Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

Virginia AG Wants to Ban Consensual Sex Acts As a ‘Crime Against Nature’

Posted by on Apr. 5, 2013 at 9:38 PM
  • 12 Replies

Virginia AG Wants to Ban Consensual Sex Acts As a ‘Crime Against Nature’

ban sex

It is safe to say there are very, very few Americans who would be in favor of the government intruding in their personal lives so long as they were not breaking any laws. Indeed, Republicans lead the charge to keep government from interfering in people’s lives, except of course, when they want to control women’s reproductive health. There have been plenty of suggestions that what Republicans really want to control is when a woman has sex, and for what purpose, but it is hardly what they would say if they were asked outright. However, it is beginning to appear that controlling sex is behind the perpetual intrusion into women’s lives and bodies, and in Virginia, the attorney general is going to court to control everyone’s sexual relations and criminalize what he calls “Crimes Against Nature.”

In 2003, the United States Supreme Court ruled that laws banning and criminalizing consensual gay sex was unconstitutional, but in Virginia the prohibition was never expunged from the law. In March, the 4th Circuit Appeals court struck down Virginia’s “Crime Against Nature” law citing the 2003 Supreme Court decision that invalidated state laws that make any sexual activity between consenting adults a crime. A legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia said “It is shameful that Virginia continued to prosecute individuals under the sodomy statute for 10 years after the Supreme Court held that such laws are unconstitutional,” and hoped “this ruling brings an end to such prosecutions.” Fanatical Christian extremist, gubernatorial candidate, and Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli does not agree and is appealingthe ruling before the full 4th Circuit’s panel of 15 judges to adjudicate and rule to criminalize sexual relations he objects to. The case in question involved consensual, heterosexual oral sex, but Cuccinelli refuses to accept the ruling and wants the full panel of judges to prohibit consensual oral and anal sex between gay and heterosexual couples because he considers them crimes against nature.

Cuccinelli claims that his desire to prohibit certain types of sexual relations has nothing to do with sexual orientation, and he has a point when one considers that in Cuccinelli’s bible world, consensual heterosexual oral sex is a crime against nature. However, a year after the Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that states could not make oral sex between consenting married couples a felony, a bipartisan group in Virginia backed a bill  to adjust Virginia’s Crimes Against Nature law tocomply with the High Court ruling. Cuccinelli opposed and helped kill the bill and in 2009 he said he supported prohibitions on sexual behavior between consenting adults. He said, “My view is that homosexual acts, are intrinsically wrong. And I think it’s appropriate to have policies that reflect that. They don’t comport with natural law.”

by on Apr. 5, 2013 at 9:38 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
gludwig2000
by Gina on Apr. 5, 2013 at 9:46 PM
1 mom liked this
Oh wow, this is really going too far! What are they going to do, organize a sex police unit, who will monitor every bedroom in Virginia to make sure that nothing kinky is going on?
Friday
by Platinum Member on Apr. 5, 2013 at 9:50 PM

YeeHaw, gotta love those 'small govt Conservatives'. I've found those are rare in the GOP, most of the real small govt Cons bailed for the Libertarian party.

 


Thank God......it's Friday!!!

JanuaryBaby06
by on Apr. 5, 2013 at 10:04 PM
Yeah this is alittle out there.
SEEKEROFSHELLS
by Bronze Member on Apr. 5, 2013 at 10:09 PM

 Good luck enforcing that. 

JanuaryBaby06
by on Apr. 5, 2013 at 10:17 PM

Well this wouldnt get passed any time soon (and mostly wouldnt get passed ever!). But  I'm guessing when a woman goes to the gyno they will ask you questions and preform tests, and for guys it might be part of a gerneral exam. Or maybe they would test everyone before marriage? I mean that would work better then the bedroom thing anyway-lol.


Quoting gludwig2000:

Oh wow, this is really going too far! What are they going to do, organize a sex police unit, who will monitor every bedroom in Virginia to make sure that nothing kinky is going on?


 

gludwig2000
by Gina on Apr. 5, 2013 at 10:24 PM
He is even against oral sex, so how can you prove that by a doctor? Unless of course, someone leaves a hickey, but other wise? I don't think you can. And what is next, because one person's idea of kinky, can be anothers idea of foreplay, think of bondage play. But I guess under this law, there will be no more peeping toms arrested, because they will be the law. Edited to change deviancy to kinky, because done right, silk scarves and a blind fold can be fun,lol.
Quoting JanuaryBaby06:

Well this wouldnt get passed any time soon (and mostly wouldnt get passed ever!). But  I'm guessing when a woman goes to the gyno they will ask you questions and preform tests, and for guys it might be part of a gerneral exam. Or maybe they would test everyone before marriage? I mean that would work better then the bedroom thing anyway-lol.


Quoting gludwig2000:

Oh wow, this is really going too far! What are they going to do, organize a sex police unit, who will monitor every bedroom in Virginia to make sure that nothing kinky is going on?


 

gludwig2000
by Gina on Apr. 5, 2013 at 10:26 PM
1 mom liked this
It won't pass because it is a law based on morals, and we don't all have the same. Gah, they need to get their minds out of the gutter and do something productive.
JanuaryBaby06
by on Apr. 5, 2013 at 10:44 PM

I'm guessing the only way to get in trouble for that is if you get an STD or admit to it-lol.
Quoting gludwig2000:

He is even against oral sex, so how can you prove that by a doctor? Unless of course, someone leaves a hickey, but other wise? I don't think you can. And what is next, because one person's idea of kinky, can be anothers idea of foreplay, think of bondage play. But I guess under this law, there will be no more peeping toms arrested, because they will be the law. Edited to change deviancy to kinky, because done right, silk scarves and a blind fold can be fun,lol.
Quoting JanuaryBaby06:

Well this wouldnt get passed any time soon (and mostly wouldnt get passed ever!). But  I'm guessing when a woman goes to the gyno they will ask you questions and preform tests, and for guys it might be part of a gerneral exam. Or maybe they would test everyone before marriage? I mean that would work better then the bedroom thing anyway-lol.


Quoting gludwig2000:

Oh wow, this is really going too far! What are they going to do, organize a sex police unit, who will monitor every bedroom in Virginia to make sure that nothing kinky is going on?


 


SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Apr. 5, 2013 at 10:47 PM

Unfortunately, you, your liberal website, and the trusty Dems are COMPLETELY misinterpreting this situation.

The case in question involved a teenage girl and a 47-year-old man, William Scott MacDonald, who was convicted of soliciting a minor to commit a felony. In Virginia, sex with a minor who is 15 or older can be a misdemeanor but not a felony. The sodomy law - because this act was NOT consensual - does not meet the unconstitutional law's definition.

"The facts are more complicated than it suggests. Per John McCormack, this isn’t a traditional sodomy case. It involves a 47-year-old man … and a 17-year-old girl. Question for the courts, then: Does the Supreme Court’s famous decision in Lawrence v. Texas ban all laws prohibiting sodomy, or does it apply only to laws that attempt to regulate sexual conduct between consenting adults?

Normally he’d charge the guy with statutory rape but the law won’t allow a felony for that with a minor in this age range, so he dropped a felony sodomy charge on him instead. Might be unconstitutional, but swing voters likely won’t judge a prosecutor harshly for seeking maximum punishment for a middle-aged man leching around with an underaged girl. 

"So the Lawrence decision doesn’t prevent states from imposing criminal penalties on adults who have sex with children but does prevent states from imposing penalties (or rather, extra penalties) on adults for engaging in the specific act of sodomy with a child? That’d be a fun SCOTUS argument. 

"Cuccinelli has, incidentally, said before that he considers homosexual acts to be wrong and that “in a natural law-based country it’s appropriate to have policies that reflect that.” The left suspects, then, that he’s using the current case simply to reestablish a foothold for sodomy laws in hopes of rehabilitating them constitutionally so that they once again apply to adults. I wonder how they imagine the slippery slope going here. If Cuccinelli wins this case and carves out a constitutional exception for anti-sodomy laws as applied to adults and children, what’s next in the alleged parade of horribles? Prosecuting people who engaged in sodomy while drunk because they didn’t intelligently consent? I think Cuccinelli’s enemies are overreacting to what seems more like an electoral gambit to show he’s tough on miscreants rather than some sustained effort to roll back sexual freedom, but then those differences of opinion are what the culture war’s all about."


http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/04/virginia-ag-fights-to-keep-states-sodomy-law-on-the-books/

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mcauliffe-tight-lipped-child-sodomy-case_714528.html

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/ken-cuccinelli-fights-to-keep-sodomy-law-on-the-books

AuntieL333
by Member on Apr. 6, 2013 at 1:31 PM
1 mom liked this

What two legally competent, consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is no one's business but theirs. I love how republicans scream about wanting a smaller government yet want that government to police people's sex acts and make sure that every pregnancy has the state approved outcome. Just because this guy doesn't like oral sex doesn't mean he gets to speak for the rest of the people and needs to get a life of his own.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN