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

To: cripplecreek; SoConPubbie

Because he wanted to ban oral sex apparently. Why he wanted to do this is beyond me.


9 posted on 11/11/2013 6:31:20 PM PST by napscoordinator ( Santorum-Bachmann 2016 for the future of the country!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: napscoordinator

In other words like Santorum wanted to ban birth control.

Yeah I know its crap but I’m not going to turn around and play the same stupid game.


12 posted on 11/11/2013 6:34:38 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: napscoordinator
Because he wanted to ban oral sex apparently. Why he wanted to do this is beyond me.

He didn't and doesn't. But the libtards figured if they shouted about it enough, the low-information pukes would believe he did.

Only minimal Google-fu is required to find the true story. From Cuccinelli's Wikipedia bio:

Sodomy law

In March 2013, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals struck down Virginia's anti-sodomy law in a case involving William Scott MacDonald, a 47 year old man who solicited sex from a 17-year-old girl. On June 25, 2013, Cuccinelli filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to uphold the law, saying the appeals court ruling would release MacDonald from probation and "threatens to undo convictions of child predators that were obtained under this law after 2003." Cuccinelli said the law is important for prosecutors to be able to "obtain felony charges against adults who commit or solicit this sex act with minors," and noted that the law "is not - and cannot be -- used against consenting adults acting in private."

In October 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Cuccinelli's appeal.

You can see Cuccinnelli's own website on the topic: http://www.vachildpredators.com/

Basically, a Virginia prosecutor screwed up when he used an unconstitutional anti-sodomy law to prosecute a dirty old man. Cuccinelli tried to get the appeals court to read into the law an adult-minor exception to its unconstitutionality. But, alas, the court refused to disbelieve its lying eyes. Read the decision here.

36 posted on 11/11/2013 9:07:20 PM PST by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

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