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."
My grandparents would have had no problems letting a sheriff search their house, since they knew they did not have anything against the law - almost nothing was against the law back then, all drugs and all guns were totally legal, no illegally copied music nor videotapes, etc.
Today, you have to be crazy to think that your home does not contain something illegal.
That would be the point then wouldn't it? I suppose someone could advocate arresting every female driver in TN that opposes them politically. You seemed to be advocating prosecuting people based on whatever law is on the books, and even advocating no knock raids to discover law breakers. If you were just being sarcastic, then I can see your point.
We dont catch every speeder either, but we still keep the speed limits if our state wants them. That is no justification to give you a ticket, and let a judge get off with no ticket.
Yeah, I am.
Prosecute them(esp judges) or get the law off the books.
How could our founding fathers missed this?
How many people know what is legal and illegal anymore?
How many people know what is legal and illegal in the different states that we travel thru?
Why should you anyone degrading things about criminals and ex-cons, and deny them constitutional rights, when you yourself are a common criminal who just did not get caught?
Back to the subject, judges are not inadvertent lawbreakers. A judge is supposed to know the law, set an example for the community, be above reproach, and this judge in particular knows full well what the sodomy law is.
This example is meaningless. If someone wants to carry a concealed weapon in the bedroom of their home, regardless of the law, I am not sure that this is illegal. Even if it is concealed rectally.
No, I disagree.
We already spend most of our police and prison resources on stupid non violent laws. The problem is that we let judges, cops, and rich white people go free, we let them ingore laws, so these laws are never changed.
Most people in prison, are there because they are convicted of non violent or victimless crimes. We let violent criminals go free early to make room for non violent criminals.
Our society would be a lot safer, and money well worth being spent, if we got rid of these crazy laws, and put murderers in prison longer than 96 months, rapists longer than 73 months, robbers more than 48 months, etc.
Common sense tells me that the only way to get violent criminals off the streets, is to prosecute cops and judges for these crazy laws. Our police spend an enormous amout of time arresting 750,000 marijuanna smokers, while letting rapists drive by.
Putting this judge in prison, and enforcing other stupid laws, may allow us to get rid of stupid laws, and leave violent criminals in prison without parole.
You can use whatever example you want, the point is if you dont like your states laws, then move to another state. If you dont like state income taxes, then move to Florida or Nevada. Not paying state income taxes in California, Michigan, or Ohio is not the way to go. If you break a state law, you should be punished, with no excuses for judges.
The hell it does.
Ah yes, more evidence of how Republicans want less government...
Over 50 or virgin?
Ah. Sensible legislation :) (ducking)
Most of the Founders expected Americans to spill some blood every 20 years or so to regain their freedoms.
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.