Oh for Christ's sake. We should make sure to remind people to look out for witches in their midst, as well.

Happy fuckin' Friday, folks

You know, EG, you're not too far off.

Back when people were burning witches, they thought that those women were manipulative, self-serving,possessive of inhuman powers, and inherently evil.

This latest installment (and all manner of anti-feminist bullshit that is out there) is a reflection of this medieval worldview.

And Kate O'Beirne & Co. insist we don't need feminism!

This wasn't a judge ruling on a specific case (as implied by your introductory sentence); it was a lawmaker discussing a proposed law.

That being said, it was still inappropriate and stupid to quote a 300-year old law that was stricken from the books 20 years ago in order to support a point.

There will always be people who lie (male and female), but the spirit of the law being discussed is noble.

On the bright side, if he has to reach THAT far back for ideological support . . . maybe we have something to celebrate.

And, thankfully, we have the counter-history of women's rights rhetoric from, if not the 1600s, at least the 1700s. Wollstonecraft & co. had a few things to say about the legal status of women, and sexual violence in intimate relationships.

I know the lawmaker in question, have seen him in court many times as a fellow defense attorney.

Joseph Vallario was not advocating the position of Lord Hale, but was presenting a long-winded parenthetical reference to who Hale was in the context not of the crime of rape itself but to child custody battles.

Maryland, more so than most other states, is a strict follower of English common law. The Maryland Declaration (Bill) of Rights actually denotes the common law of England as it stood on Independence Day as a right of the people of Maryland against tyranny. While Maryland has a very liberal legislature (including liberal but ancient Joe Vallario), its jurisprudence is remarkably conservative in its adherence to the common law, unless changed by the General Assembly by statute. That conservatism will be strenuously tested later this year when the Court of Appeals issues its opinion in Conaway v. Deane, the Baltimore City same-sex marriage case.

I note in passing that Delegate Joe Vallario is not a judge but chairs the Maryland House of Delegates Judiciary Committee, and has done so for a long time.

“Joseph Vallario was not advocating the position of Lord Hale, but was presenting a long-winded parenthetical reference to who Hale was in the context not of the crime of rape itself but to child custody battles.�

I don’t buy that. The context of his statement was a hearing about a bill to deny custody to rapists. That has *everything* do with the crime of rape and is not purely a context of custody. Trying to whitewash his statements by shrugging them off as a “history lesson� to the rest of the committee is absurd and just as offensive as Vallario’s original words.

The Post article says:

“He [Vallario] also suggested that women could abuse the law by saying they were raped to punish a man from whom they were estranged.�

That reads to me like he was *exactly* advocating the position of Hale which, as described later in the article, was essentially to be wary of rape accusations.

Denying a protection to rape victims because “they might be lying� is reprehensible, whatever the context. Yes, they could lie, but it is my understanding that intentionally false rape accusations are not common. In child custody, either parent could lie about anything – drug use, physical abuse – should those accusations be discounted because someone might be lying?

Vallario is way off base. Rapists should never be allowed to go anywhere near a victim, much less pursue visitation rights. And to oppose a protective bill because the woman “might be lying� is an unwelcome step back in time.

Were you defending the rights of rape victims when the alleged rapist was Bill Clinton?

Just wondering...

How about when it was Clarence Thomas? Where were you then, APF? Or any of the Republican hypocrites? Remind me again, of what was Bill Clinton convicted?

"Were you defending the rights of rape victims when the alleged rapist was Bill Clinton?"

Absolutely. Trying to deflect the issue by pointing to a high-profile person accused of the crime makes it obvious that you have nothing worthwhile to contribute.

WTF does Clinton have to do with this?

thank you, and i take sour cream with my red herring.

yum, red herrings...do you do them for breakfast too?

I think the question is very much en pointe. It was bringing up Thomas that was a red herring. Thomas was not accused of rape.

Bill Clinton was.

Are we to assume that Catherine Willey was lying?

Why?

"Better put some ice on that."

No accuser should be assumed to be lying. All accusations should be investigated and prosecuted. It’s not a Democrat or Republican issue and in fact this guy Vallario is a Democrat.

Trotting out Clinton as a piñata when it comes to discussing victims rights is usually done as right-wing sport to poke a stick in someone’s liberal eye, rather than to contribute something substantive.

And that appears to be the case here, as the name was simply thrown out with a “Clinton! See, I got you!� smugness, without any attempt to expand on that specific case and state reasons why there is relevance. Nobody with any decency would discount a victim’s accusations simply based on the celebrity or political stripe of the accused.

And so that this thread doesn’t get completely sidetracked, the original point was that it is not appropriate for a Maryland delegate to help perpetuate a longstanding injustice to rape victims by arguing against a bill because a rape victim “might be lying�.

Ok. So in your view it's likely that Bill Clinton DID rape Kathleen Willey?

I'm confused.

Are we totally throwing out the presumption of innocence here? Does it have no meaning?

"All accusations should be investigated and prosecuted."

Except the ones against Democrats, eh? Do you really believe that ALL accusations should be prosecuted?

If Kathleen Willey had become pregnant, would you approve of a court order that abolished Bill Clinton's parental rights, based solely on Willey's testimony, even if Clinton had not been convicted of any crime in criminal courts?

In this way, Bill Clinton the Rapist would be forever noted, as a matter of public record, *regardless of the evidence or lack thereof that could be presented in a criminal case.*

The reason people bring up Bill Clinton is because he brings the hypocricy of the modern Democrat-beholden feminist movement into bold relief.

It's not that I'm trying to poke a stick in your eye. I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency of your argument, and how you don't *really* believe what you profess to believe, when applied to Democrats.

The fact that you THINK it's a stick in the eye is merely a testament that it's an effective argument; and the absence of a reasoned counterargument (No, the Clinton-Willey allegation should not apply here because of X, Y and Z) is simply the proof.

So, again...You think Willey was probably telling the truth?

A rape victim should not be assumed to be lying. Rape accusations should be investigated.

Bringing up Clinton is totally beside the point, and contributes absolutely nothing of substance to the conversation, which is about whether it was or was not appropriate to suggest that women should be assumed to be lying when the accuse someone of rape.

If Kathleen Willey had become pregnant, would you approve of a court order that abolished Bill Clinton's parental rights, based solely on Willey's testimony, even if Clinton had not been convicted of any crime in criminal courts?

One can argue that point- that someone accused but not found guilty of rape might still deserve parental rights- without arguing that we should doubt every woman who makes a rape accusation. We don't assume everyone that accuses someone of robbing them is a liar, why should we assume that every woman who makes a rape accusation is a liar? And how does Clinton have anything to do with whether it's appropriate to bring up and outdated, insulting view of rape victims?

Short answer: He doesn't.

“It's not that I'm trying to poke a stick in your eye. I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency of your argument, and how you don't *really* believe what you profess to believe, when applied to Democrats.�

False. This is a straw man argument using Clinton – nobody here has stated he was innocent of anything. If someone had, then you could claim inconsistency. But I don’t see that here anywhere – this thread doesn’t have to conform to your broad worldview of what all liberals or feminists have secretly agreed to in a dark room somewhere. It’s made up, and you’re arguing against a scarecrow. You will find many on the left who are deeply unforgiving of Clinton.

What I stated is that the charges should *never* be assumed to be a lie. Not against Clinton, nor Bush, nor a college athlete, nor an NBA player.

Is it unjust when someone is wrongly accused? Yes it is. But that can’t lead to the conclusion that an accuser shouldn’t be taken seriously.

For the sake of clarity, Willey was not the woman who accused Clinton of rape. She stated that Clinton kissed and groped her. Another woman accused rape, but it was not Willey.

So…do I think Kathleen Willey was telling the truth? Yes, I find her statements believable.

“If Kathleen Willey had become pregnant, would you approve of a court order that abolished Bill Clinton's parental rights, based solely on Willey's testimony, even if Clinton had not been convicted of any crime in criminal courts?�

For the sake of political variety, and since Willey never alleged rape, I’ll use George W. Bush and Margie Shoedinger, the woman who accused Bush of raping her in 2000.

If Shoedinger had become pregnant with George W. Bush’s baby after Bush (allegedly) raped her, should Bush have been denied parental rights even though he was never convicted of rape? This is a scenario which is perhaps the most difficult one that a court would face, and perhaps poses the most worthy question of debate- how to handle a case in which an accusation is made but from which no conviction results.

I think this could only be answered on a case-by-case basis. To give a blanket “Yes� or “No� answer wouldn’t be possible. The only blanket statement I could make regarding such a scenario is that it would be unjust to cloud the case by making an assumption that an accuser is lying. Start there, and proceed with the case. That’s really the point.

If a "not guilty" verdict is reached in criminal proceedings, that has to be taken into account in a custody hearing, no doubt. But I would contend that it shouldn't be the only consideration, and that separate proceedings should be required to resolve a custody matter in which rape was alleged but not proven in criminal court.

"House Speaker Michael E. Busch (D-Anne Arundel), who was not at the hearing, defended Vallario as a "model citizen" and said he had been married to the same woman for about 40 years and has a close-knit family with several daughters."

But see! He is related to women, and he talks to them! Therefore, he cannot be a misogynist!

I love how some people probably think that validates his comments.

House Speaker Michael E. Busch (D-Anne Arundel), who was not at the hearing, defended Vallario as a "model citizen" and said he had been married to the same woman for about 40 years and has a close-knit family with several daughters

And the BTK killer was a family man.

****I think this could only be answered on a case-by-case basis.***

Ah. So Vallario was right all along.

So why the wailing and gnashing of teeth?

“So why the wailing and gnashing of teeth?�

The wailing and gnashing of teeth is because the way in which Vallario presented his argument relies on a historically pervasive and unjust portrayal of rape victims as liars. (Most rapes go unreported because the added trauma of pressing charges, which will involve being called a liar and a slut, isn’t worth it.)

My objection to Vallario’s remarks is that he’s perpetuating a problem, and there’s a better way to oppose the bill than to preemptively and prominently call rape victims liars, amplifying such remarks by quoting historical figures to give added gravity to the rape-victims-are-liars position.

Any person could lie about any crime. In that regard, Vallario was absolutely “right all along� as you say. That’s the hardest part of this issue. Could a rape victim lie? Of course. But most are not lying, and approaching the issue the way Vallario did casts a suspicion over rape victims that would never be cast on mugging victims or credit card fraud victims.

If someone wants the responsibility of being a lawmaker, then he has to up his game to a level where he can stick up for the rights of a wrongfully accused father without nurturing an unjust and destructive stereotype. There’s a right way and a wrong way to make his argument, and Vallario chose the wrong way.