113 Comments
User's avatar
Chris Bray's avatar

I'm watching the session here:

https://www.assembly.ca.gov/media-live-event/9330?format=video

Republicans have offered a motion to force consideration of the prohibition. Democrats have offered amendments to the bill that have not been described, and the speaker is opening a vote on the Democratic amendment. Annnnd the Democratic maneuver has worked: The bill is amended, and the Republican motion has died. Eventually we'll see what amendments the Democrats brought to the floor.

Expand full comment
Chris Bray's avatar

Amendments vaguely declare the intent of the Assembly to protect 16 and 17 year-olds, offering only a statement rather than a prohibition. Assemblyman Nick Schultz is arguing that sex with minors is already illegal, so there's no need to make the purchase of the sex a felony.

Assemblyman Carl DeMaio, a Republican, says Democrats are "paying lip service: to the victims of sex trafficking. But his motion is dead, and the legislature will be moving on.

Expand full comment
Chris Bray's avatar

When the video is archived and I can take pieces of footage, I'll post video of a Democratic assemblyman saying that a bill making the purchasing of a minor for sex a felony is an assault on LGBT civil rights.

Expand full comment
JT's avatar

Wait...are they saying that if you're Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans, etc. that it's your civil right to purchase minors for sex? I doubt any but the fringes of the LGBT+ community would stand behind that assertion?

Years ago when the gay community was making its claim to legitimacy, many folks accused the gay community of being comprised predominantly of pedophiles (excuse me, "MAPs")...which the gay community rejected vehemently and vociferously. Now purchasing a minor for sex is a civil right?

Expand full comment
Chris Bray's avatar

And DeMaio said, today, that most gay and lesbian Californians reject that premise, before the idiot Democrat swooped in and said HOW DARE YOU ATTACK OUR CIVIL RIGHTS. What a moment.

Expand full comment
2001_Odd's avatar

All of this is to eventually legalize pedophilia . .

Expand full comment
Leonard's avatar

They really just want to find a way to make it illegal for middle class heterosexual white males to have sex.

Expand full comment
Larry LaBate's avatar

I really don't even know what to say, but I want to scream WTF DEMOCRATS??? If you can't be bipartisan on selling minors for sex is bad is there any hope?

Expand full comment
Susan's avatar

I guess if we presume no money changes hands it's OK to sodomize minors?

But is an ice cream cone or other sweet treat considered legal tender?

FYI - SB 145 (Sen Scott Wiener):

https://californiaglobe.com/legislature/ca-democrats-author-bill-to-protect-sex-offenders-who-lure-minors/

https://californiaglobe.com/fr/gov-newsom-signs-bill-to-protect-sex-offenders-who-have-homosexual-sex-with-minors/

Expand full comment
Chris Bray's avatar

The sex is a crime. It's still statutory rape. But if an adult buys the sex but is interrupted by the police before getting it, the solicitation alone is a misdemeanor that prosecutors mostly don't bother to pursue.

Expand full comment
Susan's avatar

Thank you Chris. I probably should have mentioned that my question was asked with the bitter sarcasm that has unfortunately become a habit with me mostly because of the state of our legislature and thus the state of our state.

Expand full comment
Chris Bray's avatar

Deeply understood!

Expand full comment
Susan G's avatar

Reading these links (thanks for them) answered my two questions - does California have an age of consent and does the crime of statutory rape exist? Apparently, the answers are yes and maybe. This is disgusting. Children should be protected, not monetized for the pleasure of perverts.

Expand full comment
Chris Bray's avatar

Statutory rape exists, and is charged. Age of consent is 18. The much-debated solicitation charge enters the picture if, for example, a buyer pays for sex with a minor, but the police intervene before the sex happens, or the kid escapes before the sex happens.

Expand full comment
Susan G's avatar

Thanks, Chris. Like Susan above, my sarcasm gets the best of me when California law is involved. Do DAs actually prosecute?

Expand full comment
Anon E. Mousse's avatar

Point 1 was tried by clergy who enjoyed great success for decades until...

Point 2 re. ice cream: generally in sex trafficking cases the payment can be money or any thing of value in exchange for sexual activity. This can be a place to stay, for example.

What a mess this world is. How is it that people think that legislation will address these issues? Making up rules, which is what legislation is, rarely helps and does a great deal to create bogs of bad outcomes.

How about: "Hey, guys and gals! Let's not have sex with kids."

Expand full comment
Brigitte's avatar

But all these years they’ve been lecturing us condescendingly about how homosexuality and pedophilia are two separate things…

Expand full comment
david's avatar

they like their boys young.

Expand full comment
KCwoofie's avatar

Geez.

Expand full comment
Anthony S.'s avatar

I'm sorry, but what is Schultz's argument, exactly? "We'll punish them once they have sex, so there's no need for a powerful deterrent to prevent that from even happening?"

Are the cops going to be surveilling from their Cable TV van while the SWAT team maintains position behind the hedges: "Is it a felony now?" "I think he poured her a White Claw and said something about how he never does this sort of thing. " "Ok, how about now??"

This sounds an awful -- emphasis on *awful* -- lot like "We don't need laws requiring verification of citizenship because it's already illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections."

Expand full comment
Cathleen Manny's avatar

Good grief. I’m baffled and horrified.

Expand full comment
A.J.'s avatar
May 1Edited

THANK YOU for watching this stream so I don't have to.

If my Sacramento Assemblycritter doesn't vote to make these heinous crimes a felony I will walk door-to-door against him in his next election starting in circles around each of his family's homes in Silicon Valley. If anyone today needs a more amusing California State Capitol building tourist report:

bvhttps://ajvalleyheartsdelight.substack.com/p/sacraments-and-objects-of-art-with

Expand full comment
Chris Bray's avatar

Sacramento -- Isn't your assemblycritter Maggy Krell? If so, she's the good guy in this one -- she authored the bill the GOP is supporting, and tried to make it a felony to buy 16 and 17 year-olds for sex. Her own Democratic colleagues opposed her bill.

Expand full comment
A.J.'s avatar

No, I have Berman.

Expand full comment
The Alarmist's avatar

As sad as the subject matter might be, the sadder story here is that these are the peoples' elected representatives fighting what they think is the good fight. Do a majority of Californians really feel Assembly majority is representative of their views and values?

Expand full comment
TheAbjectLesson's avatar

Chris, I feel like at some point in the near future someone's going to be telling you to take all of your things and leave, and make *double-sure* to tell your wife not to look back as you cross the State line into AZ or NV.

Expand full comment
Nancy Benedict's avatar

Sodom and Gomorrah. 🎯

Expand full comment
Chris Bray's avatar

Will write much more about this when the archived video of the debate is posted. Astonishing discussion.

Expand full comment
Secret Squirrel's avatar

Yes. Just read that. Crazy stuff But great article.

Expand full comment
John's avatar

How are people supporting democrats at all presently? Does the electorate not realize what the dem party are supporting in their name? Speaking with some people I’ve come to believe that we are living in two completely different realities. I wonder if that is purposely?

Expand full comment
Susan's avatar

Election cheating and rigging is rampant in California, thus we are not sure if our sitting super-majority Dem legislature were all legitimately elected, nor if our Dem state officeholders (every last one of them), the ones who were not appointed by the Gov, that is, were legitimately elected. Same for city mayors, city councils, county boards of supervisors, district attorneys, city attorneys, etc. You probably know this already...

Expand full comment
Richard Parker's avatar

Hate to be that Guy! The D's in California don't need cheat much, but if it needed, youvetchacha!

Expand full comment
Richard Parker's avatar

Many (most?) Californio's get some sort of 'goody' from the Stàdt or some favored progam they adore. The rest pay no attention and don't believe you if you raise this issues. You would be hard pressed to find an extended family without government jobs or recieving some sort of check or subsidiary.

Politically, it is like living in East Germany.

Expand full comment
A.J.'s avatar

Half the people on this planet are by mathematical laws "below average" intelligence.

Expand full comment
Richard Parker's avatar

I went to school in California. By state law, all children are above average.

Expand full comment
Tim Rohde's avatar

What do they SAY on the floor of congress in this debate?! How does someone take the pedo side of this debate and not end up with their face next to a quote from that defense on every billboard in their district?!

Expand full comment
Chris Bray's avatar

Watch the video:

https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1917315312833421564

They oppose it by pulling long faces and saying that we really need some time to think about this. They have no specific objections, they just...really need some time to think and study and analyze, and then maybe next year we can return to the question after we've studied the problem.

Expand full comment
Cathleen Manny's avatar

Oh, goodie. Another ‘study’.

Expand full comment
KMW's avatar

Thanks for the X link. And I love your reply!😂. That guy creeps me out completely. 👺

Expand full comment
Steve Campbell's avatar

I went to HS in San Francisco in the early 60’s. It was a liberal city but no where near insane. The late 60’s began to change all that. The politicians of the day in the 70’s were all in for Jim Jones and his cult, culminating of course with the mass suicide in Guyana. They white washed that and the city got crazier. Aids was the next thing as they desperately fought against any closure of the gay bathhouse, cause being gay had nothing to do with it. And now, “kids for sale”. This entire lot needs to go to Guyana for some serious therapy. They don’t deserve the beautiful state they are destroying.

Expand full comment
The Outsider's avatar

“They don’t deserve the beautiful state they are destroying.”

There is the whole thing in a nutshell.

Expand full comment
Sue Kelley's avatar

IMHO ANYONE that thinks having sex with children is ok doesn't deserve to be breathing.

Expand full comment
A.J.'s avatar

Add countless feed-the-perpetual-homeless programs and handing out free drugs and needles in San Francisco's Single-Room Occupancy zoning in the Tenderloin neighborhood next door to City Hall. At least all USA Catholic Charities are having to cut down some of their illegal migrants, homeless, and substance abuse programs because they depended way too much on feeding at the USAID, etc. federal cash troughs.

FWIW, the Oakland Catholic Diocese across SF Bay is in its 3rd year of settlement negotiations in a bankruptcy court for a class action on clerical sex abuse thanks to Governor Newsom extending the normal sex abuse statue of limitations after the last class action payouts. I feel sorta sorry for that diocese's leader, a Jesuit bishop, holding the cleanup and liability bags on those long negotiations. At least the SF archbishop is no pal of his parishioner the local Big D Political Machine Boss-ette Nancy Pelosi (in-law aunt of Newsom) over her support of Planned Parenthood and abortion anytime on demand.

Well! San Francisco was named for St. Francis of Assisi who rose to fame in the 1200s preaching to animals against outrageous Vatican corruption. The first Catholic mass in San Francisco, California was given less than one week before July 4, 1776! Super big messes like political or clerical corruption trigger multi-year fixes or sometimes, to wake up enough fighters, just "One shot heard around the world" such as at Lexington, Massachusetts exactly 250 years + 11 days ago. 2026 is "America 250!" Hold onto your hats.

Expand full comment
Brigitte's avatar

Sorry to derail the conversation, but do they still have the subsidized SROs sandwiched between “regular” apartment buildings? I read about that 15 or 20 years ago.

Expand full comment
A.J.'s avatar

Yes. SF and Sacramento Capital both love to have "below market housing" as indistinguishable as possible from "market rate housing." Latest Sacto game is a power grab by the State government of all big urban areas' single family residential zoning (SR-1!) in all big towns with a big mass transit node. Anyone can now stuff 4 new houses on a tiny SR-1 lot and provide no off street parking because in the Sacto Fantasy Majority Mind of Limo Liberals no Californian urban dweller needs to own a private car anymore. Sacto also now allows massive new skyscrapers with no meaningful public design review if the biggest redevelopers (on a special we-love-you pre-approved list at Sacto!) provide a magic number of below-market housing units. Hilarious those limo liberals who believe stuffing ever more housing into expensive urban areas will reduce housing rents and purchase prices. Insane, stoned or just plain stupid.

I've watched SF's Tenderloiun desced nt a hell n earth for over 50 years. A City Hall racket indulging multiple generations of virtue signalers and grifters in the homeless "services" very profitable biz for its worker bees and Boss politics sinecure courtiers. And, I watched Governor Gruesome put homeless into nearby downtown SF luxury hotels empty due to the plandemic and most due for remodeling all owned by his buddies - all homeless hotel stays paid for by fed taxpayers - a Big Grift happening so fast in Spring 2020 for the plandemic my head spun.

Expand full comment
Brigitte's avatar

Interesting. I wondered what happened to the SRO people’s SSI bux when I read that they sign their assistance checks over to the “corporations” that own the buildings and supposedly provide the tenants with social services. I just assumed it was a giant ripoff scheme

Expand full comment
Whalemind's avatar

I feel like not being willing to make buying children for sex a felony INCREDIBLY suspicious and abhorrent. How the FUk is this even a question????

Expand full comment
Dena's avatar

Clearly the end goal is to legalize pedophilia. These are sick, sick people.

Expand full comment
WilliamD's avatar

They are evil, evil people.

Expand full comment
Richard Parker's avatar

That is real undercurrent in Costal California.

Expand full comment
RU's avatar

Epstein, Weinstein, Combs.

Teachers, professors, activists, bureaucrats, and lawmakers openly defending "minor attracted persons." Obviously the same ruling class opened the borders without restriction for 4 years and managed to "lose" 300k kids, all while gaslighting everyone else that it wasn't happening. Now that they've been caught, they've switched to just flatly arguing to return the deported traffickers to the US.

On top of all that, RFK Jr. just said in the open Cabinet meeting that HHS has been "complicit" in trafficking minors for "sex and slavery." Not sure how that isn't the story of the century, but the MSM doesn't seem to have noticed.

And now we have lawmakers in the largest state - and the one most impacted by the human trafficking / illegal immigration activity - openly trying to make sure the sex trafficking of minors remains nothing more than a misdemeanor, like jaywalking or a parking ticket or something.

All of this should be satire, but somehow it's all real. WTH.

Expand full comment
Dena's avatar

RFK said HHS under Biden was a vector for minor sex & slave trafficking. The Vince podcast had an actual video of Becerra on a conference call saying they weren’t moving fast enough on building out the ‘assembly line’. Said they had to be like Henry Ford. He needs to be hauled into Congress to explain in more detail what was going on.

Expand full comment
Valoree Dowell's avatar

To answer my own question “who would support sex with children?” (I know, this is not a new concept, however legalizing it might be), I started down a surprising path. It began with a book review, led to a Chinese think tank, which ended at the CCP. The bottom line conclusion for me is look to communist China. Not for sex with children, but for dismantling Western values across the board. From a comment in the New Oxford Review on a review of The Ways of Confucius and Christianity: “ As a leading scholar of the Chinese Academy of the Social Sciences, told a group of Westerners in 2002, this think tank of the communist government was tasked with scrutinizing the West’s culture, to try to discover the key to its superiority, and concluded that ‘the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West has been so powerful. The Christian moral foundation was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democrat politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.’” The suggestion is that China took these findings under advisement, to mimic and modernize their country. Then read up on CASS, it’s role in the CCP, and you might find, as I did, some seeds instead to dismantle ours.

Expand full comment
CaliforniaLost's avatar

But we enabled our own destruction by going along with the insanity because we wanted to be nice and polite.

Expand full comment
Brian Villanueva's avatar

Our ruling class has spent years gradually sexualizing children. For a while I thought their willingness to die on the hill of "a 14 year old has a right to to slice off her own boobs" was just the Marxist oppression matrix taken to it's logical conclusion. But bills like this make it clear: all of this was always about lowering the age of consent and making teens sexually available to adults.

This is not surprising. The wealthy and powerful have always sought sexual access to the young and pretty... especially the very young. Why would our ruling class be any different?

Expand full comment
Arunsee2's avatar

I’m sure the legislators won’t explain themselves, so here’s the “argument” from the LA Times article:

“Youth advocates were concerned that allowing felony charges for soliciting 16- and 17-year-olds could be used by parents to target older teens involved in LGBTQ or interracial relationships that families object to”

This is an insane argument, like saying we shouldn’t have SWAT teams because they are sometimes misused for “swatting”.

It is essentially like the argument for socially transitioning kids behind parents’ backs: parents should be assumed to be abusive and untrustworthy, suspected predators should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Good to see the governor pushing back.

Expand full comment
Linda Bray's avatar

Newsome is only doing that to pose as a centrist. He has his eyes on the White House. God help us.

Expand full comment
Arunsee2's avatar

I share your concerns around his motives, and I am no fan of his, but I am still glad he is pushing back.

Expand full comment
Anon E. Mousse's avatar

If I am not mistaken many states 'statutory rape' laws have carve outs for sex between participants in the same age bracket. To my knowledge these provisions have never been known as "Save the Prom" clauses, but perhaps they ought to be.

Expand full comment
Arunsee2's avatar

Right, and that makes sense, but this is an anti-sex trafficking law… nothing to do with the prom. And the carve out doesn’t restrict the age of the person who is over 16/17. It’s different.

Expand full comment
New Considerist's avatar

Isn't the selling and buying of people, no matter their age, slavery?

Expand full comment
the long warred's avatar

Not if you’re Democrat.

This isn’t a new development, not really.

Expand full comment
Marsali S.'s avatar

Thank you, Chris, for covering this issue. It’s an ugly one and many people would prefer to not have to think or talk about it. RFK Jr, said in the WH cabinet meeting #4, that the Biden-era HHS ‘was complicit and a vector for child trafficking.’ He said that they have stopped that link to child trafficking, and I certainly hope so. Think about it: HHS. It’s ironic that the HHS Secretary in the Biden admin was Xavier Becerra, a Senator from California.

Expand full comment
Ahmed’s Stack of Subs's avatar

“older minors”.

minors.

kids.

Expand full comment
York Luethje's avatar

Soliciting younger minors will apparently still be okay. Phew.

For a moment I thought the pink and baby-blue stripes in the pride flag were in danger.

Expand full comment
JasonT's avatar

The slope is slippery and there is no bottom.

Expand full comment
CaliforniaLost's avatar

Oh, there is a bottom, it is a bunch of flame and sulphur and brimstone.

Expand full comment
James David's avatar

That just makes it easier to slide their shot up bodies down the hill.

Expand full comment