CA Bill Demands Verbal or Written Consent for Sex on College Campuses

Jun 5, 2014
Education
0 0

A newly amended bill from a California lawmaker would require college students to stop in the heat of passion and establish verbal or written consent before having sex anywhere on campus, reports L.A. Weekly.

SB 967, amended last week by state Sen. Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles), would mandate that college students obtain “an affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decision by each participant to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity.”

Last month, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights released a list of 55 schools that face federal probes into their handling of sexual assault cases. De Leon said his bill is meant to confront sexual assault problems head-on.

Kiss-College-AP

“Obviously, there is a problem,” he said in the report. “SB 967 will change the equation so the system is not stacked against survivors by establishing an affirmative consent policy to make it clear that only ‘yes’ means ‘yes.'”

According to the language of the bill, “consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual encounter, and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.”

Despite the bill’s noble intentions, not everyone is sold on the proposed legislation.

In an article for LegalInsurrection.com, attorney Hans Bader argues the language of the proposed law could make ordinary people out to be sexual criminals.

“Since most people have engaged in sex without verbal consent, supporters of the bill are effectively redefining most people, and most happily-married couples, as rapists,” he said.

Bader goes even further, saying the law could violate individual privacy rights:

Requiring people to have verbal discussion before sex violates their privacy rights, under the logic of Supreme Court decisions such as Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which struck down Texas’ sodomy law, and federal appeals court decisions like Wilson v. Taylor (1984), which ruled that dating relationships are protected against unwarranted meddling by the Constitutional freedom of intimate association.

The proposed law would require all college campuses to adopt a uniform policy “concerning sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking.” Schools that fail to adhere to the policy would not be eligible to receive state funds for student financial assistance.

The bill passed the state Senate on May 29 by a vote of 27-9. It heads to the Assembly next for further consideration.

source

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Spread the love
Comments
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

4 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
trackback

[…] According to the language of the bill, “consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual encounter, and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be …read more     […]

d012560c
d012560c
6 years ago

According to SB-967 Student safety: sexual assault : “It is the responsibility of the person initiating the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the consent of the other person to engage in the sexual activity.” Since most males initiate sexual activity, this bill is clearly geared against males. Even so, this provision will provide a loophole to the accused because s/he can simply state the other party initiated the sexual activity. In fact, what constitutes sexual activity … a tongue down your throat, rubbing your leg, etc.? The bill doesn’t state that the consent must be in… Read more »

d012560c
d012560c
6 years ago
Reply to  d012560c
Ernest Greene
Ernest Greene
6 years ago

The problem is real on college campuses but this won’t do a thing to address it. Those who would obey such a preposterous rule aren’t the people who cause the problem.

It’s those who will laugh it off we have to worry about.

In the meantime, it fails the constitutional smell test in every possible way.

TrafficHolder.com - Buy & Sell Adult Traffic
4
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x