Saturday, May 21, 2005

ACLU, child sex, and liberals.

From my progressive buddies over at YRHT, we get this little blurb about a child-sex problem in Ponchatoula, LA. It seems that a number of folks in this church have been arrested on morals charges that stem from molesting children and animals.

YRHT says: "Just thank goodness they weren't gay or pro-choice."

Well, you can't have it both ways, guys. If you believe that the ACLU is doing the right thing by defending the gays and the abortionists, then it is only a small step to believe that a child of any age can consent to sex with an adult. I mean, that 15-year-old is able to consent, right? How about the 12-year-old? Or the ten-year-old? Well that is just exactly what the ACLU is arguing. Go see it at Clayton Cramers Blog.

You have to draw the line somewhere, and the progressives and the ACLU are unable to draw a line. They just don't have the ability.

Having sex with a child is reprehensible, and thank God, we made it criminal a long time ago. Whether or not you pretend to be Christian, molesting children is just wrong. Every time, without exception.

ACLU, rope, tree. Some assembly required.

UPDATE: A commenter over at YRHT defends the ACLU, saying that "Except that's not what the ACLU is arguing; they're arguing that a molester who targets a child of the opposite sex shouldn't get a lighter sentence than a molster who targets a child of the same sex. The original blogger whom you refer to misundertands the legal argument and makes a baseless, incorrect and inflammatory statement."

Well, okay. I believe in equal punishment, along with equal rights, but the Left is known to make incorrect, baseless and inflammatory statements too, so lets see what the ACLU says about it.
In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

Here, the ACLU enters a slippery slope. Free speech is protected, but certain speech is so inflammatory as to be beyond the protections of the Constitution. You cannot shout FIRE in a theater.

In the US, lawyers are allowed to decline to represent clients. The ACLU, therefore, chooses to represent NAMBLA. NAMBLA advocates sex between children and adults. It is very easy to connect the dots. Some things are indefensible and NAMBLA is one of them. If the ACLU were an honorable organization, they would have declined the case on general grounds of practice. The organization is reprehensible.

The ACLU represents NAMBLA. The lawyers can argue about it all they want, but the basic premise applies.

ACLU, tree, rope. Some assembly required.

1 comment:

oyster said...

I believe the ACLU does the right thing when it defends our Bill of Rights. Period.

Whether the particular defendant they represent is a Church or NAMBLA or the Klan is of absolutely no interest to me.

Your fallacious "guilt by association" argument-- a form of red herring-- does not even rise to sophomoric standards.

And your apparent advocacy of a lynch mob mentality reminds me why the ACLU is around in the first place.

I'm quite disappointed in you, Dennis.