Butterfly Cauldron
Friday, February 09, 2007
Children + Sex = Instant Outrage
For very different reasons, alas. My first serving of outrage comes to us courtesy of Allentown, Pa. where a school system covered up the rapes of four first-graders.
Short version: An older child was found assaulting a younger child in the bathroom. Instead of, oh I don't know, calling the police? The school decided to keep it all quiet. They didn't notify the victim's parents, it appears, much less the rapist's parents. Instead, they move the older child to another classroom. Said nothing and guess what? He did it again. Three times.
The district denies wrongdoing and has asked a judge to dismiss the lawsuit. But it has not disputed that assaults occurred, and its legal response has only further inflamed public opinion in one of the state’s poorest school districts.
In federal court last month, the district’s lawyer, John Freund III, argued that under the Constitution school officials cannot be held responsible simply for failing to protect youngsters from assaults by other students.
He cited federal court rulings that say school systems are generally immune from paying damages unless it can be shown that they actually took “affirmative” steps that put youngsters in danger, and that the action taken “shocks the conscience.”
Keep children safe? The school's responsibility? Oh no. No no no. Sorry, can't do that. And exactly how is not 'affirmative' to know there's a sexual predator on campus and do nothing about it? Doesn't that automatically endanger every child on campus? I mean, if the school knew one of it's teachers was a pedophile, they'd be held accountable if he molested a child while at work, so how is it different when the attacker is a child? And well, MY conscience is certainly shocked. How 'bout yours?
Second dose of outrage comes from Boston. (Boston? Really? *sigh*) This time, no children were actually harmed. This time it was the parents' oh-so-fragile sensibilities.
Short version: Elementary school teacher reads a book to his/her class. The book is about a prince who finds love. With another prince. Oh, dear. Mustn't let those innocent children hear about that! Never mind that Mass. is the only state in the country where two men can get married and it's likely that those children will, sooner or later, have a classmate with two daddies or two mommies. Let's just go about denying reality. Let's go about denying the law, while we're at it.
I mean, I highly doubt this book was giving any play-by-play on hawt boyfucking. It's probably Cinderella with a prince cast in the princess role. Wow. So very shocking and damaging to the psyche! The parents may have to actually answer some questions. They may have to come up with answers. They may have to --gods forbide!--actually think through their position on same-sex marriage. And we can't have that, can we?
Look, if you believe in something and you're raising children, things like this are going to come up. If I ever have a child, I'm going to have to find a way to keep him/her from being indoctrinated with redneck values. It's just how life works. You're parents, so parent, dammit. Stop trying to get the whole world to cater to you and teach your children how to have their own beliefs and how to stand by them. You're doing them a disservice, and pissing the rest of us off, when you don't.
Short version: An older child was found assaulting a younger child in the bathroom. Instead of, oh I don't know, calling the police? The school decided to keep it all quiet. They didn't notify the victim's parents, it appears, much less the rapist's parents. Instead, they move the older child to another classroom. Said nothing and guess what? He did it again. Three times.
The district denies wrongdoing and has asked a judge to dismiss the lawsuit. But it has not disputed that assaults occurred, and its legal response has only further inflamed public opinion in one of the state’s poorest school districts.
In federal court last month, the district’s lawyer, John Freund III, argued that under the Constitution school officials cannot be held responsible simply for failing to protect youngsters from assaults by other students.
He cited federal court rulings that say school systems are generally immune from paying damages unless it can be shown that they actually took “affirmative” steps that put youngsters in danger, and that the action taken “shocks the conscience.”
Keep children safe? The school's responsibility? Oh no. No no no. Sorry, can't do that. And exactly how is not 'affirmative' to know there's a sexual predator on campus and do nothing about it? Doesn't that automatically endanger every child on campus? I mean, if the school knew one of it's teachers was a pedophile, they'd be held accountable if he molested a child while at work, so how is it different when the attacker is a child? And well, MY conscience is certainly shocked. How 'bout yours?
Second dose of outrage comes from Boston. (Boston? Really? *sigh*) This time, no children were actually harmed. This time it was the parents' oh-so-fragile sensibilities.
Short version: Elementary school teacher reads a book to his/her class. The book is about a prince who finds love. With another prince. Oh, dear. Mustn't let those innocent children hear about that! Never mind that Mass. is the only state in the country where two men can get married and it's likely that those children will, sooner or later, have a classmate with two daddies or two mommies. Let's just go about denying reality. Let's go about denying the law, while we're at it.
I mean, I highly doubt this book was giving any play-by-play on hawt boyfucking. It's probably Cinderella with a prince cast in the princess role. Wow. So very shocking and damaging to the psyche! The parents may have to actually answer some questions. They may have to come up with answers. They may have to --gods forbide!--actually think through their position on same-sex marriage. And we can't have that, can we?
Look, if you believe in something and you're raising children, things like this are going to come up. If I ever have a child, I'm going to have to find a way to keep him/her from being indoctrinated with redneck values. It's just how life works. You're parents, so parent, dammit. Stop trying to get the whole world to cater to you and teach your children how to have their own beliefs and how to stand by them. You're doing them a disservice, and pissing the rest of us off, when you don't.
Monday, December 04, 2006
Because men are nasty, vile beasties, see. . .
I don't, of course, believe that. But that seems to be the line of reasoning from this guy here:
EASTON, Pennsylvania (AP) -- A man who pleaded guilty to molesting two girls told a judge he did it because of his wife's excessive bingo playing.
"My wife was never home," Floyd Kinney Jr. said during his plea hearing Friday.
Kinney's explanation did not sit well with Northampton County Judge F.P. Kimberly McFadden,
"Some people, when their wives are not home, decide to do other things, like clean their living rooms," McFadden said. "Your behavior is beyond the pale."
Kinney, 49, said his wife would sometimes argue with him over money and that he was angry she was spending too much on bingo.
"She would be going to bingo three, four times a week. I told her to stop going to bingo, and she said, 'If they had bingo every day, I'd go every day,"' he said.
Records say Kinney molested one of the girls, now 26, from 1992-97. He sexually assaulted the second girl, now 17, for a year beginning in January 2005, records show.
Kinney pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated indecent assault. The felony charges carry a combined maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $50,000 fine.
Defense attorney Richard Yetter said his client was not articulate and may not have been doing a good job of conveying his rationale to the judge.
But McFadden said she found Kinney capable of explaining himself. "I think he is telling me exactly what was going on," the judge said. "His wife was not home so he was going to perpetrate on someone and he picked these two children."
Follow the logic -- my wife, she didn't do what I wanted her to do! And and and, she's my wife! I own her, don't I? But but...she wouldn't do what I wanted and so I was home all alone and needed the pussy and I couldn't get it from my wife because she was off playing bingo -- and that's gambling! The Bible says so! -- so I had to get it somewhere and those girls were there and they tempted me with their wanton girlishness and I couldn't help myself. I didn't want to molest them, but my wife made me do it.
Ahem. Fucker.
EASTON, Pennsylvania (AP) -- A man who pleaded guilty to molesting two girls told a judge he did it because of his wife's excessive bingo playing.
"My wife was never home," Floyd Kinney Jr. said during his plea hearing Friday.
Kinney's explanation did not sit well with Northampton County Judge F.P. Kimberly McFadden,
"Some people, when their wives are not home, decide to do other things, like clean their living rooms," McFadden said. "Your behavior is beyond the pale."
Kinney, 49, said his wife would sometimes argue with him over money and that he was angry she was spending too much on bingo.
"She would be going to bingo three, four times a week. I told her to stop going to bingo, and she said, 'If they had bingo every day, I'd go every day,"' he said.
Records say Kinney molested one of the girls, now 26, from 1992-97. He sexually assaulted the second girl, now 17, for a year beginning in January 2005, records show.
Kinney pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated indecent assault. The felony charges carry a combined maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $50,000 fine.
Defense attorney Richard Yetter said his client was not articulate and may not have been doing a good job of conveying his rationale to the judge.
But McFadden said she found Kinney capable of explaining himself. "I think he is telling me exactly what was going on," the judge said. "His wife was not home so he was going to perpetrate on someone and he picked these two children."
Follow the logic -- my wife, she didn't do what I wanted her to do! And and and, she's my wife! I own her, don't I? But but...she wouldn't do what I wanted and so I was home all alone and needed the pussy and I couldn't get it from my wife because she was off playing bingo -- and that's gambling! The Bible says so! -- so I had to get it somewhere and those girls were there and they tempted me with their wanton girlishness and I couldn't help myself. I didn't want to molest them, but my wife made me do it.
Ahem. Fucker.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Reasons to hate the penis (or select possessors thereof)
We interrupt our regularly scheduled deep thought and contemplation to bring you a reminder that People.Are.Shit.
First up, a little snippet about a girl, her crush and the 20 plus boys who wanted an oral gangbang:
MILWAUKEE (AP) — It began with a crush, police said, and turned into one of the most shocking crimes in Milwaukee’s long, violent summer: an 11-year-old girl was sexually assaulted by as many as 20 boys while a 16-year-old girl she was romantically interested in watched and coached her.
The 16-year-old and a 15-year-old boy have been charged in juvenile court in the alleged attack, which authorities said took place Monday in a house on the city’s north side. The teenage girl’s 40-year-old uncle might also be charged, authorities said.
. . .
The 11-year-old girl told police she was interested in the teenage girl, who looked and dressed like a boy, authorities said in court records. She and two friends went to the teen’s house, where the child performed oral sex on three teenage boys, the court records said.
The teenage girl’s 40-year-old uncle admitted he also had sex with the 11-year-old and told police that his niece was coaching the child, the records said.
The 11-year-old told police she then went to the basement, where there were about 15 males and “began to choose who she wanted to perform oral sex on,” the records said.
The teenage girl told police that the 11-year-old had told her she wanted to perform oral sex on the boys in the house, according to court records. The 16-year-old denied encouraging her.
The teenage girl and the 15-year-old boy were charged with being a party to sexual assault. Torbenson said he will probably seek to have them tried as adults.
Ok -- first idiot who makes some comment about what does she expect, being all lesbianish, is going to get their ass kicked. Second -- what the fuck? Seriously? I can almost, almost (in that what the fuck were they on? sorta way) understand the teenagers -- but a 40 year old??? Huh? The hell? And what sort of evil uses a person's crush to get them to 'perform' for the masses? Who does that to an 11 year old?? I have a cousin who is 11. Oh.My.God. I'd fucking kill anyone who did this to her.
But, lest you believe that this is an isolated case -- this molestation of children and destroying their innocence -- I present episode 2:
BASTROP, La. (AP) — A Morehouse Parish grand jury has returned indictments against a former Morehouse Parish jail trusty arrested on rape charges after it was learned his wife’s 11-year-old daughter was pregnant.
Rodney O. Morrison, 37, of Bastrop, was indicted Thursday on one count of aggravated rape and one count of oral sexual battery. He is scheduled for arraignment Sept. 26.
Morrison was arrested Aug. 14 after the victim’s mother contacted police. According to the arrest affidavit, Morrison admitted to having sex with the girl once, though she told police they had sex on numerous occasions since he married her mother in September 2005.
District Attorney Jerry Jones said he personally will prosecute the case. “There is no way in hell I’d let anyone else try this case,” Jones said.
Morrison was arrested in December 2005 after his probation was revoked for testing positive for cocaine and alcohol multiple times.
He was arrested in March 2003 for possession of cocaine and later placed on probation and assigned to the parish Drug Court. He became a trusty at the Morehouse Parish jail sometime after Feb. 21.
After Morrison’s arrest, Morehouse officials last week decided to end the jail’s trusty program.
Police Chief Alan Freeman told The News-Star last week that the investigation thus far indicates the child became pregnant before Morrison was jailed last December.
If convicted, aggravated rape carries a mandatory life sentence without possibility of probation, parole or suspension of sentence. Oral sexual battery carries up to 10 years in prison.
Who wants to stab this guy in the eyes? Anyone? Anyone? Yeah, me too. Pregnant at 11, by her fricking step-father? They won't ask for the death penalty, although they can in this state since the victim was under 12. I'm assuming she didn't have the baby, since it would have been born by now and well -- someone would have noticed that, I'm sure. Still, fuckers like this should be slowly boiled to death then eaten by a pack of rabid dogs. Fuckers.
Oh, but it's not just the young who suffer! No, it's not safe to be an old woman either!!
MONROE, La. (AP) — A convicted felon was arrested on charges he raped and robbed an 84-year-old woman at gunpoint inside her home here, police said.
Dallas Taylor, 30, of Monroe, was booked Thursday into Ouachita Correctional Center on charges of armed robbery, aggravated rape, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, authorities said. In 1993, Taylor was convicted of armed robbery.
Maj. Don Bartley said the suspect spoke with the woman — whose name was not released — early Thursday, asking if her husband was at home because he was to do some yard work at the house.
“He forced his way into the house and put a gun to her head,” Bartley said. “He took her to the back of the residence and did a sexual assault on her.”
Bartley said Taylor then took two rifles, jewelry, cash and other items from the home and left in a green truck.
When officers later spotted the vehicle, Taylor got out and ran, Bartley said. He was caught a short time later. The stolen items were found in the truck, Bartley said.
Aggravated rape on a person under the age of 13 and over the age of 65 is an offense punishable by death, Bartley said. Armed robbery can carry a sentence of up to 99 years in prison.
And people think I'm paranoid because I keep my doors locked all the time and won't let anyone use the phone or whatever if I don't know them. (Even though, even that's not safe.) You know what gets me? In Louisiana, if you're young or old and are raped, your assailant could go to jail for life or the death penalty. But if you're over 13, younger than 65? They get jail time. Maybe. You get more time in this state for armed robbery than rape. What sense does that make? Seriously? Someone steals my car and they could go to jail for 20 plus years, but if they rape me they'll get less than 10? What? Goddamn fuckers.
Clearly, I'm pissed off. I need a new job before this one kills me with rage.
First up, a little snippet about a girl, her crush and the 20 plus boys who wanted an oral gangbang:
MILWAUKEE (AP) — It began with a crush, police said, and turned into one of the most shocking crimes in Milwaukee’s long, violent summer: an 11-year-old girl was sexually assaulted by as many as 20 boys while a 16-year-old girl she was romantically interested in watched and coached her.
The 16-year-old and a 15-year-old boy have been charged in juvenile court in the alleged attack, which authorities said took place Monday in a house on the city’s north side. The teenage girl’s 40-year-old uncle might also be charged, authorities said.
. . .
The 11-year-old girl told police she was interested in the teenage girl, who looked and dressed like a boy, authorities said in court records. She and two friends went to the teen’s house, where the child performed oral sex on three teenage boys, the court records said.
The teenage girl’s 40-year-old uncle admitted he also had sex with the 11-year-old and told police that his niece was coaching the child, the records said.
The 11-year-old told police she then went to the basement, where there were about 15 males and “began to choose who she wanted to perform oral sex on,” the records said.
The teenage girl told police that the 11-year-old had told her she wanted to perform oral sex on the boys in the house, according to court records. The 16-year-old denied encouraging her.
The teenage girl and the 15-year-old boy were charged with being a party to sexual assault. Torbenson said he will probably seek to have them tried as adults.
Ok -- first idiot who makes some comment about what does she expect, being all lesbianish, is going to get their ass kicked. Second -- what the fuck? Seriously? I can almost, almost (in that what the fuck were they on? sorta way) understand the teenagers -- but a 40 year old??? Huh? The hell? And what sort of evil uses a person's crush to get them to 'perform' for the masses? Who does that to an 11 year old?? I have a cousin who is 11. Oh.My.God. I'd fucking kill anyone who did this to her.
But, lest you believe that this is an isolated case -- this molestation of children and destroying their innocence -- I present episode 2:
BASTROP, La. (AP) — A Morehouse Parish grand jury has returned indictments against a former Morehouse Parish jail trusty arrested on rape charges after it was learned his wife’s 11-year-old daughter was pregnant.
Rodney O. Morrison, 37, of Bastrop, was indicted Thursday on one count of aggravated rape and one count of oral sexual battery. He is scheduled for arraignment Sept. 26.
Morrison was arrested Aug. 14 after the victim’s mother contacted police. According to the arrest affidavit, Morrison admitted to having sex with the girl once, though she told police they had sex on numerous occasions since he married her mother in September 2005.
District Attorney Jerry Jones said he personally will prosecute the case. “There is no way in hell I’d let anyone else try this case,” Jones said.
Morrison was arrested in December 2005 after his probation was revoked for testing positive for cocaine and alcohol multiple times.
He was arrested in March 2003 for possession of cocaine and later placed on probation and assigned to the parish Drug Court. He became a trusty at the Morehouse Parish jail sometime after Feb. 21.
After Morrison’s arrest, Morehouse officials last week decided to end the jail’s trusty program.
Police Chief Alan Freeman told The News-Star last week that the investigation thus far indicates the child became pregnant before Morrison was jailed last December.
If convicted, aggravated rape carries a mandatory life sentence without possibility of probation, parole or suspension of sentence. Oral sexual battery carries up to 10 years in prison.
Who wants to stab this guy in the eyes? Anyone? Anyone? Yeah, me too. Pregnant at 11, by her fricking step-father? They won't ask for the death penalty, although they can in this state since the victim was under 12. I'm assuming she didn't have the baby, since it would have been born by now and well -- someone would have noticed that, I'm sure. Still, fuckers like this should be slowly boiled to death then eaten by a pack of rabid dogs. Fuckers.
Oh, but it's not just the young who suffer! No, it's not safe to be an old woman either!!
MONROE, La. (AP) — A convicted felon was arrested on charges he raped and robbed an 84-year-old woman at gunpoint inside her home here, police said.
Dallas Taylor, 30, of Monroe, was booked Thursday into Ouachita Correctional Center on charges of armed robbery, aggravated rape, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, authorities said. In 1993, Taylor was convicted of armed robbery.
Maj. Don Bartley said the suspect spoke with the woman — whose name was not released — early Thursday, asking if her husband was at home because he was to do some yard work at the house.
“He forced his way into the house and put a gun to her head,” Bartley said. “He took her to the back of the residence and did a sexual assault on her.”
Bartley said Taylor then took two rifles, jewelry, cash and other items from the home and left in a green truck.
When officers later spotted the vehicle, Taylor got out and ran, Bartley said. He was caught a short time later. The stolen items were found in the truck, Bartley said.
Aggravated rape on a person under the age of 13 and over the age of 65 is an offense punishable by death, Bartley said. Armed robbery can carry a sentence of up to 99 years in prison.
And people think I'm paranoid because I keep my doors locked all the time and won't let anyone use the phone or whatever if I don't know them. (Even though, even that's not safe.) You know what gets me? In Louisiana, if you're young or old and are raped, your assailant could go to jail for life or the death penalty. But if you're over 13, younger than 65? They get jail time. Maybe. You get more time in this state for armed robbery than rape. What sense does that make? Seriously? Someone steals my car and they could go to jail for 20 plus years, but if they rape me they'll get less than 10? What? Goddamn fuckers.
Clearly, I'm pissed off. I need a new job before this one kills me with rage.
Friday, August 04, 2006
This is going to end up before the Supreme Court before it's all over
If not this particular case, then one similar. That's the problem with having different marriage/civil union laws across the country. Those states that have outlawed them are going to say they don't have to recognize another state's union/marriage. Which is bullshit, because any straight couple married pretty much anywhere else, not just in another state, is recognized in this country -- provided they've got documentation. I mean, we don't go around telling Canadians they're not married when they come for a visit. Or the Brits. Or Africans. Or...well, anyone. So long as they're straight. Bastards. Although -- this current ruling is a hopeful sign. Until the appeal is filed anyway.
MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — The state Supreme Court ruled Friday that Vermont courts, and not those in Virginia, have exclusive jurisdiction over a case involving two women battling for custody of a child they had while they were in a lesbian relationship.
The unanimous ruling conflicts with a series of decisions in Virginia, where courts ruled the state’s anti-gay marriage laws controlled the case.
Justice John Dooley wrote that Vermont civil union laws govern the women’s 2003 separation and subsequent child custody disagreement because they were legally joined in a civil union there in 2000.
“This is a straightforward interstate jurisdictional dispute over custody, and the governing law fully supports the Vermont court’s decision to exercise jurisdiction and refuse to follow the conflicting Virginia visitation order,” Dooley wrote.
The bullshit Virginia is trying to pull gives lie to the "think about the children" line these guys always use. Yes, let's think about the children. How about this little girl who has known both her mommies all her life. How much good is it going to do her to cut one of them out of her life? For no reason? There's nothing here to indicate that the woman is abusive or neglectful or in any way not a fit mother. The problem is she's a mommy and oops, baby's already got one of those. Sorry. Thanks for playing.
“It’s a classic conflict between two states over same-sex unions,” said Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, which is representing Lisa Miller-Jenkins, one of the women in the dispute. “The real question there is whether or not a state can have its own policy that does not accept same-sex unions or whether they have to accept the union of another state.”
And that's why it's going to end up before the Supremes. Because yeah, I think you do have to recognize other state's unions. It's legal in this state to get married at 16. So, if a 16 year old gets married here and then moves to somewhere where you've got to be 18 to be married, are they automatically single again? No. Because states recognize each other's straight unions. This has caused problems in the past, as in cases where 14 year olds ran off to Georgia to get married, against their parents wishes. It was a big deal in the news not that long ago and ended up with Georgia changing it's laws? Why? Because, historically, states recognize each other's marriages.
How hard is that, really? Of course, that doesn't mean the zealots are going to rule that way. Who cares that there are decades, maybe centuries, of precidents. Toss those out when they aren't convienent and say you're following the rule of law. Bah.
MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — The state Supreme Court ruled Friday that Vermont courts, and not those in Virginia, have exclusive jurisdiction over a case involving two women battling for custody of a child they had while they were in a lesbian relationship.
The unanimous ruling conflicts with a series of decisions in Virginia, where courts ruled the state’s anti-gay marriage laws controlled the case.
Justice John Dooley wrote that Vermont civil union laws govern the women’s 2003 separation and subsequent child custody disagreement because they were legally joined in a civil union there in 2000.
“This is a straightforward interstate jurisdictional dispute over custody, and the governing law fully supports the Vermont court’s decision to exercise jurisdiction and refuse to follow the conflicting Virginia visitation order,” Dooley wrote.
The bullshit Virginia is trying to pull gives lie to the "think about the children" line these guys always use. Yes, let's think about the children. How about this little girl who has known both her mommies all her life. How much good is it going to do her to cut one of them out of her life? For no reason? There's nothing here to indicate that the woman is abusive or neglectful or in any way not a fit mother. The problem is she's a mommy and oops, baby's already got one of those. Sorry. Thanks for playing.
“It’s a classic conflict between two states over same-sex unions,” said Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, which is representing Lisa Miller-Jenkins, one of the women in the dispute. “The real question there is whether or not a state can have its own policy that does not accept same-sex unions or whether they have to accept the union of another state.”
And that's why it's going to end up before the Supremes. Because yeah, I think you do have to recognize other state's unions. It's legal in this state to get married at 16. So, if a 16 year old gets married here and then moves to somewhere where you've got to be 18 to be married, are they automatically single again? No. Because states recognize each other's straight unions. This has caused problems in the past, as in cases where 14 year olds ran off to Georgia to get married, against their parents wishes. It was a big deal in the news not that long ago and ended up with Georgia changing it's laws? Why? Because, historically, states recognize each other's marriages.
How hard is that, really? Of course, that doesn't mean the zealots are going to rule that way. Who cares that there are decades, maybe centuries, of precidents. Toss those out when they aren't convienent and say you're following the rule of law. Bah.
Labels: children, court rulings, homosexuality, marriage
Thursday, August 03, 2006
And the winner of Sick Fuck of the week is. . .
The pagans I know would cut this bastard's balls off. In no way is he representative of the faith. And I'd like to slap him around, because really, we just need more bad press down here in Jesusland.
A suburban Cleveland man accused of sexually assaulting nine disabled boys told a judge Wednesday that his apartment was a religious sanctuary where smoking marijuana and having sex with children are sacred rituals protected by civil rights laws.
This prick is claiming freedom of religion. That his gods told him to molest these boys. Funny, I don't recall getting that particular memo.
Distasio, a self-professed pagan friar, is representing himself on 74 charges. He said he's the leader of a church called Arcadian Fields Ministries, and that some of his congregants are among the victims in his case.
. . .
Distasio was arrested on charges he molested two disabled boys he was tutoring at his home. He's also accused of raping seven other autistic children at a Cleveland school for special-needs students, The Plain Dealer reported. All but one of the boys was under 13, which carries a mandatory life-in-prison sentence if he is convicted, the paper reported.
Police said they found journals at Distasio's apartment in which he described his illegal activities, along with child pornography and videotapes of him engaged in sex with boys, The Plain Dealer reported
"Not all pedophilia is bad, and sex [with boys] can be healthy," Distasio told the court.
According to the journals, two of Distasio's victims were so helpless they could never tell anyone what happened.
"The defendant describes acts in which he had autistic children and he did what I would call sadistic sexual acts with these children," said Mason.
Now, I'll be the first to agree we've got some prudish views on sex in this society. But you do not fuck disabled, autistic children. For gods sake! Sex with boys is not healthy. Not for the boys, not for those who cannot give willing, enthusiastic consent. Lock this son-of-a-bitch up and lose the key.
Full story can be found here.
A suburban Cleveland man accused of sexually assaulting nine disabled boys told a judge Wednesday that his apartment was a religious sanctuary where smoking marijuana and having sex with children are sacred rituals protected by civil rights laws.
This prick is claiming freedom of religion. That his gods told him to molest these boys. Funny, I don't recall getting that particular memo.
Distasio, a self-professed pagan friar, is representing himself on 74 charges. He said he's the leader of a church called Arcadian Fields Ministries, and that some of his congregants are among the victims in his case.
. . .
Distasio was arrested on charges he molested two disabled boys he was tutoring at his home. He's also accused of raping seven other autistic children at a Cleveland school for special-needs students, The Plain Dealer reported. All but one of the boys was under 13, which carries a mandatory life-in-prison sentence if he is convicted, the paper reported.
Police said they found journals at Distasio's apartment in which he described his illegal activities, along with child pornography and videotapes of him engaged in sex with boys, The Plain Dealer reported
"Not all pedophilia is bad, and sex [with boys] can be healthy," Distasio told the court.
According to the journals, two of Distasio's victims were so helpless they could never tell anyone what happened.
"The defendant describes acts in which he had autistic children and he did what I would call sadistic sexual acts with these children," said Mason.
Now, I'll be the first to agree we've got some prudish views on sex in this society. But you do not fuck disabled, autistic children. For gods sake! Sex with boys is not healthy. Not for the boys, not for those who cannot give willing, enthusiastic consent. Lock this son-of-a-bitch up and lose the key.
Full story can be found here.
Labels: children, crime, rape, religion, sick bastard
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Score one for the good guys -- for the moment, at least
Arkansas high court says state cannot ban gays from becoming foster parents
By ANDREW DEMILLO
Associated Press Writer
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) -- Arkansas cannot ban homosexuals from becoming foster parents because there is no link between their sexual orientation and a child?s well-being, the state's high court ruled Thursday.
The court agreed with a lower court judge that the state's child welfare board had improperly tried to regulate public morality. The ban also violated the separation of powers doctrine, the justices said.
The board instituted the ban in 1999, saying children should be in traditional two-parent homes because they would be more likely to thrive.
Four residents sued, claiming discrimination and privacy violations against homosexuals who otherwise qualified as foster parents.
The justices agreed Thursday, saying the ban was "an attempt to legislate for the General Assembly with respect to public morality."
"There is no correlation between the health, welfare and safety of foster children and the blanket exclusion of any individual who is a homosexual or who resides in a household with a homosexual," Associate Justice Donald Corbin wrote in the opinion.
In addition, the court said, the testimony of a Child Welfare Agency Review Board member demonstrated that "the driving force between adoption of the regulations was not to promote the health, safety and welfare of foster children but rather based upon the board's views of morality and its bias against homosexuals."
The court also said that being raised by homosexuals doesn't cause academic problems or gender identity problems, as the state had argued.
The ban had not been used since the lower court ruling in 2004, state Health and Human Services spokeswoman Julie Munsell said. She said the plaintiffs have not sought foster-parent status since then.
The department didn't know if any homosexuals have applied, she said.
Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union represented the plaintiffs in the case. Rita Sklar, executive director of the ACLU in Arkansas, said she was pleased by Thursday's decision.
-----------------
Finally, some signs of sanity. Of course, this has nothing to do with Louisiana, where you still cannot adopt/foster if you're gay. But if this ruling is upheld, it should be possible to change that here. Whoohoo.
Here's my thing -- I have a niece that I love. I mean, deep, viceral, no-holds-barred love. From the moment I saw her, the first moment I held her, something in me (that I was pretty sure didn't even exist) woke up. She's my child, even though technically she's my niece. She's also adopted. If I had wanted to adopt her, instead of my brother and his wife, I wouldn't have been allowed to. Because I'm bisexual, which in Louisiana is the same thing as gay. (And please, gods, don't get me started on how they're NOT the same thing. . .) Regardless of the fact that I'm educated, employed, healthy, white, middle-class with good values and the capacity to care for a child, I'd have been denied that chance. Because of the fact that, sometimes, I like to sleep with women. Do people realize how incredible unimportant who shares a bed is to raising a child? Isn't it more important to be loving, devoted, nurturing and accepting? Isn't it more important to impart good morals and values and train children to be decent, hard-working citizens who care about themselves and others?
My niece is a very lucky little girl. She's got two parents who love her, grandparents that completely adore her and an aunt that would literally change the world for her, if she needed it. And she'd have had the same thing if I'd been the one to adopt her. (Well, two parents eventually. One at the moment.) How different are the situations of most gay adoptive/foster parents? When a child joins a family, they're not just getting parents. They're getting grandparents and aunts and uncles and siblings and cousins....how can you look at a couple, decide their sex life isn't up to par, and ignore the rest of what they have to offer?
By ANDREW DEMILLO
Associated Press Writer
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) -- Arkansas cannot ban homosexuals from becoming foster parents because there is no link between their sexual orientation and a child?s well-being, the state's high court ruled Thursday.
The court agreed with a lower court judge that the state's child welfare board had improperly tried to regulate public morality. The ban also violated the separation of powers doctrine, the justices said.
The board instituted the ban in 1999, saying children should be in traditional two-parent homes because they would be more likely to thrive.
Four residents sued, claiming discrimination and privacy violations against homosexuals who otherwise qualified as foster parents.
The justices agreed Thursday, saying the ban was "an attempt to legislate for the General Assembly with respect to public morality."
"There is no correlation between the health, welfare and safety of foster children and the blanket exclusion of any individual who is a homosexual or who resides in a household with a homosexual," Associate Justice Donald Corbin wrote in the opinion.
In addition, the court said, the testimony of a Child Welfare Agency Review Board member demonstrated that "the driving force between adoption of the regulations was not to promote the health, safety and welfare of foster children but rather based upon the board's views of morality and its bias against homosexuals."
The court also said that being raised by homosexuals doesn't cause academic problems or gender identity problems, as the state had argued.
The ban had not been used since the lower court ruling in 2004, state Health and Human Services spokeswoman Julie Munsell said. She said the plaintiffs have not sought foster-parent status since then.
The department didn't know if any homosexuals have applied, she said.
Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union represented the plaintiffs in the case. Rita Sklar, executive director of the ACLU in Arkansas, said she was pleased by Thursday's decision.
-----------------
Finally, some signs of sanity. Of course, this has nothing to do with Louisiana, where you still cannot adopt/foster if you're gay. But if this ruling is upheld, it should be possible to change that here. Whoohoo.
Here's my thing -- I have a niece that I love. I mean, deep, viceral, no-holds-barred love. From the moment I saw her, the first moment I held her, something in me (that I was pretty sure didn't even exist) woke up. She's my child, even though technically she's my niece. She's also adopted. If I had wanted to adopt her, instead of my brother and his wife, I wouldn't have been allowed to. Because I'm bisexual, which in Louisiana is the same thing as gay. (And please, gods, don't get me started on how they're NOT the same thing. . .) Regardless of the fact that I'm educated, employed, healthy, white, middle-class with good values and the capacity to care for a child, I'd have been denied that chance. Because of the fact that, sometimes, I like to sleep with women. Do people realize how incredible unimportant who shares a bed is to raising a child? Isn't it more important to be loving, devoted, nurturing and accepting? Isn't it more important to impart good morals and values and train children to be decent, hard-working citizens who care about themselves and others?
My niece is a very lucky little girl. She's got two parents who love her, grandparents that completely adore her and an aunt that would literally change the world for her, if she needed it. And she'd have had the same thing if I'd been the one to adopt her. (Well, two parents eventually. One at the moment.) How different are the situations of most gay adoptive/foster parents? When a child joins a family, they're not just getting parents. They're getting grandparents and aunts and uncles and siblings and cousins....how can you look at a couple, decide their sex life isn't up to par, and ignore the rest of what they have to offer?
Labels: children, court rulings, foster care, homosexuality
Friday, June 16, 2006
But, really, we love children. Honest.
Arkansas tells state high court that ban on gay foster parents protects children
By JILL ZEMAN
Associated Press Writer
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) -- Lawyers for gay couples told the Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday that a policy banning homosexuals from becoming foster parents is unconstitutional, but the state argued that it protects children's moral and spiritual welfare.
Because the state has banned gay marriage, and its Child Welfare Agency Review Board bars unmarried couples who live together from becoming foster parents, gay couples cannot have foster children, said Kathy L. Hall, attorney for the Department of Health and Human Services.
The state is appealing a 2004 lower court decision that found the welfare board's 1999 ban to be unconstitutional.
The state's utmost concern is the health, safety and welfare of foster children, and that can't happen in a home where unmarried sex occurs, Hall said.
Justice Annabelle Clinton Imber pointed out that the state allows single heterosexual individuals to be foster parents, but not single homosexuals. Hall said that unlike homosexuals, a single heterosexual parent "has the potential" to find a spouse.
"So you're saying ... the agency is also going to be asking a heterosexual how they behave in the bedroom," Imber said.
Leslie Cooper, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, argued that the state's policy is discriminatory and "couldn't possibly do anything to protect the interest of children."
The ban hurts children, she said, by reducing the number of eligible foster parents.
Four Arkansans sued over the policy, saying homosexuals who otherwise qualified as foster parents had been discriminated against. They contend the ban violates their right to privacy and equal protection under the state and U.S. constitutions.
----
Not being a lawyer, I admit to only a certain understanding of the law. But I have, shockingly enough, read our Constitution. And this law would create a specific class of people legally discriminated against. Call me crazy, but that does seem to violate our Constitution.
And, of course, no one is going to be asking single heterosexual foster parents what they're doing in their bedroom. Because, well, straight sex isn't icky! The only reason homosexuals in Arkansas don't have "the potential to find a spouse" is because the state has outlawed gay marriage. Here's a crazy idea: make it legal. Seriously, if the state's objection is that there's no potential for a two-parent household, make that a legal possiblity. But of course, they won't. And it's not because they care about children. A child is better off with one parent, regardless of orientation, who loves and cares for them. Anyone can see that, anyone who thinks it through can figure it out. This is about being afraid of anyone and anything that's different. About being afraid of children being "infected" with Teh Gay! (Because, clearly, that's the worst possible thing for anyone to be. Forget about teaching a child to be kind, thoughtful, compassionate, involved and engaged with the world. No. No. None of that counts if they're gay.)
By JILL ZEMAN
Associated Press Writer
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) -- Lawyers for gay couples told the Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday that a policy banning homosexuals from becoming foster parents is unconstitutional, but the state argued that it protects children's moral and spiritual welfare.
Because the state has banned gay marriage, and its Child Welfare Agency Review Board bars unmarried couples who live together from becoming foster parents, gay couples cannot have foster children, said Kathy L. Hall, attorney for the Department of Health and Human Services.
The state is appealing a 2004 lower court decision that found the welfare board's 1999 ban to be unconstitutional.
The state's utmost concern is the health, safety and welfare of foster children, and that can't happen in a home where unmarried sex occurs, Hall said.
Justice Annabelle Clinton Imber pointed out that the state allows single heterosexual individuals to be foster parents, but not single homosexuals. Hall said that unlike homosexuals, a single heterosexual parent "has the potential" to find a spouse.
"So you're saying ... the agency is also going to be asking a heterosexual how they behave in the bedroom," Imber said.
Leslie Cooper, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, argued that the state's policy is discriminatory and "couldn't possibly do anything to protect the interest of children."
The ban hurts children, she said, by reducing the number of eligible foster parents.
Four Arkansans sued over the policy, saying homosexuals who otherwise qualified as foster parents had been discriminated against. They contend the ban violates their right to privacy and equal protection under the state and U.S. constitutions.
----
Not being a lawyer, I admit to only a certain understanding of the law. But I have, shockingly enough, read our Constitution. And this law would create a specific class of people legally discriminated against. Call me crazy, but that does seem to violate our Constitution.
And, of course, no one is going to be asking single heterosexual foster parents what they're doing in their bedroom. Because, well, straight sex isn't icky! The only reason homosexuals in Arkansas don't have "the potential to find a spouse" is because the state has outlawed gay marriage. Here's a crazy idea: make it legal. Seriously, if the state's objection is that there's no potential for a two-parent household, make that a legal possiblity. But of course, they won't. And it's not because they care about children. A child is better off with one parent, regardless of orientation, who loves and cares for them. Anyone can see that, anyone who thinks it through can figure it out. This is about being afraid of anyone and anything that's different. About being afraid of children being "infected" with Teh Gay! (Because, clearly, that's the worst possible thing for anyone to be. Forget about teaching a child to be kind, thoughtful, compassionate, involved and engaged with the world. No. No. None of that counts if they're gay.)
Labels: adoption, children, homosexuality
