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

[NCCommish]

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.

And I was responding to this obvious inaccuracy:

but it really has nothing to do with targetting homosexuals

 

[Todd Andrews]

KooK powers activated!!

Form of a latent momo repressed Republican!!

 

[CBusAlex]

http://www.bing.com/

Most shocking thing in this thread to date.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

http://www.bing.com/

Most shocking thing in this thread to date.

 

[Ignoramus]

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. Theyre intrinsically wrong. And I think in a natural law based country its appropriate to have policies that reflect that. They dont comport with natural law. As a result, the laws text remains unchanged a decade after the Supreme Courts 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.

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.

First you let the gays have sex, then people will want to have sex with a moose, and next they'll want to have sex with the children. Won't someone think of the children?!?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

the instant case (where a 46 year old man propositioned a 17 year old girl for a favor).

Wait, what?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

the instant case (where a 46 year old man propositioned a 17 year old girl for a favor).

Wait, what?

The case that was challenged in federal court was a conviction for a 46 year-old man who asked a 17 year old girl for a blue dot. He was charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor (which is a misdemeanor), and with criminal solicitation (which prohibits trying to solicit someone from performing a felony). The Commonwealth argued that the felony Crimes Against Nature statute was a qualifying felony under these circumstances, even if the statute would be unconstitutional as applied to (homosexual or heterosexual) sodomy between consenting adults.

 

[Henry Ford]

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?

Interestingly, assuming she's in Ohio as your description says that you are, it's not illegal to have sex with a moose. Unless they can get you on animal cruelty laws. So you'll have to present evidence that she didn't make sweet, sweet love to the moose.

 

[Henry Ford]

I think it would be tremendous to watch a trial in which a man was trying to prove that it was animal cruelty to subject a moose to having sex with his ex-wife.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

"DID YOU ORDER THE BLUE DOT!"

 

[heckmanm]

"DID YOU ORDER THE BLUE DOT!"

Kinda throws the new board format into a whole new light, dunnit?

And WTH does a blue dot with a white star mean in this context? (could interpret the star as a "splatter" I suppose)

 

[MikeIke]

Interestingly, assuming she's in Ohio as your description says that you are, it's not illegal to have sex with a moose. Unless they can get you on animal cruelty laws. So you'll have to present evidence that she didn't make sweet, sweet love to the moose.

 

[Henry Ford]

Interestingly, assuming she's in Ohio as your description says that you are, it's not illegal to have sex with a moose. Unless they can get you on animal cruelty laws. So you'll have to present evidence that she didn't make sweet, sweet love to the moose.

I should clarify - it wasn't illegal two years ago. Please consult your local Ohio moose-####ing attorney to confirm.

 

[Mjolnirs]

And here I thought Virginia was for lovers

Missionary position only.

 

[timschochet]

Shouldn't ALL sex be illegal in VIRGINia?

 

[AAABatteries]

Damn...I apparently broke the law about 3 times last night.

3 dudes at once? Man, you are a stud. What's that called? Tripod? Triblow? Threegag?

 

[T Bell]

Using gun control as the model, don't ban the hummers, ban gagging.

 

[Rayderr]

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?

Interestingly, assuming she's in Ohio as your description says that you are, it's not illegal to have sex with a moose. Unless they can get you on animal cruelty laws. So you'll have to present evidence that she didn't make sweet, sweet love to the moose.

She's still in VA as far as I know.

 

[Godsbrother]

This guy has lost his head.

 

[jon_mx]

Today's GOP has gone bat#### crazy. It is not even funny anymore.

Because this represents the views of one person....

 

[gandalas]

Damn...I apparently broke the law about 3 times last night.

3 dudes at once? Man, you are a stud. What's that called? Tripod? Triblow? Threegag?

Nope, twice on my girlfriend and then one back at me.

Another couple last night too!

 

[NCCommish]

Today's GOP has gone bat#### crazy. It is not even funny anymore.

Because this represents the views of one person....

Right because these anti-homosexual views are not part of the day to day GOP. The idea that feds interfere too much everywhere but the bedroom isn't a day to day GOP thing. Give it a rest. This is their ####### platform.

 

[Rayderr]

Damn...I apparently broke the law about 3 times last night.

3 dudes at once? Man, you are a stud. What's that called? Tripod? Triblow? Threegag?

Nope, twice on my girlfriend and then one back at me.

Another couple last night too!

So what are you doing down in VA?

 

[pittstownkiller]

Damn...I apparently broke the law about 3 times last night.

3 dudes at once? Man, you are a stud. What's that called? Tripod? Triblow? Threegag?

Nope, twice on my girlfriend and then one back at me. Another couple last night too!

She snowballed you?

 

[Henry Ford]

She's still in VA as far as I know.

Oh, I see. You'll have to prove that she carnally knows a brute animal. So see if the moose goes to a gym.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

A moose once bit my sister.

 

[Don Quixote]

A moose once bit my sister.

Moose bites kan be pretty nasti.

 

[Reg Lllama of Brixton]

A moose once bit my sister.

I don't get it.

 

[McGarnicle]

So if a gentleman is courting a lady in VA, and eats her butt as is often customary, has he broken one or both of these laws?

 

[Rayderr]

A moose once bit my sister.

I don't get it.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

A moose once bit my sister.

I don't get it.

 

[Henry Ford]

So if a gentleman is courting a lady in VA, and eats her butt as is often customary, has he broken one or both of these laws?

Arguably.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

A moose once bit my sister.

I don't get it.

Any relation to Ralph?

 

[NCCommish]

A moose once bit my sister.

I don't get it.

Those responsible for sacking the people that have just been sacked, have been sacked.

 

[CBusAlex]

A moose once bit my sister.

I don't get it.

:whoosh:

 

[Mjolnirs]

It seems this thread has become something completely different.

 

[McGarnicle]

So if a gentleman is courting a lady in VA, and eats her butt as is often customary, has he broken one or both of these laws?

Arguably.

I worded this wrong...has he broken one, both or neither of these laws?

 

[Henry Ford]

So if a gentleman is courting a lady in VA, and eats her butt as is often customary, has he broken one or both of these laws?

Arguably.

I worded this wrong...has he broken one, both or neither of these laws?

Which ones?

If you mean the sodomy law and the solicitation law, probably just one. Maybe neither if you can argue that you didn't technically gain carnal knowledge. Think that's probably a losing argument, though. Unless the lady is under 18, in which case you, sir, are no gentleman.

 

[Rayderr]

A moose once bit my sister.

I don't get it.

I rarely actually look at the username anymore.

 

[McGarnicle]

So if a gentleman is courting a lady in VA, and eats her butt as is often customary, has he broken one or both of these laws?

Arguably.

I worded this wrong...has he broken one, both or neither of these laws?

Which ones?

If you mean the sodomy law and the solicitation law, probably just one. Maybe neither if you can argue that you didn't technically gain carnal knowledge. Think that's probably a losing argument, though. Unless the lady is under 18, in which case you, sir, are no gentleman.

I meant is it anal or oral sex, or both?

 

[Henry Ford]

So if a gentleman is courting a lady in VA, and eats her butt as is often customary, has he broken one or both of these laws?

Arguably.

I worded this wrong...has he broken one, both or neither of these laws?

Which ones?

If you mean the sodomy law and the solicitation law, probably just one. Maybe neither if you can argue that you didn't technically gain carnal knowledge. Think that's probably a losing argument, though. Unless the lady is under 18, in which case you, sir, are no gentleman.

I meant is it anal or oral sex, or both?

It's the same statute. And that would violate it.

 

[The_Man]

the Commonwealth is arguing is that the statute is not unconstitutional on its face,

or in its mouth or hair, either

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

It seems this thread has become something completely different.

Nobody expected that.

 

[T Bell]

Does this mean that she can't use a fleshlight either?

 

[T Bell]

Are female woodwind players at risk for prosecution?

 

[McGarnicle]

3 user(s) are reading this topic3 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

[*]McGarnicle, bigbottom, Don Quixote

 

[3C's]

Cooch up to no good. http://blogs.nbc12.com/decisionvirginia/2013/04/cuccinelli-trip-to-campaign-in-kentucky-paid-for-by-star-scientific-exec.html

 

[Todd Andrews]

Virginia elects the queerest Republican fake Ken Doll closet cases--not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

[Rayderr]

Virginia elects the queerest Republican fake Ken Doll closet cases--not that there is anything wrong with that.

Mark Warner? Tim Kaine?

 

[Jewell]

Inspired by Cuccinelli, Virginia Lawmaker Wants to Outlaw Oral Sex Between Teenagers

by Matt Wilstein | 6:49 pm, January 9th, 2014116
LINK

Ken Cuccinelli lost the 2013 gubernatorial race in Virginia on a platform that included outlawing consensual oral sex for married, heterosexual couples. Now State Senator Thomas Garrett, whocalls himself a “Cuccinelli conservative,” is following in the Virginia attorney general’s footsteps by introducing a law that would do the same for consenting teenagers.

It has only been months since federal courts deemed Virginia’s so-called “Crimes Against Nature” law unconstitutional, but now Garrett has introduced new, nearly identical legislation that would reinstate many of the same proscriptions. The proposal, titled SB 14 Crimes Against Nature, says that “engaging in consensual sodomy is not a crime if all persons participating are adults, are not in a public place, and are not committing, attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, aiding, or abetting any act in furtherance of prostitution.”

While the bill goes further than its predecessor in protecting adults who are in the privacy of their own home, it does set up stricter penalties for those caught engaging in oral or anal sex in public:

A. If any Any person who (i) carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or (ii) 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. The provisions of clause (ii) shall not apply where all persons are consenting adults who are not in a public place and who are not committing, attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, aiding, or abetting any act in furtherance of prostitution.

The Huffington Post quotes one UCLA law professor, who points out one inherent problem with the new law. “Virginia law provides that genital sex with a 15-to-17-year-old is a misdemeanor, and sex among 15-to-17-year-olds is perfectly legal,” Eugene Volokh writes. “So if two 17-year-olds are choosing whether to have oral sex or genital sex, the law would push them towards the form of sex that is more likely to transmit disease, and more likely to cause unwanted pregnancy.”