A former drama teacher at Granite Hills High School, Robert Paul Beus, 31, admitted in court to a consensual sexual relationship with a 17-year-old boy, who was not his student, but attended another school. The boy had known Beus for about eight years through a theatre group. The boy considered Beus a friend and admitted that the two began having sex last year on several occasions. The boy testified that Beus gave him drugs, including methamphetamine.

California law makes any sex between an adult and a minor illegal. The minor is always a victim and not an accomplice to the crime. So, despite the boy’s admission that the sex was consensual, the district attorney charged Beus with a felony charge of having sex with a minor. But, as part of a plea bargain, the DA dropped charges that could have resulted in up to seven years in prison. Beus lost his teaching credential and has moved to Los Angeles, but the court did not require him to register as a sex offender.

The GLBT community had mixed reactions to this case. Some felt that Beus shouldn’t have been charged with having sex with a minor because the boy was 17 and it was consensual. Others felt that Beus, because he was a teacher, and because he gave meth to a minor, should have been sent to prison.

Courts do treat consensual sex between an adult educator and a minor student more harshly because of the nature of the relationship between the two. But most people feel that American law is inconsistent when dealing with minors having consensual sex with adults.

Popular movies and TV shows have glamorized teenage boys pursuing relations with adult women. The b-movie industry depends on that plot. The Summer of ’42 was just one of many films, where a 16-year-old pursues a sexual romance with an older woman.

When the boys make it with the older female, it’s a sexual conquest and the males are grateful for the chance of a lifetime. These movies win Academy Awards.

If we change things a bit — making it a teen male pursuing an adult male — it’s not something Hollywood would produce. That’s because it would have to be about a desperate, confused teen getting caught in the clutches of a lecherous gay man, who is probably a pedophile.

Historically, heterosexuals assumed there were no gay kids and that gay people were “recruited” into the “homosexual lifestyle.” Finally, with the advent of high school gay clubs, our culture has begun to understand that gay kids and teens exist — and they haven’t been molested or otherwise recruited into the “gay lifestyle.” They were born that way. And these gay teens can be sexually active, just like their straight peers. Many gay men, as teens, had sex with males of their own age, and some had sex with adults.

I recently asked a man if he planned to sue his priest because he had sex with the priest when he was in his teens and the priest was in his twenties. “I was hardly molested,” he said, “I was the one who instigated it.”

California law does reflect that persons under 18 may consent to sexual contact with adults. For example, a 16 year-old girl or boy can have sex with an adult, provided they are married to that adult. And, historically, teens could consent to sex at 16, but the age was raised to 18 for girls in California. Only a few years ago did the California Legislature make the age of consent for intercourse gender neutral.

And, while gay sex between adults is now legal, gay sex between minors is illegal and could be punished more harshly than straight sexual intercourse between minors.

The Legislature has made a moral judgment that consensual oral and anal sex is a far greater crime than unlawful sexual intercourse. Of course, now under Lawrence v. Texas, it seems that the Legislature can no longer punish gay sex more harshly than straight sex.

The topic of minors and consent and gay sex is destined to become an issue soon. The California Supreme Court has acknowledged that minors are capable of legal consent to sex. In fact, the courts acknowledge that even a 14-year-old can understand the nature and consequences of a sexual act. But the courts believe that it’s the teenagers’ judgment and impulse control, not his or her knowledge or intelligence, which tend to be problematic. Teens are more vulnerable, more impulsive, and less self-disciplined than adults.

While this is noble, it’s hypocritical. We try minors, as young as 14, for capital crimes, and give them the death penalty. One wonders, if minors lack judgment, how they can negotiate a military contract and go to war when they are 17.