By Diogenes (articles ) | Mar 08, 2007

Now here's a Thinking Catholic who knows his Crit Legal Theory. Multiple pederast and former L.A. priest Michael Baker is claiming California's foul lines are skewed in favor of right-handed hitters:

A former Roman Catholic priest said in court Wednesday that the rights of homosexuals have been violated by a state law that makes it easier to prosecute gay pedophiles than heterosexual child molesters. ... The state law in question has no time limit for prosecuting homosexual offenders, but there are various limits for heterosexual offenders.

Defrocked priest Michael Stephen Baker, 59, said the provision denies equal protection of the law to gay people. He cited a central provision of the U.S. Constitution that has been used to advance racial equality and gender rights.


The state law imposes no time limits on prosecuting heterosexuals who force intercourse. But gays are subject to prosecution for sexual acts with a child without limit, regardless of whether the allegations involved forced or consensual sex. "Had [Baker] been engaged in heterosexual intercourse with a female of the same age, he could not have been charged," [Baker's lawyer Donald H. Steier] said.

Steier's final formulation, though logically redundant (could Baker have engaged in heterosexual intercourse with another male?), is essentially a rehearsal of the old age-of-consent controversy. More interesting is the legally pertinent claim that the inequality of time-limits "denies equal protection of the law to gay people" -- i.e., to persons of a particular sexual orientation.

What's the novelty? Baker is here affirming what the psychotherapy guilds, the prestige media, the bishops conferences, and every gay lib organization in the world have been at pains to deny: that his choice of an underage male as a sexual partner is a function of his being gay -- and not the operation of an unrelated pathology such as pedophilia or ephebophilia. No, he's not saying that all gay males are pederasts. He's claiming that his identity -- and thus his right to equal protection under the law -- is inextricable from his orientation, and that laws asymmetrically putting boys out of bounds asymmetrically penalize him: they penalize them precisely as a gay man. The upshot? The choice for little boys in preference to little girls is a gay choice.

Mainstream gay activists, not surprisingly, are squawking in protest of Baker's claim and trying to distance themselves therefrom:

A staff attorney for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, the premier group lobbying for the legal rights of gays, said the sexual orientation of an abuser is irrelevant. "People don't have the right to abuse children regardless of their sexual orientation," said Tara Borelli, a Lambda staff attorney. "Abuse by a gay priest isn't a gay issue; it's about abuse of power."

The Wilton Gregory line: it's about the children. But is it? The Lambda Legal Defense folks clearly want to change the subject as quickly as possible, because in fact Baker is invoking the same fallacy that the gay rights mainstream has used (successfully) in pretending that laws prohibiting sodomy between consenting adults discriminate against homosexually-oriented citizens as a class. The flaw has been neatly exposed by Joseph Sobran. In the Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court case, he wrote

Justices Kennedy and O'Connor proved themselves virtuosos of the non sequitur. They agreed that sodomy laws "discriminate" against homosexuals as a "class" or "group." Kennedy, ever the metaphysician, added that such laws "demean their existence." But of course the law in question said nothing about classes or groups; it merely forbade specific sexual acts. You might as well say that laws against theft "discriminate" against burglars as a class (or should we say "demean the existence of the larcenous community"?).

Bull's eye. One can see why the Lambda crew -- and Archbishop Gregory too, if he's paying attention -- are twisting uneasily atop their file-cabinets. If it's fallacious to view laws forbidding acts of pederasty as discrimination against a group, it's fallacious to view laws forbidding acts of sodomy as discrimination against a group. Conversely, if the state acts reasonably in unequally discommoding persons of a particular sexual orientation when it outlaws acts of pederasty, then, when it outlaws acts of sodomy, it cannot be said that the unequal impact on citizens with particular orientations is by that fact unreasonable. Michael Baker has simply made his own the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas and is taking its logic to first base.

Well, to the first base ump.

Sound Off! supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Show 8 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments
  • Posted by: - Mar. 09, 2007 11:46 AM ET USA

    Strictly speaking, under current legal thinking he is correct. (That is not to say I agree.) As for the fact that homosexuals are also pedos, all you need to do is get a copy of a 1970's issue of The Advocate. A quick read of the "letters" section (if you can stomach it) will settle any doubt. They also featured many articles on "recruiting."

  • Posted by: - Mar. 08, 2007 1:49 PM ET USA

    Boyddpb, yes, he was. Very vocally. Try Googling him.

  • Posted by: - Mar. 08, 2007 1:41 PM ET USA

    "The state law imposes no time limits on prosecuting heterosexuals who force intercourse. But gays are subject to prosecution for sexual acts with a child without limit..." I think the original writer inserted a "no" where it doesn't belong. If the law imposes "no" time limits on prosecuting heterosexuals who force intercourse, that's the same as being subject to prosecution "without limit," isn't it? So what's the difference?

  • Posted by: - Mar. 08, 2007 12:10 PM ET USA

    Is this not the same Michael Baker that worked in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles Chancery office? I wonder how many people this Priest gave false information while he was in this position. His attitude is a dead giveaway that you do not put "Gay" Priests into any position. He should have been somewhere in a Convent and watched closely. Cardinal Mahony knew all along of Baker's insanity, this is why, I think ,Cardinal Mahony should 'Retire", because his "decision making" is incompetent.

  • Posted by: - Mar. 08, 2007 12:06 PM ET USA

    Can someone please explain the reference to Archbishop Gregory and this situation? Was he one of the bishops who played down or denied the connection between homosexuality in the priesthood and the sex abuse scandal?

  • Posted by: - Mar. 08, 2007 10:36 AM ET USA

    "Kennedy, ever the metaphysician, added that such laws "demean their existence." I think Christians make the mistake of trying to apply Christian morality to people who by law, are free to be immoral. I think a better approach would be to apply scientific logic.Look at it from a medical viewpoint. We have so many facts as to why homosexuality is far more harmful than say, cigarette smoking.Why is the homosexual absolved from any social responsibilty that the rest of us are made to account for?

  • Posted by: - Mar. 08, 2007 8:09 AM ET USA

    "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it?" -Jeremiah 17: 9. Today's reading captures it all: morally sick gay rights advocates, invertebrate prelates, manipulative sexual abusers, incompetent jurists and psychiatrists, and bovine mass market for the mental flatuence that calls itself tolerance, most notably in recent days from the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and among the editors of "America".

  • Posted by: - Mar. 08, 2007 6:30 AM ET USA

    Fabulous analysis! This is a classic slippery slope.