You’re Accused: ‘Vengeance, Spite, Fear, Denial, Sadness, Insecurity, Whatever’

Posted on Comments

‘LGBT Injustice’? Kaitlyn Hunt (center), her mother Kelley Hunt Smith (left)
and attorney Julia Graves (right) appear on MSNBC, May 22.

Did you ever read what I wrote about the gay-rights movement in 2008? There is an inherent problem in the language of “rights.” Once you adopt such rhetoric in a democratic polity, your purpose is to de-legitimize opposition: “Shut up, because equality.”

Good-bye, rule of law. Forget any question about the necessity or efficacy of any policy reform proposed by those who, speaking the language of “rights,” cast their opponents in the role of oppressors. Merely to disagree is to inflict social injustice on the victims.

This rhetoric succeeds in liberal culture because the triumphant narrative of Progress is something we are taught never to question.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.”
— G.K. Chesteron, 1923

So, Ace finally took notice of the Kaitlyn Hunt story:

People who reflexively support gays will say “don’t prosecute her because you don’t prosecute straight kids in that situation and we have to do what we normally do. We can’t treat gay people worse.”
People who reflexively oppose gay stuff will say “you have to prosecute her because you routinely prosecute straight kids in that situation and we have to do what we normally do. We can’t treat gay people better.”
Well I agree with both final sentences — we cannot treat gay people better and we cannot treat gay people worse. Which means the first sentence of each claim is in contest– do we usually prosecute straight kids in this situation?
If so, we should prosecute her, just like the average kid. If not, we should not prosecute her, just like the average kid. As this all swings on a factual question I have no idea about, I didn’t weigh in.

Florida law is clear that anyone 18 or older having sex with someone 15 or younger has committed a crime. This crime is “usually” prosecuted for the same reason that Kate Hunt is being prosecuted: Parents of the minor victim discover that their young teenager is sexually involved with an adult, object to this involvement, and call the cops.

Will anyone argue that this law is unreasonable?

Is it wrong for parents to be empowered, with the law on their side, to say, “Hey, leave my kid alone, you creep, or I’ll call the cops”?

Let us stipulate that there are probably lots of 18- and 19-year-old guys who may be sexually interested in much younger teenage girls.

This is the typical scenario: A girl who is physically mature but not yet 16 becomes involved with a guy in his late teens or early 20s and this involvement is entirely voluntary — indeed, often quite enthusiastic — on the part of the girl who, in the eyes of the law, is the victim of a crime because she is incapable of legal consent.

Maybe that seems crazy to you. You may say, “But this girl is willing and eager to have sex at 14 or 15, why criminalize this guy, only four or five years older than her, for giving her what she wants?”

The answer is that this is a minor dependent upon, and under the authority of, her parents, who have a duty to supervise her behavior — to make sure she brushes her teeth and does her homework and looks both ways before crossing the street — for her own good. And if the parents of 14-year-old Heather Hotpants don’t want their daughter taking a ride on the one-eyed love monster with 19-year-old Billy the Boner, they are empowered by law to prevent it.

Maybe you think this kind of parental empowerment is a bad thing, but if you don’t have a teenage daughter, well, shut the hell up.

Parents have duties and parents have rights, and if we don’t want total sexual anarchy — horny hoodlums cruising the middle-school parking lot in search of some easy action — we’d better by God stand on the side of parents trying to protect their daughters.

Every year — every month, every week — guys are charged in Florida with violating this law. Most of the time you never hear about it, because it’s just a two-paragraph item in the cops-and-courts column of the local newspaper. The prosecutor offers the perp a plea bargain, the perp takes the deal, end of story.

This didn’t happen in the Kaitlyn Hunt case simply because her parents believed they could rally support on her behalf by claiming that Kate was a victim of homophobia, and so they launched the “Free Kate” campaign, fooled a lot of people into thinking that this was a case about “discrimination,” and rejected the plea bargain.

To such a gambit we must answer: Damn you, and damn your “rights.”

If you buy the argument pushed by the “Free Kate” crowd, anyone has a right to have sex with anyone of any age who will consent to it.

Pay attention to their rhetoric — and I’ve been following this story for three months — and you find a lot of talk about it being OK because both girl attended the same high school, or because they were “in love,” or because other kids are doing the same thing.

There has been talk about changing Florida law, and OK, so what?

In some states the age of consent is 14, and if the citizens of Florida wish to become Utah or Alabama, this 10th Amendment advocate would be obliged to respect their state sovereignty.

As it is, however, Florida’s age of consent is 16. This law is by no means secret and evidence in this case indicates that Kaitlyn Hunt knew damned well her involvement with a 14-year-old was illegal.

WHY DO YOU THINK THEY CALL IT ‘JAILBAIT’?

What first drew my attention to this case was a column at NewsBusters by Matthew Philbin in which he sagely observed that Kaitlyn Hunt and her supporters are trying to make homosexuality a “Get Out of Jail Free” card for statutory rape.  But if you cannot prosecute an 18-year-old lesbian for playing Spin the Dildo with a 14-year-old girl, by the same token you cannot punish 18-year-old gay guys who want to play naked leapfrog with 14-year-old boys, nor could any of the more commonplace heterosexual statutory rapes be punished.

The bottom line of the argument, really, would be tantamount to declaring “open season” on 14-year-olds in Florida.

Honestly, I wish Kaitlyn Hunt had taken the plea deal — like the vast majority of perps in such cases do — rather than subjecting America to this divisive debate, because she’s put me in the position of arguing now that she must go to prison, or else put at risk the legitimacy of age-of-consent laws everywhere. This was the import of my first American Spectator item about the case:

#FreeKate? Movement to Normalize
Pedophilia Finds Its Poster Girl

Folks, these “Free Kate” people have brought us so close to the gates of Hell here, you can feel the heat and smell the brimstone. Once these advocates of pubsecent perversion start talking about “rights,” and accusing their critics of “hate,” we could slide down the slippery slope faster than an Olympic bobsled team. Which brings us to the “Free Kate” supporter who inspired the headline of this post:

 

“If there weren’t ridiculous laws on the books that the other parents [i.e., the parents of the 14-year-old] pushed the state to utilize out of vengeance, spite, fear, denial, sadness, insanity, whatever they may have going on in their minds this would not be up for debate.”
— Carrie Mullinax

Damn you, and damn your accusations. Should parents who try to protect their daughters be exposed to this kind of insulting abuse?

Do you see how the rhetoric of “rights” empowers perverts and thugs to impugn the motives of law-abiding citizens? Laws against sex with 14-year-olds are “ridiculous,” and parents who want the state to enforce its laws are accused of “insanity”! Lesbians have a “right” to have sex with your 14-year-old daughter and shut up, haters.

Happy 14th Birthday! (Batteries not included.)

 




 

137 comments

  1. What I find interesting is that those who are supporting this girl go on and on about how the 14 yr old was old enough to decide to engage in a sexual relationship with an 18 yr old, but the 18 yr old is too immature to realize the consequences of her actions. Lets see… a 14 yr old is in fact totally dependent upon her parents for all of her basic needs, is considered too young to drive a car, too young to have a job, too young to even see an R rated movie without her parents permission, but she is suddenly mature enough to have sex with an adult? And the 18 yr old… she is mature enough to live on her own if she so desires, to enter into legal binding contracts, to even enlist in the military and be sent away to fight in a war, but she isn’t mature enough to realize that having sex with a 14 yr old is against the law and that if she breaks that law she will go to jail? Now, despite having the judge issue a no contact order and I’m sure having her attorney tell her to stay away from the younger girl, she somehow isn’t mature enough to realize the consequences she is facing in continuing to contact the younger girl, to continue to have sex with the younger girl, to send pornographic pictures and videos of herself to the younger girl? In what world does any of that make sense… other than in the FreeKate world?

  2. Law & order, the two go together. Kelley, imbecile that she is, at some point suggested that the victim’s parents shouldn’t have gone to the authorities but that it should have been worked out between the families.

    Kelley, you ignorant slut. If I were the parent of the minor child I can assure you that once it became clear that you couldn’t curb your ugly ass daughter, Doctor Pain would be in play.

    Enforce the law and maintain order.

  3. Yeah, I love the way the Hunts keep saying this should have been settled between the families. Really? Because I think the Montagues and Capulets demonstrated the shortcomings of that approach a few centuries ago.

    But these ignorant trash don’t even realize “Romeo and Juliet” was a tragedy, much less what the point of the play was.

  5. In June, I made the point that Kaitlyn’s stupidity and arrogance are the problem. The younger girl’s parents warned her, and Kaitlyn was too stupid and arrogant to grasp that she couldn’t just do what she wanted to do without consequences.

  7. When the Hunt family keeps on suggesting that it should have been resolved “between the families,” I just have to laugh.

    When you approach trashy, degenerate parents to complain about the behavior of their offspring, it is a futile measure. In fact, not just futile, it can actually be dangerous for the person complaining. Such parents often have a mind to dismiss, threaten, or attack anyone who dares suggest that their little darlings cannot not rape and pillage at their pleasure.

    And to say nothing of the fact that Papa Hunt has a history of getting into public brawls and threatening people to keep quiet. Yeah, I’m sure Papa Hunt would have had a nice civil discussion over tea.

  8. You have pointed out one of the most glaring of the many logical fallacies used by the Florida division of Pedos-R-us. Minor is mature enough to consent to sex, but legal adult is just a kid who is too immature to be responsible for her actions.

  10. The arrogance has not changed. If one follows the social media postings of the free Katers, it has been one frickin’ party for the last six months. She and her friends are always partying and tweetie selfies. Seriously? Your future is on the line and you party away, and publicly start dating someone, legal, this time.

  11. Yeah…McCain and I discussed age/responsibility discrepancy argument being made by the FreeKaters when they first started trolling the world. It’s laughable, isn’t it?

  13. Well, obviously anything that requires a dictionary and/or can’t fit within 140 characters is too complex to expect people to be able to read it.

    Even the Cliff notes are too complicated.

    All people know of R & J today is that it was really romantic, and everybody dies without getting laid, so it was also a tragedy.

  14. “Once these advocates of pubsecent perversion start talking about
    “rights,” and accusing their critics of “hate,” we could slide down the
    slippery slope faster than an Olympic bobsled team.”

    That sled left the top of the hill in the 80s, when homosexual activists started claiming there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, it is “just like heterosexuality,” in-born and uncontrolable, and everyone who doesn’t normalize it and accept it (along with every perverted and perverse attitude and behavior coming from the LGBT crowd) is a hater and bigot.

    America is fast on its way down the slope.

  15. Funny that I was reading the APA little pamphlet on “sexual orientation and youth” today – and the only thing they harangue about is “reparative therapy” (fixing psychological problems is such an awful thing!) and how bullied and misunderstood those “nice and normal” LGBT kids are – Kaytlin, a prime example.

    The horrors of how LGBT folks, young and old, sexually molest, harass, and rape others are, of course, never mentioned.

    How low has the APA sunk in all of this.

  16. Because there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, liberals, or the APA.

    As long as pedophiles are happy, and are homosexual, it’s OK. Just a normal variation of human sexuality…

  19. Is it just me or does Kate look like Deputy Dawg’s twin sister in that photo?
    Was this on that dude Rick Madcow’s show on MSNBC?

  21. Urban Dictionary:

    The phrase “San Quentin Quail” refers to getting sent up for violating California’s law protecting minors. At least one country and western song and a 1940’s R&B song dealt with the subject and even used the phrase for the title. Duke Henderson had the R&B song on United Artists and on Excelsior, while Carl Knight had his country record come out of the Dearborn label from the Detroit are. There is another country artist who I think covered Carl’s song.

    “The Judge says the limit on San Quentin Quail is none” –
    Carl Knight

    IIRC the chorus of Knight’s song went:

    “San Quentin quail/You’re gonna spend the night in jail/If you go messin’ with that San Quentin quail.”

  22. Prior to Canada’s legalisation of homosexual “marriage”, the antiquated and quite liberal age-of-consent laws there were modernised and made uniform — no doubt in order to prevent adult homosexuals from taking adolescents as lawfully wedded sodomy partners. The move was and is to this day contested by the homosexuals.

    Given that homosexuals cannot engage in actual sexual intercourse with one another as a man and a woman may know it, and given also the myriad and sometimes bizarre means to which homosexuals are reduced to “have sex”, it is often difficult for the modern homosexual to find a suitable, compatible, like-minded partner. It is not a 50/50 demographic split in the homosexual community partner-wise (I hear “tops” outnumber “bottoms” by far.), it is thus often imperative that the adult homosexual seek in the naivety, pliability, and subservience of youth the kind of “relationship” that cannot be easily found in his or her peer group…

  23. So, they don’t want laws, eh?
    OK, fine: who’s up for allowing outraged parents to take matters into their own hands:
    “Shotgun. Shovel. You will not be missed.”
    Laws are not perfect. I think that most people would agree that it’s a bit silly to prosecute Billy Boner for having sex with Heather Hotpants the day before her sixteenth birthday while giving him a legal pass for doing the same thing two days later. But what shall we do? In the absence of some sort of legal, unvarying yardstick, how do we draw the line between legal, consensual sex and sexual assault?
    Anarchy, indeed.

  24. They are supposing that “keeping it between families” would have gotten them what they want, i.e. their degenerate offspring free to continue her dalliance with the younger girl.
    I think that they are wrong, that most families are like mine: there would be a small legion of parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, godparents, family friends, etc. who would be willing to go full-on Hatfields and McCoys to put a stop to it.
    “You can let the police and courts deal with this, or you can let us deal with it. I promise you: you’ve got a much better chance of living to a ripe old age if you take what’s behind Door #1.”

  25. Unless one is a Catholic priest, apparently.

    (Not that I in any way condone what a handful of priests did; it is a black mark on the Church that they covered it up. But I find it interesting that the same lefties who are so quick to condemn the Catholic Church for pedophilia are apparently fine with this Hunt person)

  27. Such douchenozzles! I really wish the Boss upstairs would let me visit every damn one of these in their dreams and show them their ultimate destination: Eternally writhing in unbearable flame making inchoate sounds as their flesh crisps, curls and falls to ash revealing a new layer of flesh beneath …

  28. The role of “experts” in all this deserves more attention than it gets.

    In the Freudian heyday, “curing” homosexuals — or rather, endlessly treating them with talk-therapy sessions — was a sort of industry. All that obsession with childhood family life (“tell me about your mother”) was probably a waste of time, and ultimately generated a backlash.

    The pro-gay backlash has now gone far enough that normal people are accused of “homophobia” merely for being normal, and one may be forgiven for believing that homosexuals ( 2%-4%) of the population are the only people who have any rights at all. Never has such a tiny minority “tail” been empowered to wag the majority dog in this manner.

  30. R & J did consummate their marriage before they died. At least I think it’s strongly implied in the play but they were married.

  32. The Left’s attack on the RCC’s problem is a smoke screen to cover what really happens when a homosexual in a position of unquestioned authority has unsupervised access to kids…

  33. Whenever you hear a supposedly objective adult argue against age of consent laws by saying, “Kids have a right to love who they love,” rest assured you’re dealing with someone who wants have sex with kids himself/herself or, for whatever reason, approves of those who do.

    Whenever you hear that, just think to yourself “That person approves child molestation.”

    There is no exception to this rule. I challenge any leftist lurking here to provide one.

  34. Apparently, you’ve never heard of the “Gay, Lesian, Straight Education Network!

    glsen.org

  36. Indeed they’re actively “recruiting”, but also I see in this a direct assault on age-of-consent laws from “the bottom up”, as it were…

Comments are closed.