An outrageous case of Discrimination: UPDATE 7: Judge denies motion to dismiss the case.

Okay folks, the latest installment for you all, and today I will be covering it from not one but TWO articles, the first one by Clovis News Journal written a couple of days before the judge made his decision, and the second one afterwards by Las Cruces Sun-News. Let’s do them in order. Starting with Clovis News Journal.

It begins,

A motion to dismiss incest charges against a Clovis woman rests in the hands of District Judge Drew Tatum.

Tatum intends to render a decision, “hopefully first thing (this) morning,” in the case of 36-year-old Monica Mares, who appeared in a Wednesday hearing at district court.

That sounded pretty much like he had made up his mind, perhaps with not much thought to how this is going to destroy a family for absolutely no good reason.

If Tatum does not grant the dismissal, Mares’ case is scheduled for jury selection at 8:30 a.m. Monday; her jury trial is slated to begin at 8:30 a.m. Wednesday.

Pretty sad really. Just think of what a waste this is of the courts time and money, resources that could have been used legitimately to bring actual criminals to justice, you know, the kind that leave behind victims.

Mares is accused of an incestuous relationship with her son, 19-year-old Caleb Peterson.
Peterson’s case is on a separate court docket.

Neither of these people should be on trial at all, who exactly have they hurt? Nobody.

Arguing for the dismissal was Brett Carter, Mares’ attorney. He filed two motions to dismiss, with one considering state law and one considering federal protections. The root of his arguments rested on Mares’ having the opportunity to make her own choices without government interference.

Too right. Sexual relationships between consenting adults should legitimately be covered by federal law. The fact that States have laws on the books which criminalize incest between consenting adults means that these laws are unconstitutional, and as a matter of fact breach the human rights of consang people everywhere in those states.

“This is a consensual relationship,” Carter said. “Both of the individuals are above the age of 18.”
On the state level, Carter said, the statute covering incest inordinately targets females.

“The statute, judge, punishes a mother and a son,” Carter said, “but does not punish the same relationship if a … a father and daughter had the same relationship.”

Quite often in father/daughter relationships, the man is demonized as a sexual predator and the woman is painted as a ‘victim’ even though she was a willing participant. In any case, when both people are over the age of 18, and are both competent and willing to make the decision to have a relationship, there should be no penalty attached to that decision.

On the state level, District Attorney Andrea Reeb argued, the statute doesn’t make gender distinctions.

New Mexico statute 30-10-3, in full, reads: “Incest consists of knowingly intermarrying or having sexual intercourse with persons within the following degrees of consanguinity: parents and children including grandparents and grandchildren of every degree, brothers and sisters of the half as well as of the whole blood, uncles and nieces, aunts and nephews. Whoever commits incest is guilty of a third degree felony.”

Which is absolutely outrageous. Think about that, having any of the above relationships is a FELONY in the eyes of the state.

“The key,” Reeb said, “is the general statement, ‘parents and children,’ which was cited in our motion.”

That statement should only apply if by children they mean actual children, if they mean adult offspring then there is no need for criminalization. The statement is far too general, in a world based on common sense it would read ‘parents and their minor children’.

On the federal level, Reeb noted incest is illegal in 48 states and the District of Columbia, and, “the defendant does not have a constitutionally protected right to an incestuous relationship.”

Just because something is illegal in a lot of places does not add weight to the validity of that law. It used to be the case that it was illegal to have homosexual relationships, but just as those laws were wrong then, these laws are wrong now. Right and wrong do not change depending on what laws are currently on the books, they are a constant. Unfair discrimination is unfair discrimination, whichever way you look at it. This ‘argument’, and I use that word in the loosest possible meaning, is nothing more than an appeal to common practice logical fallacy. If everyone wanted to jump off a cliff, would that make doing such a thing right? Of course nobody would argue such a thing, but the logical equivalent is being argued here.

Mares, who has declined local interviews under advice of counsel, did speak with the British publication Daily Mail about how her case was a fight for the rights of people with Genetic Sexual Attraction.

Too right. The more publicity this gets, the greater the awareness of GSA (and ultimately, consanguinamory in general) will become. I’ve said it before and I will say it again, Human rights are for EVERYONE, not just the majority. Whatever the outcome of this case, this community is behind Monica and Caleb all the way, and we will ensure that this gets the publicity it deserves from our end.

Mares’ friend, Dayton Chavez, asked to address the court and was rebuffed by Tatum. Chavez said after the hearing he wanted to tell Tatum that Genetic Sexual Attraction should fall under sexual orientation and receive protection under a statute addressing hate crimes.

“I think she deserves her civil rights, and also her human rights,” Chavez said. “There are rules she is protected by, no matter who she is. If we allow gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals to marry, who are we to judge them? Love is love.”

And you know what, he is right, 100%. Dayton should have been listened to.

Carter said if the matter goes to trial, he requested Wednesday’s arguments be allowed as an official record for a request to dismiss charges during the trial. He also requested extra time in the jury selection process because it would be difficult to find 12 people without knowledge of the case. Tatum had no objection on either request.

Good, so the publicity has thrown a huge spanner into the workings and made finding a jury difficult. So glad to hear it.

Now we’ve analyzed the first article, lets move onto the second one.

CLOVIS – A judge denied a motion Thursday to dismiss incest charges against a New Mexico mother who is accused of having a romantic relationship with her 19-year-old son.

So so sad, and quite sickening that they are pressing ahead with these charges, despite the fact that nobody has been harmed by their relationship. Who benefits from this outrageous prosecution? Nobody at all.

The decision handed down in a brief letter sets the stage for Monica Mares’ trial to begin next week in Clovis, where authorities say she was living with her 19-year-old son, Caleb Peterson.

They don’t waste any time do they? Our prayers are with her for the trial next week.

Mares put up Peterson for adoption when he was an infant, and the two recently reunited. After the son moved into his mother’s home, the relationship became romantic and sexual in nature, authorities said.

Which should be none of anyones business but their own.

The Clovis News Journal reports that Judge Drew Tatum’s decision not to dismiss the case comes a day after she appeared in court, with her attorney, who said the state incest statute criminalizes sexual relationships between “parents and children.”

But in the wording, the law does not differentiate between parents and their adult children, and parents with their minor children. The two scenarios are completely different and should be treated very differently too. The former shouldn’t be prosecuted at all while the latter should be penalized harshly.

The relationship between Mares and Peterson represented a consensual relationship between two adults, defense attorney Brett Carter told the judge.

Which is all this judge should have needed to know in order to throw the case out, and save a lot of heartache for everyone concerned, not least this mother/son couple and their family.

Police learned of the relationship in February after responding to a dispute on the street where they lived. It’s not clear if it may have been a statement from a neighbor or an acquaintance that led police to determine the two were romantically involved.

And knowing that they were consenting adults the police could and should have chosen to leave them alone. How sad when busybodies can make an allegation and ruin the lives of two decent people who should have the right to a private life in peace.

A criminal complaint states that Peterson acknowledged the relationship at the time of the arrest, saying his mother had been in a series of abusive relationships with men.

He told authorities he believed he could take care of her and keep her safe from abusive men like those in her past, a criminal complaint states.

Which means that Caleb is a good man and he wants to look after her. There is nothing wrong with that. Their love should be protected, not persecuted.

Mares denied having an incestuous relationship at the time of her arrest.

As I would advise anyone to do. The onus is then on the prosecution to prove your relationship beyond reasonable doubt.

The trial of Peterson, who is also charged with incest, is scheduled for November.

Again an outrage. Neither of these people should be in the dock, that much should be obvious to anyone. I will keep everyone updated and informed as new developments arise.

 

Advertisements