Bell Curve The Law Talking Guy Raised by Republicans U.S. West
Well, he's kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog. Actually, replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly," and replace "dog" with "son."

Friday, September 29, 2006

Do I Make You Horny?

The new broke to day that Representative Mark Foley, Republican from Florida, resigned after news leaked of very inappropriate emails sent to a page, a 16-year old boy, including the title of this post. Apparently, Mr. Foley was also on a committee to punish sex offenders.

I could rant about "family values" Republicans, hypocrites, and self-hating gays, but that would be all too easy. I'm just waiting for the picture to surface of Rep. Foley with George W. Bush.

That's a turn-on.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

The fact that Mark Foley fought so hard against child abuse and has now been caught red handed,is no more hypocritical than the rest of this whole administration. It is all about "Do As I Say,Not As I Do" that is the backbone of this regime.If we look back at the whole picture he was probably one of the loud mouths so critical of Clinton when he got caught "with his pants down",But at least Monica Was a female and of age! 

// posted by Jim Fais

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Mark Foley, you reap what you so, and what comes around goes around. I hope you get the max allowed by law, and on the sex offender registry, and that if you know anything about John Walsh, you squeal on him as well. ROFLMAO!!!!!! 

// posted by ZMan

Anonymous said...

Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue . . . "traditional Family Values" are still virtuous. 

// posted by Ned Williams

Anonymous said...

How long do you think Dems can keep this in the news cycle? 

// posted by LTG

Anonymous said...

Gosh LTG, how long will the GOP (Groping Old Pedophiles) keep pretending that Foley shouldn't be held responsible for his sick behavior? Limbaugh is trying to blame the Dems by insinuating they made this an issue just before the election. Oh sure! AA would call this behavior "enabling". Many Republicans knew he was much too attracted to the male pages five years ago. The pages were warned to stay away from Foley. Now more IM's have surfaced that were sent to a multitude of other underage male pages. When Nancy Pelosi called for an investigation in the House regarding Foley, she was booed by the Republicans. My, what a shining moment that must have been. I can only assume that the GOP must secretly approve of sex with minors. What sickens me the most is that the GOP is blaming everyone from the young page to the Democrats when they should just owe up to the fact that Foley is a pedophile but instead they prefer to defend him. Disgusting!  

// posted by Ederlore

Anonymous said...

Jim Fais: your last comment only needs to read "at least Monica was of age" - the gender of the two parties is irrelevant.

I'm not at all familiar with this story (being, as most of you know, a Brit who's also spent time in Oz), and am also not familiar with ages of consent in the US (in the UK, it's 16 for straight, 18 for gay), but I'm guessing that even if 16 *is* legal, Foley's still old enough for this to be scarily predatory behaviour, and should pay for it, which should include his former colleagues ceasing to support him. Especially considering his position on that committee.

I have to admit, paedophiles are about the only thing that I'm scared of (well, rapists run a close second, but that's it), and I don't even have kids yet. [shudders] 

// posted by Pombat

Anonymous said...

Pombat, like most things in the USA, it varies by state. But generally, there is a norm of an age of consent of 18 (for once Gays get equal treatment here). There is often a clause to protect high school sweethearts about how sex is statutory rape if the younger partner is under 18 and more than 1 or 2 years younger than the older partner. Foley was in his 40s and 50s when this was going on and the pages were all in high school (the nature of the program) and so all under 18.

I may be completely wrong, so you'll have consult Law Talking Guy for more legal clarity.  

// posted by RBR

Anonymous said...

Let me concur with RBR. We don't call it "age of consent." Here's what the law is: Anyone not 18 is a minor child. A minor child cannot, by definition, consent to sex under our laws. No kidding. Having sex with a minor is called statutory rape, and consent is not a defense. Period. Some states have modified the law to say that there is no rape unless the age difference between the parties is at least two or four years. Some states still criminalize sex between an 18 year old and a 17 year old. 52 and 16 will not work anywhere. That law is enforced, particularly in small towns if Daddy is upset, and in public parks. In a good many states, all fornication is still technically illegal, but that law is never enforced anymore. Traditionally (and in some states) sex within marriage is never rape because consent is presumed... it is a "duty." Crazy, I know, but once you understand the legal framework, you realize why we don't use the phrase "age of consent" over here, and why it is stuck at 18.

Marriage, however, with parental  consent, can take place as young as 16 in most, or 14 in some, states. In a few states (Utah is one) there is no age limit for marriage with parental consent. A married person is no longer a minor child, but an emancipated adult, so he or she can consent to sex. That's how it legally fits together. I'm not defending these laws, I'm explaining how they fit together.

Oh, sodomy (anal and oral sex) is illegal in a many states, regardless of the age, the gender, or even the marital status of the participants. (Southerners sometimes try to enforce these laws against gays or to punish male prostitutes twice).

Interestingly, these laws used to make it easier to punish polygamy, because "cohabitation" was illegal, whether or not they were formally married. Today, it is harder to punish polygamy except where the parties are actually trying to get legally married, or where (as is sadly common) the woman is less than 18, because the laws are not enforced generally against 'fornication' i.e., outside of marriage - and trying to enforce them selectively against polygamists would violate the 14th amendment.



 

// posted by LTG

Anonymous said...

Ok, thanks LTG - I was aware of some of that (for example fornication being technically illegal in some states), but not all. As I'm not a legal expert of any kind, I couldn't swear that we actually have an 'age of consent', but that's what it's commonly called.

Also here, you can marry at 16 with parental consent, 18 without.

I'm not sure where we stand on the statutory rape bit - I think technically a 16yo boy could be taken to court for sleeping with his 15yo girlfriend, but if it does happen, it doesn't make the news.

And I think we also had the 'sex within marriage isn't rape' thing, but I have a funny feeling that law was finally reviewed and abolished not so long ago - pity they took so long to do so.

But then, up until the '70s, suicide was a hanging offence in this country. 

// posted by Pombat

Anonymous said...

"Suicide was a hanging offence"

That's funny!

 

// posted by LTG

Anonymous said...

Only in the UK legal system....

Actually, suicide being a hanging offence makes sense when you look back at the context - I was told that the law was introduced centuries ago, around the time of the Black Death / bubonic plague.

Many people were dying hideous deaths, families were being decimated, all pretty horrible stuff. And so, in an attempt to prevent the loss of healthy workers to suicide (remember this is way back when, they needed as many healthy people working the land etc as possible), this law was introduced. Because the church's control of the country was so strong, the people believed that hanging offences = express lane to hell. So, it slowed the suicide rate, because struggling to survive was apparently better than hell... 

// posted by Pombat