Now the teacher, James Hooker, is clearly a loser here for presumably up and leaving his wife and children to "run off" with his new girl - so let's get that out on the table up front. No doubt there is a litany of excuses and reasons but his actions but they are, I am sure, flat out wrong (and also not what this post is about).
Secondly, Hooker claims that there was no sexual relationship prior to Jordan Powers 18th birthday. Again we have to take them (as she is now 18) at their word - should evidence turn up to the contrary then whatever fate he suffers he deserves. California will happily and mercilessly prosecute.
But we'll just pretend for the moment that this is a legal "modern relationship" - whatever that means.
So what's the point of this post...? There are several.
For one, back in the olden days, for example during the time I dated Mrs. Wolf before our marriage, there would have been a time when I might be considered a criminal, at least according to California law. I met the then future Mrs. Wolf when I was just 18, she 17 1/2.
Now this is somewhat troubling. Though we've been married some 35 years, together for over 37 years we could easily be considered criminals - I could be a felon.
But in those days young couples often got married much younger - and it would be difficult to be a "couple" without someone noticing you, for example, holding hands. If the couple had the bad taste to turn up pregnant then often some form of "shot gun" wedding would ensue.
Mrs. Wolf's parents were married when mom was 16, dad 19 - together until she died some forty five years later.
As kids no one thought to "count backwards" to a wedding date to determine if there was a "reason" for the marriage, either.
But, at least in California, the law, as they say, is the law. Had we lived in South Carolina things would have been perhaps different because the "age of consent" there is 14, 17 in New York.
So my first point is this: No doubt, given this case and others like it, some well meaning idiot in our government will decree that a "Federal" age of consent must be handed down. This not being the purview of the Federal government they'll concoct a scheme as they did for moving the drinking age to 21 universally (no Federal highway funds if your drinking age is under 21) to ensure that, for example, no education funds will flow to your state if the "age of consent" is not 21.
This will serve the purpose of preventing young people from having the choice of who to marry (after all, no one, at least in the governments eyes, should be married until 35 or 40).
It will also server to make many young men felons - simply for loving a girl even a day younger than themselves.
This is important because felons cannot generally vote or get jobs - something that aids the growth of the government and its debt.
My next point: In my day if you "knocked the girl up" you married her.
This was generally enforced as "the rule" by the males involved in the girls life. You, the "knocker," had to live with the responsibility of your actions. This usually meant that you had to "grow up" and "get a job" and "take care of your family."
Not things we see today in young men.
Independent young families thinking for themselves, "making it" on their own and that are not government supported mean only trouble for the "government."
If I as an 18 or 19 year old male with a young family discover that I don't "need" the government to take care of me I will not be sympathetic to those in a similar position that think the government should take care of them.
And my final point.
I have posted links to various posts above showing how Mr. Hooker is deemed a "sexual predator" - which he may well be.
But his now 18 year old girlfriend thinks otherwise - rightly or wrongly.
So not only are they being pursued by the press but also by law. So now Ms. 18 year old's decisions are being questioned.
So if her decisions as a legal adult are questioned why can't the law question other "choices" legal adults make.
You see, this is the leak in the dam.
Soon the law will be able to set the precedent that "even though X is now an adult X did something that was illegal in their childhood" and, most importantly, X's input today has no bearing on the legal aspects of whatever was done.
That is the state can seize the "X's responsibility" and handle it for X. This will be used, for example, against a young couple, close in age, as a wedge to split them apart - either by society and do-gooders or by angry parents.
Not that this wasn't possible in the past but then the choice was to promote responsibility instead of bailing out and letting the government do it.
The jury is out on these two for now and no doubt California prosecutors and investigators will examine their lives with a magnifying glass.
And there is always the danger that, in fact, these two are not lying.
But no one will feel bad about this because, had she been 5 years older or he not her teacher she would simply be his "trophy wife..."
And, of course, worst of all for all the news reports: they may simply and actually be in love and stay together until they die...