Once the Supreme Court decides a case, we are stuck with the laws involved, whether we like the law or not, unless you are Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.
Last month, three judges on the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit deemed a Virginia anti-sodomy law unconstitutional. The provision, part of the state’s “Crimes Against Nature” law, has been moot since the 2003 US Supreme Court decision overruled state laws barring consensual gay sex, but Virginia has kept the prohibition on the books.
Now Virginia attorney general and Republican gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli is asking the full 4th Circuit to reconsider the case. Cuccinelli wants the court to revive the prohibition on consensual anal and oral sex, for both gay and straight people. (The case at hand involves consensual, heterosexual oral sex, but, as the New York Times explained in 2011, it’s “icky”: The sex was between a 47-year-old man and two teenagers above Virginia’s age of consent.)*
Why? Why? Why? Cuccinelli needs to just give it up. What adults do in their own homes–in their own bedrooms is really no one’s business, especially the government’s business. The Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas pretty much decided this one in 2003. In striking down the Texas law, the “anti-sodomy” laws of many other states were invalidated. Virginia is one of those states.
The argument seems to be that Virginia forbids Laws Against Nature for all couples, straight and gay. I am not a lawyer. It seems like a stupid argument to me and one that makes it all the less valid. It reeks of bedroom police.
Conservatives have tried to apply a faulty syllogism to their “crimes against nature” case involving a 47 year old man and under age teens. No. Democrats and those who aren’t social conservatives aren’t giving the green light to oral sex with dirty old men and teenagers. They are saying that he shouldn’t have been charged with a “crime” that is no longer a crime. Charge him with being a dirty old man trying to have any sex with kids. It’s a fairly simple concept. If something isn’t against the law, don’t try to mold it to fit your case. Pick another charge.
Meanwhile, Cuccinelli is spending OUR money trying to defend bring back a non-law that has already been over-turned by the Supreme Court. The non-law in Virginia also applies to gay and straight couples, married or single. At what point does the Virginia government back off? At what point does the government stop invading people’s bedrooms?
Loving v. Virginia was decided in 1966. Until this landmark case overturned Virginia law, miscegenation was illegal in Virginia. Perhaps Cuccinelli wants to ignore this Supreme Court decision. He and his cronies are pretty much doing the same thing to Roe v. Wade with many of the recent attacks on abortion rights. These decisions don’t have an aside that excempts Virginia when the cases are handed down.
William McDonald, the creep who tried to solicit oral sex from a teenager he saw in a Home Depot parking lot is a most unsympathetic defendant. However unsympathetic the defendant, he needed to be charged correctly. Last I heard, trying to solicit sex from a minor when you aren’t a minor is illegal. Forget “laws against nature.” There is enough of an icky factor involved just because this perv is 47 years old and the victim was 17. Even young men have heard the term “jail bait.” This man needs to go to jail. He needs to be removed from society, but not for “crimes against nature.” He is a sexual predator who attempted to violate a minor. He is sort of a junior grade rapist, as it were.
All of this adds up to those of us who value our personal freedom doing everything in our power to keep Cuccinelli and like-minded bedroom police types out of public office. Virginia might be conservative but it isn’t reactionary. It’s time to stop wasting taxpayer money defending the indefensible. These clowns are just an embarrassment the state. While Cuccinelli fights to keep the sodomy (such an old fashioned term) on the books, time could be better spent toughening up laws to protect minors without violating the US Constitution. Cuccinelli needs to apply that Rule of Law mantra he is so fond of.
Further reading: Mother Jones
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I WAS right. Sex IS nobody’s business but the THREE people involved.
I just want to know how a 47 year old man hooks up with two 18-19 year old girls.
Just to…you know…….satisfy an …………INTELLECTUAL curiosity…. Yeah…that’s it.
You are too old Cargo.
So am I.
Would the three people be Person A, Person B and Ken?
Someone in Terry McAuliffe’s campaign needs to broadcast the amount of taxpayers’ bucks spent by Cuccinelli on his various lost causes.
No kidding, including the hours various people have spent on said lost causes.
Of course, you know what Mother Jones has asked him and naturally, he has not replied. I would like to know the answer also.
Now, THAT’s libertarianism!!
Keep it up, coochy- your hopes of occupying the governor’s office are slipping by the day.
Cuckoonelli is going to get his butt kicked big time in this year’s election.
So, is this a case about sodomy, or a case about an adult sexually preying on a minor? I guess the side you take, depends on how you view the case, and whether or not you’ll see the GOP Gubenatorial nominee as someone trying to hold back “progress” or someone trying to defend children from predators. Starry and Middle seem to see the former. Might turn out that the majority see the later. Could be a trap laid for the Dems, where they end up defending perverts, and it would appear some are willing to rush right in. Or this might not be a factor at all. We shall see.
At least one local blogger has already taken the point of view that Democrats are defending perverts which is absurd.
I see it as a case where the wrong charges were brought against someone. It shouldn’t be a case about sodomy–that is grasping at straws since sodomy isn’t illegal. However, solicitation and in particular solicitation from minors is illegal. This perv ought to be put away for a few years. Charging him with actual laws he broke would probably do the trick.
first sodomy laws were used to control the general population in the 19th century, then they became useful to control gays. Perhaps they have outlived their usefulness since obviously many members of society ‘violate’ said laws.
The GOP Gubernatorial nominee is once again tilting at windmills in order to advance his own political agenda rather than facing the reality of what the law really says. By the way, the GOP should be ashamed of this clown getting their nomination. The GOP allowed itself to be controlled by the far right wing of the party rather than selecting the guy who had waited his turn. I guess it does no good to ‘wait in line’ unless you are an immigrant…and we see how far it has gotten them. Bill Bolling would have made a far better candidate who had much more universal appeal.
“The GOP allowed itself to be controlled by the far right wing of the party rather than selecting the guy who had waited his turn.”
Moon, not to pull the thread off in an unintended direction, let me just put it this way; The GOP is self-governing, and the folks who show up make the rules. The fact is, Cuccinelli completely out-manuvered Bolling, during the last congressional convention cycle. Cuccinelli supporters ran for seats on the state central committee, and Cuccinelli supporters showed up at the convention to elect these people to the State Central committee. The new committee voted to set the method of nomination as a venue more favorable to Cuccinelli, but this in an of itself wouldn’t assure him the nomination. Bolling could’ve gone on to the convention, and could have succeeded if his people were willing to show up. He chose to bow out, rather than be the underdog. I say this as someone who was prepared to go and support him. He made the choice for me, and the rest of the GOP. I’ll say this, though, Who nominated T-Mac? No one. Maybe he’s the best candidate for the Democrats, but we’ll never know, because the Democrat party apparatchiks made the decision for all.
I guess no one decided to challenge T-Mac. It didn’t work out so well for him last time.
As for the GOP doing the democracy thing….I have always said I don’t think everyone is ready for democracy….perhaps that is how Choochie goe nominated. It rather sickens me. I nominate you for GOP King.
It seems though that in the GOP the squeakiest wheel gets the oil. I look back to the carnival that was trotted out before Romne ygot the nomination. Those candidates couldn’t have won in a general election. They soared to the top for a week or so because of extremism.
I keep hearing far right people say that the reason they are losing is because REAL conservatives haven’t been running. that makes no sense to me. Mathematically it doesn’t add up. More centrist people will win, not the outliers. That’s where Romney faltered. He tried to be centrist and uber con. It doesn’t work that way. I don’t know. Perhaps its time for a three party system.
i think I want to retire. Obama is in major dog house-ville with me anyway.
Why don’t all those people who disapprove of some dirty old man soliciting non-minors work to raise the age of consent or definition of “minor” in Virginia? Doesn’t make for much splashy print, does it?
@Steve Thomas
Steve, this issue has nothing to do with protecting children from predators or “defending perverts,” and I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t try to twist my words to try to put me into that category.
Here’s the actual factual situation:
The majority opinion in the 4th Circuit on Tuesday held that the Virginia law is invalid and, therefore, cannot serve as the predicate felony for the criminal solicitation charge for which MacDonald was convicted. The panel reversed the lower court judge.
Glenberg said Virginia can and should punish adults who have sexual relations with minors, but the state cannot use an unconstitutional law to do so.
“Instead, the legislature should enact narrowly drawn statutes that do not apply to private conduct between consenting adults and define equitably and clearly what sexual conduct with minors is unlawful,” she said.
Steve, the Supreme Court has held since 2003 that Virginia’s anti-sodomy law is unconstitutional. Virginia has ignored that- talk about ignoring the framers of the constitution! This ruling would bring an end to Virginia’s prosecutions using an illegal anti-sodomy law.
Sodomy laws have been repealed by the vast majority of states because they attempt to control and criminalize human sexuality and private acts between consenting adults. Here’s part of Virginia’s law:
Any person, not being married, who voluntarily shall have sexual intercourse with any other person, shall be guilty of fornication, punishable as a Class 4 misdemeanor.
If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony, except as provided in subsection B.
Steve, THAT’s why Virginia’s law is unconstitutional and why a conviction based on that law should be struck down. Unmarried sex, oral sex and gay sex is a crime under Virginia’s law. Is that what YOU want- to put people in jail for consensual sex? What year IS this?
@Pat,
I didn’t realize that the law had lightened up enough to allow married people to do have whatever kind of sex they wanted. When did THAT happen?
@Steve Thomas
I was prepared to support him too. HE gave up. If Bolling isn’t willing to fight for it…..
There is something called reality. He checked and rechecked the polls. I mean who really knows the Lt. Gov. Then there is the reality of running as an independent from the financial perspective.
Cuccinelli is an activist poltician who had a following. Bill Bolling was just a normal conservative without being an activist.
I wouldn’t blame him. He just didnt want to get run over by the avalanche.
Has anyone considered taking Cuccinelli to court? I suspect not. There is a lot of bluster on here; i.e., smoke but no fire. What does one have to do to be, “an interested party”? Does one have to be convicted under the defunked law to bring a suit or what?