SpanishInquisition wrote:Here we go again. Please show me where in this excludes consenting adults in the privacy of their own home, 'cuz it simply AIN'T in there. If there is lipstick on your dipstick... even that of your loving wife, you run the risk of becoming a convicted felon.
The law is poorly written, and the AG should have gotten the legislative branch to refine the law rather than defend the existing version. He didn't because doing so would chafe against his Catholic views. Time now to cue Monty Python to sing "Every Sperm is Sacred".
SI,
It is 100% illegal to apply the Crimes against nature law in VA to consenting adults. U.S. Supreme Court Decision Lawrence vs. Texas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law ... ted_States
"However, in 2003 the Supreme Court reversed the decision with Lawrence v. Texas,
invalidating sodomy laws in the remaining 14 states (Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah,
and Virginia)."
It has been illegal for 10 years to apply the crimes against nature law to consenting adults. Ask yourself, why is this an "issue" now when it wasn't in the last two Governor's races we had (2005 and 2009)? This also is not a law that was written recently. It dates back to before the founding Fathers. I believe Thomas Jefferson in 1787 even tried to amend the VA Crimes against nature law so that the penalty for sodomy was castration instead of death for males. Jefferson failed actually in that attempt. As far as I know, the law hasn't been changed in almost 100 years.
Getting back to the point, no one, especially Ken, is advocating that this law be applied to consenting adults and Ken even states "the law is not – and cannot be – used against consenting adults acting in private" again because of the Supreme Court decision in 2003.
So, why is sodomy even being talked about?
A 47 year old Virginia man was convicted of soliciting oral sex from a 17 year old minor girl. He was prosecuted under the Crimes against Nature law. Part of that Supreme Court decision in 2003 was that Sodomy law still did apply to Sexual predators. However, the 47 yr old man appealed his conviction to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals 2-1 decision effectively struck down that VA's Anti-Sodomy Law could be used to prosecute a sexual predator. Because this was the statue he was prosecuted under, he would now go free if the 4th Circuit's ruling stood. Ken's office chose to appeal the 4th Circuit's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. Furthermore, there are potentially 90 other sexual predators that would be taken off VA's sex offender registry if 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling stands.
This is the context that the "sodomy" issue has to be discussed in order to be in line with reality. The simple question is, "Should convicted sex offenders that have been prosecuted under VA's Crimes Against Nature Law just be let free?" If your answer is "NO" to that, then you should agree with the action the the AG's Office has taken. If you say "YES" to that question, then you should disagree with with the action the the AG's Office has taken.
There is no Pro-BJ or Anti-BJ position.
Another point I will make. Ken is very smart politically. He knew that if his office challenged the 4th Circuit ruling that the MSM and his opponents were going to twist it, take him out of context, and use it to say all types of lies about him. He still decided to go ahead and challenge the 4th Circuit's Ruling, because he believed it was the right thing to do. I want a Governor that will make decisions even if it isn't the politically expedient thing to do.
Last point, a few have commented on a legislative remedy for the current Crimes against nature law. That is a very valid discussion to have. However, the practical matter is that if the 4th Circuit's ruling was allowed to stand unchallenged (and if U.S. Supreme Court agrees with the 4th Circuit) then sexual predators convicted under the law would go completely free. It is not possible to make a law now and apply it retroactively to these cases. I would absolutely encourage you to talk to your legislator about changing this law if it's something you really care about. But, changing the law next July has no bearing on a Court case that is in the court system NOW.
My appeal is that people actually look at the facts of this issue, what Ken's office actually is doing, and not just listen to the MSM and liberal talking points.
And, it lasts a life-time! 