Virginia Court Strikes Down Law Against Sex By Singles

WFTV ^ | 1/14/04

[KidGlock]

Virginia Court Strikes Down Law Against Sex By Singles

POSTED: 4:20 pm EST January 14, 2005

RICHMOND, Va. -- The Virginia Supreme Court on Friday struck down an archaic and rarely enforced state law prohibiting sex between unmarried people.

The unanimous ruling strongly suggests that a separate anti-sodomy law in Virginia also is unconstitutional, although that statute is not directly affected. The justices based their ruling on a U.S. Supreme Court decision voiding an anti-sodomy law in Texas.

"This case directly affects only the fornication law but makes it absolutely clear how the court would rule were the sodomy law before it," said Kent Willis, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Virginia.

Virginia's anti-sodomy law prohibits oral and anal sex even for married couples, but gay-rights advocates say the statute is only used to target homosexuals. Legislators for years have rejected efforts to repeal the law. They left it on the books again last year even after the Texas decision held that such laws are unconstitutional.

"It's a strong message to legislators that they must repeal Virginia's sodomy law," Willis said. "Now both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Virginia Supreme Court have spoken on essentially the same issue."

The court said that "decisions by married or unmarried persons regarding their intimate physical relationship are elements of their personal relationships that are entitled to due process protection."

The ruling stemmed from a woman's lawsuit seeking $5 million in damages from a man who infected her with herpes. She claims the man did not inform her that he was infected before they had sex.

Richmond Circuit Judge Theodore J. Markow threw out the lawsuit, ruling that the woman was not entitled to damages because she had participated in an illegal act. The Supreme Court reinstated the lawsuit.

The law against fornication had been on the books since the early 1800s but was last enforced against consenting adults in 1847, according to Paul McCourt Curley, attorney for the defendant in the lawsuit.

Curley said he sees nothing wrong with having laws on the books, even if they are unenforced, that say "these are the ideals and morals of the state of Virginia." He said the ruling sends a message that virtually anything goes -- even adultery -- as long as sex is consensual.

However, the justices noted that their ruling "does not affect the commonwealth's police powers regarding regulation of public fornication, prostitution, or other such crimes."

[speed_addiction]

I am glad this is not the law in Texas. At least a couple of dozen ladies could have the goods on me since I got out of prison three years ago. ;)

[weegee]

You can have sex with a minor if (A) both participants are minors, (B) the adult and minor are within 3 years of age, or (C) the age of consent is below 18.

However if you photograph or videotape "the act" then you have committed a crime.

Somehow taking a picture of it is worse than actually doing it. Except as you note when it comes to paying a person for sex...

----

Society knows right from wrong but tries to make excuses for bad behavior.

[the invisib1e hand]

Thank you for keeping the government out of my bedroom. Uncle Sam shouldn't be a peeping Tom, imho.

oh, that sounds so sophisticated, so urbane, so enlightened.

when was the last time "uncle sam" peeped into your bedroom? (Hide the sharp objects, sir).

[SoDak]

What's next? Dancing?

[weegee]

I stand opposed to judicial tyranny. Let the legislature overturn the law, not the courts. It is only being done away with now to set the stage for further legislating from the bench.

[NJ_gent]

"It's more likely that most prosecutions involve these activities being performed in public places."

Then you prosecute the offenders for breaking the real laws they've broken - lewd acts in a public place, indecent exposure, etc. Also, are you saying that it should be perfectly legal for a married heterosexual couple to have sex in public places? I know you're not - it just goes to show the true intended purpose of these types of laws: regulation of personal intimate relationships. If that isn't about the last thing government should be doing, I really don't know what is.

[spodefly]

This is a law that I have broken thousands of times, although not in Virginia. I believe Georgia has (or had) a similar law.

[weegee]

The law against fornication had been on the books since the early 1800s but was last enforced against consenting adults in 1847

Statutory rape laws no longer are applied to minors under the age of consent. A fornication law could have still been used to prosecute the offenders.

"consenting adults" is bunk, same sex sodomy is just as legal for minors as for adults (some states used to set the bar at 18 for homosexual acts, but the Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision did away with that).

[grey_whiskers]

I was just waiting for someone to post...
waiting for it...

"The Virginia Monologues!"

[k2blader]

You are right.

But supporters of promiscuity will not see it that way.

[NJ_gent]

"It rarely gets charged, unless it's the only thing that the prosecutor can make stick."

If the only way a prosecutor can get someone is to make use of a BS, completely unconstitutional law, then he doesn't deserve to get the guy in the first place. Using false charges to cover up for the failure to make real ones stick is precisely the sort of BS done in China, North Korea, and every other country that stinks. We're better than that, and we should act like it. :-)

[Professional Engineer]

Ya'll are a bunch heathens aren't ya'?

[NJ_gent]

Which brings up the new and interesting use of child pornography laws: prosecuting children who take nude pictures of themselves. It's happened a number of times recently. Be it right or wrong to prosecute them, it's still completely bizarre. :-)

[Trinity_Tx]

"I'm sure there are those who would say this ruling sucks."

No doubt. Unfortunately, those sorts of people abound...

Maybe it's a form of jealousy, maybe just issues of control, but for some reason, they feel they have the right, if not the obligation, to take away the free will of others to simply "sin".

Even Jesus didn't do that.

[Corin Stormhands]

Yes, but we do it with style.

[ßuddaßudd]

That law (among others) was the reason left the Old Dominion. Now I can return without fear of persecution. I'm comin' back baby!

[NJ_gent]

"Let the legislature overturn the law, not the courts. It is only being done away with now to set the stage for further legislating from the bench."

I do agree to an extent, and I absolutely agree that no court should write new law. That said, I also must agree with the judicial review concept, as it does seem to naturally flow with the checks and balances set up for our government's branches. So long as the ruling is restricted to striking down the law, as opposed to creating new law, I can probably go along with it. Should the legislature feel that strongly opposed to this ruling, it does indeed have the ultimate authority to pass an amendment to the state constitution which would overrule the court's decision.

[Question_Assumptions]

My point is simply that these laws are not really used as an excuse to peek into private bedrooms. They tend to get used when people step way out of bounds. I agree that it makes a lot more sense to focus on lewd behavior in public, regardless of the sexes involved, and that's what I'd personally prefer. But the reson why people aren't more agitated by these laws is exactly beause the police don't abuse them.

[NJ_gent]

"oh, that sounds so sophisticated, so urbane, so enlightened."

Thinly-veiled personal attacks notwithstanding, you've yet to present an argument or express a thought. Would you care to add something to the discussion?