"Person A, feeling romantically and sexually attracted, timidly reaches out to hold B's hand and feels a thrill as their hands touch. Person B does nothing, but six months later files a criminal complaint. Person A is guilty of 'Criminal Sexual Contact' under proposed Section 213.6(3)(a)."

Not rape (yet) but is a serious "hate" crime coupled with the implied threat of "extortion" and "kidnapping".

"The obvious comeback to this is that no prosecutor would waste her time on such a frivolous case. But that doesn't comfort signatories of the memo, several of whom have pointed out to me that once a law is passed, you can't control how it will be used. For instance, prosecutors often add minor charges to major ones (such as, say, forcible rape) when there isn't enough evidence to convict on the more serious charge. They then put pressure on the accused to plead guilty to the less egregious crime."

This is so true - I served on a grand jury once and was shocked at some of the charges for which there simply wasn't enough evidence. But, the prosecutor and the cops used those extra charges to push the defendant into a plea bargain.

Or, in the cases conducted by the sex crimes prosecutor, she was clearly a man-hater who, despite our cries that she was putting a guy through hell on the lies of some woman, said that every claim by every woman must be dealt with as if it were true.

And there are those out there who once they learn what the law is will use it to "get back" at any guy they don't like.

I think we've seen all this before. They used to call it Puritanism.
Thou shalt not speak with a suggestive tongue.
Thou shalt not hold hands without formal, binding consent.
If the woman is shamed thou shalt be brought before the tribunal.
If thou art guilty as presumed, banishment shall be thy sanction and a scarlet S.O. shall be listed by thy name.

Everything old is new again.

Wow. The song by Hootie and the Blowfish, "Hold My Hand" is about sexual harassment now. And so is The Beetles, "I Wanna Hold Your Hand."

You didn't intend to commit sexual assault, but you are guilty, because the "victim" says you are.

You didn't intend to discriminate against blacks in renting apartments, but you don't have the correct percentage of blacks in your apartments, so you are guilty of housing discrimination.

You didn't intend to engage in money laundering, but you made two separate deposits of $7500. The feds seize your money.

Notice a trend?

Oh, let's make it worse.

Person A, feeling romantically and sexually attracted, timidly reaches out to hold B's hand and feels a thrill as their hands touch.

Person A's name is Handsome McCharming, with looks and personality to match his name. Person B likes his attention. A few months later:

Person C, feeling romantically and sexually attracted, timidly reaches out to hold B's hand and feels a thrill as their hands touch.

But Person C's name is Homely McDull, and it's an accurate moniker. Person B doesn't like his cold, clammy hand at all.

Person A and Person C did exactly, and I mean exactly, the same thing. Is one of them a sexual criminal? How so?

Person A's name is Handsome McCharming . . . But Person C's name is Homely McDull,

Great SNL sketch about sexual harrassment in the workplace (featuring Tom "Deflated Balls" Brady as Handsome McCharming.)

The dovetails nicely with the Supreme Court Ruling on same sex marriage.

Pretty soon, any touching at all outside of marriage can be prosecuted as criminal sexual assault, with no proof needed of actual harm.

And people wonder why an increasing number of men want nothing to do with women.

This is a power play by people who know nothing about power other than their desire to have the power to force their vision of sexual exchanges on others through totalitarian state power,

I'm noticed, from being on this board and other boards with libertarians, that libertarians tend to view most, or at least many, laws as being driven by the desire to have power over people. They don't seem to understand -- or perhaps believe is a better word -- that while laws do end up having power over people, that doesn't mean that having power over people is the reason behind them.

I'm not saying that couldn't ever be the reason. In fact, exercising power over people due to fear and/or prejudice sometimes is the reason behind laws (anti-miscegenation laws and laws banning same-sex marriage are two examples.)

But I don't believe that's the case most of the time.

@JD

No, sometimes they just think they know better how to run your life. Nancy Pelosi was given a number of clear options when she was speaker of the House - she even admitted so on occasion - between increasing federal revenues and just arbitrarily controlling people. She always picked arbitrarily controlling people.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

― C.S. Lewis

She always picked arbitrarily controlling people.

Any actual examples?

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.

It sounds like C.S. would definitely be opposed to seat belt and helmet laws (among countless other laws.)

TMG: And people wonder why an increasing number of men want nothing to do with women.

This isn't because of these sex crime laws. It's because so many Americans have decided that it's OK to disobey the word of God by approving of same-sex marriage (and homosexuality itself.) If we don't change course and turn back to God, He will destroy this increasingly wicked nation.

Romans 1:27: And the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts* with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

"It's because so many Americans have decided that it's OK to disobey the word of God by approving of same-sex marriage (and homosexuality itself.)"

This sin is no different than any of the over one hundred sins listed in the bible and should NOT be treated differently as it has been.

We are ALL sinners past, present, and future. We are human and have free will. No brainer that we will sin.

Those that are treating this one sin as the end all are missing the point.

Unfortunately those in charge, the MSM, and a large number of adults are elevating SIN (looting, murder, robbery, abortion on demand, lying (you can keep your doctor, you have all of the pertinent emails, (not sure about WMDs in Iraq)) over good deeds (I would hope Godliness in most quarters.)

Love the sinner. Hate the sin. Applies to everyone. Most spewing hateful words are ignorant, scared, and/or sheeple.

BTW. Concealed carry laws will be found to lawful in all States under the logic applied to this ruling. Thanks SCOTUS.

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2015/06/scotus-marriage-decision-will-change-illinois-conceal-carry-law.html

April 6 Obama fundraiser in San Francisco"

"... And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations," Obama said."

It will be VERY interesting to Conservatives and Independent voters if CCL is found to be in a different category of nation-wide "Right" than same-sex marriage.

I just don't think us simple folk will understand the logic.

So welcome to my world LGBTs and I am truly glad you are here so we that we can now communicate about some really awful things going on in the world.

Yet this girl will never go to jail despite filming the lack of affirmative consent:

"Watch This Girl Try to Kiss Total Strangers After Asking for Directions"

http://time.com/3768550/girl-kiss-strangers-grand-central-station-farah-brook/

I liked the video...thanks Snoopy. I'm actually not that surprised that the guys backed away. I don't think guys (most guys) have any problem with a woman coming onto them. I sure don't. It was the abruptness that was the issue here, not the woman trying to kiss them. If this setting was in a bar and she had been talking and flirting with the guys for a while and then leaned in to kiss them, I think the reactions would have, in general, been different.

Introductory quote for The Cowing of the Medical Profession by Dr. Richard N. Fogoros, at The Covert Rationing Blog.

Floyd Ferris, a bureaucrat in the novel Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand:
=== ===
Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against.

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them.

One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone?

But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers.
=== ===

. . . libertarians tend to view most, or at least many, laws as being driven by the desire to have power over people. . . .But I don't believe that's the case most of the time.

Ok.

Why does importing lobster in wax lined cardboard result in jail time but plastic boxes dont?

Why is it illegal for you to sell ivory that has been legally obtained?

Why is it when companies like Gibson get raided and their inventories seized for violating international law (even when they didnt) its only when the politician in power belong to the party they didnt donate money to?

Why do florists need a licence specifically for florists on top of a general business licence?

Why do those who sell coffins need to be required to purchase all the equipment needed to run a funeral home even when everyone knows they dont want to do anything other than sell 4x2x6 foot boxes?

"And people wonder why an increasing number of men want nothing to do with women.

This isn't because of these sex crime laws. It's because so many Americans have decided that it's OK to disobey the word of God by approving of same-sex marriage (and homosexuality itself.) If we don't change course and turn back to God, He will destroy this increasingly wicked nation. "

Dear Lord the delusion expressed here! No sir, men are not rejecting women and going gay because of the same sex marriage laws. Admittedly, if I could go gay, I would have by now, but that's just not an option for me. I can't choose to be gay.

He was trying to be humorous Matt. And failing miserably.

He was trying to be humorous Matt. And failing miserably

Well then, he should be fired from his jobs then

;->

"They don't seem to understand -- or perhaps believe is a better word -- that while laws do end up having power over people, that doesn't mean that having power over people is the reason behind them. "

Er, yeah they are. For the bulk of human history, societies functioned with orders of magnitude less law than we have now. Not only do the constant stream of laws and regulations flowing out of Washington do little or nothing to improve society, but many of them demonstrably do more harm than good. (Consider the bill that created the Transportation Security Administration.)

Law is a minimum set of standards crafted to ensure a reasonable degree of social order. When a law is enacted that doesn't contribute to that goal, then the motivation was the desire was to exercise control over people and/or their expressions. Logic admits no other possibility.

This is nothing new from the ALI. They are an academic bunch, and their model codes push an abstract principle beyond what any sensible regular guy would understand.

For example, I remember from law school that the Model Penal Code weighs culpability entirely in terms of mens rea (intent), so an attempt at a crime (no matter how unlikely or absurd) is punished exactly the same as a completed crime. So, if I attempt to kill you by squishing your head between my thumb and forefinger (a la Kids In the Hall), I've committed attempted murder, which gets me punished exactly the same as if I shot your head off with a gun.

Fortunately, no one listened to the ALI when they took this approach. Too bad legislators are listening to them in this silly case.

This is such scary nonsense. Why is passivity the new "protected" class? Years ago, if you didn't want your hand to be held, you simply pulled yours away. But under this scenario you can sit and stew for months until you go to therapy and say you never wanted your hand to be held, and so commences sex crime litigation?

What if she's too passive to refuse a goodnight kiss, a second date or more, sex, and even marriage?

Or even, what if, after surrendering the hand, there's no second date, no future with the hand-holder? After months of stewing, perhaps seeing the hand-holder out with someone else, she (and I don't think all this brouhaha is about protecting men from presumptive hand-holding women), sees red and decides to prosecute him for that brief hand contact?

I thought we were teaching women to become empowered, to find their voices, including the one which says "no". Now there's a movement afoot to have government step in as a surrogate parent, so women can be protected from making a decision, letting her choices be known? Are we in a wayback machine?

Law is a minimum set of standards crafted to ensure a reasonable degree of social order.

So that's it, is it Dave? That's the only reason for laws?

Why do florists need a licence specifically for florists on top of a general business licence?

The reason that florists need a licence specifically for florists on top of a general business licence is that when a florist is placing another florist on top of a business license, he needs to be extremely precise. If the florist doesn't place the other florist in exactly the right position on top of a business license, the florist being placed could fall onto the field of jagged glass surrounding the business license and be seriously injured.

Matt: Admittedly, if I could go gay, I would have by now,

Matt, Satan is extremely powerful. Our Lord and Savior was able to resist Satan's temptations but that's because he's the Son of God. You can never say that you'll always be able to say "no" to Lucifer.

Remember Oscar Wilde? When he was young, he loved the ladies (and the ladies loved him.) Nostradamus called him "the white Wilt Chamberlain." And he wrote short fiction pieces like The Hot Princess and A House of Whores. But then, after repeated temptation, he went over to the dark side. He rejected women, started flouncing around with men and wrote short fiction like The Happy Prince and A House of Pomegranates.

Or take a recent example: Bruce Jenner. Olympic gold medal winner in the decathlon. Married to a beautiful woman, Chrystie. Tempted many times by the serpent but his faith in the Lord was always unwavering. However, Satan, undeterred, reached deep into the pit of Hell and brought forth his ace closer: the Kardashians. Bruce's faith was so steadfast that he even managed to resist the lure of this pit of vipers but eventually they got to him and, next thing you know, he's flouncing about in a dress and lipstick on the cover of a decadent magazine and we're supposed to call this creature "Caitlyn." When an All-American manly man like Bruce becomes twisted like this, there is no doubt that the end-time and righteous judgment of God is drawing near.

"So that's it, is it Dave? That's the only reason for laws? "

Yes. Laws are not morals. Law is far too blunt an instrument to enforce morality, and every attempt to do so creates results both oppressive and perverse. The only thing law is capable of doing well is preventing social disorder. (And even that depends on how rational and skilled the lawmakers and law enforcers are.)