This occurred in the run-up to the rigged 2020 election, but an X post reminded me of something I had meant to write at the time, but, for various reasons, did not: a California law giving discretion to judges in the case of sex crimes involving minors. In the post (which I share below), a video clip of California state senator Scott Weiner is shared, where Weiner is angry because people in the gay and trans communities are overrepresented on California’s sex offender registry.
Given his outspokenness on the subject, we can be certain that he’s not upset because his comrades are overrepresented in sex crimes, per se; rather, he is upset because the crimes that subject an individual to being put on the sex offender registry are more likely to involve his comrades. Does this not give the game away?
Wiener authored California Senate Bill 145, which was signed into law by Gavin Newsom in 2020. The measure amended state law to give judges discretion in deciding whether an adult convicted of certain sex crimes involving a minor must register as a sex offender, particularly in cases involving minors ages 14 to 17.
Proponents said the law was intended to eliminate discriminatory treatment of gay and trans people, claiming that the previous statute required automatic registration for some same-sex acts while allowing judicial discretion in comparable heterosexual cases. Wiener argued the disparity stemmed from remnants of California’s former anti-sodomy laws, which have since been repealed.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan identified a trend towards minimizing serious deviant behavior in his 1993 essay “Defining Deviancy Down,” published in the American Scholar. He argued that American society had reached a point where it was in effect redefining deviant behavior as normal or less serious to cope with an increase in social problems and the breakdown of traditional social institutions. He suggested that society had become desensitized to deviant behavior and was lowering its standards and expectations to accommodate it. If he were alive today (he died in 2003), he would no doubt recognize that the trend he identified only worsened over time. (See Deviance as Doctrine: The Post-Liberal Moral Revolution.) But there are some signs of progress, which I will come to in a moment.
At the time of California’s passage of the bill, Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas accused California Democrats of believing “we need more adults having sex with children,” and Donald Trump Jr. used the bill to attack his father’s opponent in the presidential race, tweeting, “Why are Joe Biden Democrats working in California to pander to the wishes of pedophiles and child rapists?” It’s a good question.
The merits of the law aside, Weiner’s argument strikes me as much like the progressive complaint that state prisons are racist because 31-33 percent of prisoners are black, whereas blacks comprise only 13 percent of the population. Worse, since 93 percent of prisoners are male, that translates to around 6 percent of the US population comprising one-third of all prisoners. The problem here is that about one-third of all serious crimes are committed by black men, with roughly half of murders and nearly 60 percent of robberies committed by black men. That’s an input problem.
Rather than complain about gay and trans overrepresentation in the sex offender registry, or black overrepresentation in state prisons, progressive politicians like Weiner should ask why these groups are respectively overrepresented in sex offenses and serious crime, and solve that problem. Whatever one thinks of registries or incarceration, the laws in question are attempts to deal with the problem. But progressive judges let violent offenders off the hook for their crimes, or reduce the consequences, because they put identity over deterrence and incapacitation. Democrats give them more tools to do that by codifying the double standard. Thus, the law is an instantiation of the problem of defining deviance down.
If folks are going to argue that we shouldn’t have sex offender registries or state prisons, then a different argument should be made, an argument that works from principle, not from identitarianism. Frankly, I have difficulty imagining what that would entail. What would Weiner and his ilk have us do? Establish a two-tiered justice system in which gay or trans sex offenders are excluded from the registry while non-trans offenders continue to have their names appear? I know he would like that, and that this is what his bill intended, but in what moral universe is such a thing just? Weiner doesn’t work from morality or justice, to be sure, but that doesn’t mean the rest of us shouldn’t. However, it is almost certain that some judges will use the law to do just that.
Given Weiner’s attitude, which is shared by progressives across the country, I was surprised to learn that, on March 6, 2026, Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers signed a bill into law strengthening protections for minors against sexual predators. The law makes child grooming a specific felony in Wisconsin, allowing prosecutors to charge adults who attempt to manipulate or entice minors for sexual activity before an assault occurs. That the term “grooming” was explicitly used in the legislation was unexpected. Only a short while ago, using that word could get a person censored or deplatformed across social media.
Under the new law (2025 Wisconsin Act 88) “grooming” is defined as a course of conduct, pattern of behavior, or series of acts with the intention to condition, seduce, solicit, lure, or entice a child for the purpose of (1) engaging in sexual intercourse or sexual contact or (2) producing, distributing, or possessing depictions of the child in sexually explicit conduct. Examples of conduct that could fall under this definition include verbal comments or conversations of a sexual nature directed at a child, inappropriate physical contact, or communications via text, email, social media, or other means meant to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice a child. Applying that definition consistently should problematize the public school curriculum.
The bill’s supporters argued these measures close gaps in the law and improve public safety. However, paralleling Weiner’s arguments, some Democratic lawmakers and civil rights advocates voiced concerns that aspects of the sex-offender registration policy could disproportionately impact gay and trans individuals. Still, only six Democrats voted against the legislation. Roughly 45 percent of state legislators in Wisconsin are Democrats, so this was a surprise. That signals progress in a state known for its progressive politics—or, cynically, concern over Democratic candidates’ prospects in the 2026 elections.
The new law follows an earlier law signed by Tony Evers in 2024 requiring people convicted of multiple counts of a sex offense to register as sex offenders for life—even when the counts stem from the same incident—an expansion supporters argued strengthens public safety. As with the recent bill, this bill also drew objections from some Democrats and civil rights advocates who argued the policy could disproportionately impact gay and trans people, warning that charging practices in certain cases might lead to multiple counts from a single encounter and therefore trigger a lifetime registry requirement. There were “eight” nay votes in the legislature.
In contrast to California’s approach under SB 145, which grants judges greater discretion in sex offender registration for certain cases involving minors—ostensibly to address perceived disparities but effectively softening consequences in ways that critics argue prioritize identity politics over child protection—Wisconsin’s recent action suggests a move towards reversing, or at least tamping down, the “defining deviancy down” trend Moynihan warned about decades ago. By criminalizing grooming as a distinct felony under the 2025 Wisconsin Act 88, the state has expanded tools to intervene early against predatory behavior, closing loopholes before abuse escalates.
Despite familiar objections from some Democrats and advocates about potential disproportionate impacts on gay and trans individuals, the bill passed with substantial bipartisan support, with only a handful of nay votes. This development, alongside Evers’s prior expansion of lifetime registration for repeat sex offenders, signals that even in a historically progressive state, the imperative to safeguard children can occasionally transcend partisan divides and identitarian concerns. Presuming principle was involved, it would seem that not all Democrats have lost their minds.
Ultimately, protecting minors demands focusing on the behaviors and patterns that endanger them—addressing root causes, and utilizing deterrence and incapacitation to deal with those who prey on children, rather than redefining or downplaying deviance to fit ideological preferences. The path forward lies not in creating exemptions or double standards, but in upholding uniform standards of accountability and prevention that place the safety of the vulnerable above all else. Weiner and his comrades framed the California law in these terms. But given motivation, one is right to be suspicious of that framing. Thankfully, Wisconsin has not followed California into the madness of unbridled woke progressivism. And that is progress of a kind.
freedom and reason 