If Kaitlyn Hunt was a man instead of a woman, would there be a national outrage over her arrest on felony charges for sexual abuse of a minor? Would the hacktivist collective “Anonymous” be writing open letters to prosecutors that begin with the greeting “Dear Bigots?” Would the American Civil Liberties Union issue a statement condemning the “persecution” of an 18 year old with a bright future?
The Hunt case has stirred controversy because the high school senior was in a “consensual” relationship with a freshman girl, and her arrest has spurred attacks on her girlfriend’s parents and law enforcement. But the reality here is that if she was in a sexual relationship with a 15 year old, she broke a law in place to protect children and young teens. That has nothing to do with the morality of homosexuality, and a number of men are prosecuted each year all over the country for having sexual relationships with younger teenage girls.
Homosexual-rights advocates cannot have it both ways. Either they believe in equality or they do not. Hunt should not have special rights because her relationship was a homosexual relationship as opposed to a heterosexual relationship. She should be treated the same way as a man would in this situation. Furthermore, I have been specific with my language here – Hunt is a woman, not a girl. She is a legal adult in every state in the nation with all of the rights and responsibilities that come with that. Her partner is a girl.
We have age of consent laws for a reason. As a society, we have determined that people under a certain age cannot fully consent to sexual activity because of their lack of maturity, life experience, brain development and so forth. We have these laws in place to protect younger teens from being sexually exploited by older teens and especially by adults. This is why the two men in Torrington Connecticut who allegedly had sex with 13 year old girls are being prosecuted for statutory rape, even though the girls allegedly wanted sex. That is not bigotry or heterophobia.
What worries me is that this case will be used to break down the age of consent barriers we have in place to protect children and young teens from sexual abuse and exploitation. That is not the proper course of action. We already have assaults on those barriers from “judges” who demand that “emergency contraception” be available to any child over the counter without a prescription or parental consent. We must resist efforts by political activists to eviscerate good and necessary laws for the purpose of their agenda.