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

[Joe Summer]

"Virginia Lawmaker Encourages Teenage Intercourse"

 

[Jewell]

"Virginia Lawmaker Encourages Teenage Intercourse"

pro-PIV movement

 

[fatness]

"Inspired by Cuccinelli"

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

OK, I dislike the Cooch with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns, but that article misrepresents his position on the Crimes Against Nature law.

The law, passed before Lawrence v. Texas, criminalized sodomy. Nobody, including Cuccinelli, disagreed that the law could no longer be used to prosecute consensual sodomy between adults. What the Commonwealth argued was that the statute could still be used to prosecute sodomy that wasn't between two consenting adults, particularly as between adults and children (or teenagers if you prefer).

Now, I still think Cuccinelli is wrong. Statutory rape is statutory rape and there shouldn't be an additional charge in addition to statutory rape just because it was oral or anal. Which is why I think the new attempt at an amended law is also wrong (and would be even if there were no discrepancy between the age of consent for ######l intercourse). But Cuccinelli's position was never "outlawing consensual oral sex between married couples."

 

[NCCommish]

OK, I dislike the Cooch with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns, but that article misrepresents his position on the Crimes Against Nature law.

The law, passed before Lawrence v. Texas, criminalized sodomy. Nobody, including Cuccinelli, disagreed that the law could no longer be used to prosecute consensual sodomy between adults. What the Commonwealth argued was that the statute could still be used to prosecute sodomy that wasn't between two consenting adults, particularly as between adults and children (or teenagers if you prefer).

Now, I still think Cuccinelli is wrong. Statutory rape is statutory rape and there shouldn't be an additional charge in addition to statutory rape just because it was oral or anal. Which is why I think the new attempt at an amended law is also wrong (and would be even if there were no discrepancy between the age of consent for ######l intercourse). But Cuccinelli's position was never "outlawing consensual oral sex between married couples."

He wanted to ban sodomy between consenting adults. It was a dog whistle. He used a case about a minor but the law he was pushing wasn't specified at minors.

here is the law:

§ 18.2-361. Crimes against nature; penalty.

A. If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the ###### or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony, except as provided in subsection B.

B. Any person who performs or causes to be performed cunnilingus, fellatio, anilingus or anal intercourse upon or by his daughter or granddaughter, son or grandson, brother or sister, or father or mother is guilty of a Class 5 felony. However, if a parent or grandparent commits any such act with his child or grandchild and such child or grandchild is at least 13 but less than 18 years of age at the time of the offense, such parent or grandparent is guilty of a Class 3 felony.

C. For the purposes of this section, parent includes step-parent, grandparent includes step-grandparent, child includes step-child and grandchild includes step-grandchild.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Self-described "Cuccinelli Conservative."

X 1000

 

[3C's]

yeah, I don't see how the original can be interpreted as anything other than making oral/anal a felony even among consenting adults

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

OK, I dislike the Cooch with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns, but that article misrepresents his position on the Crimes Against Nature law.

The law, passed before Lawrence v. Texas, criminalized sodomy. Nobody, including Cuccinelli, disagreed that the law could no longer be used to prosecute consensual sodomy between adults. What the Commonwealth argued was that the statute could still be used to prosecute sodomy that wasn't between two consenting adults, particularly as between adults and children (or teenagers if you prefer).

Now, I still think Cuccinelli is wrong. Statutory rape is statutory rape and there shouldn't be an additional charge in addition to statutory rape just because it was oral or anal. Which is why I think the new attempt at an amended law is also wrong (and would be even if there were no discrepancy between the age of consent for ######l intercourse). But Cuccinelli's position was never "outlawing consensual oral sex between married couples."

He wanted to ban sodomy between consenting adults. It was a dog whistle. He used a case about a minor but the law he was pushing wasn't specified at minors.

here is the law:

§ 18.2-361. Crimes against nature; penalty.

A. If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the ###### or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony, except as provided in subsection B.

B. Any person who performs or causes to be performed cunnilingus, fellatio, anilingus or anal intercourse upon or by his daughter or granddaughter, son or grandson, brother or sister, or father or mother is guilty of a Class 5 felony. However, if a parent or grandparent commits any such act with his child or grandchild and such child or grandchild is at least 13 but less than 18 years of age at the time of the offense, such parent or grandparent is guilty of a Class 3 felony.

C. For the purposes of this section, parent includes step-parent, grandparent includes step-grandparent, child includes step-child and grandchild includes step-grandchild.

You really need to stop commenting on legal issues. You don't know what you're talking about.

We all know what the law said. The case was centered around whether an unconstitutional law can be limited to a constitutional construction. It's a common dispute. For instance, one aspect of the Affordable Care Act (the Medicaid expansion) was found unconstitutional. Yet the ACA still stands.

I can assure you that the Commonwealth wasn't trying to ban sodomy between consenting adults, because their briefs told me so.

 

[3C's]

Self-described "Cuccinelli Conservative."

X 1000

He's getting blasted on his FB page. Shocked they haven't deleted the posts.

 

[NCCommish]

OK, I dislike the Cooch with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns, but that article misrepresents his position on the Crimes Against Nature law.

The law, passed before Lawrence v. Texas, criminalized sodomy. Nobody, including Cuccinelli, disagreed that the law could no longer be used to prosecute consensual sodomy between adults. What the Commonwealth argued was that the statute could still be used to prosecute sodomy that wasn't between two consenting adults, particularly as between adults and children (or teenagers if you prefer).

Now, I still think Cuccinelli is wrong. Statutory rape is statutory rape and there shouldn't be an additional charge in addition to statutory rape just because it was oral or anal. Which is why I think the new attempt at an amended law is also wrong (and would be even if there were no discrepancy between the age of consent for ######l intercourse). But Cuccinelli's position was never "outlawing consensual oral sex between married couples."

He wanted to ban sodomy between consenting adults. It was a dog whistle. He used a case about a minor but the law he was pushing wasn't specified at minors.

here is the law:

§ 18.2-361. Crimes against nature; penalty.

A. If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the ###### or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony, except as provided in subsection B.

B. Any person who performs or causes to be performed cunnilingus, fellatio, anilingus or anal intercourse upon or by his daughter or granddaughter, son or grandson, brother or sister, or father or mother is guilty of a Class 5 felony. However, if a parent or grandparent commits any such act with his child or grandchild and such child or grandchild is at least 13 but less than 18 years of age at the time of the offense, such parent or grandparent is guilty of a Class 3 felony.

C. For the purposes of this section, parent includes step-parent, grandparent includes step-grandparent, child includes step-child and grandchild includes step-grandchild.

You really need to stop commenting on legal issues. You don't know what you're talking about.

We all know what the law said. The case was centered around whether an unconstitutional law can be limited to a constitutional construction. It's a common dispute. For instance, one aspect of the Affordable Care Act (the Medicaid expansion) was found unconstitutional. Yet the ACA still stands.

I can assure you that the Commonwealth wasn't trying to ban sodomy between consenting adults, because their briefs told me so.

Yeah I mean it's just right there in the law he was backing how silly of me. He even posted that very law on his site to show what he was doing. I should have relied on his briefs which I am sure were written to explain his real intention.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

OK, I dislike the Cooch with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns, but that article misrepresents his position on the Crimes Against Nature law.

The law, passed before Lawrence v. Texas, criminalized sodomy. Nobody, including Cuccinelli, disagreed that the law could no longer be used to prosecute consensual sodomy between adults. What the Commonwealth argued was that the statute could still be used to prosecute sodomy that wasn't between two consenting adults, particularly as between adults and children (or teenagers if you prefer).

Now, I still think Cuccinelli is wrong. Statutory rape is statutory rape and there shouldn't be an additional charge in addition to statutory rape just because it was oral or anal. Which is why I think the new attempt at an amended law is also wrong (and would be even if there were no discrepancy between the age of consent for ######l intercourse). But Cuccinelli's position was never "outlawing consensual oral sex between married couples."

He wanted to ban sodomy between consenting adults. It was a dog whistle. He used a case about a minor but the law he was pushing wasn't specified at minors.

here is the law:

§ 18.2-361. Crimes against nature; penalty.

A. If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the ###### or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony, except as provided in subsection B.

B. Any person who performs or causes to be performed cunnilingus, fellatio, anilingus or anal intercourse upon or by his daughter or granddaughter, son or grandson, brother or sister, or father or mother is guilty of a Class 5 felony. However, if a parent or grandparent commits any such act with his child or grandchild and such child or grandchild is at least 13 but less than 18 years of age at the time of the offense, such parent or grandparent is guilty of a Class 3 felony.

C. For the purposes of this section, parent includes step-parent, grandparent includes step-grandparent, child includes step-child and grandchild includes step-grandchild.

You really need to stop commenting on legal issues. You don't know what you're talking about.

We all know what the law said. The case was centered around whether an unconstitutional law can be limited to a constitutional construction. It's a common dispute. For instance, one aspect of the Affordable Care Act (the Medicaid expansion) was found unconstitutional. Yet the ACA still stands.

I can assure you that the Commonwealth wasn't trying to ban sodomy between consenting adults, because their briefs told me so.

I bet they did..

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

OK, I dislike the Cooch with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns, but that article misrepresents his position on the Crimes Against Nature law.

The law, passed before Lawrence v. Texas, criminalized sodomy. Nobody, including Cuccinelli, disagreed that the law could no longer be used to prosecute consensual sodomy between adults. What the Commonwealth argued was that the statute could still be used to prosecute sodomy that wasn't between two consenting adults, particularly as between adults and children (or teenagers if you prefer).

Now, I still think Cuccinelli is wrong. Statutory rape is statutory rape and there shouldn't be an additional charge in addition to statutory rape just because it was oral or anal. Which is why I think the new attempt at an amended law is also wrong (and would be even if there were no discrepancy between the age of consent for ######l intercourse). But Cuccinelli's position was never "outlawing consensual oral sex between married couples."

He wanted to ban sodomy between consenting adults. It was a dog whistle. He used a case about a minor but the law he was pushing wasn't specified at minors.

here is the law:

§ 18.2-361. Crimes against nature; penalty.

A. If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the ###### or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony, except as provided in subsection B.

B. Any person who performs or causes to be performed cunnilingus, fellatio, anilingus or anal intercourse upon or by his daughter or granddaughter, son or grandson, brother or sister, or father or mother is guilty of a Class 5 felony. However, if a parent or grandparent commits any such act with his child or grandchild and such child or grandchild is at least 13 but less than 18 years of age at the time of the offense, such parent or grandparent is guilty of a Class 3 felony.

C. For the purposes of this section, parent includes step-parent, grandparent includes step-grandparent, child includes step-child and grandchild includes step-grandchild.

You really need to stop commenting on legal issues. You don't know what you're talking about.

We all know what the law said. The case was centered around whether an unconstitutional law can be limited to a constitutional construction. It's a common dispute. For instance, one aspect of the Affordable Care Act (the Medicaid expansion) was found unconstitutional. Yet the ACA still stands.

I can assure you that the Commonwealth wasn't trying to ban sodomy between consenting adults, because their briefs told me so.

Yeah I mean it;s just right there in the law he was backing how silly of me. I should have relied on his briefs which I am sure were written to explain his real intention.

A legal brief is an argument to the judicial branch. Since Marbury, we've acknowledged that it is the judicial branch's responsibility to "say what the law is." The court's construction is going to control. What other intention could he have had?

If the brief says that the law is admittedly unconstitutional as applied to consensual adult sodomy, the judicial opinion is going to say the same thing (not that it would need to because the Supreme Court ALREADY SAYS THAT).

 

[Foosball God]

I can assure you that the Commonwealth wasn't trying to ban sodomy between consenting adults, because their briefs told me so.

Did you have carnal knowledge of what was in his briefs?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

OK, I dislike the Cooch with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns, but that article misrepresents his position on the Crimes Against Nature law.

The law, passed before Lawrence v. Texas, criminalized sodomy. Nobody, including Cuccinelli, disagreed that the law could no longer be used to prosecute consensual sodomy between adults. What the Commonwealth argued was that the statute could still be used to prosecute sodomy that wasn't between two consenting adults, particularly as between adults and children (or teenagers if you prefer).

Now, I still think Cuccinelli is wrong. Statutory rape is statutory rape and there shouldn't be an additional charge in addition to statutory rape just because it was oral or anal. Which is why I think the new attempt at an amended law is also wrong (and would be even if there were no discrepancy between the age of consent for ######l intercourse). But Cuccinelli's position was never "outlawing consensual oral sex between married couples."

He wanted to ban sodomy between consenting adults. It was a dog whistle. He used a case about a minor but the law he was pushing wasn't specified at minors.

here is the law:

§ 18.2-361. Crimes against nature; penalty.

A. If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the ###### or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony, except as provided in subsection B.

B. Any person who performs or causes to be performed cunnilingus, fellatio, anilingus or anal intercourse upon or by his daughter or granddaughter, son or grandson, brother or sister, or father or mother is guilty of a Class 5 felony. However, if a parent or grandparent commits any such act with his child or grandchild and such child or grandchild is at least 13 but less than 18 years of age at the time of the offense, such parent or grandparent is guilty of a Class 3 felony.

C. For the purposes of this section, parent includes step-parent, grandparent includes step-grandparent, child includes step-child and grandchild includes step-grandchild.

You really need to stop commenting on legal issues. You don't know what you're talking about.

We all know what the law said. The case was centered around whether an unconstitutional law can be limited to a constitutional construction. It's a common dispute. For instance, one aspect of the Affordable Care Act (the Medicaid expansion) was found unconstitutional. Yet the ACA still stands.

I can assure you that the Commonwealth wasn't trying to ban sodomy between consenting adults, because their briefs told me so.

Yeah I mean it's just right there in the law he was backing how silly of me. He even posted that very law on his site to show what he was doing. I should have relied on his briefs which I am sure were written to explain his real intention.

The part of the law that forbids stuff between consenting adults is dead letter. That's not what Cuccinelli is backing.

I'm not sure how to comment further without sounding condescending, which probably sounds condescending in itself, so I'll just stop there.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I can assure you that the Commonwealth wasn't trying to ban sodomy between consenting adults, because their briefs told me so.

Did you have carnal knowledge of what was in his briefs?

 

[fatness]

We all know what the law said.

You really should stop there because that is what is important. Getting into legal reasoning about why it doesn't mean what it says misses the broader and more important point --- it was an ### hole law back by ### holes, and people knew it.

 

[SacramentoBob]

We all know what the law said.

You really should stop there because that is what is important. Getting into legal reasoning about why it doesn't mean what it says misses the broader and more important point --- it was an ### hole law back by ### holes, and people knew it.

I think it was an ### hole and mouth law.

 

[AAABatteries]

OK, I dislike the Cooch with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns

This would have been so much more fun to quote with the Liberace avatar.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Thanks t o scooby & Maurile for clearing that up. I was under the same impression that NCC was - that consenting-adults oral sex was being dragged into this law, whether it was meant to be or not. I can tell you this, the DC media certainly spun it that way.

Not that any of this makes me despise Cuccinelli's views any less.

 

[Otis]

The south is still so screwed up.

 

[3C's]

Keep them sinners in their place.

 

[bakes]

Over/under on Cooch and Garrett being outed within the year? Methinks they doth protest too much...