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."

[KMC1]

What is Virginia coming to?

[NJ_gent]

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

[TRY ONE]

"What is Virginia coming to?"

Next thing you know they'll be smoking and spitting tobacco on the sidewalk!

[Texas Federalist]

Those darn Virginians with their make-out parties.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Virginia is for Lovers!

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Well, everyone has to admit that it was a law more honored in the breach....

[adam_az]

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."

Giving it away for free is legal, but charging for it isn't. Sheesh.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

ping

[Trinity_Tx]

Their senses? lol

[Joe 6-pack]

"What is Virginia coming to?"

Reminds me of the one about the Amish disapproving of sex outside of marriage because it may lead to dancing....

[July 4th]

Too bad, really. Sex is always more fun when you're breakin' the law...

[July 4th]

Oh man, can my last post be taken a number of really BAD ways... (smacking forehead...)

[tenthirteen]

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

[balch3]

So much for conservative Virginia.

[NJ_gent]

"Giving it away for free is legal, but charging for it isn't. Sheesh."

That's not true - so long as you tape record the acts and then sell the videos, it's perfectly legal to pay a woman for sex. That makes you a 'film maker'.

To recap, you can give your body away to whomever you please, but you cannot sell it; unless it's being filmed with the intention to make money from the copies of the original film. That clears it right up and makes perfect sense; right?

[Question_Assumptions]

I doubt that you'll find may prosecutions that involved anyone looking into anyone else's bedroom when they keep the door closed and the curtains pulled. It's more likely that most prosecutions involve these activities being performed in public places.

[July 4th]

A lot of places try to leave laws like this on the books so they can get people on something if all of the other charges dry up. Like if the cops busted in on a drug dealer having sex with another woman (not his wife), but if the drugs were somehow excluded at trial. Then you'd actually prosecute the charge.

In Wisconsin, we do that all the time with the bail jumping charge. It rarely gets charged, unless it's the only thing that the prosecutor can make stick.

[NJ_gent]

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

Yes, that'd be the 'conservatives of convenience' who are only conservative insofar as it allows them to push their agenda. They're all for limited government when that government threatens to prevent them from pushing that agenda. The moment Big Government can do something for them, like step in and regulate the sex life of strangers, they implode to expose their true (liberal) nature.

Government is not the solution to our problems...

[StoneColdGOP]

Ha ha... yes it can!