UPCI pastor resigns amid teen sex charges

[coadie]

Originally Posted by MrMasterMind

That is correct if he were not a minister it would have been impossible to file ANY charges for consensual sex between a 47 yo and a 16 yo.

Thus sayeth the laws of Ohio.

Teacher, doctors, ministers, therapists have restrictions.

Will the ACLU demand they have equal rights?

[MrMasterMind]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

As wrong as I think this is - since it was consensual I'm not sure battery charges will stick. Wouldn't that have meant he had to hit her or force her to have sex with him?

Not really, if he were not her pastor there could not have been criminal charges.

So the state will be allowed the presumption that it was de facto coercion because of his position, then the burden will shift to him to prove that is not the case.

Battery in this case is just a way to say sexual assault, and it is assault without legal consent.

[geekette]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

So you believe that every teenage girl under 18 is a victim if they have sex? I can't buy that. I know too many girls that think it's totally normal to be having sex, not married and with guys even older than them.

If they're not an emancipated minor (i.e., gone before a judge and shown that they can take care of themselves), then yes, they are legally unable to consent to having sex. Period.

Some people object to a bright-line test like this, but you know, to me it's pretty easy. If the teenager (male OR female--plenty of cases where the perp was a female adult) isn't of age, then best to just walk away.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by geekette

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

You are wrong and you are blaming the victim. I'm calling you out and I hope to God you do not have anything to do with young women, because what you're saying here is evil and disgusting. Again: the adult is the responsible party here, and this man, who was in a position of trust, was doubly responsible to act honorably towards the teenager.

I doubt you think of yourself as liberal, but you're basically wanting to lower the age of consent and make this not a crime.

I am not blaming the victim.

I am saying that she is not a victim. She wasn't raped and I can almost guarantee that the former Pastor did not cast a spell on her causing her to fall head-over-heels into his evil clutches. I say this with confidence because of her age. If she is a victim, then so is he.

She is not innocent. I wonder if Ohio has laws against adultery on their books.


As for the bolded part of your post, I have no clue where that came from and do not remember making statements that confirm that accusation.

I'm not the one not charging him with statutory rape. I live in Florida.



Our society is always so quick to treat youth offenders as adults when it is doubtful that the offenders thought through their actions and the consequences.


However, with each sex act, she would have had to think about it.

On the way to do the deed, she thought about it.
As she undressed, she thought about it.
When she was done the first time, she thought about it.
When she was done the 2nd time, and so on, she thought about it.
When she looked at that man's wife in church, she thought about it.
When she went home at night, she had to think about it.

In order for there to be mercy, there has to be guilt.


To deny the guilt of this 16 year old is to deny her the opportunity for mercy.

[geekette]

deleting entire post.

[MrMasterMind]

Originally Posted by coadie

Teacher, doctors, ministers, therapists have restrictions.

Will the ACLU demand they have equal rights?

It can go too far, but I am not always comfortable with legal presumptions. In this case it was ONLY because he was pastor. In other cases if the victim was gay, different race or religion, allowing a presumption of hate crime is dangerous.

It is not even a matter of him being a minister really. It is a legal issue about whether or not he used his position as a means of coercion.

If not, under Ohio law the only thing either of them is guilty of is perhaps poor judgment.

Of course since they were not legally married there was a clear violation of God's law. At least that was still in there last I checked.

[geekette]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Sad that you were pushed to have to post this.

No, he should have been up front about it...and he still should have used discretion and NOT POSTED IT. For the sake of the memory of his daughter!

*eyes wide* I don't believe this, I really really don't.

[scotty]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Secondly, there would be no reason to look back on our grandparents and think that our Grandpas were perverts for marrying women as young as 14 or 15, since that wasn't deemed inappropriate at that time. People can only be expected to behave to the level of their education.

We are now equipped with the knowledge that children do not reach maturity mentally and emotionally at the same time they reach physical maturity, AND our legal system has placed limits on sexual interaction with minors. Therefore anyone who acts inappropriately with the knowledge that doing so could be harmful to a child's wellbeing is most certainly at fault, and due to our laws, it just so happens they are criminals as well.

I agree with the change in times, society today is way off base. But even as is the case with Ohio, some laws allow consentual sex under the age of 18. So the kids say, "why not".

And dont forget, it wasnt just our grandparents and great grandparents, I believe the same was common in biblical days with no reproach from God.

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Ok.

If a 16 year old breaks a law, prosecute them as an adult.

A 16 year old has sex, they're simply misguided.


The 16 year old attended church and knows that premarrital sex is wrong.

She knows it was wrong to do it with a married man.


Neither one of these two are victims here.

If.....and I have to loudly say, "IF".....these accusations are true, I have no idea how you could ever say such a thing. Wow, that's shocking.

[geekette]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Just thinking all this through - and had this thought.

First, let me say that I'm thankful for our laws and agree with anyone under 18 is considered a minor.

However, think back in history - - it was nothing for a young maiden to be taken in arranged marriages and it was considered the norm.

If we check back to our great-grandmothers many of them were married under the age of 18.

Just thinking outloud.

Yes, and obviously the families were involved in the arranged marriage. Our modern equivalent would be a parent giving consent to a marriage involving a 16 or 17 YO minor. But I don't think we want to go back to arranged marriages, do we?