Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

VA gov GOP candidate Cuccinelli launches website pushes for reinstatement of state's anti-sodomy law
Daily News ^ | July 18, 2013 | Adam Edelman

Posted on 07/19/2013 11:40:32 AM PDT by Wellington VII

The conservative Republican candidate for Virginia governor has begun advertising his efforts to reinstate an archaic and unconstitutional state law that make consensual.....

(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: cuccinelli; homosexualagenda; va2013
With the pervasiveness of the homosexual agenda , the legal options for Americans become more limited and more vital to our survival.
1 posted on 07/19/2013 11:40:32 AM PDT by Wellington VII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Wellington VII

What will THAT matter? SCOTUS has already given the green light for sodomites to rule.


2 posted on 07/19/2013 11:43:21 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wellington VII

Pushes the , Ben Dover Bill


3 posted on 07/19/2013 11:44:38 AM PDT by molson209
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wellington VII

IF this is true, he is freaking idiot.


4 posted on 07/19/2013 11:45:07 AM PDT by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wellington VII

This has to be satire.

If he limits heterosexuals to the missionary position I’m REALLY gonna be ticked.


5 posted on 07/19/2013 11:45:16 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

bttt


6 posted on 07/19/2013 11:48:17 AM PDT by ConservativeMan55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Wellington VII

This sounds like some BS planted by some of Terry’s supporters.


7 posted on 07/19/2013 11:49:31 AM PDT by Joe Boucher ((FUBO) ( Hey Rubio, eat pooh pal))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wellington VII

Where do they find these clowns?


8 posted on 07/19/2013 11:53:12 AM PDT by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wellington VII
This is just a smear campaign by his vile opponent. Info is here. There is nothing on Ken's website about sodomy laws and there never has been.
9 posted on 07/19/2013 11:54:40 AM PDT by jboot (It can happen here because it IS happening here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

>The website referred to in the article. . .

KEEP VIRGINIA KIDS SAFE

Attorney General Cuccinelli Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Uphold Anti-Child Predators Law

http://www.vachildpredators.com/


10 posted on 07/19/2013 11:58:35 AM PDT by deks ("...the battle...liberty against the overreach of the federal government" Ken Cuccinelli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Wellington VII

BTW you cannot get through to Cry Baby’s office, you get the answering machine which is FULL.


11 posted on 07/19/2013 12:01:18 PM PDT by GailA (THOSE WHO DON'T KEEP PROMISES TO THE MILITARY, WON'T KEEP THEM TO U!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jboot

What difference does it make? Once a lie is repeated over and over, people believe it and will parrot it. That’s how the left works.


12 posted on 07/19/2013 12:02:28 PM PDT by Catsrus (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Wellington VII

Why is the AG doing a website for this?


13 posted on 07/19/2013 12:02:48 PM PDT by AppyPappy (Obama: What did I not know and when did I not know it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

>

The Facts

The Attorney General’s Office is appealing the March 2013 two-to-one decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in MacDonald v. Moose.

This has very real implications for public safety. If the Supreme Court doesn’t overturn the Fourth Circuit’s decision, 90 sexual predators in Virginia – most of them child sex predators – may be eligible to have their names removed from Virginia’s sex offender registry.

William Scott MacDonald was 47 when he was convicted of soliciting oral sex from a minor girl. This was a repeat offense.

The Fourth Circuit’s 2-1 decision effectively struck down the law that was used to prosecute him – Virginia’s anti-sodomy law. The dissenting judge is an appointee of President Obama, and he agreed that the law should not be struck down.

This case is about using current law to protect a minor girl from a 47 year-old repeat sexual predator. The law is only applied to sodomy committed against minors, against non-consenting adults, or in public.

In fact, contrary to misinformation peddled by Terry McAuliffe and his liberal allies against the defenders of this law, the law is not – and cannot be – used against consenting adults acting in private.

14 posted on 07/19/2013 12:06:17 PM PDT by deks ("...the battle...liberty against the overreach of the federal government" Ken Cuccinelli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Wellington VII

glad to see it.

that said it may be too late. hopeit isn’t

time to do it was 20 years ago.


15 posted on 07/19/2013 12:12:51 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wellington VII

It has nothing to do with antisodomy laws but everything to do with sexual predators.

http://www.vachildpredators.com/


16 posted on 07/19/2013 12:35:58 PM PDT by Maelstorm (If all are treated as suspects it will not be long before we all are treated as prisoners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Catsrus

That is why we have to be diligent in putting the truth to lies. Instead what do GOP upper crust do. They feed the lie like idiots.


17 posted on 07/19/2013 12:38:04 PM PDT by Maelstorm (If all are treated as suspects it will not be long before we all are treated as prisoners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm
It has nothing to do with antisodomy laws but everything to do with sexual predators.

If you read the website, yes it does. That certainly isn't the intent of the website. But in it he's condeming the court ruling a law unconstitutional which happens to be the law that a child molester was prosecuted under, but which also happens to make consensual oral sex between a heterosexual couple a felony. He might have been better off advocating new legislation.

18 posted on 07/19/2013 12:49:16 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

Spineless idiots.


19 posted on 07/19/2013 1:06:10 PM PDT by Catsrus (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: molson209

“Pushes the , Ben Dover Bill”

That and the Betty Benzaneetsit Bill


20 posted on 07/19/2013 1:07:40 PM PDT by jimmyo57
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Wellington VII

Are these doltish candidates being PAID to throw elections they should easily win?


21 posted on 07/19/2013 2:45:08 PM PDT by JoeTheGeorgian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: deks

Isn’t Terry McAuliffe a known liar?


22 posted on 07/19/2013 2:47:06 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

Isn’t Terry McAuliffe a known liar?


I would presume so. He’s a democrat. Someone here could probably elaborate on that : - )


23 posted on 07/19/2013 2:56:33 PM PDT by deks ("...the battle...liberty against the overreach of the federal government" Ken Cuccinelli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O

The courts were wrong regardless such laws were not and are not unconstitutional even though I don’t think consensual sex even if it is unhealthy and disgusting should be regulated in such manner. Its simple the repeal of the law would result in the release of sexual predators and the defense of the law keeps that from happening. No one in recent history has been prosecuted for oral sex and also Sodomy is not commonly referenced as oral sex though that is what the left likes to harp on. I know the history but they are just playing games and I’m not going to spend time justifying their idiocy. Either way I don’t think that Terry McAliffe wants to come out for butt rapists.


24 posted on 07/19/2013 5:47:35 PM PDT by Maelstorm (If all are treated as suspects it will not be long before we all are treated as prisoners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Wellington VII

This is a crock.

We have 90 sexual predators, people who sexually abused children, and some court misinterpreted the supreme court ruling legalizing sodomy to mean that all aspects of all laws regarding sodomy were unconstitutional.

As Attorney General, Ken has the responsibility to defend our laws, in this case the way two laws work together to make it illegal for adults to force themselves on children using sodomy or oral sex.

I doubt the democrats actually think adults should be free to sodomize children. So this is just their brazen lust for power that they’d allow 90 molesters to go free just to try to smear a candidate.


25 posted on 07/19/2013 6:02:55 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: deks
The law is only applied to sodomy committed against minors, against non-consenting adults, or in public.

So it's OK to have a law that prohibits a heterosexual married couple from engaging in a Lewinsky, because we can always trust the government not to "apply" it against them.

Gee, if you can't trust a governor and a DA, who can ya trust???

26 posted on 07/20/2013 6:11:57 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (I call it messin' with the kid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac; deks
The law is only applied to sodomy committed against minors, against non-consenting adults, or in public.

So it's OK to have a law that prohibits a heterosexual married couple from engaging in a Lewinsky, because we can always trust the government not to "apply" it against them.

Gee, if you can't trust a governor and a DA, who can ya trust???
Exactly. The Virginia "Crimes Against Nature" law went after married couples equally. It is intrusive big government. Cuccinelli is seriously trying to bring that back?

He should be pushing for a new law that will prosecute child molesters without also catching married couples in its web. Or, better yet, for the legislature to remove the un-Constitutional section of the existing law to save the rest. Why isn't he doing that?

This has the stink of political grandstanding.
27 posted on 07/20/2013 7:32:00 AM PDT by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: highball; Notary Sojac
"The law is only applied to sodomy committed against minors, against non-consenting adults, or in public."

The US Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas.

Attorney General Cuccinelli is not "trying to bring that back" and this is not about "catching married couples" or any other consenting adults, as your comments seem to imply.

Apparently this is his effort to maintain the force of certain convictions that occurred prior to the 2003 Supreme Court ruling. As Cuccinelli said,

"If the Supreme Court doesn’t overturn the Fourth Circuit’s decision, 90 sexual predators in Virginia – most of them child sex predators – may be eligible to have their names removed from Virginia’s sex offender registry."

28 posted on 07/20/2013 2:13:19 PM PDT by deks ("...the battle...liberty against the overreach of the federal government" Ken Cuccinelli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: highball
He should be pushing for a new law...
Perhaps this is so, but I don't think a new law could then be applied after the fact to the previous convictions he is referring to.
29 posted on 07/20/2013 2:18:19 PM PDT by deks ("...the battle...liberty against the overreach of the federal government" Ken Cuccinelli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: deks
I don't think a new law could then be applied after the fact to the previous convictions he is referring to.

I'm sure you're right, but that doesn't explain why he just doesn't ask the legislature to remove the intrusive, unconstitutional section of the law. Then the child molesters could still be prosecuted and old convictions could stand.

The fact that he won't do that, preferring to go through this farce for an abhorrent, immoral law that can be used against married couples in the privacy of their own bedroom, tells me that he's grandstanding.

If he insists on keeping the bill as-is he's going to lose the fight in the coverts, and the convictions might possibly be overturned all because he wants to keep the bad parts of the law.
30 posted on 07/20/2013 2:27:35 PM PDT by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: deks

placemark.


31 posted on 07/20/2013 2:45:35 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: highball

Sigh.

“Coverts” = “courts”.

He’ll lose in the courts, and all the while he’ll hand the Dems a handy issue to beat conservatives over the head with.


32 posted on 07/20/2013 2:49:30 PM PDT by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: highball

The fact that he won’t do that, preferring to go through this farce for an abhorrent, immoral law that can be used against married couples in the privacy of their own bedroom, tells me that he’s grandstanding.


So you agree with the SCOTUS decision that put the homo agenda on overdrive, then. Laws against sodomy were current in all the states when we became a country and for many years afterwards. These laws were used against homosexuals. They were good laws. Kept perverts way in the closet.


33 posted on 07/20/2013 2:49:59 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

No.

Do you agree with laws regulating what married couples can and cannot do in their own bedroom behind closed doors?


34 posted on 07/20/2013 8:30:12 PM PDT by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: highball

Sodomy isn’t as honored here as it is by New Yorkers. Except in NOVA but that’s mostly populated by New Yorkers...

Anyway, the SC will find some way to keep these people in jail despite Lawrence- if Cooch can get the case before them.

McCauliffe nay get enough donations from confused and/or sodomy-loving New Yorkers with this gag to buy the election though. Showing you can’t underestimate the stupidity of Dem donors.


35 posted on 07/20/2013 8:50:03 PM PDT by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: highball

Laws against anal sodomy are a very good idea. No one would break down doors. What laws against anal sodomy do is prevent perverts from being public about their filthy perversion and from indoctrination children.

And married couples can’t legally kill each other in their bedroom behind closed doors, btw.


36 posted on 07/20/2013 9:22:27 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
And married couples can’t legally kill each other in their bedroom behind closed doors, btw.

Equating marital oral sex with murder is an interesting position.

And saying that the state can tell a man and wife what they can't do in their own bedroom is not a conservative one.

This Virginia statute is bad law. As currently written, it's reprehensible. Cuccinelli should revise all sections that could possibly be used against married couples.
37 posted on 07/21/2013 5:34:35 AM PDT by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: highball; little jeremiah
Equating marital oral sex with murder is an interesting position.

And saying that the state can tell a man and wife what they can't do in their own bedroom is not a conservative one.

It is. Here's why.

First, "morals" laws have been in effect since the nation's founding, yet I can't recall a single case, in the history of the entire nation, where police broke down the door of a home to determine whether a couple was engaged in sodomy, or some other such thing. (Perhaps it has happened, but it would represent an extreme rarity)

Obviously, then, these laws weren't passed with the intention of police breaking into people's homes, to catch people engaged in perverse acts.

So why pass these laws at all?

The point is to establish the principle upon which other laws are based.

The legal acceptance of private, deviant acts, logically contradicts, and therefore, undermines other laws, intended to protect the public.

For example, we are now seeing the public effects of the legalization of the "private behavior" of homosexual "marriage." Because sodomy is now legally defined as marriage, homosexual "marriage" must be given equal accomodation in all public and government-run places, like schools.

Beginning next year, government school textbooks, beginning with kindergarten, will contain references to "Mr. and Mr. Jones."

This may not concern you, but it represents the last stages of a dying society.

38 posted on 07/21/2013 5:54:44 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas ( Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19, Revelation 3:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas; highball

I agree with Sr Thomas. Second, highball is being disingenuous as I specifically noted “anal sodomy. Additional laws against sodomy were standard until very recently, thanks to a liberal SCOTUS and the rabidly aggressive homosexual agenda.

As a side point, oral sodomy used to be considered (and rightly so) as perverted by most people, as a social standard, but thanks to increasingly hedonistic and immoral public figures, education, entertainment and Bill Clinton, now children think oral sodomy is fine and dandy.

Such laws kept vile perversion out of the public. After SCOTUS overturned TX’s sodomy law, homosexual “marriage”, adoption, fostering of children, homosexual indoctrination in schools and more increased like a tsunami because the onus of illegitimacy was removed from sexually perverted acts.

There is nothing unconstitutional about states having laws against sodomy.

In our increasingly viciously immoral society, “Anything not prohibited is mandatory” is becoming clear.

The other day my hub was talking with a fellow firefighter who told him than in a nearby town, a 16 year old girl’s parents did not want her to take the sex ed class in the local high school. Parents were told that if they kept up with their requests to take her out, the school would call CPS.

See? “Whatever Not Prohibited is Mandatory”.


39 posted on 07/21/2013 8:39:06 AM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
highball is being disingenuous as I specifically noted “anal sodomy.

Not at all.

The law that Cuccinelli is trying to revive specifically bans oral sex between anyone, even married couples. That is, after all, what we're talking about here. Cuccinelli could ask to have that section removed, but has failed to do so. Instead, he wants the whole law made enforceable again. I wonder why?

That's why it's bad law: it casts to wide a net and interferes with normal marital relations. Pretending otherwise is the real disingenuousness. Well, that and pretending that you can simultaneously favor such a law and smaller government.
40 posted on 07/21/2013 5:34:54 PM PDT by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: highball

That’s why it’s bad law: it casts to wide a net and interferes with normal marital relations. Pretending otherwise is the real disingenuousness. Well, that and pretending that you can simultaneously favor such a law and smaller government.


I’m in favor of Constitutional government, which leaves such matters to the states and not the fedgov. And the founders of the country thought such laws were definitely constitutional. I am for much smaller government, for instance the fedgov should do only those duties mandated in the Constituiton, that takes away about 80% of what they do.

Second, you are in favor of legalzing anal sodomy between homosexuals and you have ignored all the comments describing how that has accelerated tyranny and immorality.

If people keep their private lives private, no one knows or cares.

And oral sodomy is not normal marital relations. Thanks to porn, leftist promotion of immorality, and Clinton, oral sodomy is now considered fine, even for children, as I noted above.

You like such a world, I don’t, and the Founders of our country did not.


41 posted on 07/21/2013 7:31:50 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Wellington VII

It just part of the weekly lies against Ken.


42 posted on 07/21/2013 7:37:45 PM PDT by bmwcyle (People who do not study history are destine to believe really ignorant statements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
oral sodomy is not normal marital relations.

That, My FRiend, is not for the state to decide. And certainly not for the state to enforce.
43 posted on 07/22/2013 3:58:36 AM PDT by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Second, you are in favor of legalzing anal sodomy between homosexuals
No, no, no.

That is not my position, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that I haven't been clear enough.

I am not in favor, I just don't see how it can be avoided anymore.

We can absolutely write legislation to prohibit public sexual behavior. We can, and ought to, write laws prohibiting adoption of children (as an aside, I don't know why we gave up on this fight, which undermines our best argument about preserving traditional marriage). But writing laws to control private behavior is a more difficult task. You either have laws that you don't intend to enforce (which is the real gateway to tyranny) or you have to start pounding down doors, which is a start in its own right.

Those cops in Lawrence fell right into this trap, let themselves get suckered into a setup and ensured that what you and I think if such laws doesn't matter.

Then you have a law like Virginia's "Crimes Against Nature" act, which is so poorly written and so broad as to entrap husbands and wives. Ah, but we're told, nobody really intends to enforce those provisions. Which is terrible law, and again the gateway to tyranny, even if you believe that the government is your friend and can be trusted to always be on the side of the angels. We all recognize that burdensome and meddlesome regulation is bad for businesses, and we all detest the left's social engineering, yet too many of us are willing and eager to do both when we think it'll further our ends. Boggles the mind.

So no, I don't favor that. But what choice to we have, given the reality? How do you advocate we put that genie back in the bottle? I'm a policy kind of guy. I'm interested in how we make the best and most realistic policy argument, and that sometimes means facing an unpleasant reality.
If people keep their private lives private, no one knows or cares.
I agree completely. Unfortunately, we didn't write all our laws with this in mind, and gave their activists an opening to toss good law out with bad. Now we're no likely to go back to the "keep it private" era than SCOTUS is to return to its senses.

The problem I see is what do we do now, given that? I see Cuccinelli grandstanding rather than governing, and that makes me very nervous for the next election. McAuliffe is an unprincipled scumbag but a good politician.
44 posted on 07/22/2013 5:33:04 AM PDT by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson