The lost common sense of the California Democrat Party
SB-145, first introduced in 2019 and known as the "California Sex Offender Dream Act," was recently passed by the California state Legislature and signed into law by Democrat governor Gavin Newsom on Sept. 11. The legislation, which has not been without controversy, significantly alters existing California law by giving judges the power to decide whether to declare someone a sex offender for having anal or oral sex with a minor. Under previous California law, a judge had discretion on whether to place someone on the sex offender registry in cases involving a young adult and a minor, but not when it involved anal or oral sex, as that distinction required an automatic registration. This new legislation eliminates that and gives the Judiciary the authority to have the same discretion as it has now in cases of vaginal intercourse. State senator Scott Weiner (D), lead sponsor of the bill, tweeted, "The bill ends discrimination against #LGBTQ young people on CA's sex offender registry. It treats LGBTQ people exactly how straight ppl are now treated."
The bill, which passed by a vote of 41-18 in the California Assembly, and the state Senate, 23-10, is not without its detractors, however, and has drawn the ire of state senator Melissa Melendez (R) and other members of the Assembly who claim that the bill is an attempt to normalize sex with children. Why would they claim this, as the bill clearly is about ending LGBT discrimination? Well, for starters, let's take a deeper look at the legislation. Now, under SB-145, judicial discretion is given to minors between the ages of 14 and 17 where the offender is ten years older or younger than them. If you are scratching your head wondering if that means what you think it means, you are correct. Under serious lawmaker Scott Weiner (D)'s bill, a 24-year-old who has sex with someone who is ten years younger would not automatically have to register as a sex offender. Wow. In what universe is sex between a 24-year-old and 14-year-old okay? We don't even allow a 14-year-old to drive a car or vote. Why was a ten-year age gap specified when authoring this legislation? Does someone who is 14 years old understand the seriousness of sex?
State senator Melendez (R), one of the of the most vocal critics, tweeted at serious legislator Scott Weiner (D) regarding the bill, declaring, "I know exactly what the bill does because I read it. You're trying to normalize sex with children. And I'm not going to let you get away with it." Does this bill normalize sex with children or declare it is okay? No, but what SB-145 does is move one step closer in that direction. It desensitizes the seriousness of sexual assault and ultimately empowers those who would seek to exploit minors under what was previously an automatic sex offender registration. Your taxpayer dollars at work California.
With the passage of SB-145, one has to wonder what the next steps will be in the coming years regarding the debate over what constitutes sexual exploitation of minors and at what age someone is ready for sex. This legislation opens the door to all kinds of possibilities. If sex between a 24-year-old and a 14-year-old is OK, why would it be a crime for someone who is 20 years old to have sex with a 12-year-old boy or girl? I can already hear the argument of how that is only two years younger than 14. As history has taught us, government takes a mile when given an inch. It loses its ability to see and hear, and in the case of serious lawmaker Scott Weiner (D), it evidently loses common sense also when trying to legislate morality under the guise of liberty.
Last month, the federal Department of Labor reported that in the week of August 29, more than 236,784 Californians filed unemployment claims. The week before that, 196,916 claims were filed. Do the job that voters in CA-11 elected you to do, Scott Weiner (D), and get your constituents back to work and protect their rights. As someone who believes in liberty and justice for all, I applaud anyone who supports equal rights. That did not happen here. Not even close.