In San Diego, a jury recently convicted Brett Marquis, 48, of violating the Penal Code for having oral sex with a 15-year-old boy. On Monday, a judge made him register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

But, had Marquis had sex with a girl, he would not have had to register as a sex offender.

Judging from the letters received by this paper, some believe that an adult who has consensual sex of any kind with a minor, regardless of the ages of parties, should have to register as a sex offender for life.

Others feel that California should lower the age of consent to 14. They argue that many states try 14-year-olds as adults for serious crimes and even impose the death penalty. Other countries have lowered the age of consent. So why shouldn’t they be competent to vote or consent to sex?

And while many are indifferent to the age-of-consent issue, they believe that our laws should not punish adults differently because they have “gay” sex versus “straight” sex with a minor. Either everyone convicted of consensual sex with minors has to register, or none at all.

While the matter may seem academic, it does have profound consequences and rather innocent people can be trapped by the law. Today, in California, for example, when a minor turns 18, but has a partner who is still 17, and they continue to have oral/anal sex, the 18-year-old, upon conviction, may have to register for life as a sex offender.

Registering as a sex offender today carries such a stigma. No longer is the info limited to police. Today, police, even in San Diego, notify neighbors that a sex offender is living nearby. Look on the web and you’ll find that most states are not only listing the general whereabouts of sex offenders, but now are listing names, addresses and the crimes committed.

The states lump the man convicted of indecent exposure for nude sunbathing at Black’s Beach in with the man who forcibly sodomized and raped a dozen little girls. While the former is not a threat to anyone, the latter could be. Both are likely to be subjected to abuse by community vigilantes.

The Supreme Court last year upheld the use of sex offender registries, even for those convicted of nude sunbathing, or women baring their breasts to protest laws prohibiting women (not men) from exposing their chests in public. That was dumb.

The California Supreme Court and the Legislature will likely have to visit the scope of sex offender registries in California. Here’s why.

Last week, an appellate court decided a case where a 22-year-old male had consensual oral sex with a 16-year-old girl. After a jury convicted the man, the judge required the man to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

The convicted man contended on appeal that it was irrational to make him to register as a sex offender for having oral sex with the girl. If he had vaginal intercourse with her, possibly making her pregnant, he would not have had to register.

The appellate court agreed and first noted that the sole purpose for making sex offenders register is so that police know where they are. Statistically, sex offenders have a high degree of recidivism. Being that there is no cure for pedophilia, police and those with children need to know there is potential harm to kids in the area.

Obviously, the legislature knows that not every person who engages in “statutory rape” is a sex offender, comparable to those who forcibly rape children. So the legislature decided not to require it.

Here the court struck down the law requiring one convicted of oral sex with a minor to register. The court found that the state did not put forth any proof showing that those convicted of the crime are likely to repeat it.

Gays and lesbians could also argue that the law discriminates against the gay/lesbian 18-year-old who has oral/anal sex with a 17-year-old partner. The gay or lesbian “adult” has to register, but not the “straight” male or female who has vaginal sex with the 17-year-old.

Ironically, some think that oral/anal sex is less dangerous because there’s no fear of pregnancy. Why draw the line at oral/anal sex? How about “French kissing” (since we are mad at the French)? Heavy petting? Why the difference in treatment? It’s simple. Look at the Bible, which is how Texas defended its consensual sodomy statute. And that’s exactly what the Supreme Court said in Lawrence v. Texas states may not do when making legal distinctions.

But my guess is that the legislature, rather than rationally examining the issue of age-of -consent law, will more likely require those convicted of statutory rape to register as sex offenders, too. So, yes, the 18-year-old who has sex with his or her 17-year old partner will have to register for life as a sex offender.

And, yes, Congress will get into this, too, by making one register as a sex offender if he/she has used a computer to somehow arrange for oral/anal/ or any kind of sex with anyone.