Kaitlyn Hunt: Gay Rights Martyr, or Garden-Variety Criminal and Pedophile?

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

-George Orwell, 1903-1950, author of the allegorical and dystopian Animal Farm (1945) novel criticizing reflecting the events leading up to the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the Stalin-era of the Soviet Union

***

(Above: Kaitlyn Hunt, who was charged with statutory rape of a 14 year old girl, with her father, Steve Hunt. Courtesy of The Washington Times)

Introduction: The Case Against Kaitlyn Hunt and the Motives Behind Her Defense

The issue of homosexuality has always brought out the passions of members of Christian evangelical interest groups and leftists alike. Just a month ago, the U.S. Supreme Court was hearing a case to decide whether the U.S. would legalize same-sex marriage.  Last week, the Boy Scouts of America voted to allow homosexual boys to join the organization -- a topic to be later written on.  And now, we are faced with a truly sad situation, what some Internet sites are referring to as a "Romeo and Juliet-type" of story.  This, of course, is the case involving an 18 year old Sebastian High School (FL) high school senior named Kaitlyn Hunt.  She was arrested and charged for statutory rape of a 14 year old girl who was a freshman at the same school.  This case has, in less than a week, created an uproar in the gay community.  Members of the gay community are stating that if it had involved a boy and a girl of the same ages, this situation might never have arisen, but because young Kaitlyn is a girl and this involves a same-sex relationship, it is an act of institutional hate.  None other than former Star Trek star George Takei, himself a homosexual, and former first lady Nancy Reagan are in support of the embattled 18 year old.  Multiple articles on news outlets online and liberal advocacy websites are denouncing the arrest and charges brought against young Kaitlin, with some, like the self-proclaimed independent news site which is, in reality, a liberal mouthpiece called Think Progress, publishing articles titled "Florida Teen Expelled, Charged with Felony for Lesbian Relationship."  No doubt the vast majority of the public that last month overwhelmingly supported the prospect that the   U.S. Supreme Court would make a decision in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage is now supporting young Kaitlyn.  However, the liberal mass media and the gay rights activists, now being spearheaded by the family of Kaitlyn Hunt and young Kaitlyn herself, have disingenuously turned this situation from one of her being charged with the felony as is clearly and unambiguously stated in the Florida law of statutory rape into yet another attempt to undermine legal codified standards by utilizing such methods as looking for loopholes in the legal system to crying foul, as well as demanding social justice.  In essence, the Left in this country, particularly the gay community, is looking to transform young Kaitliyn into a martyr for greater social equality regardless of what laws they feel they will have to assault in courts under the pretense that they will get a judiciary packed with judicial activists rather than structural functionalists.

An Examination of the Charges and the State of Florida's Statutory Rape Laws As They Pertain to Kaitlyn Hunt's Case

In a May 25 article in The Washington Post, journalist Lisa M. Ruth reports that young Kaitlyn rejected a plea bargain deal:

WEST PALM BEACH, FL, May 25, 2013 — Kaitlyn Hunt, the 18-year-old Florida high school student charged with two felony counts of “lewd and lascivious battery on a child 12-16 years of age” yesterday rejected a plea deal that would have labeled her a sex offender and placed her under house arrest for two years.

Hunt, a former cheerleader and basketball player at Sebastian High School was arrested in February for a consensual same-sex relationship with a 14-year-old basketball teammate. The arrest came after the parents of Hunt’s girlfriend called police to report the crime.

Julia Graves, Hunt’s attorney, had petitioned the court to reduce the charges to a misdemeanor, but the state denied that request. Graves then rejected the deal, saying Hunt should not bear the stigma of a sex offender for a consensual relationship. In a statement on Friday, Graves said, “If this case involved a boy and girl, there would be no media attention to this case … If this incident occurred 108 days earlier when she was 17, we wouldn’t even be here.”

The case has garnered large-spread media attention thanks to allegations that the state, and the parents of Hunt’s girlfriend, are doggedly pursuing the case because it involves a homosexual relationship.

Hacktivist group ‘Anonymous’ added its voice to the commentary yesterday, saying they are focusing part of their energy on Hunt’s case.

The Anonymous letter says:

“Greetings, Bigots. We are Operation Justice. The last operation our team conducted led to the case of Rehtaeh Parson’s being re-opened and to an independent investigation into the actions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. You may have read about us. Now we are in Florida and you should have expected us.   

You are currently pursuing 2 felony charges against an 18 year old girl by the name of Kaitlyn Hunt. Kaitlyn was arrested on 2/16/2013 at 20:15, her case number 2013-00022169. She was a student at Sebastian River High School before they expelled her (you don’t have to be a child to be a bully, you just have to have the emotional maturity of one—don’t worry, we will get to them later) 

While in the course of performing your duties we feel that you’ve lost perspective. Tsk, tsk. The truth is, Kaitlyn Hunt is a bright young girl who was involved in a consensual, same-sex relationship while both she and her partner were minors. She has a big future ahead of her and there are people, thousands of people in fact, that have no intention of allowing you to ruin it with your rotten selective enforcement. 

Now, either we are to interpret your charges to mean that: 

1) Indian River County is publicly taking a stance against all relationships that form between two consenting adolescents — or 

2) We’re left to wonder if the intolerance of Kaitlyn’s partner’s parents (or maybe it was yours) is really what started this case against her. 

The real question is, who in your office didn’t have the balls or the intelligence to put an end to this ridiculousness? 

Intolerance has been the curse of this country since it’s inception. Frankly, we’re sick of it. Specifically, we’re sick of paying the salaries of people like you. Now most of you probably interviewed for your jobs and were appointed there, but one or two ranks above you is some asshole that every few years has to go door to door and beg people to remember his or her name on election day. There are quite a few organizations in this country that would prefer that our elected officials not hire bigots that hunt down and file erroneous charges against young women because of their sexual orientation. The fact is, the puritanism you practice doesn’t have a place in this world any longer. 

We hope you’ll keep all of this in mind because the next petition we put 200,000 signatures on will have your name on it (maybe you Brian Workman), or your bosses name on it, and we will be calling for a resignation. That petition will be delivered by hundreds of men and women, holding signs and wearing masks, yelling into megaphones and getting all up in your business, right on your doorstep. We can afford to stand there for some time, because, LOL, there are a million more of us than there are of you. 

We’ll give you a few days to bask in your new found media attention and the public’s disapproval of your performance. Don’t worry, they’ll call you.”

As a result of the unexpected attention to the case, the parents of Hunt’s former girlfriend appeared on CBS television last week, saying they are neither “homophobic” nor “bigoted” and that they went to authorities “as a last resort.” They said they had told Hunt repeatedly that the relationship was “wrong.” They said when their daughter ran away from home after they forbade her from seeing Hunt, they assumed Hunt had kidnapped her.

Other advocates say the law is simply wrong. The statute, known colloquially as Romeo vs. Juliet, says no one under 16 can legally consent to have sex. Theoretically, two individuals who are 15 years and 11 months old who are sexually active could both be charged with felonies because neither can legally consent.

The more prevalent problem, however, is when an 18-year-old suddenly faces prosecution for having sex with a 14 or 15-year-old he has had relations with for months. Under the law, he could face 15 years in jail. If he is more than four years older than his partner, he will also be labeled a sex offender for the rest of his life.

Even teenagers who have had no physical contact but who engage in “online sex” are subject to prosecution. The point is to protect teenagers from pedophiles, but the law also extends to online relationships between teens when one is older than the other.

The law is also sometimes used by parents to break up relationships. West Palm Beach attorney Val Rodriguez told The Palm Beach Post, “It’s a good tool for a mother or father who has a problem with their own parenting skills and want the criminal justice system to take care of it for them.” Parents complain to authorities that they do not think it is appropriate for their 14-year-old to be dating an 18-year-old, and ask authorities to intervene without understanding the implications of bringing charges.

Kelly Hunt Smith, Hunt’s mother, believes the parents of Hunt’s former girlfriend acted to stop a homosexual relationship and questions why they brought charges, especially considering the extreme consequences if Hunt is convicted.  “We would not be here if the parents were not bigoted. To take it criminally I feel like they’re using the age law to pursue their agenda,” she said.

Indian River Sheriff Deryl Loar denies authorities are prosecuting Hunt because the relationship is homosexual. He noted that they have previously prosecuted 18-year-old males for relationships with 14-year-old females.

Smith says the family rejected the deal because of the sexual offender stigma. She said, “It’s a death sentence for her, her life would be over at 18.”

Smith also denies Hunt’s actions were criminal. “Kaitlyn would not hurt a fly. She didn’t know what she was doing was quote, unquote ‘wrong’ or illegal. There was no intent to hurt anybody or commit a crime. I know that’s not an excuse for the letter of the law, but it’s reality.”

If convicted, Hunt faces a maximum 15-year sentence.

So, we know that young Kaitlyn's mother and attorney are treating this case as if the state is persecuting her due to her sexual preference. We are given, too, a brief statement delivered by the parents as to their modus operandi for reporting the accused statutory rapist to the police, who are in this piece unidentified but will later be discussed in rather great detail later in this article, plus the public ostracism and harassment they are facing from the Left, particularly the family, the attorney for young Kaitlyn, and from the "hackivist" group  known as Operation Justice who is also vowing to fight the Indian County sheriff's office's investigation as well as the district attorney. We also know a little bit about the law in Florida  based on vague descriptions and generalizations from the author Lisa M. Ruth as written in this article from The Washington Post, but it was not enough information for my satisfaction. To get more detailed than that, the Official Website of the Florida Legislature provides more in-depth information than the above description of the laws as of 2012:

Title XLVI CRIMES Chapter 800  LEWDNESS; INDECENT EXPOSURE View Entire Chapter

800.04 Lewd or lascivious offenses committed upon or in the presence of persons less than 16 years of age.— (1) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section: (a) “Sexual activity” means the oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose. (b) “Consent” means intelligent, knowing, and voluntary consent, and does not include submission by coercion. (c) “Coercion” means the use of exploitation, bribes, threats of force, or intimidation to gain cooperation or compliance. (d) “Victim” means a person upon whom an offense described in this section was committed or attempted or a person who has reported a violation of this section to a law enforcement officer. (2) PROHIBITED DEFENSES.—Neither the victim’s lack of chastity nor the victim’s consent is a defense to the crimes proscribed by this section. (3) IGNORANCE OR BELIEF OF VICTIM’S AGE.—The perpetrator’s ignorance of the victim’s age, the victim’s misrepresentation of his or her age, or the perpetrator’s bona fide belief of the victim’s age cannot be raised as a defense in a prosecution under this section. (4) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS BATTERY.—A person who: (a) Engages in sexual activity with a person 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age; or (b) Encourages, forces, or entices any person less than 16 years of age to engage in sadomasochistic abuse, sexual bestiality, prostitution, or any other act involving sexual activity commits lewd or lascivious battery, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s.775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (5) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS MOLESTATION.— (a) A person who intentionally touches in a lewd or lascivious manner the breasts, genitals, genital area, or buttocks, or the clothing covering them, of a person less than 16 years of age, or forces or entices a person under 16 years of age to so touch the perpetrator, commits lewd or lascivious molestation. (b) An offender 18 years of age or older who commits lewd or lascivious molestation against a victim less than 12 years of age commits a life felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082(3)(a)4. (c)1. An offender less than 18 years of age who commits lewd or lascivious molestation against a victim less than 12 years of age; or 2. An offender 18 years of age or older who commits lewd or lascivious molestation against a victim 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s.775.084. (d) An offender less than 18 years of age who commits lewd or lascivious molestation against a victim 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (6) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS CONDUCT.— (a) A person who: 1. Intentionally touches a person under 16 years of age in a lewd or lascivious manner; or 2. Solicits a person under 16 years of age to commit a lewd or lascivious act commits lewd or lascivious conduct. (b) An offender 18 years of age or older who commits lewd or lascivious conduct commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (c) An offender less than 18 years of age who commits lewd or lascivious conduct commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (7) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS EXHIBITION.— (a) A person who: 1. Intentionally masturbates; 2. Intentionally exposes the genitals in a lewd or lascivious manner; or 3. Intentionally commits any other sexual act that does not involve actual physical or sexual contact with the victim, including, but not limited to, sadomasochistic abuse, sexual bestiality, or the simulation of any act involving sexual activity in the presence of a victim who is less than 16 years of age, commits lewd or lascivious exhibition. (b) An offender 18 years of age or older who commits a lewd or lascivious exhibition commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (c) An offender less than 18 years of age who commits a lewd or lascivious exhibition commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (8) EXCEPTION.—A mother’s breastfeeding of her baby does not under any circumstance constitute a violation of this section. History.—s. 1, ch. 21974, 1943; s. 1, ch. 26580, 1951; s. 780, ch. 71-136; s. 66, ch. 74-383; s. 1, ch. 75-24; s. 40, ch. 75-298; s. 291, ch. 79-400; s. 5, ch. 84-86; s. 1, ch. 90-120; s. 5, ch. 93-4; s. 6, ch. 99-201; s. 1, ch. 2000-246; s. 5, ch. 2005-28; s. 3, ch. 2008-172; s. 3, ch. 2008-182.

It appears as if young Kaitlyn is going to be found guilty of statutory rape.  The statutory rape laws in Florida are gender-neutral and therefore applies to all parties involved.  Furthermore, there is no ambiguity as to their nature.  However, if the accused statutory rapist has even a glimmer of a chance of being legally exonerated, it may be because over the course of the past two generations, the legal interpretations of Florida's statutory rape law has been, to say the least, loose in a variety of cases brought to trial, to various circuit and appellate courts, and of course, as high as the Florida Supreme Court itself.  Cases involving statutory rape, which have engendered interpretations of a violation of the right to privacy for minors among other things, have been wrought with harsh criticism from legal experts all over the U.S. for the terrible ramifications and unintended consequences in which such a ruling could be manifested.

***

A Brief History of the State of Florida's Statutory Rape Law As It Relates to the Right to Privacy

In 1992, The New York Times reported that Judge Jerry Lockett of Lake County Circuit Court (FL) voided the state's statutory rape law:

Florida's statutory rape law, which prohibits sexual relations between a person 18 or older and anyone under the age of 16, is unconstitutional because it violates the privacy rights of minors, a local judge has ruled.

The decision, issued Tuesday by Judge Jerry Lockett of Lake County Circuit Court in this town near Orlando, has no immediate effect in other judicial circuits. But if it is upheld on appeals that prosecutors now plan, it could ultimately apply to the entire state and force legislators to find another way to keep adults from preying sexually on children.

Judge Lockett's decision dismissed two cases he heard last week in which the 15-year-old girls involved said that they had wanted to have sex with their male friends -- one 19 and the other 20 -- and that they did not want the young men prosecuted.

Deciding in favor of the girls' arguments, the judge said the rape law conflicted with a 1990 ruling by the Florida Supreme Court that gave minors the same right of privacy as adults. That ruling said a girl had the right to an abortion without the consent of her parents or the courts unless the state could show "a compelling interest" to intervene.

"If this constitutional right to privacy extends to the decision of a minor to have an abortion," Judge Lockett said, "it must extend to the decision to engage in sexual intercourse."

The judge's decision left unresolved how young a minor could be and still claim this privacy right -- whether, for instance, a girl of 8 could be found to have "consented" to sex with an adult.

But then this ruling was not upheld, according to an August 15, 1992 article in The Orlando Sentinel:  

An Orange circuit judge has denied a request to overturn Florida's statutory rape law by a 21-year-old man accused of having sex with two teen-agers.

Frederick Farrington of Orlando is charged with having consensual sex with two girls, both 15. The statutory rape law makes it a crime to have sex with anyone under 16, regardless of consent.

A state court judge in Lake County declared the law unconstitutional last month, saying it violated citizens' right to privacy. Since then, lawyers in several Central Florida counties have unsuccessfully tried to persuade other judges to do the same thing.

Prosecutor Janna Brennan argued that the state needs to protect children from sexual abuse, and Orange Circuit Judge Dorothy Russell agreed on Thursday.

The state of Florida's right to privacy constitutional liberty is defined within the parameters of the state's constitution:

SECTION 23. Right of privacy.—Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public’s right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law.

History.—Added, C.S. for H.J.R. 387, 1980; adopted 1980; Am. proposed by Constitution Revision Commission, Revision No. 13, 1998, filed with the Secretary of State May 5, 1998; adopted 1998.

In purely academic terms, the ambiguity behind this legal right is somewhat disturbing.  It is no wonder that Judge Lockett ruled in favor of throwing out the state's law for statutory rape, for the first three words of the amendment, "Every natural person...," are not specific with regards to the right of privacy of minors.  Let it be clear, though, that the statutory rape law in Florida is very clear and in no way ambiguous.

An article authored by Anthony M. Amelio for the Stetson University Law School publication Stetson Law Review titled "Florida's Statutory Rape Law: A Shield or a Weapon? -- A Minor's Right of Privacy Under Florida Statutes §794.05" discusses the history of the statutes and the ill-consequences that could and no doubt will be incurred by such loose interpretation of the laws in cases brought before the Florida Supreme Court.  (You can click on this link to read the article.)  Such loose interpretations of the legal statute pertaining to statutory rape could result in a legal precedent in what this article claims as follows:

By extending essentially the same right to privacy as those of adults, other activities involving minors may trigger the privacy provision.  Statutes prohibiting the distribution of adult literature to minors, or statutes prohibiting the sale of nude photographs of minors, or prohibiting the sale of cigarettes and alcohol to minors may be challenged as violating the minor's right to privacy.  In re T.W. and B.B. v. State may have opened a Pandora's box of privacy rights for minors, and those decisions may have great repercussions in the years to come. 

Furthermore, what Amelio does not take into account is that such an extension of the right to privacy to minors as is enjoyed by adults would undermine parents' abilities to raise their children as they see fit.  This is a further intrusion by the Left in the judiciary in trying to enforce through the act of intrusion into the realm of traditional responsibilities parents have played since the beginning of time itself.

Cornell University Law School also discusses the right to privacy:

RIGHT OF PRIVACY: AN OVERVIEW

Distinct from the right of publicity protected by state common or statutory law, a broader right of privacy has been inferred in the Constitution. Although not explicity stated in the text of the Constitution, in 1890 then to be Justice Louis Brandeis extolled 'a right to be left alone.' This right has developed into a liberty of personal autonomy protected by the 14th amendment. The 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments also provide some protection of privacy, although in all cases the right is narrowly defined. The Constitutional right of privacy has developed alongside a statutory right of privacy which limits access to personal information. The Federal Trade Commission overwhelmingly enforces this statutory right of privacy, and the rise of privacy policies and privacy statements are evidence of its work. In all of its forms, however, the right of privacy must be balanced against the state's compelling interests. Such compelling interests include the promotion of public morality, protection of the individual's psychological health, and improving the quality of life. These distinct rights of privacy are examined separately on the following pages:

And it has this to say about the right of privacy with respect to personal autonomy:

RIGHT OF PRIVACY: PERSONAL AUTONOMY

The right of privacy has evolved to protect the freedom of individuals to choose whether or not to perform certain acts or subject themselves to certain experiences. This personal autonomy has grown into a 'liberty' protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. However, this liberty is narrowly defined and generally only protects privacy of family, marriage, motherhood, procreation, and child rearing.  There have been attempts to further extend the right of privacy under the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; however, a general right to personal autonomy has yet to take hold beyond limited circumstances.

The personal autonomy dimension of the right of privacy has been overwhelmingly developed in cases dealing with reproductive rights. The Supreme Court first recognized an independent right of privacy within the 'penumbra' (fringe area) of the Bill of Rights in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). In this case, a right of marital privacy was invoked to void a law prohibiting contraception. Later cases expanded upon this fundamental right, and in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the right of privacy was firmly established under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The court classified this right as fundamental, thus requiring any governmental infringement to be justified by a compelling state interest. Roe held that the state's compelling interest in preventing abortion and protecting the life of the mother outweighs a mother's personal autonomy only after viability. Before viability, it was held, the mother's liberty of personal privacy limits state interference due to the lack of a compelling state interest.

The personal autonomy aspect of the right of privacy has limits. In 1986, a law criminalizing same sex sodomy was upheld in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986). The Court held that not all private consensual sexual activity is insulated from the state. At the time, the same sex activities in question were not granted inclusion in the due process protected categories of relationships. However, Bowers was overturned in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), holding that the Bowers court viewed liberty too narrowly and grounding the right with a notion of how personal and intimate nature of the conduct.  

As activities become further removed from reproduction and intimacy, the right of privacy weakens and becomes less fundamental. Pornography is an area where the court has been reluctant to completely grant the liberty of personal autonomy, although some privacy has been allowed: see Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969) and Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 (1973).

The 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been utilized to varying degrees of success to protect privacy in these gray areas of activity. The court's preference for a case-by-case approach to the right of privacy in as much as it protects personal autonomy, combined with ever-changing public opinion on the status of various relationships and activities, makes a succinct statement about the boundaries of the right of privacy nearly impossible.

Thus, there have been at least four federal constitutional amendments cited in providing evidence that the state or federal authorities violated an individual's right to privacy; however, not one thing on Cornell University Law School's website mentions the right of privacy in terms of minors.  

***

Is This An Issue of Law or Institutional Persecution Based on Anti-Gay Bias?

So, is this issue really about anti-gay bias?  Her lawyer, Julia Graves, believes so (Courtesy of CBS News): 

"This is a life sentence for behavior by teenagers that is all too common--whether they are male or female, gay or straight - high school relationships may be fleeting, but felony convictions are forever... For someone who is an honor student, a cheerleader, played varsity basketball, [and has] never been in trouble - it just seems extremely inappropriate to push the felony charges."

So does her mother, Kelley Hunt Smith, who goes further toward accusing young Kaitlyn's girlfriend's parents of their malevolence based upon bigotry in the form of homophobia in another article sympathetic with the accused statutory rapist's political activism. (Courtesy of Gossipy):

(Above: Kelly Hunt Smith and daughter Kaitlyn walking together. Courtesy of Vero Beach News Weekly)

"These people never came to us as parents, never tried to speak to us... and tell us they had a problem with the girls dating. They were out to destroy my daughter....

"...[They] feel like my daughter 'made' their daughter gay."

But what about the parents of the alleged victim/girlfriend?  The motto that has become a cliche, "Stop the Hate, Free Kate," has been particularly aimed at Jim and Laurie Smith, who told their side of the story to the local CBS news affiliate (Courtesy of The Blaze):

(Above: Laurie and Jim Smith, parents of Kaitlyn Hunt's ex-girlfriend/victim.  Courtesy of The Blaze)

As Kaitlyn Hunt’s legal battle looms, her family continues to passionately defend her. All-the-while, the “Free Kate” movement is doubling-down in an effort to support the 18-year-old — a high school senior who has been expelled and charged with two counts of lewd and lascivious battery of a child 12 to 16 years of age.

But now the family of the young girl she was dating is finally speaking up. And their account differs drastically from the one being touted by the Hunt family.

Laurie and Jim Smith told WPEC-TV that they aren’t the type of people who would normally go to the media and, to date, they have been silent regarding the alleged scandal that involves their 15-year-old daughter. The young, unnamed girl was, until earlier this year, dating Hunt.

Their comments are intriguing, as WPEC-TV claims that the Smith family’s revelations include a “bombshell that will likely turn this investigation on its head.”

And here it apparently is: “Our daughter was 14, and this girl was 18,” Jim told the outlet, clarifying previous inconsistencies surrounding the teens’ ages at the time of their relationship (previously, Hunt’s mother, Kelley, had written in a Facebook post that her daughter was 17 when the relationship began).

According to Laurie, she and her husband told Hunt that the relationship wasn’t right and, by their account, the older teen refused to listen. The “Free Kate” mantra, the Smiths maintain, hasn’t been an accurate one thus far.

“It’s not the way it was. It was quite different,” she said. “We had actually told Miss Hunt that this was wrong.”

The high schooler was allegedly warned twice.

“Another adult, a mother, came to me and said ‘Ms. Smith you need to know this…we told Miss Hunt to leave your daughter alone. But they are in a relationship, and she’s 18.’ 18? My daughter is only 14.”

When their daughter began acting out, as many teens do, she ran away. Jim called the shock “the worst thing” that he has ever experienced. Assuming that she wouldn’t have willingly fled, the parents initially assumed that someone took her — but that wasn’t the case.

After being told to stay away from their daughter, Kate purportedly picked up the 14-year-old. Because the relationship apparently didn’t stop, despite the aforementioned warnings, the Smiths said they had no choice but to turn to the law.

As far as the issue of homosexuality goes, Laurie and Jim seemed perplexed in their WPEC-TV interview. While they have been painted as anti-gay in media and slapped with allegations that they blame Hunt for their daughter’s sexuality, the embattled parents said that this isn’t how they feel about the issue.

“They made me seem as if I’m a monster,” Laurie said of bloggers’ attacks, noting that she and her husband have turned to the media to get their story out. “That’s why I’m talking to you…The stories that people are saying…I love my daughter and I am willing to do whatever to protect her.”

Watch the parents describe their side of the Kaitlyn Hunt story here. Earlier today, the 18-year-old refused a plea deal, which would have given her two years house arrest, one additional year of probation and a charge of child abuse. Hunt will have a June 20 court hearing; she could face up to 15 years behind bars (read more about the story).

–

Members of the Left will accuse me of bigotry and hate, but do not kill the messenger simply because Jim and Laurie Smith's story was reported in the conservative-libertarian news outlet The Blaze.  Rather, read the report from WPEC-TV CBS 12's news article.   CBS is traditionally a mouthpiece of the Left; just ask Dan Rather, who was very vocal about his political affiliation.  That way, the Left can get their news from what they will no doubt perceive as a "fair and balanced" source with "no spin."

Furthermore, the phenomena that has become "Stop the Hate! Free Kate!" is little more than an egregious political activism by Kaitlyn Hunt, her parents, her attorney, and prominent members of the gay community at large.  The parents of the victim/ex-girlfriend are being persecuted, first by the family of Kaitlyn Hunt, then by the gay community, and finally, by the liberal mass media.  To be perfectly honest, it took me several hours to find a news article that gave the victim's parents, Jim and Laurie Smith, a voice.

Lastly, some of the gruesome details supporting that there was, indeed, a sexual relationship between young Kaitlyn and her 14 year old ex-girlfriend/victim are described on the liberal blog Lawyers, Guns, and Money:

"[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 vagina".... 

and this:

Unfortunately, the unnamed blogger failed to take into consideration the parental prerogative of Jim and Laurie Smith.  His comments were rather inflammatory and lacking in logic and common sense:

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 not 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 to similar one 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?"

Sadly, he is attempting to associate the Kaitlyn Hunt statutory rape case to same-sex marriage.  I wonder, though, how this correlation is in any way applicable?  Furthermore, what does he base this notion that the Indian River County attorney's office is prosecuting this case on the grounds of morality?  The law does not prosecute a lack of morals, it prosecutes crimes.  The Florida state law on statutory rape is both clear and unambiguous, not to mention gender-neutral. What young Kaitlyn did was a crime, and she should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. 

***

Conclusion: Kaitlyn Hunt Broke the Law, and Must Be Punished

Whenever I vote in midterm or presidential elections, I always vote Republican, whose policies, it is well-known, are generally conservative in nature.  However, in saying this, I am not merely just a conservative, but one with libertarian leanings.  It gives me no great pleasure to see a young girl such as Kaitlyn Hunt face felony charges for statutory rape even though the relationship she undoubtedly enjoyed with her 14 year old partner was based upon mutual consent.  However, as is true with  the vast majority of conservative-libertarians, I, too, believe in the word of the law, and I believe that it is incumbent upon we as citizens to adhere and obey them, for we are obligated to by the democratic process in which we elect the lawmakers who pass them in either Congress or our state legislatures.  To fail to do so means we give no legitimacy to government, and while I am most profoundly for a government with limited powers over the people, I certainly am not an advocate for and of anarchy, much to the disagreement of Vice President Joe Biden.  

Kaitlyn Hunt is an intelligent young woman.  She was an honor student at Sebastian High School in Indian River County near Vero Beach, FL who was a cheerleader and basketball player.  All those things aside, one's excellent accomplishments in academia and the community do not equate to a practice of being an upstanding citizen; just ask Bill Clinton and President Obama.  Just became young Kaitlyn was accomplished  at her high school does not mean that she should not know the laws.  As the Florida state law on statutory rape clearly states, ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law; this is a method of defense young Kaitlyn's mother Kelly Hunt Smith is attempting to utilize.  While it may work in the arena of public opinion, it will not in the eyes of the law.  Justice, then, will be served, one way or another, at least for the time being.

This is not an issue of institutional bigotry or bias against homosexuals, but rather one of law enforcement.  The Florida Supreme Court has been presented with many cases involving this subject.  Most of the rulings have been loosely interpreted in favor of the defendant.  With the history and analysis of the state's statutory rape cases before the Florida Supreme Court having been provided by me in the form of Anthony M. Amelio's article in the Stetson Law Review as was published by Stetson University Law School, it will not surprise me to see this case go as far as that level, and perhaps above, whereby judicial activists on the court will make some circuitous ruling that will absolve her of all wrongdoing based on the inconsistencies in the language, or that the legal statute is therefore "archaic" as Amelio stated a judge wrote in his article, or further supporting Judge Jerry Lockett's ruling in the Lake County Circuit court based on the state's constitutional
right to privacy amendment in which the general consensus in legal circles is that it applies only to adults, not a legal adult like young Kaitlyn Hunt and a 14 year old girl consenting to sexual intercourse.  

If this is a matter of gay rights, what then?  Do we have a separate legal code for them since they are a persecuted minority in the eye of the Left in this country?  This case, once glorified as a vile act of homophobia and hatred against the parents of young Kaitlyn's ex-girlfriend/victim, is becoming nothing more than a political witch hunt, one which will no doubt attempt to exalt the accused statutory rapist toward martyrdom. As it sits, this act of political activism in defiance of the law of the state of Florida further perpetuates the culture(s) of dependency and irresponsibility for one's own actions that have long been fostered by the Left. It will be up to those with a greater knowledge of the practice and application of jurisprudence than me to determine whether this perpetuated culture by the Left will, in fact, be the decisive factor in determining her guilt or if she is to be legally exonerated.  We must not allow the Left to influence the gender-neutral laws of the state of Florida's statutory rape codes simply for political gain through political coercion and increased media exposure that will lead to pressuring the sheriff and the prosecutors of Indian County and the state of Florida into fearing for not just their careers as elected officials, but their very lives; this does not even take into consideration Jim and Laurie Smith, who are currently being typecast as the social pariahs du jour. The federal law, codified as 42 USC § 1981 and is more commonly referred to as the "Equal Rights Under the Law" statute, states, according to Cornell University Law School:

(a) Statement of equal rights

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

and:

(c) Protection against impairment

The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.

If this law is to be taken seriously, then young Kaitlyn, who might have innocently indulged in sexual intercourse with her 14 year old lesbian lover, must be legally treated the same as any member(s) of the majority of the U.S. population, as this law implies that no person shall be discriminated against by law regardless of color, but also in today's implied terms, sexual orientation.  Justice, then, must be served if we are a nation based neither on class nor caste, for if the Florida state judicial system fails to condemn young Kaitlyn to the appropriate sentence, we as a society are doomed to a fate much like what Orwell despised and wrote against in Animal Farm: a dystopian society.