Forum - View topic

NEWS: Penguindrum Voice Actor Illich Guardiola Arrested in Texas

here-and-faraway wrote:

See what happens when Gia takes a hiatus from "The List"? You post this article instead and BOOM! the flame wars begin...

I've been writing The List for almost two years now...

I'm not sure if you understand the process of getting married, but it typically is more involved than simply showing up at the county clerk's office and asking for a marriage license. Here in New York, for example, you have to show that you are legally permitted to marry (ie that you aren't already married, proof of ID/age/etc, and so on -- you sign a sworn statement that there are no legal impediments to the marriage), then you have to wait at least 24 hours after receiving the license before you can actually marry. If you're under 18, you need the consent of both parents. If you're under 16, in addition to both parents, you need the consent of a Family Court judge. And if you're under 14, you can't marry at all. In addition to similar requirements, many states (but not New York) also require that both parties undergo a blood test. If you fail to clear any of these hurdles, you won't be allowed to marry, which is to say that simply wanting to get married doesn't make it a forgone conclusion that you will get married.

VORTIA wrote:

zaphdash wrote: I'm fine with your arguments against the inconsistency between allowing a child to marry but not allowing a child to consent to sex -- my answer would be, don't let children get married. Yours, it seems, is to get rid of the age of consent. Nothing of the sort. Perhaps the thrust of my argument is getting lost in the shuffle of this discussion, but it has always been about the way a magical piece of government issued paper makes everything okay. That the state seems to consider his activities okay, but only if he has the proper license sends the message to me that the state is setting an arbitrary restriction.

It's only an arbitrary restriction if the license itself is arbitrarily given. If I drive without a license, I'll get arrested. If I go to the DMV the next day and pass my drivers test, I still drove without a license before. This distinction is important because I will not be given a license unless I pass the test.

I'm not sure if you understand the process of getting married, but it typically is more involved than simply showing up at the county clerk's office and asking for a marriage license.

For what it's worth, if she were 17 or 18 years old instead I'd still find the relationship disturbing, so you're not likely to sway me arguments that "it would have been legal elsewhere, so it should be overlooked here." Anyway, that door swings both ways: plenty of states have higher age of consent laws -- for instance, that notorious bastion of backwards conservatism, California, recognizes 18 as the age of consent.

It's true that the precise age varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. If we knew empirically what was the most appropriate age, everybody would adopt it. The fact that a lot of jurisdictions set the age at 16 does not ipso facto make that the "right" age, any more than the fact that nearly 1/3 of the country (eleven states comprising nearly 100 million people) set it at 18. As long as you agree that consent laws are, in principle at least, a good thing, you nonetheless have to accept that there is no verifiably correct age at which you should draw the line.

I'm not sure there's a case to be made that an age of consent at 17 (or even 18) is unjust compared to 16 -- and if there is, you haven't made it here.

Glad to hear from someone who actually knows this guy.

VORTIA wrote:

Glad to hear from someone who actually knows this guy.

I'd be telling lies if I claimed that. I do not know him. I know of him. I know many of his friends, one of his ex-girlfriends, several people he's worked for, a few more people who have worked for him. I've been *encouraged* to know him on several occasions (because reasons*). I do not actually know him.

Hopefully it won't be considered a terrible faux pas on my part to respond to Zaphdash's comments at this point, but I feel like we're getting closer to mutual understanding.

zaphdash wrote:

VORTIA wrote: zaphdash wrote: I'm fine with your arguments against the inconsistency between allowing a child to marry but not allowing a child to consent to sex -- my answer would be, don't let children get married. Yours, it seems, is to get rid of the age of consent. Nothing of the sort. Perhaps the thrust of my argument is getting lost in the shuffle of this discussion, but it has always been about the way a magical piece of government issued paper makes everything okay. That the state seems to consider his activities okay, but only if he has the proper license sends the message to me that the state is setting an arbitrary restriction. It's only an arbitrary restriction if the license itself is arbitrarily given. If I drive without a license, I'll get arrested. If I go to the DMV the next day and pass my drivers test, I still drove without a license before. This distinction is important because I will not be given a license unless I pass the test.

You raise a good point by comparing it to a driver's license - when states issue a driver's license, you have to go through a process that proves you should be entrusted with the privilege of operating a motor vehicle. The license is not arbitrary, since it certifies that you've completed specified safety and operational training. A marriage license being issued because your mom or dad said it's okay, though? How does that actually change the emotional maturity of the person involved?

Quote:

I'm not sure if you understand the process of getting married, but it typically is more involved than simply showing up at the county clerk's office and asking for a marriage license.

I got married in Nevada, so it was pretty close to that, actually. :lol:

Quote:

For what it's worth, if she were 17 or 18 years old instead I'd still find the relationship disturbing, so you're not likely to sway me arguments that "it would have been legal elsewhere, so it should be overlooked here." Anyway, that door swings both ways: plenty of states have higher age of consent laws -- for instance, that notorious bastion of backwards conservatism, California, recognizes 18 as the age of consent.

I'm not sure I find it disturbing, but I agree that I don't know what a man his age would see in a girl her age, either. Then again, I don't know what a lot of people see in their partners. Certainly this was horribly ill-thought out, just from the perspective of all the social bullshit he's called down on himself and his bride before they even kicked off their relationship. Were the state not willing to recognize his marriage, I'd even agree with you that he should be prosecuted. I just find it hard to accept that a flimsy piece of paper handed out on flimsy pretenses makes all the difference between prison and living a normal life. I also have a hard time getting outraged about it when a relationship with a 16 year old is legal in over half the States in the country. It doesn't strike me as particularly vile, just dumb.

Quote:

I'm not sure there's a case to be made that an age of consent at 17 (or even 18) is unjust compared to 16 -- and if there is, you haven't made it here.

I don't really believe I was trying to make a case for 16 vs. 17 or 18 so much as making the case that it doesn't seem that 16 has caused any more serious problems than 17 or 18. As we've discussed, since there's no way to scientifically determine a value, its all just ballparked. I'm more hung-up on the idea that Texas's actual consent laws are apparently 17, 16 with a government form. That seems like a really goofy stipulation. It's so much bureaucratic nonsense that has nothing to do with the realities of anyone's lives. I'm bothered by the idea that someone can go to prison not because of the physical or emotional realities of their life, but on whether or not they processed an arbitrary government form.

As a lawyer, I'm sure you see this sort of edge-case legal situation come down like a ton of bricks on people all the time, but it's not something that sits very well with me.

In any case, I'd like to thank you for having this discussion with me. Regardless of our difference of opinion on the subject at hand, I'd like to think it was interesting for you. I have certainly found it educational.

You've still given me a much clearer picture of who he is than one can get from the type of brief, clinical reporting you'll get from a news site. I'm loathe to tar and feather someone over rumors spread by others, and I'm willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt if they claim their actions are well-intended, but when the rumors and their actions start to overlap in ways that add up far too tellingly, there's not much ground left for doubt.

Mr. sickVisionz wrote:

I don't really know what the punishment should be, if any. Sounds like good case for proving why age of consent should be governed by the federal government rather than a state by state thing.

Hell no.

The only time that the federal government is supposed to force the states to all subscribe to a single notion is when it strengthens the nation; the US consists of 50 countries that voluntarily submitted to the (supposed to be) light yolk of a central government solely for their betterment. Enforcing a nationwide age of consent is pointless overreach that no state signed on for.

...this thread has caused the song To Sir, with Love to get stuck in my head. That, and select scenes from GTO.

Touma wrote:

My point was that neither of the sources mentioned that. They never said what law he is accused of violating.

Quote:

The teenager told police he was giving her a ride home but later admitted to having a sexual relationship with Guardiola.

From the source at Khou.com:

Quote:

Guardiola was stopped for a traffic violation on April 14. At that time, a 16-year-old girl was with him. Police learned that Guardiola was a drama teacher working at several Houston-area acting academies and theaters, and the girl who was with him was one of his students. Guardiola was taken into custody for the traffic offense and police called the girl’s mother. The mother said that Guardiola was only supposed to be giving the girl a ride home and did not know why they were that far away from their destination. When questioned by police about their involvement, the girl confessed that the two were in love and said they had been having a consensual sexual relationship, according to documents.

Once again for emphasis:

TheTsunami wrote:

Something else that will figure into this case: Quote: On September 1, 2003, a law took effect in Texas making it a felony offense for an educator to engage in a sexual relationship with a student who attends the school where they teach, regardless of the student’s age or gender. In Texas, the legal age of consent for sexual activity is 17, but under the law, teacher-student relationships in which the students were 17 and 18 years old have been criminalized. - See more at: http://www.totalcriminaldefense.com/news/articles/sex-crimes/teacher-student-sex/#sthash.1lKg3jML.dpuf So even with a marriage and the mother's approval, in Texas he can face up to 20 years in prison for "improper relationship between a student and an educator". http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/04/09/texas-teacher-accused-trying-to-marry-student-17/

So:

She was his student at the time of his arrest. She admitted to having a sexual relationship with him.

This is illegal according to Texas law.

I don't understand your confusion.