Posted on 01/22/2003 5:38:45 AM PST by H8DEMS
(CNSNews.com) - A key Republican lawmaker in Virginia has threatened to block the re-appointment of a local judge because, in the lawmaker's judgment, the judge's personal behavior as a lesbian violates the state's sodomy law.
Homosexuality advocates are protesting the lawmaker's lifestyle inquiry, which they claim has nothing to do with Newsport News Circuit Judge Verbena Askew's qualifications.
Delegate Robert McDonnell (R-Virginia Beach) recently said Askew's homosexuality might prevent her from being sworn in for a second eight-year term. Virginia's "crimes against nature" law strictly prohibits anal and oral sex between consenting adults, regardless of gender.
Speaking as chairman of the Virginia House Committee on Courts of Justice, McDonnell reportedly said Askew's homosexual conduct "certainly raises some questions about the qualifications to serve as a judge."
Askew is the first female African-American circuit court judge in Virginia and one of 60 judges statewide whose terms expire this year.
According to Michael Adams, spokesman for the homosexual advocacy group, LAMBDA Legal Defense and Education Fund, Virginia's sodomy law "has nothing to do with whether Judge Askew is fit to serve as a judge."
Adams said Askew should be considered for re-appointment based on her tenure and history on the bench and not held to "extraneous things" such as Virginia's sodomy law, which he deemed a "pretext for discrimination" against homosexuals.
"It's a law that is used to persecute gays and lesbians, it's an inappropriate use of the state's power in a discriminatory fashion, and it's not just Lambda that thinks so," Adams said.
When LAMBDA filed a brief last week with the Texas Supreme Court to challenge a sodomy law in that state, Adams said, conservative organizations like the Cato Institute and Institute for Justice filed their own briefs on the same side of the argument.
LAMBDA's defense team is currently trying to overturn Texas' sodomy law, which could effectively strike down similar laws in 12 states, including Virginia's longstanding "crimes against nature" statute.
According to Adams, Virginia has invoked its sodomy law in recent years only to prevent homosexuals from adopting children and to discriminate against homosexuals involved in child custody battles. He could not recall any instance of the law being used against a heterosexual defendant.
But conservative legal expert Phil Kent, president of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, said the law is primarily enforced by police as a result of other illegal circumstances.
"Police aren't running around the country invading peoples' bedrooms just to see what's going on in there. These cases are occurring because warrants are being served, [and] they're going into the home with another warrant," Kent said. "You can't be doing anything else illegal in your home, whether it's drugs, homosexual sex or, conceivably, oral sex under that Virginia statute."
Kent said anyone under criminal investigation could be considered "fair game" under Virginia's sodomy law, including Askew.
When asked whether Askew had a criminal record that would merit such an official inquiry into her lifestyle, Adams said, "There is no indication that she has, as far as we know, been involved in any type of criminal prosecutions...under this law or any other law."
However, according to a recent report in the Hampton Roads Daily Press, a former Newport News Drug Court official did allege that she was propositioned by Askew. The city hired an attorney, who found the allegations to be invalid, but Askew's accuser reportedly persisted in her complaint, claiming she was still being harassed by Askew and that her supervisor and co-workers were failing to protect her. In 2001, the city of Hampton Roads paid the woman $64,000, including $10,000 to her lawyer.
Both Askew and her accuser reportedly signed a letter of understanding, which specified that neither woman could sue the other or make disparaging remarks about the other. Nothing in the woman's complaint against Askew suggests that the judge acted in violation of the state's sodomy law.
"I think that the members of the Virginia Legislature have every right to question her conduct," Kent said. "It certainly raises some questions about her qualifications to serve as a judge."
Kent said the state legislature has every legal right to rescind Askew's judgeship for the sole reason that she is a lesbian, and by definition, is in violation of Virginia's sodomy law.
Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute in Washington, D.C., added that people who are openly homosexual make their sexuality part of their identity.
"I don't think there's any homosexual without the 'sexual'. In other words, this idea of identity without actions is nonsense, it's non-existent," Knight said. "To forge an identity based on engaging in a wrongful activity such as homosexuality shows, at the least, lack of judgment."
In 1998, Kent said the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case of Robin Shahar, a woman who had her job offer rescinded because she was a lesbian. A Georgia appellate court had earlier ruled that the woman's civil rights were not being denied by the decision to rescind the job offer.
"The Bowers v. Hardwick case was the precedent-setting court decision that upheld Georgia's sodomy law," Kent said. "It was Mike Bowers who fired Robin Shahar, who he had previously given the job offer to in his attorney general's office. The reason was that her lesbian relationship violated the Georgia sodomy law."
Kent said the bottom line in cases like those involving Askew and Shahar is that traditional morality must be upheld by all citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation.
"Lesbians can't do whatever they want, and neither can the rest of us," Kent said. "That's why there are laws on the books...and, when they're on the books, they shouldn't be undermined."
Translation: He's not sure whether kissing lobbyists' asses counts.
If you don't like it, don't do it.
Anyone who is breaking the law, should not be a judge. Any judge that breaks the law, should resign or be thrown out, and be punished. No one who is ever convicted or sentenced by this judge, or any judge who flagrantly and openly violates the law, should feel that justice was served.
I have nothing against lesbians - if she wants to be a lesbian, then "after" her prison sentence is served, she should leave Virginia, and move to a state where lesbian behavior is not against the law.
For example, if someone wants to carry a concealed weapon, and lives in a state that does not allow it, they should move to a state that does permit it.
If a judge violates state law and habitually steals, then she should not be a judge.
For any judge to openly violate state law, no matter what the law, is intolerable and totally unacceptable.
Do we want people like Ted Bundy or the Manson family to be judges on murder trials?
Do we want people like bill clinton to judge our morals?
Just how would this judge "rule" if someone was being prosecuted for the very same crime that she commits on a regular basis? Can she even be impartial?
Here is a classic example of why your argument is worthless -- when the "law" itself is illegal (as in this case), it is, if anything, the responsibility of a good citizen to ignore and undermine it.
A "no-knock raid" on her home at 2 in the morning, or a half hour after the lights go out, might provide some hard evidence.
Since judges have ruled that no-knock raids are "ok", and since no-knock raids are used against other citizens, I see no reason why a no-knock raid by a swat team should not be used on judges homes, and on her home in particular.
There is as much "cause" to think that this judge is violating the sodomy law as there is for others who have been similarly raided for drugs, guns, etc.
You have a point if a law is unconstitutional(guns, drugs, income tax), but that does not change the fact that breaking these laws is still illegal and will result in real jail time for non-judges who break "illegal" laws. A judge should be treated no differently than anyone else.
The responsiblity of a good citizen is not to ignore it, undermine it, and be put in prison, but rather, to change the law.
The law outlaws oral sex; care to speculate what % of heterorsexual Virginia judges have ever received or given oral sex? I suspect it's about 98%.
Being a lesbian doesn't mean it's any more likely that she's violating the law than a heterosexual judge, given what we know of the prevalence of oral sex among heterosexuals. And it IS possible to have lesbian sex without having oral sex, believe it or not.
And how "openly" is this law being violated? She's having oral sex in public?
Of course, this being FR, I'm sure there's a little sheltered group of FReepers out there that actually consider oral sex to be this weird obscure sexual practice that only weirdo foreigners and faggots and dykes practice.....
Then they too should be raided, and put in prison!
I dont like laws which are kept on the books and selectively enforced only against a few, while letting judges and politicians and those who can afford the best attorneys to go free. I dont like enforcement of laws only against those that cannot adequately defend themselves.
If the people of Virginia some day in the future decide to allow this behavior, then they can repeal the law. Until they repeal the law, it is still the state law, a judge takes an oath to uphold it.
Go do a survey and find out how many couples actually follow that law. Most men would look at you like you were a freak. Some might even take a swing at you for insinuating that they and their wives are criminals for having some oral fun.
Then Just ask her!
Have the police bring her in for questioning. I would think that any honorable and honest judge would not avoid a lie detector, nor even ask that an attorney be present for such a simple question. If she admits it, then no time is wasted, and the issue is simply and quickly resolved.
ROFLMAO!
If they live in Virginia, they ARE criminals.
A "criminal" is a person who commits crime, who violates the criminal law, whether they are caught, prosecuted, or convicted. If you did it, you are a criminal.
Dont get me wrong. I dont believe or agree with laws like this, but I dont believe in selective enforcement of many laws like this even more so.
"There is a law on the books of TENNESSEE that says a man must run in front of a vehicle that a woman is driving, and, that the car may not go faster than five miles an hour!"
Looks like the prosecutors in Tennessee have a lot of work to do.
Are you saying that no one has ever been prosecuted? I find that hard to believe.
Anyways, so ask all the judges, even better if we can also get them for perjury too. While you are at it, periodically random drug test all the judges in Virginia.
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.