California's Sick Attempt to Legalize Pedophilia
California's Sick Attempt to Legalize Pedophilia
Perversion is Their Policy
NOTE: If you enjoy this article, please consider supporting The American Tribune by leaving a like (tap the heart at the top or bottom of the article) or upgrading your subscription to paid. Liking makes a big difference: by engaging with this post, you help amplify it and bring many new people to the TAT project.
In 2024 America, most norms Western people used to hold dear are long dead and buried. Fatherless homes are the norm in most communities, divorce rates are through the roof, abortion is seen by a significant portion of the population as a sacred right, LGBT+ “marriage” is now something even most so-called “conservatives” support,1 and those with gender dysphoria receive “gender-affirming care” that often, in practice, means hospital-provided self-mutilation.
Two lessons can be gleaned from that sad state of things.
The first is that, as Robert Lewis Dabney, the Chief of Staff to Stonewall Jackson, put it, “American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader.” Every time the cultural revolution advanced, so-called “conservatives” accepted it, in the end, so now we’re left with a desperately bad cultural situation.
The other lesson is that every norm is under sustained assault. Originally, out-of-wedlock births were seen as troublesome, now they’re the norm. Then, the rainbow coalition’s demands were seen as sick perversions. Now they’re the norm and liberal women brag about taking their toddlers to drag shows.2 Then “marriage” was the line in the sand for conservatives…until the black-robed mandarins said otherwise in 2015.3 Now, gay couples can “buy” children through surrogacy.4
There is still one line in the sand, one that all with a conscience claim to stand behind, though we’ll see how that goes once a new grievance group protected by the Civil Rights Amendment is created to push this one. That line is pedophilia. Despite constant leftist attempts to normalize “minor-attracted persons,”5 as they attempt to whitewash it, the sexual abuse of children is still, thankfully, illegal.
Illegal in most places, that is. While the Bible Belt protects kids from perverts, California’s far-left legislature is attempting to not just normalize it, but legalize it. This article will track how California politicians have pushed that sick policy and who’s behind it.
For Kids, the Grass Isn’t Greener in the Golden State
In June of 2023, California’s far-left politicians attempted to block an anti-child trafficking bill that classified child trafficking as a serious felony, meaning it would be one of the crimes eligible for extra sentencing under the state’s three strikes law.6 Eventually, the outcry was serious enough that they relented.7 But, that wasn’t before they questioned the bill’s provisions, namely whether the three strikes law was too harsh for the child traffickers arrested under the bill.8
Yet worse, buying children for sex in California is still just a misdemeanor. Sane legislators have been trying to change that and make it a serious felony since 2014, but their efforts have been shot down every time.9 The bill’s opponents fear that the bill would too “harshly” punish those who buy kids for sexual abuse.10
Sadly, that strange concern for the fate of those sex-trafficking and procuring children isn’t necessarily a first for the left-dominated California legislature. In fact, for years now, it has been intent on pushing forward sexual issues regarding kids.
Sen. Weiner’s Bizarre Bills
Chief among those involved in that charge is State Senator Scott Wiener, a gay man and LGBT activist11 who excitedly announced California would be helping children as young as twelve get abortions and birth control without parental consent.12 State Senator Wiener also pushed SB 107, which turned California into a “refuge” for children seeking “gender-affirming care.”13 In other words, he made California a beacon for transing the kids. Further, he was behind SB 239, which lowered the penalty for intentionally exposing someone to HIV without their knowledge or consent from a felony to a misdemeanor.14 Much of Wiener’s support for his initiatives comes from LGBTQ activist groups like Equality California and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of California.
The SB 145 Horror Show
Most concerning, State Sen. Wiener was the one who introduced SB 145, the California bill that legalized “consensual” anal or oral sex between children as young as 14 and a “partner” up to ten years older.15 It did so by allowing judges to decline to place offenders on the sex offender registry if the child was no younger than 14 and the “partner” was no more than 10 years older. Predictably, the bill was framed as a way of defending gay kids from discrimination, as judges already had that discretion for similar situations involving vaginal sex.
While the media hysterically claimed the bill would not legalize pedophilia,16 it did legalize a 24-year-old man having anal sex with a 14-year-old boy…which is quite close to what is generally considered pedophilia (an adult desiring sexual contact with a child 13 or under).17 Further, as Liberty University noted, the bill potentially puts California in violation of its obligation to protect human rights, as it is “failing to protect minors from sexual exploitation.” Liberty noted:18
A child is defined as an individual under the age of 18, as stated by UNICEF. According to their Convention on the Rights of the Child, the government should protect children from sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. This includes people forcing children to have sex for money or making sexual pictures or films of them. In passing this bill and the one passed over 50 years ago, government officials in the state of California are failing to protect minors from sexual exploitation, which is their duty as elected government officials.
…
Why then, does the government believe a 14-year-old girl or boy is mature enough to consent to sex with someone who is up to 10 years older than they are? The truth is, they are not. In passing this bill, not only is the government once more stripping children of the protection they need to have, but they are also opening doors for sex offenders to continue to go unprosecuted and uncharged. This is no longer a world children are safe to grow up in.
While Weiner and his media apologists defended the sick bill, The Federalist explained why the bill was morally wrong, and much more than an “equality” bill, as State Sen. Wiener claimed. It explained that, while Wiener framed the bill as being about teens having sex, the wide age disparity allowed by it potentially made it about something much darker:19
The problem is that it isn’t about teenagers having sex. It’s about adults exploiting minors sexually and being legally protected in doing so. What possible justification would there be for a 24-year-old to have sex with a 15-year-old of either sex? The rational answer, of course, is there is none. Rather than addressing this reasonable concern, however, left-wing and LGBT sites decided opposition was homophobic and hateful.
…
This all comes down to the LGBT fixation on treating minors as adults capable of adult decision-making. Yet there is simply no reason for someone between the ages of 14 and 16 to be in a relationship with an adult. This should be non-negotiable, regardless of the sexes involved.
The only gray area involves teenagers on the edge of lawful adulthood who might cross over just enough to fall into legal issues. For example, McCartt provided a story of a 17-year-old girl whose mother did not want her dating a girl and pressed charges against the daughter’s 18-year-old girlfriend.
Providing reasonable legal accommodation to this very specific and narrow experience should not be an open invitation for adults to exploit young teenagers by engaging in sex with them. Unfortunately, Wiener and other California lawmakers, who have had no formal pushback on this legislation so far, are more interested in pursuing grand social ideals rather than writing simple, rational law. Left-wing media is all too happy to use labels of “hate” and “conspiracy theories” to dismiss legitimate concerns.
Similarly, an LA-area law firm noted that the bill would not only allow adult men to have sex with young kids, but would allow judges to help offenders evade registration, thus harming survivors and making California communities less safe for children:20
The goal of SB 145, according to the bill’s language, is to “exempt from mandatory registration under the act a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor and if that offense is the only one requiring the person to register.” But rather than amend existing law to include vaginal intercourse with a minor as an act that requires mandatory sex offender registration — which would in effect remedy what Senator Wiener apparently views as discrimination — the bill aims to make all criminal sex acts with a minor over 14 equal by providing offenders with an opportunity to evade said mandatory registration. Doing so would be a disservice to survivors of those sex offenders, to communities, and to law enforcement officials.
Survivors whose attackers manage to receive light sentences not befitting their crimes would be forced to accept that those convicted attackers could also evade the former mandatory punishment rightfully designating them as sex offenders depending on a judge’s decision. Communities would be forced to accept that sex offenders could now potentially live anonymously among law-abiding citizens. Law enforcement officials would be forced to accept that their ability to properly monitor sex offenders could potentially be compromised. All of these scenarios are unacceptable and highly concerning. Moreover, given that another bill Senator Wiener authored has already passed — SB 384, which we discussed in a previous blog post — such unfortunate scenarios are entirely unnecessary.
SB 384 changes the current lifelong registry system mandated for all sex offenders to a tier-based system where certain offenders who file a petition and meet specific criteria can be eligible to be removed from the list. In other words, if an individual is convicted of a sex crime with a minor, he or she is able to petition to be removed from the sex offender registry after 10 years. SB 384 has already passed, and is set to become law on January 1, 2021.
State Sen. Wiener and his allies, of course, claim that the bill doesn’t legalize pedophilia, but instead only gives judges the power to not automatically register people as sex offenders when “young people aged 14, 15, 16 or 17” have a sexual partner within 10 years of that age range.21 The problem, however, is that judges can’t be trusted. They already let other criminals, many of them repeat offenders, out of jail with barely even a slap on the wrist, if that.22 Can they be trusted to lock up sex offenders who are preying on kids as young as 14, particularly if those offenders claim to be members of the “oppressed” LGBT+ class? Hardly.
Weiner’s Other Weird Bills
Wiener’s bills involving the sexualization of children didn't end with 2020’s SB 145, however. Pressing on in the 2021-2022 session, Wiener pushed through the aforementioned SB 107, the “bring your kids to California to trans them here” bill, in response to red states placing common-sense restrictions on the mutilation of children’s genitals.23
Weiner wasn’t done there. In the 2022-2023 legislative session, he rammed through A.B. 5. As the Daily Caller reported, “A.B. 5 requires teachers to be trained to “identify” children who may be LGBTQ. It also requires teachers to be up to date on LGBTQ issues and to be taught to identify LGBTQ children whose parents might not accept their children’s sexuality.”24
Then, in that same session, Wiener pushed through AB 665. That bill allows a child as young as 12 to run away from home and check into government-run shelters without the consent of their parents, even in cases where there is not even a claim that the parents pose a danger to the child.25
One bill Wiener pushed in that session went too far even for Gov. Gavin Newsom, who vetoed it. AB 957, if signed into law, would have mandated that California judges consider, when awarding custody and visitation rights, a parent’s “affirmation” for their child’s “gender identity.” Newsom thought that a bridge too far and vetoed it.26
The Los Angeles Times, describing State Sen. Weiner, said, “His 13-year career in elected office can be viewed as a one-man experiment: How far can a politician go when he pushes all the boundaries at once?”27 That, certainly, is true. Sadly, for California’s children, that relentless assault on Chesterton’s Fence means they are at increased risk.
Other Shocking Bills
Though Gov. Newsom vetoed AB 957, in 2023, he signed a host of other shocking bills into law that further sexualize California’s kids.
AB 5, for example, focuses on prioritizing the needs of LGBT+ kids at schools; framed as a way of stopping bullying, it just further exposes kids in the California school system to yet more discussions of a sexual nature.28 AB 223 keeps petitions from “transgender youth” to change their name and gender sealed, further normalizing “sex-change” operations for youths.29 SB 760 forces schools to create “all gender” restrooms, also normalizing the concept of “transgender kids,”30 a notion that Britian’s Cass Review showed to be extremely dangerous.31 SB 857 requires “the Superintendent of Public Instruction to form an advisory task force to identify statewide needs of LGBTQ+ students and make recommendations on policies that will be supportive for their well-being,”32 so it’s yet another bill sexualizing schoolchildren.
SB 407 provides, "Foster youth have a right to be placed in out-of-home care according to their gender identity and the right to have caregivers that have received instruction on cultural competency and sensitivity relating to sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and best practices for providing adequate care to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender children in out-of-home care.”33 So, like SB 857, it’s yet another bill sexualizing kids under the guise of protecting them.
Together, those bills and a generally pro-LGBT outlook amongst California’s “educators,” one made law with 2015’s “California Healthy Youth Act,” which began the process of sexualizing the kids,34 have created a situation where California’s kids are incredibly sexualized. The California Globe, reporting on that sickening sexualization of the kids in 2023, noted:35
California public schools aren’t your grandfather’s schools any longer. Today’s lesson plans are written by Social Justice Warriors and LGBT activists, and enshrined in the California education code. And what is being foisted on children as young as age five, cannot even be uttered on the public airways, because radio stations would receive a violation letter from the Federal Communications Commission.
If sexually explicit language is unsuitable for public consumption on radio, wouldn’t it also be unsuitable for school-aged children?
I’ve been covering education issues in California for many years and watched as parental concerns have escalated from declining liberal arts curriculum to sexualized curriculum, as well as the sexualization of young and teen students. Parents have turned over volumes of sexualized curriculum their young children have been exposed to in the classroom. Others have found copies of highly inappropriate library books featuring cartoon pictures of young kids performing sex acts, written descriptions of sex acts, and books encouraging the exploration of gender fluidity.
Parents have reacted predictably shocked, appalled and angry, and say they felt betrayed by their schools. When they appeared at school board meetings to express their displeasure and distrust, many were treated with disdain, and called “violent,” and uncontrollable, and in some cases, tossed out.
…
Additional curriculum details:
Kindergarten books that introduce 5-year-olds to families with members who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender.
First grade gender vocabulary lessons on words such as third gender, trans, queergender, non-binary, gender fluid, gender neutral, agender, bigender, and two-spirits.
Lessons for 1st graders that provide detailed descriptions of sex with these quotes such as: “The man’s penis goes inside the woman’s vagina,” and “sperm can swim out through the small opening in the man’s penis – and into the woman’s vagina.”
Pictures in a book for third graders showing a cartoon drawing of a penis ejaculating sperm while inserted into a vagina.
Lessons which teach third graders that sexual reproductive organs don’t always match a person’s gender.
Recommendations that fifth graders are taught sexual health lessons that must include examples of same-sex sexual activity. Students should not be separated by sex during these lessons to avoid “misgendering” students.
Books that introduce 10-year-olds to anal sex, and the slang for male and female genitals.
The sexualization of California school kids is escalating to an ugly place; school boards and district officials must remember when pressured by activists that they are legally responsible – guaranteed by the California Constitution – to provide California children public schools that are safe, secure, and peaceful.
Kids in California face immense levels of sexualization, even when they are mere kindergarteners, something made even more problematic when paired with State Sen. Weiner’s laws that leave them open to potential predation.
Man Made Horrors Beyond Comprehension
So, in a brief period, Wiener managed to make it a small misdemeanor to knowingly spread HIV to an unwitting victim, legal for adults to have anal or oral sex with children as young as fourteen (if within the 10-year age differential maximum), for kids to receive abortions and/or live in government shelters without parental consent, and orders teachers to find and affirm “LGBTQ” kids, even if their parents disagree. While he was stopped in his attempt to strip parents of custodial or visitation rights if they don’t “affirm” their child’s gender dysphoria, that’s still a dramatic sexualization of children that, as Liberty University, the Federalist, and Dordulian Law Group note, leave children far less protected from sexual predation.
Meanwhile, California Democrats have resisted attempts to make trafficking children and procuring children for sex serious felonies, claiming that the bills are too harsh on those who would be impacted by them. As the legislature allows such horrors, California’s schools sexualize kids as young as kindergartners.
Keeping children safe, particularly from those who would take advantage of and abuse them, should be one of the government’s sacred duties. Sickeningly, in California, that duty has been abrogated. Instead, under the guise of “equality” and similarly vague concepts, the state legislature has put children at risk.
“Committee Democrats also questioned the bill’s expansion of the three-strikes law, a relic of the state’s tough-on-crime past that many attribute to the wave of mass incarcerations that has filled up prisons.” From: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-09-01/california-child-sex-trafficking-shannon-grove-democrats-prison-bill-sb-14
“This bill only applies to young people aged 14, 15, 16 or 17 and anyone within a 10 year age range.” From: https://sd11.senate.ca.gov/sb145