dating a older man

[Rhubarb297]

Helloooooo Rhubarb. Might want to re-read my first response up there before you say what she's doing is "not a violation of the law you cite and I doubt any other law". (Hint: It rhymes with "snorenication").

You're forgetting Georgia is still 100 years behind the rest of society when it comes to sexual freedom. Heck, they just got rid of mandatory burkas a few years ago

Didn't see an update on what the court's ruling was and don't have time to look myself.. Can't imagine that it was upheld. Nonetheless, you can't selectively enforce the law against one set of individuals while not enforcing it against others. This law is aimed at sex between ALL unmarried individuals. The law would be unconstitutional in its application (a violation of the Equal Protection Clause) if it was just applied to some unmarried people, i.e. those of a youthful age but not apply it to others, those over 18.

In statutory construction, the specific controls over the general. The law says the age of consent in Georgia is 16. People keep coming on here and quoting these general principles involving a parent having a right to control his or her child as providing a basis for overruling the legislature's decision to establish a 16 year age of consent and in effect moving it up to 18. It just doesn't work that way. If a 16 year old in Georgia walks out of the house and meets with a 35 year old, and they engage in sex, the 35 year old has done nothing illegal. Immoral, yes. Reprehensible, yes, Illegal, no.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Except for the fact that Georgia has a variety of arcane sex-related laws on the books that they actually prosecute, which is how they will get around the whole over-16-but-under-18 issue you raise.

I suspect if they aren't just prosecuting the homosexuals for fornication (as that case suggests) then the convictions will be upheld. Don't forget,this is the backwoods of the US.

 

[Rhubarb297]

Except for the fact that Georgia has a variety of arcane sex-related laws on the books that they actually prosecute, which is how they will get around the whole over-16-but-under-18 issue you raise.

I suspect if they aren't just prosecuting the homosexuals for fornication (as that case suggests) then the convictions will be upheld. Don't forget,this is the backwoods of the US.

As I noted in the above post, I highly doubt you're right. Do you have any proof that law was upheld? In addition, government can't enforce the law against one classification of people, but not another. There's a major equal protection clause problem if government does.

The reason why the law is 16 for the age of consent (unlike 18 like most people think) is EXACTLY because government doesn't want to be in a position where they have to enforce the laws against the multitude of 16 and 17 year olds having sex with someone older than them.. That's another reason why you're theory makes no sense.

 

[Rhubarb297]

As I thought I was right. I checked. The law was declared unconstitutional by the George Supreme Court.

In re: J.M., January 13, 2003 (Fornication Law)
This decision struck down the state's fornication law, saying
that the government may not "reach into the bedroom of a private
residence and criminalize the private, noncommercial, consensual
acts of two persons legally capable of consenting" to sexual
activity. In so doing, the Court found that Georgia's constitutional
right to privacy protects a 16-year-old who was prosecuted for
engaging in sexual intercourse with his girlfriend in her bedroom.
The ACLU of Georgia served as counsel for 16-year-old "J.M.," (who
has remained anonymous to protect his privacy) along with local
attorney Catherine Sanderson. Georgia law sets the age at which a
person can legally consent to sexual intercourse at sixteen. Chief
Justice Fletcher noted in his opinion that "the only remaining
rationale for the fornication statute is to enable the State to
regulate the private, sexual conduct of persons who the legislature
has determined are capable of consenting to that conduct, and that
is an insufficient state interest to overcome Georgia's constitutional
protections of privacy." Note: Justice Leah Ward Sears concured in
judgement only.

 

[You Are Guilty]

I just finished reading the actual decision (In re J.M., 575 S.E.2d 441) and it didn't quite go as far as declaring that the state absolutely can't regulate sex between two of-age people, at least I don't think (haven't read any subsequent cases yet).

It was relatively tailored to the specific facts of this case where they locked themselves in a bedroom with a stool up against the door (which apparently didn't work too well when Mom walked in on them and boyfriend jumped out the window).

But it does leave the door open if other factors are present, i.e. boinking in "public" areas, consent/force issues, or with monetary consideration.

In any event, just because a law (not necessarily this one) is unconstitutional doesn't mean you can't get arrested for it as long as its still on the books. I imagine most people aren't going to take a Fornication case all the way up the appellate ladder.

 

[Rhubarb297]

Okay, now you're reaching. The fornication law has already been taken up the "appellate ladder." Georgia can't enforce it. Sure someone can mistakenly be arrested for violating the statute (cops often make mistakes), but the person would be immediately let go once they found out the statute was declared unconstitutional. No judge is going to allow a person to be prosecuted under a statute that has been held to be unconstitutional. In fact no prosecutor is going to file charges under a statute that has been declared unconstitutional. That's preposterous. It would most certainly be an ethical violation to even try.

Well of course they can still pursue people for forced fornication or fornication in public. Those are also covered by other statutes, such as rape and public indency laws.

I think maybe you've let your dislike of Georgia cloud your judgement on this one. Hey, it's not my favorite state either.

 

[You Are Guilty]

In any event, just because a law (not necessarily this one) is unconstitutional doesn't mean you can't get arrested for it as long as its still on the books.

No argument To be clear, I probably should have said "a law that hasn't been found unconstitutional (yet)" rather than what I did. I think it makes sense then.


But Georgia still sucks.

 

[gapeach19]

Hmmm...Looks like this dating older man stuff is pretty common. Not only in georgia either.

 

[gapeach19]

Okay, now you're reaching. The fornication law has already been taken up the "appellate ladder." Georgia can't enforce it. Sure someone can mistakenly be arrested for violating the statute (cops often make mistakes), but the person would be immediately let go once they found out the statute was declared unconstitutional. No judge is going to allow a person to be prosecuted under a statute that has been repealed. In fact no prosecutor is going to file charges under a statute that has been declared unconstitutional. That's preposterous. It would most certainly be an ethical violation to even try.

Well of course they can still pursue people for forced fornication or fornication in public. Those are also covered by other statutes, such as rape and public indency laws.

I think maybe you've let your dislike of Georgia cloud your judgement on this one. Hey, it's not my favorite state either.

So, bottom line, does the age difference matter if you are over 16 in Georgia, uh, I mean 'backwoods'?

 

[You Are Guilty]

So, bottom line, does the age difference matter if you are over 16 in Georgia, uh, I mean 'backwoods'?

Legally no, but just because that's the case doesn't mean the police won't arrest you anyway

 

[gapeach19]

Then what is the point of having those laws all about ages, and what's appropriate and what's not? Silly Georgia laws. We just write them to sound important!

 

[CdwJava]

Hmmm...Looks like this dating older man stuff is pretty common. Not only in georgia either.

Many things that are illegal or immoral are common. All because something may be done with some regularity doesn't make it right or legal.

- Carl

 

[divgradcurl]

As I noted in the above post, I highly doubt you're right. Do you have any proof that law was upheld? In addition, government can't enforce the law against one classification of people, but not another. There's a major equal protection clause problem if government does.

Just a bit of nit-picking: enforcing a law against one group and not another really only gets to equal protection when the groups are "protected classes." So, while it would not be constitutional to enforce a law against, say asians and not caucasians, it would be constitutional (in principle) to enforce a law against people wearing red shirts and not people wearing blue shirts, because the color of your shirt is not a "protected class."

This is relevant because neither age nor sexual orientation (in most states) are protected classes...

The holding in the case overturning the law was predicated on privacy grounds, not equal protection grounds.

 

[Rhubarb297]

Many things that are illegal or immoral are common. All because something may be done with some regularity doesn't make it right or legal.

- Carl

It always cringe when people say "you can't legislate morality." We legislate morality (what society judges is right or wrong) all the time. What is correct is that it is not always wise to legislate on certain moral issues. For example 16 and 17 year olds engaging in sex. Just too hard to enforce. Same thing with adultery...definitely immoral, but do we really want to make it a criminal issue. No.

By the way, I agree with your comment.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Aren't all laws based on "morality"?

For example, I personally see no harm in legalizing murder in certain situations (i.e. that fat, smelly guy who refuses to move out of the subway doors at Grand Central during rush hour), but society's morals (via their laws) say that I cannot.

Just because someone wants to have sex with their dead dog, who are we to stand in his (or her) way?

You're all too judgmental