Every "gansta" rap album has warnings and cant be sold to minors. You cant babyproof the world. Then he said he doesnt want potlegal cause the kids could then get it, like they do alcohol. I dont know about you but I had a much easier time getting weed than beer when I was a kid.

I think Howard got him when he said that Al Frankin is just like Limbaugh so why just bitch about Frankin. His excuse is that Frankin gets paid doing Democrat gigs and Limbaugh doesnt get bankrolled by the Repubs. I dont think thats true and so what if it is? Whats the difference.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tmy
I listened to the Stern interview. Bill did say somthing like "the ACLU wants to make it ok to have sex with children" Now that I know what the case is about I am disgusted with his misleading comments Is there a transcript somewhere? I'm not having good luck googling.

[Tmy]

Try www.marksfriggen.com. He keeps a daily tab of the Stern Show.

[Dancing David]

So, once again we have a law that persecutes sex between same sex partners differently than a law that persecutes between hetero sex. The ACLU says that this is not equal, O'Riley says it is the end of western civilization.

Oh, well, i do like to watch the Daily Show, you get more news than you do from O'Riley!

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Dancing David
So, once again we have a law that persecutes sex between same sex partners differently than a law that persecutes between hetero sex. The ACLU says that this is not equal, O'Riley says it is the end of western civilization.


It would be one thing if ORiley was complaining that homosexual behavior was the end of civilization, but that's not what he is crying about. He is claiming that the ACLU wants to legalize sex with children. They don't. They don't want to do any more than the state of Kansas has done for hetero sex. The ACLU has no problem with having homosexuals prosecuted, but only to the same extent that heteros would be.

Yes, they want this charge dropped. But that doesn't mean the state can't charge them with something more equitable.

[c0rbin]

Challenge any homophobe to make a case against homosexuality without using the Bible. See what happens.

Sex with children is usually what comes out.

[Malachi151]

So let me get this straight, the 18 year old boy/man who is an a home for people with mental problems is being sent to jail for 17 years because he gave a 14 year old boy a consentual blowjob?

That is insanity!

First of all the sodomy laws all need to be overturned this is proof of how stupid and wrong they are. Its a friggen blowjob for crying out loud!

Secondly, both boys have mental problems obviusly, why is this even a criminal issue!? Since when to we persecute mentally handicapped people for their sexaul actions, especially when they are consentual?

Thirdly, trying to defend difference sentancing for homosexual vs heterosexual action is asinine and impossible. In fact homosexual action is less likely to cause problems as there is no chance of pregnancy!

Man, these people need a good butt kicking...

Go ACLU!

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy
I
I dont know about you but I had a much easier time getting weed than beer when I was a kid.




Agreed, when I was 14 getting some indo was as simple as calling a person. Getting alcohol was damn near impossible. All the 21+ year olds I knew were either my parents or someone else's parents. The only way(s) to obtain alcohol were:

To play "mister, mister". Basically just asking random people at the gas station to buy you beer.

Getting someone's parents to get it for you (which almost never happened, at least at 14).

Or, If you knew of a store that sold to minors.

The legal indo issue is one of many things with which Bill and I disagree. He obviously doesn’t know how easy it is for a kid to get drugs. Legalization will probably make it harder.

[Bentspoon]

IMHO,

Contributing a goodly amount of money to the ACLU will do more for this country than your vote.

Voting is a waste of time but putting your money where your chad is, now that is active politics.

I will continue to contribute to what I feel is the saviour of the American way.

Bentspoon

[Vorticity]

Originally posted by Bentspoon (emphasis mine)
IMHO,

Contributing a goodly amount of money to the ACLU will do more for this country than your vote.

Voting is a waste of time but putting your money where your chad is, now that is active politics.

I will continue to contribute to what I feel is the saviour of the American way.

Bentspoon
No. It is not.
Just one look at the last presidential election is enough to show that. Regardless of which side of the political fence you're on, its clear that a change of vote by even a tiny percentage of voters in Florida would have been enough to swing the election either way.
So get out and vote, dammit! It takes hardly any time at all. The last time I voted, it took me about fifteen minutes (the poll was just a few blocks away). Jeebus! I mean, you took the time to post on a damn internet forum, didn't you? Well which is more important?! Take a fraction of the time you would normally spend online on the next election day and get out and vote!
(And you can still contribute to the ACLU, too...)

[Vorticity]

Sorry. Pet peeve... :)

[Bentspoon]

Ok I admit it my statement was partly tongue in cheek

partly

It is precisely Florida that changed me with regard to voting. It was made clear to me that the individual vote would do little to change things.

After all, all I can contribute to is the popular vote (aptly named - the implication that it is not very important - kind of like pop music - it is not what the real musicians are doing). Might as well answer a poll on the local talk show for what it is worth.

In this country, money makes the decisions and no amount of voting will change that.

Contributions will make the difference

Bentspoon

[nightwind]

This was just the usual O'Reilly spin, in which he was trying to sensationalize a story, and make it into something it is not.

I watch him quite often, just to see what wild spins that he can put on stories, in his "no-spin" zone. And he loves any stories involving sexuality of any kind. Interesting.

[corplinx]

O'Reilly had Judge Andrew Nepolitano on his show last night. The judge set him completely straight on the adult/minor sex thing implication. O'Reilly conceded.

One thing the judge did non concede however was that the person in question is being given a stiff sentence because he is gay. On the contrary, the judge claims the defendant is being given stiff sentence because its his _third_ offense.