California SB145 — an anti-discrimination bill

By Sandy . . . NARSOL’s response to California’s SB 145, drafted by Sen. Scott Wiener, passed by a majority of both houses, and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, is that the bill is not a sexual offense bill but an anti-discrimination bill. It puts the available legal options for criminal oral and anal sex equal to what they have been for criminal vaginal sex for decades.

Additionally, NARSOL is disgusted at those who have hijacked the bill and twisted its intent to further their own agendas. Article headers such as “Governor Newsom Signs Bill Giving Sex Predators Easier Access to Young Teens,” “New Calif. law gives rapist [sic] potential protection,” “California Democrats introduce bill to protect pedophiles who lure and sexually abuse innocent children,” and claims that the bill applied to children as young as eight and that “PEDOPHILIA is now LEGAL in CALIFORNIA,” a social media claim, show not only the ignorance of the writers but also their willingness to lie and distort the truth.

The bill applies only to teens ages 14 through 17 – the age of consent in California is 18 – in a consensual albeit illegal sexual relationship with a person up to ten years older.

The bill does not decriminalize the act. The older person will still be charged, prosecuted, and, if convicted, sentenced. This is as true of a 18-year-old with an 17-year-old as it is of a 23-year-old with a 14-year-old.

California law has for decades allowed judges’ discretion and the right to consider each case individually when it comes to placement on the sex offender registry for heterosexual situations, but for homosexual situations, such discretion and individual consideration was not available; the convicted person was automatically placed on the registry.

All that California SB 145 does is rectify that inequity.

Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.

Sandy Rozek

Sandy is communications director for NARSOL, editor-in-chief of the Digest, and a writer for the Digest and the NARSOL website. Additionally, she participates in updating and managing the website and assisting with a variety of organizational tasks.

  • This topic has 0 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 8 months ago by Sandy RozekSandy Rozek.
Viewing 3 reply threads
  • Author
    • #76613 Reply

      Another good post from Sandy.

      Most Americans simply cannot keep up with their nonsense. Not just for their witch hunt towards men who have committed sexual crimes towards minors but also for their LGBT ideology.

      They stand for LGBT ideology and have a high “value” for minors and have this deep “concern” for their well-being, yet at the same time, they couldn’t accept an anti-discrimination bill for LGBT people and a bill which also makes things more fair for minors who have committed SO crimes. Their ignorance, fear, bitterness, and hatred of SO crimes towards minors and those that commit them (in most cases just men), seems to have overshadowed any sense of favor or commitment to the LGBT community or value and concern for minors. Seems that they will do anything in the name of destroying men who have committed SO crimes towards minors at this point. Even having a bill removed which would favor certain members of the LGBT and minors.

      Notice how the senator who drafted the bill most likely drafted it under the guise of it being an “anti-discrimination” bill and not a “s@@ o@@ender” bill. So even he, had to play into the narrative to avoid the type of reaction he has since received. Despite the “anti-discrimination” label, and the fact that the bill only applies to people under 18, he has received backlash nonetheless. Why would (adult) sexual relations between people under-18 at all, is beyond me. They simply cannot keep up with their nonsense. Notice also how the people who have opposed the bill only focused on men who have committed SO crimes. One of which used that certain word which starts with the letter p. It’s as if most Americans operate under a “hive-mind” of sorts.

      Keep in mind, that lawmakers have allowed minors to take hormones and live as if they’re the opposite gender (even when their age is in the single digits), as well as receive abortions (regardless of the stage or procedure in which they’re performed), teen sexual relations and a porn industry which has terrible content that is widely available for minors to view. God forbid that some of them grow up and commit crimes of the same nature. Especially any towards minors.

      That being said, there was this outrage over a certain movie which was added to a well-known video streaming service. The service has been boycotted and politicians have called for the DOJ to be involved. Despite all this other stuff that goes on around them. The stuff I’ve described in the previous paragraph. By the way, the same service has promoted the very same things I mentioned in the 1st sentence of this paragraph, with it’s content. There are other things I haven’t mentioned such as three way or open relationships. Relationships that often involve minors, like on that one CNN docu-series.

    • #76637 Reply

      I really appreciate all the work NARSOL does for this community. Thank you for this great article.

    • #76639 Reply
      H n H

      The definition of what constitutes a “crime” needs to be redefined. How is an unwanted touch by a 15 yr old girl towards an older man a crime because of the trauma it’s supposedly causes the teen, yet a 12 yr old boy is given his own show to celebrate living his life as a girl? (I am Jazz)… How is THAT not traumatizing to their life when they get older? But oh no, we don’t want to scold them for their sexual proclivities, instead acknowledge them while criminalizing the fact that they exist at all. Only in the US of today could such flagrant hypocrisy and backwards thinking exist and be given food to grow.

    • #76676 Reply

      H n H

      The main focus of the lawmakers and citizens, are any sort of sexual contact involving men and people under 18. No matter the circumstances, or whether or not there was any sort of trauma involved (for example: a man was arrested for simply drawing cartoons and another for a doll that “looked too young”). That is all that they are focused on. I think you meant to say that what constitutes as abuse, should be redefined. Which surely, parents having their sons do drag or having them take hormones and live as if they’re the opposite gender should fall under, but of course it can’t and won’t since there is nothing sexual directly concerning the parents and the son (like for example: a parent would be arrested for showing them a dirty magazine but it would be no big deal if the son or daughter found it themselves) and also they are in a nation where many people already accept that sort of thing. Two men that wear drag or “identify” as women, can be parents as well as two women, or women that “identify” as men. Even four people could be parents.

      Keep in mind that some imposing member of some “services,” per some anonymous, “concerned” citizen, could take away a minor away from his/her parents, thus breaking up his/her family, simply over a parent leaving a small package of cannabis on a dresser, and never over their son doing drag or taking hormones and living out as the other gender. The lawmakers and citizens have their morals but their morals are limited and must fit the narrative of the world around them. The people who oppose transgenderism must go against a large number of people who accept it.

      The only thing that could get both groups to act quickly and vehemently would be anything having to do with sexual crimes towards minors. Like for example: the reaction for a certain movie which shown up recently on a certain movie-streaming platform, and how there was a boycott of the platform and calls from politicians for the DOJ to be involved. The company behind the platform lost a huge amount of money within a short period of time. The people would barely budge for anything else.

      Also keep in mind that lawmakers and citizens have allowed minors to take hormones and live as though they are the opposite gender, yet at the same time they have prevented them from using cannabis to treat pain and seizures, even cancer. To get treated for cancer they must go through some expensive and horrendous treat called chemotherapy (not a coincidence as money makes the world go round). They have allowed a thriving tobacco industry with it’s sale of cigarettes, which has sickened and killed more people than cannabis, the main sickness being some type of cancer. A lot of minors have gotten some sort of cancer from second-hand smoke from cigarettes. One case I know of had involved an infant who was hospitalized. The mother actually smoked outside of the hospital as he/she was being treated! American reality is just as real as one of it’s nonsense reality shows that it pushes out onto the masses. Let’s not forget that alcohol too has sickened and killed way more people than cannabis.

      Both cigarettes and alcohol have caused more damage to minors than a number of sexual crimes that were committed. Believe it or not. They will never realize that though. Like say a man were to have taken pics or videos of two minors having sexual relations with each other, but they never see him nor make any contact with him, then he just leaves. When you really think of it, just what on earth has that actually done to them? Though it would still be wrong if course. He would be one of the “worst,” simply because of the gross and off-putting nature of his crime, more than anything else. Worse than the gruesome fictional characters that they love.

      Like I said, they are only concerned with any sort of sexual contact between men and people under 18 (females in particular for the older teens). Regardless of the amount of damage done or lack thereof. In the case of the man in that example above, “contact,” still exists where there is none. His deed would count as “contact.” Even the cases involving officers who play pretend online, count as “contact.”

Viewing 3 reply threads
Reply To: California SB145 — an anti discrimination bill
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must be 18 or older to comment.
  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Comments arguing about political or religious preferences will be deleted.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post contact information for yourself or another person.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.

Your information:

<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre class=""> <em> <strong> <del datetime="" cite=""> <ins datetime="" cite=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">