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 ...
Are these doltish candidates being PAID to throw elections they should easily win?
Isn’t Terry McAuliffe a known liar?
Isn’t Terry McAuliffe a known liar?
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.
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.
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???
The law is only applied to sodomy committed against minors, against non-consenting adults, or in public.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?
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???
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."
placemark.
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.
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.
No.
Do you agree with laws regulating what married couples can and cannot do in their own bedroom behind closed doors?
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.