What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Virginia Gov. Candidate Defending Law That Forbids Oral Sex (1 Viewer)

Christo

Footballguy
Last month, three judges on the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit deemed a Virginia anti-sodomy law unconstitutional. The provision, part of the state's "Crimes Against Nature" law, has been moot since the 2003 US Supreme Court decision overruled state laws barring consensual gay sex, but Virginia has kept the prohibition on the books.

Now Virginia attorney general and Republican gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli is asking the full 4th Circuit to reconsider the case. Cuccinelli wants the court to revive the prohibition on consensual anal and oral sex, for both gay and straight people. (The case at hand involves consensual, heterosexual oral sex.)

Here's more from the Washington Blade:

Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli has filed a petition with the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond asking the full 15-judge court to reconsider a decision by a three-judge panel last month that overturned the state’s sodomy law.

The three-judge panel ruled 2-1 on March 12 that a section of Virginia’s "Crimes Against Nature" statute that outlaws sodomy between consenting adults, gay or straight, is unconstitutional based on a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2003 known as Lawrence v. Texas.

A clerk with the 4th Circuit appeals court said a representative of the Virginia Attorney General's office filed the petition on Cuccinelli's behalf on March 26. The petition requests what is known as an en banc hearing before the full 15 judges to reconsider the earlier ruling by the three-judge panel.

Mother Jones confirmed that Cuccinelli had filed the request with the court as well. Given that the Supreme Court has already ruled that gay sex is okay and moved on to the question of gay marriage, I wouldn't expect his appeal to go very far.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/cuccinelli-wants-rehearing-virginias-anti-sodomy-law

:deadhorse:

 
I bet you Ken wakes up in the middle of the night with wet sheets because he's dreaming about his mouth full of privates.

 
You know when you cross your fingers and hope someone gets sanctioned for filing a groundless request for en banc review? Yeah. I'm so there right now.

 
It even criminalizes the activity between married people. But for Cuccinelli to claim it wasn't aimed at homosexuals given his recorded remarks is laughable.

 
Im guessing his old lady wont do certain things for him, so he doesnt want anyone to have any fun.

 
This guy needs to lighten up. Whenever I'm feeling a little blue, a little consensual oral and anal sex brightens my mood immediately, never fails. :thumbup:

 
As a Virginia resident, Cuccinelli legitimately scares me if he is elected. (Yes, I traditionally vote Democrat, but McDonnell at least is reasonable, and I would not have minded Bolling.) He also has a pretty good chance of getting elected. His opponent in the election will be Terry McAullife (former DNC chair), who kind of fell flat in the primaries last election, and might be a bit too inside-Beltway-type for Virginia.

 
I'm a Virginian and typically vote Republican, but there's no way my vote goes anywhere near Kookinelli.

 
My question is who the hell is the judge that voted to uphold te law in the 2-1 ruling? Is there some legal aspect that I'm missing here whereby something so ridiculous could, by the letter of the law, be understandable?

 
I like the law; if I ever go to prison, I will not have to worry about other men wanting to have their way with me, since it will be illegal.

 
My question is who the hell is the judge that voted to uphold te law in the 2-1 ruling? Is there some legal aspect that I'm missing here whereby something so ridiculous could, by the letter of the law, be understandable?
That was my first question, too. Who is the idiot judge that voted to uphold the clearly unconstitutional law?

 
He just wanted to increase his chances of winning marchbadness.org

And nice (ab)use of state funds by the small government guy. :rolleyes:

 
My question is who the hell is the judge that voted to uphold te law in the 2-1 ruling? Is there some legal aspect that I'm missing here whereby something so ridiculous could, by the letter of the law, be understandable?
His dissent was more procedural than substantive - a Federal Court is only supposed to exercise supervisory writs over a State court criminal proceeding in exceptional circumstances. He claims that the majority may be correct in its interpretation that the law violates Due Process, but that it isn't so overwhelmingly obvious as to create jurisdiction for the Federal Court.

 
My question is who the hell is the judge that voted to uphold te law in the 2-1 ruling? Is there some legal aspect that I'm missing here whereby something so ridiculous could, by the letter of the law, be understandable?
That was my first question, too. Who is the idiot judge that voted to uphold the clearly unconstitutional law?
As always, the devil is in the details. The State's argument was that Lawrence only declared that laws that criminalized sodomy between adults were unconstitutional. The Virginia court had found that an adult who had solicited a minor for sodomy could be charged under the criminal solicitation statute so long as the "Crimes Against Nature" statute was held to apply only to minors. There are reasons why that's a bad argument which aren't terribly important. But for whatever reason the State circuit court and the state court of appeals bought that argument. The defendant then filed for habeas corpus relief in federal court.

What the dissent stresses is that there is a very high bar for habeas relief. And because Lawrence's language does seem to limit it to consensual sodomy between adults, the State's construction was not clearly contrary to Lawrence.

 
What's the statute of limitations on this? If I wanted to have my ex-wife charged, what type of evidence will I need to present?

 
I love the republicans...especially the southern ones. All for freedom..just freedom to do exactly what they say you should do.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My question is who the hell is the judge that voted to uphold te law in the 2-1 ruling? Is there some legal aspect that I'm missing here whereby something so ridiculous could, by the letter of the law, be understandable?
His dissent was more procedural than substantive - a Federal Court is only supposed to exercise supervisory writs over a State court criminal proceeding in exceptional circumstances. He claims that the majority may be correct in its interpretation that the law violates Due Process, but that it isn't so overwhelmingly obvious as to create jurisdiction for the Federal Court.
Thanks. I had hoped/assumed it was something like this.
 
My question is who the hell is the judge that voted to uphold te law in the 2-1 ruling? Is there some legal aspect that I'm missing here whereby something so ridiculous could, by the letter of the law, be understandable?
His dissent was more procedural than substantive - a Federal Court is only supposed to exercise supervisory writs over a State court criminal proceeding in exceptional circumstances. He claims that the majority may be correct in its interpretation that the law violates Due Process, but that it isn't so overwhelmingly obvious as to create jurisdiction for the Federal Court.
Thanks. I had hoped/assumed it was something like this.
Opinion (including dissent):

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=virginia+sodomy&hl=en&as_sdt=8000003&as_ylo=2013&case=14245379483619383381&scilh=0

 
And this will be enforced how?
His Thought Police are always monitoring your telescreen. The proles can't turn it off. Children will be instructed to report offenders if they have the least bit of suspicion. And always remember, this is the party that favors less government intrusion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Cooch ain't my favorite guy, but we should be fair to his position. Nobody is arguing that the statute is constitutional as applied to sodomy between two consenting adults. What the Commonwealth is arguing is that the statute is not unconstitutional on its face, because it can applied in some instances, such as the instant case (where a 46 year old man propositioned a 17 year old girl for a favor).

I think he's clearly wrong, but it really has nothing to do with targetting homosexuals or extending into what married couples can do. Henry posted the decision. It's not long. I recommend people read it.

 
The Cooch ain't my favorite guy, but we should be fair to his position. Nobody is arguing that the statute is constitutional as applied to sodomy between two consenting adults. What the Commonwealth is arguing is that the statute is not unconstitutional on its face, because it can applied in some instances, such as the instant case (where a 46 year old man propositioned a 17 year old girl for a favor).

I think he's clearly wrong, but it really has nothing to do with targetting homosexuals or extending into what married couples can do. Henry posted the decision. It's not long. I recommend people read it.
You refer to Albert Diaz as "The Cooch"?

 
The Cooch ain't my favorite guy, but we should be fair to his position. Nobody is arguing that the statute is constitutional as applied to sodomy between two consenting adults. What the Commonwealth is arguing is that the statute is not unconstitutional on its face, because it can applied in some instances, such as the instant case (where a 46 year old man propositioned a 17 year old girl for a favor).

I think he's clearly wrong, but it really has nothing to do with targetting homosexuals or extending into what married couples can do. Henry posted the decision. It's not long. I recommend people read it.
You refer to Albert Diaz as "The Cooch"?
I was talking about Cucinelli. I refer to Diaz as "El Jefe."

 
The Cooch ain't my favorite guy, but we should be fair to his position. Nobody is arguing that the statute is constitutional as applied to sodomy between two consenting adults. What the Commonwealth is arguing is that the statute is not unconstitutional on its face, because it can applied in some instances, such as the instant case (where a 46 year old man propositioned a 17 year old girl for a favor).

I think he's clearly wrong, but it really has nothing to do with targetting homosexuals or extending into what married couples can do. Henry posted the decision. It's not long. I recommend people read it.
You refer to Albert Diaz as "The Cooch"?
I was talking about Cucinelli. I refer to Diaz as "El Jefe."
I was really hoping there was an old frat house story which explained Diaz being called "The Cooch."

 
The Cooch ain't my favorite guy, but we should be fair to his position. Nobody is arguing that the statute is constitutional as applied to sodomy between two consenting adults. What the Commonwealth is arguing is that the statute is not unconstitutional on its face, because it can applied in some instances, such as the instant case (where a 46 year old man propositioned a 17 year old girl for a favor).

I think he's clearly wrong, but it really has nothing to do with targetting homosexuals or extending into what married couples can do. Henry posted the decision. It's not long. I recommend people read it.
Yeah not at all about homosexual sex:

In 2009, he told a newspaper that he supported restrictions on the sexual behavior of consenting adults: “My view is that homosexual acts, not homosexuality, but homosexual acts are wrong. They’re intrinsically wrong. And I think in a natural law based country it’s appropriate to have policies that reflect that. … They don’t comport with natural law.” As a result, the law’s text remains unchanged a decade after the Supreme Court’s ruling.
I can't see how anyone could read that and think this was about targeting homosexuals.

 
The Cooch ain't my favorite guy, but we should be fair to his position. Nobody is arguing that the statute is constitutional as applied to sodomy between two consenting adults. What the Commonwealth is arguing is that the statute is not unconstitutional on its face, because it can applied in some instances, such as the instant case (where a 46 year old man propositioned a 17 year old girl for a favor).

I think he's clearly wrong, but it really has nothing to do with targetting homosexuals or extending into what married couples can do. Henry posted the decision. It's not long. I recommend people read it.
Yeah not at all about homosexual sex:

>In 2009, he told a newspaper that he supported restrictions on the sexual behavior of consenting adults: “My view is that homosexual acts, not homosexuality, but homosexual acts are wrong. They’re intrinsically wrong. And I think in a natural law based country it’s appropriate to have policies that reflect that. … They don’t comport with natural law.” As a result, the law’s text remains unchanged a decade after the Supreme Court’s ruling.
I can't see how anyone could read that and think this was about targeting homosexuals.
I thought this was thread about MacDonald v. Moose, not about comments that Cuccinelli made in 2009.

 
The Cooch ain't my favorite guy, but we should be fair to his position. Nobody is arguing that the statute is constitutional as applied to sodomy between two consenting adults. What the Commonwealth is arguing is that the statute is not unconstitutional on its face, because it can applied in some instances, such as the instant case (where a 46 year old man propositioned a 17 year old girl for a favor).

I think he's clearly wrong, but it really has nothing to do with targetting homosexuals or extending into what married couples can do. Henry posted the decision. It's not long. I recommend people read it.
Yeah not at all about homosexual sex:

>In 2009, he told a newspaper that he supported restrictions on the sexual behavior of consenting adults: “My view is that homosexual acts, not homosexuality, but homosexual acts are wrong. They’re intrinsically wrong. And I think in a natural law based country it’s appropriate to have policies that reflect that. … They don’t comport with natural law.” As a result, the law’s text remains unchanged a decade after the Supreme Court’s r

uling.
I can't see how anyone could read that and think this was about targeting homosexuals.

I thought this was thread about MacDonald v. Moose, not about comments that Cuccinelli made in 2009.

Oh, now you've done it. Half the people who read this thread will now think he was trying to have sex with a moose.

 
The Cooch ain't my favorite guy, but we should be fair to his position. Nobody is arguing that the statute is constitutional as applied to sodomy between two consenting adults. What the Commonwealth is arguing is that the statute is not unconstitutional on its face, because it can applied in some instances, such as the instant case (where a 46 year old man propositioned a 17 year old girl for a favor).

I think he's clearly wrong, but it really has nothing to do with targetting homosexuals or extending into what married couples can do. Henry posted the decision. It's not long. I recommend people read it.
Yeah not at all about homosexual sex:

<blockquote>

>In 2009, he told a newspaper that he supported restrictions on the sexual behavior of consenting adults: “My view is that homosexual acts, not homosexuality, but homosexual acts are wrong. They’re intrinsically wrong. And I think in a natural law based country it’s appropriate to have policies that reflect that. … They don’t comport with natural law.” As a result, the law’s text remains unchanged a decade after the Supreme Court’s r

uling.
I can't see how anyone could read that and think this was about targeting homosexuals.
I thought this was thread about MacDonald v. Moose, not about comments that Cuccinelli made in 2009.

Oh, now you've done it. Half the people who read this thread will now think he was trying to have sex with a moose.
What's the statute of limitations on this? If I wanted to have my ex-wife charged, what type of evidence will I need to present?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Cooch ain't my favorite guy, but we should be fair to his position. Nobody is arguing that the statute is constitutional as applied to sodomy between two consenting adults. What the Commonwealth is arguing is that the statute is not unconstitutional on its face, because it can applied in some instances, such as the instant case (where a 46 year old man propositioned a 17 year old girl for a favor).

I think he's clearly wrong, but it really has nothing to do with targetting homosexuals or extending into what married couples can do. Henry posted the decision. It's not long. I recommend people read it.
Yeah not at all about homosexual sex:

<blockquote>

>In 2009, he told a newspaper that he supported restrictions on the sexual behavior of consenting adults: “My view is that homosexual acts, not homosexuality, but homosexual acts are wrong. They’re intrinsically wrong. And I think in a natural law based country it’s appropriate to have policies that reflect that. … They don’t comport with natural law.” As a result, the law’s text remains unchanged a decade after the Supreme Court’s r

uling.
I can't see how anyone could read that and think this was about targeting homosexuals.
I thought this was thread about MacDonald v. Moose, not about comments that Cuccinelli made in 2009.
Oh, now you've done it. Half the people who read this thread will now think he was trying to have sex with a moose.

What's the statute of limitations on this? If I wanted to have my ex-wife charged, what type of evidence will I need to present?
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=moosehead+beer&FORM=HDRSC2

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top