It’s just a coincidence that Robert Stacy McCain’s infatuated with what he’s calling “The Teenage Lesbian Trial of the Century.” There’s nothing prurient about his interest:
[A] sheriff’s department arrest affidavit in the case says the 14-year-old ran away and spent that night at Hunt’s house, where the two teens “put their fingers inside of each other’s vaginas, put their mouths on each other’s vaginas, and both of them used a vibrator on each other to insert it in each other’s vaginas” … Will prosecutors include the vibrator as Exhibit A? If readers want to send me to Florida next month to cover The Teenage Lesbian Trial of the Century, this would be a good time to hit the tip jar.
Nothing prurient at all. But given the attention this case is attracting among ideologically unattractive bloggers, it’s worth noting a few relevant details. Foremost among them, according to the official affidavit, the parents of the 14-year-old conducted a “controlled phone call” with Kaitlyn Hunt, the accused:
The day after that inflammatory phone call, Hunt was arrested. I’m not saying that she shouldn’t have been—statutory rape laws exist for a reason and Hunt essentially confessed to the crime during that “controlled phone call.” But context always matters in cases like this, especially when state laws dictate that while an 18-year-old man can be arrested for having sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend, that same 18-year-old man could legally impregnate his 15-year-old wife. Prosecutions of this sort depend on ignoring the existence of conflicting statutes, and they can do so because the conflict involved privileges traditional marriage.
Meaning that—besides his desire speak openly about fantasizing about the sex lives of teenage lesbians—McCain’s interested in this case because there’s no potential for conflicting statutes. The defense can’t claim that these two could’ve performed this act had they been married because gay marriage isn’t legal. This provides him and the other moral hypocrites linked above with an ostensibly unambiguous position: “This is a clear-cut case of illegal sexual activity because there exist no grounds under which it could be legal.” They have the moral high-ground!
They can claim that any liberal who compares this case to similar ones between consenting heterosexuals supports pedophilia, empowers sexual predators, etc. All those liberals are actually doing is demanding that the same standards be held to this case that apply in similar ones in which the specificity of the law creates situations that ideologues can abuse in bad faith. Will their next demand be that parents who take pictures of their infant children bathing be arrested? Of course not.
But why use that sort of common sense when you could attack liberals while drumming up interest in “The Teenage Lesbian Trial of the Century”?