California | Canada | Crime | Greece | Harvey Milk | Kansas | Sam Brownback

NEWS: Harvey Milk, The Canadian Age of Consent, And Pamela Geller Vs. Turkeys

HarveyMilk

Road Today is the 33rd anniversary of the assassinations of Harvey Milk and George Moscone. It's a good time to relisten to that "Hope" speech, which resonates as powerfully now as ever. (Next year, it looks like Harvey will be getting a street.)

Road This 56-year-old had sex with a 15-year-old three times, and now he's a registered sex offender. (But if they'd slept together exactly one year earlier, somehow, that would have been completely legal.)

Road Slate brownnoses an unelected Michigan technocrat who's gutting towns' public services by diktat under an emergency law.

Road Famed anti-Muslim crazy lady Pamela Geller is courageously uncovering Butterball's stealth campaign to inculcate turkeys with Islamism:

Yesterday I published the latest in the Butterball coverup of foisting halal turkeys on an unsuspecting public. After being exposed in my article in the American Thinker (all Butterball halal turkeys are ‘certfied halal’ but not labeled) the Butterball company is scrubbing their website and telling a completely different story despite repeated confirmations last week that all their whole turkeys were halal.

Their halal happy website has been scrubbed of all of their halal references but they are still in the doanloadable [sic] pdf on the Glossary of cooking terms page:

Road Arab League imposes sanctions on Syria.

Road Greek's new Minister of Infrastructure is literally an ax-wielding fascist ...

Road ... and UC Davis's current head has an interesting backstory in Greece.
FranDrescher

Road Fran Drescher on her 18-year marriage to a gay man:

About two thirds of the way through our marriage he started therapy and he realized that he was bisexual but choosing to live his life with me, so I had already known that he had feelings but had never acted upon them, and really didn’t want to lose me. I was still at that place where I didn’t really absorb how that made me feel, only that he must really love me if he’s not only being honest with me but choosing to live his life with me and so we stayed the course. So when he finally came out it was a huge relief for me because I had harbored so much guilt for having hurt him by abandoning him and divorcing him. I just felt like it took a load off my shoulders. That the divorce he so adamantly didn’t want at the time gave him the opportunity to explore his authentic self. I was a little ahead of him in realizing something was wrong.
Road It's about time to get that anti-sodomy law off the books in Kansas. Think Brownback'll help?

Road Violence follows the A-List wherever it goes ...

Levi Crocker—the cowboy Cassanova of LOGO’s The A-List Dallas—says that he got attacked by four men at an Oklahoma City gay bar last night just because they hate his show. One even allegedly busted a barstool over his head.

... Crocker posted several messages on Twitter including a shot of his bleeding head after the alleged attack. No word yet on police or other news reports.

Road Fashion designers of the 1930's predict what you'll wear in 2000, AFTER THE JUMP ... [HT: BuzzFeed]

 

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. My neighbor, now in his 60's and still working for the Feds, said he was sitting at his desk in the Fed Bldg across from City Hall and on the phone on hold with the Mayor's office when Moscone was shot. His boss asked what was taking so long and he shrugged his shoulders and redialed. It rang and rang and rang. A few seconds later his boss's phone rang and it was City Hall reporting that Moscone and Milk had just been murdered by Dan White.

    A few hours later my neighbor was heading home andthe streets were packed with solemn quiet gays and stunned citizens quietly marching angrily. He lived six blocks from City Hall but before he could get home all hell had broken loose.

    I can only imagine those days. Had I been old enough I too would have rioted and torn this city apart. The gay community had no one like Harvey Milk before for no openly gay San Franciscan had ever risen to such power (Pres of Board of Supervisors, i.e., second in command under the Mayor) and to have him so coldly murdered was going too far. Gays had been pushed too far and they would never go back again.

    Yes, I do miss Harvey Milk and all that he could have accomplished. He is the Rosa Parks, the Martin Luther King and the JFK of the gay world. We must never forget that and we must never forgive them for what they did. Every one of them. As a whole we hold the power.

    Posted by: OS2Guy | Nov 28, 2011 1:14:00 AM


  2. re: the case of the North Vancouver boy not being able to consent at 15. Although the Canadian government raised the age of consent from 14 to 16 in heterosexual relationships, the age of consent for homosexual relationships has been 18 since decriminalization, and remains there (as if a Conservative government was going to LOWER the age of consent for gays? ha). So had they had sex a year earlier, it wouldn't have been completely legal, it would still have been pretty illegal.

    Posted by: Pierre | Nov 28, 2011 1:17:39 AM


  3. Will Marcus Bachman read Fran Drescher's book; for that matter, will Michelle read it?

    Posted by: Woodroad34 | Nov 28, 2011 1:52:20 AM


  4. Re: The case from North Vancouver. The 56 year old will not be going to jail for any length of time, never mind a "a long, long time". As the linked article states, he received a suspended sentence, so he won't go to jail unless he re-offends. He will have to register as a sex offender for 20 years, which is ridiculously harsh for a consensual relationship, but it's not even close to incarceration.

    Posted by: Chris | Nov 28, 2011 2:07:54 AM


  5. "This 56-year-old had sex with a 15-year-old three times, and he's going to jail for a long, long time."

    No, he's not going to jail for a 'long, long time.'

    "A 56-year-old Vancouver man will serve two years probation and be placed on the sex offender registry for 20 years after having sex with a 15 year-old North Vancouver boy he found through the online networking app Grindr."

    Try actually reading the story next time.

    Posted by: Nat | Nov 28, 2011 2:08:17 AM


  6. How it is that a 15 year old is legally capable of consenting to sex with a 17 year old (within 2 years in age), but not capable of consenting to do it with a 56 year old?

    I know the idea of doing it with a 56 year old sounds 'icky' to the general public, but really... it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to make this distinction legally. A 17 year old is just as capable of 'taking advantage' of a 15 year old as a 56 year old.

    By the way, it's only 'anal sex' that's illegal for under 18s between two people of the same sex. And this was declared unconstitutional in Ontario many, many years ago. I guarantee it would be declared so in BC as well if it ever went to court (highly doubtful it ever would get that far).

    Posted by: John K | Nov 28, 2011 2:41:49 AM


  7. In other Canadian news, a British Columbia Supreme Court judge issued a ruling last Wednesday on the constitutionality of Canada's anti-polygamy laws. He ruled that:

    (1) The law is constitutional because it [supposedly] protects women and children from the harms of "polygamy."

    (2) The law should not be applied to youth aged 12 to 17 because they are often coerced into entering a polygamous marriage/union, and should be protected from them.

    Note: the law as previously interpreted would have criminalized everyone who was in a polygamous union/marriage, regardless of their age or sex/gender. Strangely enough, the judge does not make any concessions for adult women (and men) who may find themselves in similarly coercive situations.

    (3) Despite recognizing that the [supposed] harms associated with "polygamy" are much likelier to take place in "polygynous" marriages/unions, the law would still apply to "polyandrous" and "same-sex polygamous" unions/marriages.

    And, perhaps most importantly:

    (4) The law does not apply to "polyamorous" individuals who are in a relationship with two or more persons, so long as they do not 'formalize' their relationship in any way -- say, via a contract or a ceremony. Once they do, their relationship unit would be considered a "polygamous" marriage/union and would be criminalizable under the law, which is rather strange.

    Therefore:

    The BC Supreme Court judge has effectively legalized polyamory in Canada, so long as individuals do not attempt to 'formalize' their relationship in any way. This includes cohabitational common law relationships.

    The Attorney General of Canada and all of the nation's major political parties have accepted the ruling as sound.

    The story here:

    http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/MPs_react_to_BC_polygamy_ruling-11139.aspx

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/11/23/bc-polygamy-ruling-supreme-court.html

    Posted by: Smokey | Nov 28, 2011 2:42:00 AM


  8. Andy, I don't see why u need to moralize so vehemently in the case of the elder Canadian. The law is frequently an ass...Fifteen years is hardly young (I was getting it up at 13, and no, I have had no residual damage from my "exploitation"). Your post stinks of so many ism's, most starkly ageism!!

    Posted by: Vikram Johari | Nov 28, 2011 3:47:47 AM


  9. "it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to make this distinction legally. A 17 year old is just as capable of 'taking advantage' of a 15 year old as a 56 year old."

    The laws are structured so as to be somewhat realistic to the kinds of relationships that are more likely to form.

    And a 17 year old may take advantage of a 15 year old, but it's much more likely that someone in their 40s or 50s will, either intentionally or unintentionally, because the individuals are highly likely to be at different emotional and intellectual states. The laws can't be designed for a case-by-case basis.

    Really, a 50 year old man having sex with an 18 or 19 year old is just as inappropriate from a developmental standpoint as having sex with a post-pubescent 15 or 16 year old. But we do have to set the age of consent somewhere, and it happens to be at what's become a culturally-recognized transition point.

    Posted by: Nat | Nov 28, 2011 4:12:25 AM


  10. "Your post stinks of so many ism's, most starkly ageism!!"

    Wanting to keep old men from having sex with underage boys isn't ageism.

    Posted by: Nat | Nov 28, 2011 4:15:22 AM


  11. "all hell had broken loose"

    All hell did not break loose that day. Tens of thousands of citizens marched from the Castro to City Hall in sorrow and in grief. And in peace.

    The riots happened after the verdict in Dan White's trial months later.

    Posted by: BobN | Nov 28, 2011 4:43:44 AM


  12. hey asshat how about reading the articles youre linking to and putting on your website. the first paragraph states the guy was given NO jail time, a 2 year SUSPENDED sentence and be listed on the Sex Offenders Registry.

    Posted by: Adam | Nov 28, 2011 7:08:19 AM


  13. Brandon K. did the posting not Andy.

    Posted by: unruly | Nov 28, 2011 7:15:57 AM


  14. It is...it is clearly ageism...stopping old man from having sex with a boy..what else is it?? How does age matter to this unless you are screwing your own dad?

    Posted by: Vikram Johari | Nov 28, 2011 9:07:43 AM


  15. Considering how immature people are these days right up through their 20's, maybe the age of consent should be raised.

    Posted by: anon | Nov 28, 2011 10:12:52 AM


  16. Hi, all.

    Thanks for catching the error on the Canadian thing.

    - BKT

    Posted by: Brandon K. Thorp | Nov 28, 2011 11:06:10 AM


  17. idk, I might rather go to jail for a year than have to register as a sex offender for 20 years. Ridiculous.

    Posted by: John K. | Nov 28, 2011 12:17:17 PM


  18. The inappropriateness pertains to the possibility for the older party to take advantage of the younger party. That's not ageism, VIKRAM, it's safeguarding individuals with far less life experience and a very limited ability to understand how, when or why they are being abused.
    What bothers me is that a heterosexual male is championed for dating a younger woman but a homosexual male is called a pervert or pedophile for dating a younger man (notice I said MAN).

    Posted by: D.R.H. | Nov 28, 2011 1:06:10 PM


  19. Any 56 year-old pedophile who has had sex with a 15 year-old child should be imprisoned for life. It is ridiculous that this child abuser is only getting two years' probation. There needs to be a universal and global age of consent of 18 years.

    Posted by: DB | Nov 28, 2011 2:05:31 PM


  20. Some of y'all need to get your panicky selves checked. Not all encounters between an older person and a younger person are abusive or exploitative, so there's no need to criminalize age-discordant sex on the whole. If the concern IS the abuse and exploitation of persons, then laws need to be created to address THAT. For two reasons:

    (1) Because a young person can learn a lot from an older person when it comes to the body, (safe) sex, and life lessons in general;

    (a) provided that the older person sees this as a learning opportunity for the young person and leaves them better off than how they were when they entered the relationship; and

    (b) considering that this useful learning will NEVER be taught in school; and

    (2) Because there are a number of young people who prey on and take advantage of older people who are alone and in need of sex/love/affection/attention. So why are we not criminalizing them as well?

    I agree with the above that these laws are ageist because it presumes that older men who want to have sex with younger people are INHERENTLY ill-intended. It also has unrealistic notions about the sexuality of young persons and fails to recognize the needs and desire of young persons who have some sort of attraction for older persons -- and they ARE out there.

    It's entirely one-sided.

    Posted by: Smokey | Nov 28, 2011 2:39:14 PM


  21. When you want to have sex with a MINOR you are ill-intended. How is this even an argument?

    Posted by: D.R.H. | Nov 28, 2011 3:24:31 PM


  22. "Ill-intended" to do what, exactly?

    And what, exactly, do you mean by "minor" if we all know that ages of majority are more or less arbitrary, what with it being 16 in Scotland, 18 in Canada (except for sexual consent at 16 and alcohol consumption at 19), and 21 in Mississippi?

    Also, how useful are these ages of majority if a 16 year old is deemed old enough to join the military and have consensual sex, but not old enough to marry or own property?

    Posted by: Smokey | Nov 28, 2011 4:41:14 PM


  23. And you're telling me that youth are not "ill-intended" either? I've seen some young people leverage their looks/sexuality to groom older men for gifts and money (but not sex because that would apparently be illegal) -- and they do this being fully aware of the power they have over these men.

    How is this not also the target of prohibitions?

    Again, the law is clearly one-sided and fails to reflect the reality of what is really going on.

    Posted by: Smokey | Nov 28, 2011 4:47:29 PM


  24. A minor - someone you should never have sex with.

    You mean to tell me that laws should allow for consensual sex with minors - we'll call them young boys because you can't seem to accept the idea that a person can be too young to have sex with - because old perverts are being taken advantage of by the inescapable charms of said young men?

    You, sir, need to get yourself checked.

    Posted by: D.R.H. | Nov 28, 2011 5:45:00 PM


  25. the 56 and 15 year old piece says a year earlier and I am almost sure the writer meant "year later" -- can someone check?

    Posted by: David B. | Nov 28, 2011 6:32:25 PM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Chaz Bono Proposes To Girlfriend« «