Virginia AG (Ken Cuccinelli) Wants to Ban Consensual Sex Acts As a ‘Crime Against Nature’

[Tx4obama]

Virginia AG Wants to Ban Consensual Sex Acts As a ‘Crime Against Nature’

It is safe to say there are very, very few Americans who would be in favor of the government intruding in their personal lives so long as they were not breaking any laws. Indeed, Republicans lead the charge to keep government from interfering in people’s lives, except of course, when they want to control women’s reproductive health. There have been plenty of suggestions that what Republicans really want to control is when a woman has sex, and for what purpose, but it is hardly what they would say if they were asked outright. However, it is beginning to appear that controlling sex is behind the perpetual intrusion into women’s lives and bodies, and in Virginia, the attorney general is going to court to control everyone’s sexual relations and criminalize what he calls “Crimes Against Nature.”

In 2003, the United States Supreme Court ruled that laws banning and criminalizing consensual gay sex was unconstitutional, but in Virginia the prohibition was never expunged from the law. In March, the 4th Circuit Appeals court struck down Virginia’s “Crime Against Nature” law citing the 2003 Supreme Court decision that invalidated state laws that make any sexual activity between consenting adults a crime. A legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia said “It is shameful that Virginia continued to prosecute individuals under the sodomy statute for 10 years after the Supreme Court held that such laws are unconstitutional,” and hoped “this ruling brings an end to such prosecutions.” Fanatical Christian extremist, gubernatorial candidate, and Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli does not agree and is appealing the ruling before the full 4th Circuit’s panel of 15 judges to adjudicate and rule to criminalize sexual relations he objects to. The case in question involved consensual, heterosexual oral sex, but Cuccinelli refuses to accept the ruling and wants the full panel of judges to prohibit consensual oral and anal sex between gay and heterosexual couples because he considers them crimes against nature.

-snip-

Full article here: http://www.politicususa.com/virginia-ag-ban-consensusal-sex-acts-crime-nature.html

[noiretextatique]

1. he's an excellent example

of a religously INSANE person.

[Dawson Leery]

2. The Ayatollah Cuccinelli

[Swede Atlanta]

3. The problem is......

The court, even the court in the case that first announced the concept of judicial review, Marbury v. Madison, acknowledged they lacked the means to enforce their decisions.

So if Virginia continues to defy the decision in Texas v. Lawrence by prosecuting individuals for consensual sex among adults, there is nothing that can be done unless Virginians do something.

The only other recourse is to send in federal troops to prevent it.

As a country we are totally screwed. It used to be if a law was passed with which you disagreed or if the Supreme Court (or any other court for that matter) ruled in a way with which you disagreed, you may still challenge the law or decision but you respected the decision of the court.

We now have a country where people are openly stating they have no intention of following the law, enforcing the law (Colorado Sheriffs state they will not enforce the new gun control measures) or as Virginia, continue to prosecute crimes that have been deemed to be unconstitutional.

If we do not respect law and order and our democracy we are no better than Somalia. I weep for this country.....

[Aristus]

4. Dipshit needs to talk to a zoologist.

Who would be happy to explain that homosexual pairings go on all the time in nature, especially in regions with species overpopulation. It's a fantastic natural mechanism for reducing a burdensome population.

And an irrefutable argument against his bigotry...

[firenewt]

5. That would be a waste of time. The information is science and we all know how people like him

feel about science.

[marmar]

6. Talibangelicals in high office = scary sh*t.

nt

[fizzgig]

7. i don't think wanting to ban blowjobs is a good politcal strategy

[Bake]

13. He's just pissed because he's not getting any.

Bake

[onenote]

20. But wanting to convict a 47 year old creep who solicited oral sex from a teenage girl is.

And that's what this case is about. Cooch is as reprehensible as they come, but he's not going to suffer politically for this move.

[SunSeeker]

8. I have never known a man who thought a bj was a crime against nature.

Maybe the Cooch has never had one. Could explain the 'tude.

[Arneoker]

9. If he's elected he will make Virginia a national laughingstock (well, more of a laughingstock)

I hope that the "mushy moderates" in this state wake up in time.

[meow2u3]

10. Kookinelli wants to install hidden cameras in every bedroom

so he can personally watch and catch them in the act of "crimes against nature." What he really wants to do is criminalize consensual sex, period, so the only legal sex is the rape of one's wife.

Now that's a rumor that can go places.

Personally, I think Kookinelli IS a crime against nature!

[onenote]

11. Cooch is nutjob but the OP overstates things

I have zero use for Cooch, but there isn't evidence in the state's brief that would support the claims being made in the article.

The case in question involved the conviction of a 47 male for having solicited oral sex from a seventeen year old girl. A seventeen year old is considered a minor in Virginia. The accused already had a criminal record arising out of his past convictions for sex with minor girls (a 16 year old and a 17 year old). The defendant also had claimed that he was the victim in the most recent case -- that the seventeen year old had abducted him and forcibly removed his penis from his pants. He later recanted this claim and was convicted of making a false statement to the police.

However, he sought relief from his conviction for solicitation by arguing that he couldn't be convicted of soliciting an illegal act because the law prohibiting oral sex was unconstitutional as applied to everyone (even cases involving oral sex between an adult and a minor).

The lower courts rejected this argument, noting that the Supreme Court case invalidating anti-sodomy laws arose in a situation involving two adults and the Court left open the possibility that a state could constitutionally ban sodomy involving a minor. The courts thus concluded that there was a construction of the VA law that would survive constitutional scrutiny.

I understand both sides of the argument and its not an easy case. The district court judge that found that the VA law wasn't unconstitutional as applied to the defendant in a case involving the solicitation of sex with a minor was a Clinton appointee, as was the judge that dissented from the decision. The two judges that ruled for the defendant on appeal were Clinton and Obama appointees.

Nothing in the state's brief suggests that Cooch is arguing that Virgina's statute could be treated as constitutional in a case involving adults rather than a minor. I suspect that arguing that a guy with a history of soliciting sex from teens thirty years younger than him should be allowed to walk won't garner a lot of sympathy in Virginia.

[LiberalFighter]

18. If that is the case then

he should been prosecuted just for having sex with a minor. Sex to also include having any type of sexual penetration that is not performed by a medical professional performing their duties.

[onenote]

19. Except that wouldn't work under Virginia's arcane and whacky laws

For the most part, "consensual" sexual contact between a minor and an adult is a felony in Virginia only if the minor is 15 or under. Fornication is a crime (a misdemenor) if committed by any two persons, but it wasn't alleged that this case involved fornication and, in any event, the solicitation charge only applies if the act being solicited is a felony. So that left the state with the option of going against the guy for soliciting a "crime against nature", which is a felony in Virginia.

As I said, its a hard case, because the Virginia statutes are a mess and haven't been updated to reflect Supreme Court precedent. But from a political standpoint, no one is going to win a lot of votes criticizing Kooky Cooch for doing what he could to uphold the conviction of a guy who (1) has a history of soliciting sex with teenage girls 30 years his junior and who (2) claimed that he was the victim of a forcible sexual assault by a 17 year old girl and then recanted and pled guilty to lying to the police about it.

[Yavin4]

12. Ken Cuccinelli's Virginia Is Definitely NOT for Lovers. That's for sure.

Does Cuccinelli really want to go on record as being anti-Oral Sex? If he's elected, there will be an awful lot of parked cars right outside the VA border.

[backscatter712]

14. If it's against nature, then he should be against air conditioning and reading glasses. n/t

[Blue_Tires]

15. Cuccinelli is the prime example of what happens

when Democratic voters stay home, or think their work is done after casting the presidential vote...

(just a friendly reminder)

[yellowcanine]

16. Cuccinelli's attacks on Climate Scientist Michael Mann are crimes against nature.

Sexual acts between consenting adults are not crimes against anything.

[warrior1]

17. Did they ask him if he has

committed sodomy?