Don't Shoot the Messenger: Confirming Robby Soave's Observation That it's Legal to Traffic Sixteen- and Seventeen-Year-Olds

     As comedian -turned- political commentator and podcast host Jimmy Dore has been remarking more and more often lately, "our country is full of the adult children of alcoholics, and the adult children of alcoholics tend to blame the person making them aware of a problem, instead of blaming the person who's the actual cause of the problem".

     Dore's comment seems to very accurately describe social media's reaction to Robby Soave's Twitter comments about the Matt Gaetz teenager-trafficking scandal.

     On April 1st, 2021, the New York Times and other sources reported that Matt Gaetz, a Republican U.S. congressman from Florida, is being investigated by the Justice Department for possibly trafficking a 17-year-old girl across state lines for the purposes of sex.

     Within a day or two of the Gaetz controversy breaking, Robby Soave, a writer and senior editor at the libertarian-leaning Reason magazine, tweeted in response to the scandal. His tweet read, "I really don't think Matt Gaetz committed [']sex trafficking['] even if he is guilty of exactly what the NYT describes. And in fact, the age of consent is 16 or 17 in the vast majority of states." A subsequent tweet of Soave's read, "Yes I am in fact a libertarian thank you for pointing that out".

     Soave's Twitter comments on the Gaetz scandal may seem insensitive, and it might seem like an obvious defense of trafficking teens for sex (and maybe even of pedophilia in general). Or maybe Soave is just "playing Devil's Advocate".

     But on the other hand, when Soave says "I really don't think Matt Gaetz committed [']sex trafficking['] even if he is guilty of exactly what the NYT describes", he might just mean that he personally thinks there is no merit to the reports about Gaetz.

     Still, it may seem insensitive that Soave would say that he doesn't think Gaetz is guilty "even if he is guilty of exactly what the NYT describes". It almost sounds like he's saying Gaetz is guilty and not guilty at the same time, which doesn't make sense.

     But in fact, what Robby Soave is saying about the law is 100% correct. Unfortunately, in the United States, it is currently legal to traffic teenagers across state lines, provided that they are sixteen years of age or older. This was the outcome of the 2017 U.S. Supreme Court case Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions.

     Thus, Robby Soave may appear to be defending pedophilia and child trafficking, but we cannot conclude, solely from these two tweets, whether he is doing so because of his own personal "ethics" (or lack thereof), or whether he is doing so in order to be on the correct side of the law.
     If it's the latter, then it is sad to consider what this means. In order to be on the correct side of the law, as it stands right now, we have to agree that trafficking sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds across state lines for the purposes of sex, is not a crime against anybody, in the eyes of federal law.
     The law is giving the American people (and especially the politicians and lawyers, and those who wish to become politically involved and taken seriously) no choice but to subjugate their own personal senses of morality regarding child protection, to that of the state. This will not do.

     I found Robby Soave's tweet in a Facebook group called "Communists v. Libertarians Debate Group". Soave's tweet was posted mockingly, by a member of that group.

     Shortly after the Matt Gaetz scandal broke, and Robby Soave made his comment on Twitter, I messaged the member who posted Soave's tweet, with the following message.

 

 

     Hey. Saw your post on Communists v. Libertarians about age of consent laws. Soave might have said what he said out of a desire to lower the age of consent, but he's factually correct.

     The case of Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions was a federal case that effectively lowered the age of consent in about 20 states, including Florida. This federal case effectively nullified the age of consent laws in those states.

     All federal sex trafficking is under federal jurisdiction, and therefore the states can't prosecute a guy who rapes a 17-year-old as long as he takes her out of state in the process. It's a fucked up situation.

     Unfortunately for some people's narrative, the Huffington Post and Jeff Sessions were on the right side of the issue. HuffPo for reporting the case ("Supreme Court unanimously overturns age of consent laws in 20 states") and Jeff Sessions for trying to prosecute Esquivel-Quintana, who traveled across state lines with a 17-year-old girl.

     I believe the girl was from California, it was some state where there was a 17 or 18 year age of consent. The Supreme Court found in Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions that the federal government's "generic federal age of consent" of 16, won out over the states' higher age of consent laws.

     I believe that we either need to let states prosecute traffickers who take minors from their states, or else we need a constitutional amendment setting the age of consent to 17 or 18 nationwide (because varying age of consent laws in each state will inevitably lead to movement of children for illicit purposes).

 

     Many critics of libertarians - and the critics of the Constitution - like to argue that the Constitution is a living document, and that therefore it should not be interpreted too rigidly or literally.

     But it's hard not to interpret the Constitution rigidly or literally, when the U.S. Code rigidly defines all of the legal terms used in constitutional and legal language.

     To say that we interpret the Constitution "too literally", is to admit that we are interpreting it accurately, without saying it out loud.

     The critics of those who interpret the Constitution accurately, and of those of us who read the law and accurately observe from it that teenagers may legally be trafficked across state lines in some circumstances, are thus in denial.

     I would advise that people on the left who want to protect children, should stop criticizing people for noticing the state of the law. Just like the first step of recovering from alcoholism is admitting that you have a problem - and just like Lao Tzu said you must understand your enemy in order to defeat him - it is impossible to change or improve the law, unless we first recognize and admit how bad it is.

     Libertarians do not consider it fun to have to point out hard truths about the sorry state of our government, like that trafficking teenagers is legal, and that it's legal to marry babies in ten states. But we still consider it our responsibility to inform the public about bad laws, despite the fact that, in payment for this, we have only been treated like the people who caused the problem, instead of being treated as the whistleblowers we are. [My video of Joe Biden pinching an 8-year-old girl's nipple live on C-SPAN, for instance, was removed from YouTube for "cyber-bullying and harassment".]
     To reiterate what C. Frederic Bastiat said about the critics of liberty: Our critics act as if our not wanting the state to raise grain, means that we don't want anyone to raise grain; that is hardly the case. What is good for the law is not always good for the people. Similarly, the set of behaviors that are criminally punishable don't always line up with what we morally believe should be the set of behaviors that are punishable. That is why we are having this conversation; because we want the law to line up with morality.

     So don't shoot the messenger. Blame the people who are actually responsible for twenty state age of consent laws going down in one fell swoop. Blame the attorneys who represented Mr. Esquivel-Quintana. If necessary, blame the political parties with whom those attorneys are associated. Hell, blame the people who wrote the federal age of consent law, and the definition of sex trafficking of a minor or ward.

     But don't blame Robby Soave; his comments were necessary.

     The acceptable legal defense for having sexual relations with a minor, is written into the law. Until we recognize that the age of consent is too low, and we raise it and make it uniform across the states, then the current federal law on trafficking minors will serve only as an instruction to traffickers about how to get away with their crimes.
     Until sex trafficking laws are reformed, the rights of children aged sixteen and seventeen, to be free from harm, will be at risk, and those who point out this problem will continue to be mocked into silence. And the federal law on trafficking a minor or ward will be right there, to make excuses for the situation.
     We have to make it illegal to traffic 17-year-olds across state lines, if we want sex traffickers - and people like Matt Gaetz (if he is guilty) - to be prosecuted. Expecting them to be prosecuted, when what they're doing is not yet illegal (and also no longer illegal, since 2017), is irrational.

     Noticing that sex-trafficking older teens is not illegal, is not necessarily a moral endorsement of the practice; it could also be a warning. Noticing that something is not illegal, is not necessarily the same thing as saying it's good that it's not illegal. You can't know for sure what a person means by something they said, unless you read their full statement, and understand the context in which it's being said.

Read more about this topic at the following links:

Matt Gaetz scandal:
http://www.cnn.com/2021/03/30/politics/matt-gaetz-justice-department/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/30/us/politics/matt-gaetz-sex-trafficking-investigation.html

Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions:
http://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-unanimously-overrules-statutory-rape_b_592edaede4b017b267edff12

My most recent article about the need to reform laws on age of consent, statutory rape, and sex trafficking:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/03/before-fully-legalizing-sex-work-stop.html

Written on April 1st and April 3rd, 2021

Published on April 3rd, 2021

Expanded on April 6th, 2021

The Debate Over Gay Marriage

Written between April and May 2^nd, 2004 as a High School Writing Workshop Piece

Edited on February 1^st, 2016

            Same-sex marriage is becoming a more and more important and widely debated issue, and is creating controversy and inspiring rallies across the country. Recently, the City of San Francisco, California legalized same-sex marriage, challenging the state’s constitution, which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. In the first week beginning February 12^th, almost three thousand gay and lesbian couples were wed. The city’s decision, which was opposed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Bill Lockyer, was put into effect to purposely question whether California and the United States would allow same-sex marriages in the future. A proposition that was passed in California in 2000 states that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Illinois’s law states that any marriage between two people of the same sex is considered invalid.

            The proposition in California’s law – which states that gay marriages are invalid, and denies gays a right that all heterosexuals have – directly opposes the 14^th Amendment by denying homosexuals equal rights. According to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, any law against gay marriage is unconstitutional. Two states have officially legalized gay marriage; one being Massachusetts, where judges say laws prohibiting gays from marrying are forms of segregation that make homosexuals and heterosexuals unequal. The other state is Vermont, where the law technically provides for “civil unions”, but not “gay marriage”, the only basic difference being that in marriage, the couple receives a marriage license.

            The 14^th Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified after slavery was abolished, states “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” This clearly includes any homosexual who is a legal citizen of the United States. In a literal interpretation of this amendment, marriage is a privilege to which every U.S. citizen is entitled. Therefore it is illegal to deny the right to marry to any citizen. However, the unconstitutional proposition passed in California, as well as 37 other states, still stands. Some people who oppose gay marriage, including President George W. Bush, say that it will require a new constitutional amendment to allow gays to marry. To do so would require approval from 67 senators, approximately 300 representatives (depending on when the law would be passed), and the legislatures of 38 states. If it were to be formally proposed and passed, all previous state laws forbidding same-sex marriage would be invalid.

            Prior to the date when Vermont became the first state to legalize homosexual civil unions, the law’s treatment of gays had been similar to the treatment of blacks between the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement one hundred years later. State laws segregated African-Americans and whites, forcing them to be apart from each other in public settings at all times. Many Southern states had laws that forbade whites from marrying any person who was less than 7/8 white, but non-whites, then categorized as “coloreds”, could marry those of their own race. These laws, which were called segregation laws or “Jim Crow” laws, also required blacks and whites to have separate bathroom facilities, separate buildings to buy alcohol, and separate movie theaters. Under these laws, blacks and whites were considered “separate but equal”, and therefore the laws were not considered unconstitutional.

            Today, many Christian groups are against any efforts to pass laws legalizing gay marriage. Some are seeking the White House’s support in opposing any propositions that “redefine” marriage. According to them, marriage between two men or two women, and any homosexual acts, are immoral. Some, like Kenneth Howell, the director of the Newman Institute of Catholic Thought, oppose gay marriage because he thinks laws should reflect morals. The Catholic Church does not condone it because homosexual marriage serves no purpose; specifically, to create children. Some say that allowing either civil unions, marriages, or domestic partnerships – which allow gays, and also heterosexual couples whom do not want to marry, to have benefits such as jail and hospital visitation and funeral arrangements, but not the right to be recognized as “married” – would undermine the religious values of Christians and Jews.

            If the proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage (Note: there are alternative legal options that could also be effective in prohibiting this across the country; an amendment is not necessary the only way to do it) were to be officially proposed, voted on, and passed, then it would be the first amendment in United States history to take rights away from people. If any state were to legalize gay marriage before the amendment, married gay couples would have to be broken up by law, and they would no longer be able to visit each other in hospitals or have power of attorney over them and the ability to decide what happens to them when they die. Homosexuals, a significant percent of the population, would have one of the most important freedoms taken away from them; the freedom to love, and the freedom to be considered a married couple by the law.

            Although in Illinois, marriage between two people of the same sex, performed in other states, is invalid, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley has expressed support for the possibility of Cook County legalizing gay marriage, along with the mayors of Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Salt Lake City, Utah, as well as Gifford Miller, the Speaker of the New York City Council. SO far, the same number of states that would have to approve any constitutional amendment allowing gay marriages, has already passed laws against them. Still, with the changes made in the last few years advancing gay rights, such as San Francisco’s and Massachusetts’s gay marriage laws, Vermont’s civil unions law, and Cook County, Illinois and New York City’s domestic partnerships laws, the possibility remains that homosexuals will soon be entitled to get married and have the same rights as heterosexuals, and with the help of voters making the decision in favor of love and freedom, it could become a reality soon.

On the Ten Commandments Monument and the Pledge of Allegiance

Originally Written as a High School English Essay,

Entitled “Alabama Chief Justice Moore Refuses to Move 10 Commandments Monument”

Written Between Late 2003 and May 2^nd, 2004

Edited on December 6^th, 2015; Edits Shown in [Brackets]

     Even in 2003, over two hundred years after the conception of the separation of church and state [or at least the concept’s enshrinement in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; the concept dates back to at least as early as 300 B.C.], issues concerning politics and organized religion are still creating controversies. Roy Moore, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama, recently defied a court order that demanded that he remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from the Judicial Building in Montgomery [which was placed there in the mid-1950s by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in commemoration of the Charlton Heston film The Ten Commandments, directed by Cecil B. deMille]. Some believe that this court order is wrong for prohibiting the Supreme Court from housing a religious text inside its walls, which [in my opinion] is directly promoting neither theism nor any particular religion. The order stemmed from a lawsuit filed against Moore in 2001. It has been said that he failed to comply with the law, and for that, he has been charged with six ethics violations.

     Having a religious image on display in a federal building can be viewed as conflicting with the concept of separation of church and state. Separation of church and state means, by definition, that neither the state nor the federal government shall make an endorsement [i.e., establishment] of any religion [Note: the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” was a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson in an 1802 letter referencing the First Amendment, while the text of the amendment reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”. Also, some critics of the Fourteenth Amendment believe that states are not prohibited from making legislation respecting an establishment of religion]. This principle [i.e., the principle of “separation of church and state”, in the opinion of some,] forbids teaching students in public schools that God created the universe and humans. This is known as creationism. It also [, in the opinion of some,] forbids printing religious references on legal tender and the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance (which says that the nation of the United States is “under God”) in public schools. But do church and state need to be completely separated from one another? If this mixture is prohibited, should no book containing the word “God” be featured on an English class reading list? Should Bibles be prohibited within the walls of public schools? Should asking for a moment of silence be a crime and violate the First Amendment?

     According to the Bill of Rights, “freedom of religion” [not a direct quote] is guaranteed to all citizens. This means that everyone in the United States can worship and pray however, to whomever, and for whomever they wish. This also means that, should a citizen want to organize a group prayer, any person who doesn’t want to pray doesn’t have to. And should a teacher or official in a public school choose to ask for a moment of silence from his students and staff on a national holiday or day of remembrance, not everyone in the building has to pray. They don’t necessarily have to observe the moment of silence if they feel it conflicts with their beliefs, though [rather, because] a moment of silence does not necessarily call for prayer.

     The real question surrounding laws concerning the separation of church and state is “What action violating this concept would be hurtful to a person?” If “hurtful” is defined as trying to force a belief on someone who doesn’t believe it is true, teaching creationism should certainly not be allowed. When it comes to printing “in God we trust” on money - “we” referring to every U.S. citizen - this is speaking for people who may disagree with the statement. The same goes for the “under God” reference in the Pledge of Allegiance. Members of certain faiths or organized religions may not believe God governs and cares for certain nations. Removing a religious reference from the Pledge would not take anything away from a promise of loyalty; some may argue it would underscore this loyalty by not segregating those who have no faith.

     In [the case Newdow v. United States Congress, Elk Grove Unified School District, et. al., in] late June [2004] in San Francisco, California, the Pledge of Allegiance was ruled [by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit] as being a violation of the First Amendment because it contains the phrase “under God.” The case began when Elk Grove, California resident Dr. Michael Newdow, an [a]theist whose daughter [whose physical custody he shared with the girl’s mother, Sandra Banning, who retained legal custody of the child] attends a public school where her class recites the Pledge of Allegiance daily, filed a lawsuit against his state government.  Some called the ruling “political correctness run amok,” but in reality, [in my opinion, and in the opinion of the 12^th Circuit Court] the Pledge, as it currently stands, is a violation of the basic freedom of worship and religion that all American citizens have, according to the First Amendment. Before one decides whether they think this ruling is immoral, they should look at the history of the phrase.

     “Under God” was added to the Pledge in 1954 when Senator Joseph McCarthy was in office and Communism was made to seem like a growing threat to the United States government and to the people. S[o the argument went, s]ince religion is undermined by [atheistic] Communist governments[,] and the people are made to reject the idea of God in favor of loyalty to the State, people saying [i.e., people who recited] the Pledge of Allegiance in America were made to vow their loyalty to God every time they recited it. Today, some may view this as religion violating the law, but does not the Pledge of Allegiance violate the beliefs of Christianity and Judaism? The First Commandment, according to the Old Testament, says that images intended to be adored or placed above God shall be condemned [Note: this practice is called iconolatry]. So, [given] the thought [i.e., the idea] that in the Pledge[,] religion is harming the law by placing a phrase forcing loyalty to God upon those who recite the Pledge of Allegiance, it may be that anyone who recites the Pledge of Allegiance (providing they are Christian or Jewish [or Muslim, or followers of any Abrahamic religion]) may be breaking a [c]ommandment [i.e., because they are placing the flag and the country above God].

     Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore’s decision to keep the Ten Commandments monument on display is harmful to no one. On the day the monument was removed, Moore said, “It is a sad day in our country when the moral foundation of our law and the acknowledgement of God has to be hidden from public view to appease a federal judge.”

     The Ten Commandments do not advocate that people do anything violent, harmful, hateful or unethical in any way; they only suggest [really, command] that people love, respect[,] and be peaceful to one another. If the Ten Commandments advocated committing murder and acts of violence against members of other religions, that would be the only way the monument would be doing any harm. It also does not command that anyone believe in the biblical story that describes its beginnings. Nobody who passed by it and didn’t agree with what it says would feel like they have any obligation to give in to it or start believing in what it states, and the monument is in no way in any violation of ethics.

     Besides the fact that it is not harmful, Roy Moore is still within his constitutional rights by keeping the monument on display. The Constitution outlaws governmental endorsement [establishment] of a religion, but Moore is not acting as the government in this case; rather, he is a man who believes in the ideas of the Ten Commandments and thinks they are important for people to see, whether they agree with the Commandments’ ideals or not. This is merely Moore’s way of reminding himself what standards to uphold as a judge, [remind himself and his state] what the basic rules of life [or civil society] are (in his opinion), and remind him[self] that God is the only judge whose rules affect people and their souls in the long run.

     Workers removed the monument on August 27^th, [2003, al]though some of Moore’s supporters are fighting to keep it on public display, including the Christian Defense Coalition (headed by Pat Mahoney, who said that the coalition is not discouraged by the court’s ruling), which has filed a later-rejected lawsuit in attempt to keep the monument in place.

     If people keep trying to push education, government, science and religion further and further apart, one or more of them will become so weak that it will die out, and people will eventually lack either intelligence, ethics, reasoning[,] or faith[,] and they will not know how to deal with each other in a higher sense.