Florida | News

Girl Arrested and Expelled From High School Over Gay Relationship

Hunt
Earlier this school year, Florida’s Sebastian River High School senior Kaitlyn Hunt began a relationship with a fellow classmate, a 15-year old girl. This past February, soon after her 18th birthday, she was arrested and charged with two felony counts of lewd and lascivious battery on a child 12–16 years of age.

Hunt's parents claim the the family of their daughter's girlfriend has never approved of the same-sex relationship and has since made Hunt a target. According to The Examiner:

“They are out to destroy my daughter, because they feel like she ‘made’ their daughter gay. They see being gay as wrong and they blame my daughter. Of course, I see it 100% differently. I don’t see or label these girls as gay. They are teenagers in high school experimenting with their sexuality – with mutual consent. And even if their daughter is gay, who cares? She is still their daughter.”

The other girl's family has taken even more action against Hunt: "The girl’s family petitioned the school board and got Kaitilyn expelled from school, weeks before graduation. This decision was made in spite of a judge declaring she could continue to attend school as long as she didn’t have contact with the girl."

More from Opposing Views, who reports on a plea deal that Hunt has been offered:

Her mother, Kelley Hunt Smith, claims State Attorney Brian Workman offered her daughter a plea deal that she has until Friday to accept or face trial. The plea deal includes “two years house arrest and one year probation.”

Her father, Steven R. Hunt, said the school disapproved of the relationship from the beginning. Hunt reportedly had good grades and participated in cheerleading, chorus and basketball. She was voted “most school spirited.” But when she began dating another girl from the basketball team, her coach dropped her citing that the relationship would cause “drama.”

Hunt's family has started a petition on Change.org (which has so far netted over 36,000 signatures) as well as a Free Kate Facebook page

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Please read the following clarification from Kate's Father. http://www.examiner.com/article/family-of-kaitlyn-hunt-teen-facing-felony-for-dating-student-clear-up-rumors

    This is not an LGBT issue.

    Posted by: PSLKJR | May 19, 2013 5:09:22 PM


  2. She broke the law and committed statutory rape, I don't see how any of these other factors has anything to do with her prosecution. She was 18 and having sex with a 15-year-old ... that is wrong. Kate should have dated girls her own ago.

    Posted by: Kevin | May 19, 2013 5:10:44 PM


  3. This is so sick. It takes truly evil people to produce ill on a kid.

    Posted by: Jay | May 19, 2013 5:19:27 PM


  4. @Kevin
    If tards like you learned to read you'd notice that she isn't being charged with statutory rape. That's because it doesn't apply at all. Look up the statute.

    And who does the school board think they are to ignore two court orders? Just another board controlled by fundamentalist Christians. Like basically all of them.

    Posted by: Steve | May 19, 2013 5:33:46 PM


  5. kevin -- enjoy trolling much?

    Posted by: Chrissypoo | May 19, 2013 5:35:01 PM


  6. @Kevin-

    When I was a freshman in high school I dated a senior boy who was 17 going on 18. When I was 16, I started dating a boy who was 18. They were in the same school, this wasn't like a pedophile situation, they are peers. 15 and 18 arent very different especially among girls. Want to know how many hetero marriages woudnt have existed in the last 50 years if senior BOYS couldnt date freshman or sophomore girls? Come on.

    Posted by: Stef | May 19, 2013 5:40:05 PM


  7. This all sounds a bit sus. I wonder if Kaitlyn is acting at the behest of a straight guy who wanted to groom a younger girl for his own sexual perversions. Don't laugh - I've seen how women - with boyfriends - befriend other women in order to help their boyfriends fantasy-wise.

    In any case, if Kaitlyn broke the law, she broke the law. This is not a gay rights issue or an issue of discrimination.

    Posted by: Adam | May 19, 2013 5:53:59 PM


  8. I thought situations like this one fell under the category of "Romeo & Juliet" relationships if the participants were within 3 years of each other in age and no force or coercion was involved. If I read the article properly the two girls were 17 and 15 when they met. So, where's the crime?

    Posted by: Huh? | May 19, 2013 6:01:56 PM


  9. Actually, Jason (aka Adam), your comments are always laughable, which may be why you troll under so many screen names.

    Anyway, the parents are right. It's ludicrous that laws are on the books that make it a crime for consenting high school students--gay or straight--to date one another. They are, as Stef says, peers. The harm is in the law and the idiotic consequences it has brought on.

    Posted by: Ernie | May 19, 2013 6:16:25 PM


  10. I wonder if the people would have signed the petition had it been two boys in a relationship. Doubt it.

    Posted by: Adam | May 19, 2013 6:33:54 PM


  11. You know-this story is presented as "she is a victim" and yet I cannot help but think-if SHE were HE-all the feminizzzts would be screaming rape and crying for castration.

    So where are they and their so-called "love" of "equal rights" now?

    Posted by: Political Cynic | May 19, 2013 7:11:00 PM


  12. @PoliticalCynic, not sure why you assume a feminist would view a relationship--regardless of sexes involved--between consenting teenagers as rape? You're randomly projecting your anti-feminist views onto a situation where they don't apply.

    Posted by: Ernie | May 19, 2013 7:27:58 PM


  13. Please sign the petition. It is at 41,000 and needs a total of 50,000 before action can be taken.

    Posted by: Mike Ryan | May 19, 2013 7:41:20 PM


  14. I still don't understand why this is a felony charge. If the crime is just dating, which doesn't mean there was any sexual intercourse, it shouldn't be a felony. Now if it were a 30+ year old woman and a 15 year old girl I wouldn't dispute that but these are two teenagers, both still in high school.

    Posted by: Derrick | May 19, 2013 7:52:08 PM


  15. Adam can't even troll well. How pathetic. Rick/Jason/Ratbastard/David Hearne/Adam/Uffda is really quite terrible at this.

    Posted by: MateoM | May 19, 2013 7:58:47 PM


  16. We can argue about the legality of an 18 year old dating someone 3 years younger, but there is no doubt that homophobia was the motive for trying to get Kaitlyn in trouble. The 15 year old girl's parents are being foolish because all this is doing is publicizing their daughter's sexuality further. And in today's cultural climate, parents can't stop a 15 year old girl from experimenting sexually by suing her lesbian girlfriend. Their daughter is going to do what she wants - if anything, she'll probably be more proudly lesbian now (maybe she'll even become a regular reader of Towleroad, if she isn't one already!) And it is totally wrong to keep a girl off the basketball team because the coach disapproves of her sexuality. What a witch hunt!

    This is probably a first. I'm going to agree with Towleroaders that Kaitlyn's civil rights are being violated and that someone should help her counter-sue.

    Ernie, I guess this time we'll have to bypass our usual exchange of posts where I advocate caution for the sake of not causing backlash in the future and you advocate a "give-em hell" policy saying that this is the only way progress is achieved!

    Posted by: Mary | May 19, 2013 8:12:22 PM


  17. As a gay guy, I won't be signing this petition and I urge others not to. It appears to be a fake gay rights story that is using gay rights to push an agenda that has nothing to do with gay rights.

    Don't get sucked in by fake gay rights stories.

    Posted by: Adam | May 19, 2013 8:18:06 PM


  18. Maybe it's legal where you live, but here ANY sexual contact between a 15-yo and an 18-yo is illegal. And it would have been illegal when she was still 17-yo.

    Legally, no child under the age of 16 can give consent to anyone of any age of any gender-combination. The only exception is if BOTH are 16-yo or 17-yo...and even that is dicey. Once one of partners turns 18, it's illegal again until BOTH are 18 or older.

    And it's best to wait 'til both are 21-yo before dabbling in anything kinky or outre'.

    Posted by: Ted B. (Charging Rhino) | May 19, 2013 8:40:58 PM


  19. Don't get sucked into Adam's trolling.

    Posted by: MateoM | May 19, 2013 8:42:15 PM


  20. A great example of how age of consent laws are hard to get right. My suspicion is that the age of consent in FLA is 16. However, the judge should through this out on sparse enforcement grounds and perhaps "shock to the conscience".

    Posted by: anon | May 19, 2013 8:55:25 PM


  21. @Mary, I can say with pleasure that you are right on target. I only disagree with you when I disagree with you. :-) And while the law would also apply (absurdly) to a straight consensual relationship between teens, the motivations of the parents of the younger girl were likely about sexuality rather than age. (Some parents might be upset about the age difference; others could use that as an excuse to try punish the person who, in their minds, made their child go gay.) In any case, if the authorities went after all teenagers who were breaking this law, the jails would be full of horny young people.

    @Ted B.: I'm not sure what kinky or outre has to do with anything? Are there special laws against "kinky" sex? What qualifies as "outre" sex? (Who do you think is going to wait to 21 if they can get laid earlier?) There are places where the age of consent is different for straight kids and gay kids, and that is clearly wrong.

    Posted by: Ernie | May 19, 2013 9:33:21 PM



  22. @Huh? - They should, however, the "Romeo and Juliet" laws, (Where they exist.) are treated vastly different depending on what state you are in. Take Kansas for for a noteworthy if troubling example. According to one website: "In 2001, Matthew R. Limon was sentenced to more than 17 years in prison for having consensual oral sex with another boy - Limon had just turned 18 while the other boy was a month away from this 15th birthday. Had the second boy been female, Limon would have received at most 15 months of prison under the state's "Romeo and Juliet" law. The United States Supreme Court ordered the Kansas Court of Appeals to review the sentence after it ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that the sexual conduct between gays shouldn't be treated differently than that of heterosexuals. The court decided, however, that differential treatment is justified.
    Christopher Curtis writes for Gay. com:

    "Kansas Judge Henry W. Green Jr. justified his ruling by saying legislators could claim homosexual acts entail health risks. Green also wrote that heterosexual offenses are less objectionable because they could lead to babies being born, and "same-sex relationships do not generally lead to unwanted pregnancies." "It's insane! It's insane!" reacted Chris Hampton, a spokeswoman for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Lesbian and Gay Rights Projects. "The state is basically encouraging teen pregnancy."
    "All people should be equal in the eyes of the law, yet this decision upholds penalties that are designed to target gay and lesbian people simply to show disapproval," [Human Rights Campaign (HRC) President Cheryl Jacques] said in a prepared statement. "As the Supreme Court beautifully articulated in Lawrence v. Texas, mere disapproval is never sufficient reason to treat people differently simply for being gay," she added. "We are hopeful that this case will be correctly decided by the higher courts."
    Green's decision is, quite frankly, ludicrous. Heterosexual sex between minors is "less objectionable" because it could lead to teenage pregnancy and an unwanted birth? Assuming that pregnancy was even relevant, it's much more logical to argue that homosexual sex between minors is "less objectionable" because it won't lead to an unwanted pregnancy! The ACLU intends to appeal to the Kansas Supreme Court - hopefully, that court has more rational and sensible judges on it."


    Posted by: Mike | May 19, 2013 9:39:20 PM


  23. "(Who do you think is going to wait to 21 if they can get laid earlier?)"

    Actually, Ernie, there are people who wait until 21 or older for non-religious reasons. One young man, I think it was Michael Post, husband of Warhol superstar Edie Sedgwick, waited until 21 because he thought that was a good age to first have sex and because he wanted to lose his virginity on top of a mountain. And he did. I don't know exactly what his motive was, though.

    I personally waited for sex until I married (and I was 34, so this was no small achievement.) I always thought it made sense that sex belonged in marriage, although I naturally had some lusty desires. Also, I hated the sexual revolution even as a young child and resented being told that "young people" were responsible for it. What I was rebelling against was the 1960's belief that sexual fulfillment outranked every other concern in life. The sexual revolution shook us by the lapels and wouldn't let go - I thought it was excessive.

    Sorry to go off topic. In general though, I agree. Most people won't wait till 21, and it is hard to define "kinky" or "outre."

    Posted by: Mary | May 19, 2013 10:31:12 PM


  24. Thank you Mike. Great job explicating at least a little of this mess. It is obvious that the only way is to draw an arbitrary line somewhere and stick with it. And equally obvious that there needs to be a Romeo and Juliet exception if the age difference is smaller than some other, equally arbitrary period. Say five years. And it should go without saying that there should be no difference on account of gender.

    Posted by: melvin | May 19, 2013 11:53:12 PM


  25. @Mary, I, obviously, have no objection to people waiting till any age before having sex for religious or any other reason--whenever they feel ready and able and have a willing partner. But horny teens who feel ready to have sex (whether they really are or not) aren't about to study age of consent laws and wait till they're 21, as Ted B. implied they should if they're into that "kinky" sex. Reality check.

    And thank you, Mike, for refreshing my memory of the despicable Kansas case.

    Posted by: Ernie | May 20, 2013 12:09:24 AM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «News: Jake Gyllenhaal, Stonewall, Minnesota, Tumblr, Russia« «