Hi. This is incorrect. All this came out during her confirmation hearings. When people heard what this was about, she was confirmed 96-3.
The paper she was writing had nothing to do with changing the age of consent in the United States. The paper she was writing was about creating gender neutral language. The way rape laws were defined back then you could argue that men or boys couldn't be raped because of the language used. The part of the paper that talks about lowerin the age of consent IS A QUOTE from a proposed Romeo and Juliet law and Ginsberg only addresses the issue of gender in the quote, not the age issue.
The quote was from " a draft Senate bill that never became law." Again she praises the use of language in this bill. She does not advocate for the bill. Secondly, the bill seems to be about age of consent among teenagers not someone of 18 and a minor. Do we prosecute a 15 year old for sleeping with his 15 year old gf type of deal. AKA a Romeo and Juliet law.
And this article from an opponent of ginsberg
It Looks Like Justice Ginsburg Likely Was the Victim of a Drafting Error
But the careful reader — which I, unfortunately, was not (especially in my more recent post on the subject here) — should have realized that the report was likely intending to recommend replacing the "carnal knowledge" ban not with a flat age of consent of 12 (what the text said) but rather with a graduated Romeo-and-Juliet age of consent that would have been set at 16 for adults (what the §1633 that the text cited said).
Back in my day libs could spin better. Nowadays they will literally deny the clear text on the page. They might even try to tell you that it isn't writing on a page, it's pecan pie.
The way that you can be certain that she didn't intend for any "Romeo and Juliet" bs is because it didn't exist in the old code and why would she be inventing new concepts for age of consent and then forget to add the concept?
The removal of gender language for the purpose of making man/boy sex the same as man/girl sex. That's why she got rid of the "carnal knowledge with a female" line. The man/boy act was a whole different thing back then with much more severe punishment.
If you read the report, you will see the clear text on the page is a QUOTE from someone else.
If you read the report, you will also see that her sole focus was on using gender-neutral language in laws. That rape doesn't only apply to girls or women.
As I said this came up her confirmation hearings.
Senator HATCH. Sure. No, no, I understand.
In 1975, while you were at the ACLU, that organization adopted
a policy statement favoring homosexual rights. According to what
has been represented to me as minutes of a meeting on this matter,
the following is noted:
In the second paragraph of the policy statement dealing with relations between
adults and minors, Ruth Bader Ginsburg made a motion to eliminate the sentence
reading, "The State has a legitimate interest in controlling sexual behavior between
adults and minors by criminal sanctions." She argued that this implied approval of
statutory rape statutes, which are of questionable constitutionality.
Now, I realize that these events took place over 18 years ago, so
let me just ask you: Do you have any doubt that the States have
the constitutional authority to enact statutory rape laws to impose
criminal sanctions on sexual contact between an adult and a minor,
even where the minor allegedly consents?
Judge GINSBURG. Not at all, Senator Hatch. What I did have a
strong objection to was the sex classification.
Senator HATCH. Sure.
Judge GINSBURG. I think child abuse is a deplorable thing,
whether it is same sex, opposite sex, male-female, and the State
has to draw lines based on age.
What I do object to is the vision of the world that supposes a
woman is always the victim. So my only objection to that policy
was its sex specificity.
Senator HATCH. SO as long as they treat males and females
equally, that is your concern?
263
Judge GINSBURG. Yes, and I think that as much as we would not
like these things to go on, children are abused, it is among the
most deplorable things, and it doesn't
Senator HATCH. And the State has power to correct it.
Judge GINSBURG. Yes, and has power to draw lines on the basis
of age that are inevitably going to be arbitrary at the edge.
Senator HATCH. Well, I am relieved to hear that that was the
basis for your objection. It was a shock to me to learn, you know,
that the Constitution, some people argue that the Constitution denies
the State the right or the ability to protect young people and
teenagers by forbidding sexual contact between them and an adult,
even where the sexual contact is supposedly voluntary, and I am
concerned about that.
Correcting a distortion is not spin. Your post misrepresented her views on age of consent laws.
So now you have a pro-polygamy senator who is the product of polygamy spinning for Ginsburg? Hatch personally recommended Ginsburg to Clinton, according to the archived articles I've been reading.
( edit )
Hey, I think I just discovered why Hatch was so enthusiastic for Ginsburg. Her manifesto also calls laws against polygamy a violation of privacy. Do you find that to be coincidental to Hatch's enthusiasm for Ginsburg?
This section [48 U.S.C. §1461] restricts certain rights, including the right to vote or hold office, of bigamists, persons "cohabiting with more than one woman," and women cohabiting with a bigamist. Apart from the male/female differentials, the provision is of questionable constitutionality since it appears to encroach impermissibly upon private relationships. [Endnote: Cf. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 439 (1972).]
Recommendations . . .
48 U.S.C. §1461 - substitute 'person' or 'individual' for 'woman.' If the section is retained, it should be narrowed to avoid conflict with constitutionally-protected privacy interests.
view the rest of the comments →
AreWeSure ago
Hi. This is incorrect. All this came out during her confirmation hearings. When people heard what this was about, she was confirmed 96-3.
The paper she was writing had nothing to do with changing the age of consent in the United States. The paper she was writing was about creating gender neutral language. The way rape laws were defined back then you could argue that men or boys couldn't be raped because of the language used. The part of the paper that talks about lowerin the age of consent IS A QUOTE from a proposed Romeo and Juliet law and Ginsberg only addresses the issue of gender in the quote, not the age issue.
The quote was from " a draft Senate bill that never became law." Again she praises the use of language in this bill. She does not advocate for the bill. Secondly, the bill seems to be about age of consent among teenagers not someone of 18 and a minor. Do we prosecute a 15 year old for sleeping with his 15 year old gf type of deal. AKA a Romeo and Juliet law.
You can see this article from a supporter of ginsberg for more http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2005/09/lindsey_grahams_smear.html
And this article from an opponent of ginsberg It Looks Like Justice Ginsburg Likely Was the Victim of a Drafting Error
But the careful reader — which I, unfortunately, was not (especially in my more recent post on the subject here) — should have realized that the report was likely intending to recommend replacing the "carnal knowledge" ban not with a flat age of consent of 12 (what the text said) but rather with a graduated Romeo-and-Juliet age of consent that would have been set at 16 for adults (what the §1633 that the text cited said).
The_Kuru ago
Back in my day libs could spin better. Nowadays they will literally deny the clear text on the page. They might even try to tell you that it isn't writing on a page, it's pecan pie.
The way that you can be certain that she didn't intend for any "Romeo and Juliet" bs is because it didn't exist in the old code and why would she be inventing new concepts for age of consent and then forget to add the concept?
The removal of gender language for the purpose of making man/boy sex the same as man/girl sex. That's why she got rid of the "carnal knowledge with a female" line. The man/boy act was a whole different thing back then with much more severe punishment.
AreWeSure ago
If you read the report, you will see the clear text on the page is a QUOTE from someone else.
If you read the report, you will also see that her sole focus was on using gender-neutral language in laws. That rape doesn't only apply to girls or women.
As I said this came up her confirmation hearings.
Correcting a distortion is not spin. Your post misrepresented her views on age of consent laws.
The_Kuru ago
So now you have a pro-polygamy senator who is the product of polygamy spinning for Ginsburg? Hatch personally recommended Ginsburg to Clinton, according to the archived articles I've been reading.
( edit ) Hey, I think I just discovered why Hatch was so enthusiastic for Ginsburg. Her manifesto also calls laws against polygamy a violation of privacy. Do you find that to be coincidental to Hatch's enthusiasm for Ginsburg?
This section [48 U.S.C. §1461] restricts certain rights, including the right to vote or hold office, of bigamists, persons "cohabiting with more than one woman," and women cohabiting with a bigamist. Apart from the male/female differentials, the provision is of questionable constitutionality since it appears to encroach impermissibly upon private relationships. [Endnote: Cf. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 439 (1972).]
Recommendations . . .
48 U.S.C. §1461 - substitute 'person' or 'individual' for 'woman.' If the section is retained, it should be narrowed to avoid conflict with constitutionally-protected privacy interests.