Wow. This guy doesn't want a career in politics.

[Phyphor]

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

Virginia Gov. Candidate Cuccinelli Defending Law That Forbids Oral Sex

—By Kate Sheppard
| Wed Apr. 3, 2013 10:13 AM PDT

    359

Ken Cuccinelli Gage Skidmore/Flickr

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, but, as the New York Times explained in 2011, it's "icky": The sex was between a 47-year-old man and two teenagers above Virginia's age of consent.)*

 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.

This post has been updated to include more details about the case in question.

Like it says on the tin, this guy doesn't want a career in politics, does he?

Seriously, GOP.  Stay the hell out of people's  bedrooms, ok?

[Perd Hapley]

Seriously, GOP.  Stay the hell out of people's  bedrooms, ok?

Yeah, cause one guy is so totally seriously representative of the party as a whole. They should totally take out the anti-oral-sex plank at the next RNC.

[Monkeyleg]

That guy wouldn't get my vote if he favored free M60 belt-fed's for everyone.

[Northwoods]

You do realize that was a charge brought simply to enhance the penalty for child molester?

[erictank]

You do realize that was a charge brought simply to enhance the penalty for child molester?

It's BS, is what it is. Both http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_102, and the US Court of Appeals case from last month mentioned in the article, mean that Cuccinelli *CANNOT* reinstate this law and that so-called enhancement of the penalty for said child molester CANNOT take place.

Many will consider an enhanced penalty against a child molester to be all well and good, but what if it's NOT "a charge brought simply to enhance the penalty for {a} child molester". If it's on the books, and you do what it says is illegal, you'd better *NEVER* mention doing it, or "they" can use it on YOU. What happens when YOU are the despised target of someone's efforts to use the legal system against you? Doesn't matter that the act was completely consensual, whether hetero or homo, and in the privacy of your own home. Fun fact - if you got convicted of this, you lost your guns, 'cause it's a felony as written! Worth losing your firearms for life to give oral to or receive oral from your legally-adult girlfriend or wife? Once more, for emphasis - under this law, oral sex from your girlfriend or wife (not just between teh gayzorz, but between good clean straights, too!) was a FELONY. Ooops. Does that put a little different spin on things? Whatcha' been doing in YOUR bedroom? (Don't answer that, I don't actually want to know.)

You want to put a bad guy away, you CANNOT use a bad law to do it. Not if you want justice to be served, rather than mere vengeance (even for bonafide wrongdoing, as with the aforementioned child molester). Work for actual justice to be done, and you have less to worry about if YOU get caught up in the wheels of the legal system.

The fact that this law has basically been overruled should make it a moot point anyways - so why is Cuccinelli trying to defend it? For that matter, why is VA keeping it on the books at all? It's unenforceable and there's an iron-clad defense against any POSSIBLE attempt at prosecution, so the VA legislature ought to just get rid of it . It's not like that ever should have even BEEN a law in the first place. At best, this thing Cuccinelli is trying to do is nothing but a club his opponents can use against him. At worst?

And I'll hold off on commenting about blaming the GOP for the public idiocy of one Republican, because while it's not just one Republican by any means, I'm not sure I can do so without someone taking it personally.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Rofl  good thing you balanced mother jones with the blade. Don't be afraid to look a lil wider.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[MicroBalrog]

You do realize that was a charge brought simply to enhance the penalty for child molester?

And we still don't care.

[vaskidmark]

Some basic facts might go a long way towards understanding why this case is being appealed en banc.

MacDonald wasn't charged with fornication:

§ 18.2-344. Fornication. Any person, not being married, who voluntarily shall have sexual intercourse with any other person, shall be guilty of fornication, punishable as a Class 4 misdemeanor.

which would be an unconstitutional law under the SCOTUS ruling in Lawrence v. Texas

NacDonald was charged under §18.2-371 of the Code of Virginia: Causing or encouraging acts rendering children delinquent, abused, etc

Any person 18 years of age or older, including the parent of any child, who (i) willfully contributes to, encourages, or causes any act, omission, or condition which renders a child delinquent, in need of services, in need of supervision, or abused or neglected as defined in § 16.1-228, or (ii) engages in consensual sexual intercourse with a child 15 or older not his spouse, child, or grandchild, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

And under §18-2-361  of the Code: Crimes against nature:

If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of ... a felony...,

The age of consent in Virginia is 18, with a close-in-age exception which allows teenagers aged 15, 16 and 17 to engage in sexual acts, but only with a partner younger than 18.  This keeps the captain of the football team from becoming a registered sex offender for what happened prom night.  It is a technical exception to the fact that, in Virginia, you cannot legally consent to anything while a minor, regaredless of how badly you want to.

Both of those laws, as things now stand, are constitutional and obviously FOR THE CHILLLLLLLLDRENNNNN, which makes keeping the constitutional ultra-plus double good.  The AG's argument is that the 4th Circuit misapplied Lawrence because of the age issue.  His appeal has nothing to do with trying to trying to stop or control the manner of consensual sex between adults.  The laws against fornication and crimes against nature (as that applies to consenting adult humans but not brute animals) are pretty much agreed upon as being unconstitutional.  For some reason the General Assembly historically has not wanted to be seen as supporting promiscuity and general ickyness so has not sought to repeal those laws.

If tjhe 4th Circuit wants to start a 10th Amendment fight (which it apparently three justices have indicated they want to do) Cuccinelli is, and has always been, ready and willing to pick up that gauntlet.  My guess is that the en banc decision will reverse the panel decision.

I have disagreed with several opinions Cuccinelli has issued, and with a few of the appeals he has brought, but for the most part I grudgingly must agree that he is appropriately defending the law as she is written.  That part of his job, he seems to believe, is more important than poring over the law books to point out statutes that need repealing because the General Assembly continues to avoid doing so in spite of VSC and SCOTUS rulings,  In a personal conversation he put forth the argument that the General Assembly has the right to look foolish (he used a stronger term) but until it came to being told to enforce a law that was directly or indirectly (some other state's appeal) ruled unconstitutional he was going to stay out of things.  I admire an AG who is not all in-your-face activist but is willing to take even stupid laws to the mat because that is his job description.  (He has mounted some of the weakest appeals I have ever seen, clearly indicating it was pro forma and had no real desire to prevail, or actually hope to have the law ruled unconstitutional.)

stay safe.

[Lee]

Laws that cannot be enforced should not exist.  There are many laws already on the books in regard to sexual assault, public indecency and whatnot.  Laws pertaining to specific sex acts between consenting adults, in private, are ridiculous.
And fistful - it is a "stain" (pun intended) on the whole GOP, and hurts them...just as Feinstein and other far left liberals hurt the Dems.

[Phyphor]

Laws that cannot be enforced should not exist.  There are many laws already on the books in regard to sexual assault, public indecency and whatnot.  Laws pertaining to specific sex acts between consenting adults, in private, are ridiculous.

That's exactly how I see it.  It's been said this is aimed at child molesters, yet the wording of the law in specific (the consenting adults bit,) doesn't really back this up.  If you want to drop more charges on child molesters (which I'm in favor of, lock those mofos up forever!) then target the law at them.  Stop making people who aren't hurting anyone criminals for no better reason than your repressiveness, folks!

And fistful - it is a "stain" (pun intended) on the whole GOP, and hurts them...just as Feinstein and other far left liberals hurt the Dems.

Exactly.  There's a few pro-gun democrats out there, but when you hear the word democrat, what do you think of?

[vaskidmark]

Laws that cannot be enforced should not exist.  There are many laws already on the books in regard to sexual assault, public indecency and whatnot.  Laws pertaining to specific sex acts between consenting adults, in private, are ridiculous.
And fistful - it is a "stain" (pun intended) on the whole GOP, and hurts them...just as Feinstein and other far left liberals hurt the Dems.

Would you please show me where the laws involved deal with sex between consenting adults, or where the case before the bar involves all parties being consenting adults?

SCOTUS has pretty much said that what is done between consenting adults (with the exception of things like intentionally passing on STDs to unknowing recients) is none of the states' business and any laws they might have on the books are null and void.  Laws regulating sex between adults and non-consenting persons, and between humans and animals, are prertty much still valid regardless of what folks from New Zealand or Montana say.

A rather calm, reasoned analysis, along with the original decisions, can be found here: http://walshslaw.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/a-lawrence-quotation-prompted-by-buzzfeeds-pick-up-of-macdonald-v-moose .

Apart from what I have previously posted on the subject, support for my reading of the case can be seen in Justice Kennedy’s description of how the case ought to be decided: “We conclude the case should be resolved by determining whether the petitioners were free as adults [emphasis added by me] to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution” (emphasis added in orginal quote). If one reads Lawrence in this way, then the Virginia court’s disposition of the petitioner’s challenge to his conviction was plainly not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established law.

And here is the actual case as heard/decided by the 4th Circuit panel: http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/117427.P.pdf

A 17-year old in Virginia can consent to have sex with a 15-, 16- or 17-year old but cannot consent to have sex with an adult.  MacDonald, at 47, was cleartly an adult.  Johnson, at 17, clearly in the eyes of Virginia law, was not an adult.  Varying theories of  the role of government all point that the state can impose restrictions on the conduct of minors that it cannot impose on adults.  As much as everybody seems to be unhappy with it, "crimes against nature" are one of the categories that Virginia can control regarding minors.  The SCOTUS decision in Lawrece really has no bearing, as SCOTUS clearl;y indicated tjhat what two consenting adults do -- but in MacDonald we only have one adult.

In closing - those who are trying to say the appeal en banc to the 4th Circuit by Virginia should be thrown out might want to review their position on folks like NAMBLA.  There's a consenting adult there, isn't there?

You don't like that Virginia makes kids wait till they are 18 to have sex with adults?  Go pass a law stating an "age of consent" since Virginia currently does not recognize such for minors.  But until that law gets passed, stop getting knickers all twisted when the AG fights to uphold the existing law.

stay safe.

[erictank]

Would you please show me where the laws involved deal with sex between consenting adults, or where the case before the bar involves all parties being consenting adults?

First part - done: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-361.

Did you actually read the law, linked in the MJ article previously mentioned as well as just above? I did - took about 60 seconds, including clicking on the link.  It SPECIFICALLY STATES that it doesn't matter if you're performing oral or anal sex with a freely-consenting adult, whether the act is hetero or homo. ANYTHING but PiV (well, and masturbation/mutual masturbation, I suppose - so make that any PENETRATIVE sex act besides PiV) is *A FELONY* under this law, PERIOD. Penalties are enhanced for incestual "sodomy", but you getting a blowjob from your wife, for example, is still a Class 6 felony under this absurd law.

This is what's being referred to as the "crimes against nature" law. 

SCOTUS has pretty much said that what is done between consenting adults (with the exception of things like intentionally passing on STDs to unknowing recients) is none of the states' business and any laws they might have on the books are null and void. 

Then WTF is Cuccinelli doing trying to ensure that it *IS* the state's business and that the law is returned to full force, rather than pushing to have stripped out the idiocy where you getting a blowjob from your wife (or other consenting adult partner) is a freaking FELONY? It's within his purview to say, "This law is absurd, it's unenforceable, and it's unConstitutional as written, as demonstrated previously. This office will not support prosecutions under this law as written." And instead he's fighting to ensure that he can take away your RKBA for life, among other things, for getting a blowjob from your wife.

That doesn't piss you off even a little?

Laws regulating sex between adults and non-consenting persons, and between humans and animals, are prertty much still valid regardless of what folks from New Zealand or Montana say.

And if Cuccinelli was pushing to have those sections of that law retained as the entirety of that law, I doubt anyone would have any issues with his position. But that's not what he's doing, is it?

A rather calm, reasoned analysis, along with the original decisions, can be found here: http://walshslaw.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/a-lawrence-quotation-prompted-by-buzzfeeds-pick-up-of-macdonald-v-moose .

And here is the actual case as heard/decided by the 4th Circuit panel: http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/117427.P.pdf

A 17-year old in Virginia can consent to have sex with a 15-, 16- or 17-year old but cannot consent to have sex with an adult.  MacDonald, at 47, was cleartly an adult.  Johnson, at 17, clearly in the eyes of Virginia law, was not an adult.  Varying theories of  the role of government all point that the state can impose restrictions on the conduct of minors that it cannot impose on adults.  As much as everybody seems to be unhappy with it, "crimes against nature" are one of the categories that Virginia can control regarding minors.  The SCOTUS decision in Lawrece really has no bearing, as SCOTUS clearl;y indicated tjhat what two consenting adults do -- but in MacDonald we only have one adult.

In closing - those who are trying to say the appeal en banc to the 4th Circuit by Virginia should be thrown out might want to review their position on folks like NAMBLA.  There's a consenting adult there, isn't there?

You don't like that Virginia makes kids wait till they are 18 to have sex with adults?  Go pass a law stating an "age of consent" since Virginia currently does not recognize such for minors.  But until that law gets passed, stop getting knickers all twisted when the AG fights to uphold the existing law.

stay safe.

The BS "crimes against nature" law is utterly unenforceable, unless you put cameras on everyone at all times in all places . Selectively-attempted enforcement (say, against those you don't like, either personally or as a group) is all that could POSSIBLY be performed, leading to issues with equal rights under the law, and even THAT assumes that the government has any legitimate authority to say that John and Jane (or John and Jim, or Jane and Joan, or any combination of them and/or other freely-consenting informed adults) can do this sex act but not that one with and to each other. Get. Freakin'. BENT. That the law in question doesn't really apply to the case being referenced, due to the minor status of two of the participants versus the adult status of the other, is irrelevant. The law is a CROCK, and Cuccinelli is fighting FOR it rather than AGAINST it. Whatever your personal position is on teh gayzorz, I don't CARE. Not only is my sex life with my consenting partner (in my particular case, my wife) not felony-worthy barring non-consensual violence (which is IMO adequately covered by laws against, say, assault and rape), it's NONE OF THE STATE'S FREAKING BUSINESS TO BEGIN WITH.

I haven't seen *ANYONE* here arguing that a 47 year old man ought to be permitted to have sex with minors of either gender (or, to be fair, that a 47 year old WOMAN should be permitted to do so either, but that's not the case in question). The protests you're breezing right by are against the law being referred to existing at all, and against the idiot AG who wants to ramp it back up rather than pushing to get it stricken from the books as it should have been in mid-2003. No one here's defending a pedophile, no matter HOW much you try to cast this as such. Next time, build a better straw-man, that one was WAY too flimsy.

Misuse of the law against the worst among us - say, a child molester? - invites misuse of the law against the BEST of us. Fight it when it's being misused against them, and hopefully you'll never need to fight it's misuse against yourself.

[Perd Hapley]

And fistful - it is a "stain" (pun intended) on the whole GOP, and hurts them...just as Feinstein and other far left liberals hurt the Dems.

Ha! Let me know when there is even one bill in Congress to regulate sodomy/oral sex/etc, between consenting adults. There are enough Dems behind the new gun control push to not only introduce Feinstein's new AWB, but get it out of committee.

As far as I can tell, laws like this have much less support from the GOP than even Charlie Rangel's symbolic attempts to reinstate the draft enjoy in the Democratic Party.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Wair till the full court rules. Yoy won't like it. Cuc is a good ag. Does his job. He'll have some learning ad gov but hes a smart boy. And the irony of the mother jones followers comment about his poltical future was a hoot. Check the polls not mother jones

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[vaskidmark]

erictank -

Let me try this in simple terms.  MacDonald was charged with 2 crimes:

#1 Contributing to the delinquency 18.2-371.  Must involve a minor, rather obviously.  Johnson was 17, therefore a minor.

#2 Criminalk soilicitation 18.2-29.  Solicitation of a minor (see #1 above) to commit a violation of 18.2-361(A) - the "crimes against nature" crime.

Now here's the hard part.  SCOTUS, in Lawrence, said that two consenting adults can do pretty much anything they want to to/with/for/on/at/in each other.  Johnson, per Virginia law, is not a consenting adult and therefore Lawrence does not apply.

That point is the crux of the whole case - that Johnson, by law in Virginia, cannot consent to any sexual act with an adult.

Had MacDonald been 15-, 16-, or 17-years old Virginia's teenage carve-out would have coverd his behaviors with Johnson.  But MacDonald was 47.

Virginia means to protect its CHILLLLLDRENNNNN from icky sex with adults.  Which is why (my conjecture) the General Assembly has not (among other reasons) not seen fit to repeal 18.2-371(A) even though Lawrence makes it a nullity when dealing with consenting adults.

The 4th Circuit panel, Mother Jones, you, and host of others have gotten wrapped up about Lawrence to the point of losing sight of the fact that it applies to two consenting adults and loses sight of the fact that there was only one (1) consenting adult involved, regardless of whose story of what happened you want to believe.  Johnson, the Virginia General Assembly has determined, needs to be protected from icky criminal sex offenders and, should she have had any, her own icky non-adult sexual urges.

Hopefully the en banc full court will recognize this fine distinction.  IMHO it would require any crypto-pedobears to pretty much out themselves to uphold the panel decision - if for no other reasaon than upholding would mean in their book NAMBLA, not just icky 47-year ols creeps, is OK in Virginia.

stay safe.

[erictank]

Y'know what? No. Just, no. You know that the MacDonald case is irrelevant, and yet you continue to claim that we're (wrongly) getting spun up over that, rather than what we've said outright is the actual issue. 

Let me know if you want to discuss that, rather than the strawman you've so lovingly built up. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Irelevant? Its what the op was about. And double irony points for bringing up strawman

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[vaskidmark]

Y'know what? No. Just, no. You know that the MacDonald case is irrelevant, and yet you continue to claim that we're (wrongly) getting spun up over that, rather than what we've said outright is the actual issue. 

Let me know if you want to discuss that, rather than the strawman you've so lovingly built up. 

Just for giggles - what would the "actual issue" be?

That the decision being appealed to the 4th Circuit Court en banc is some case other than William Scott MacDonald v. Tim Moore and Keith Holder, Probation Officer, no. 11-7427?  The decision found here: http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/117427.P.pdf ?

That two consenting adults ought to be left alone to do whatever they want to each other as long as it stays within the privacy of their bedroom?  That Lawrence decision that I have never disputed the validity or appropriateness of?

That the Virginia AG is wrecking his political career by seeking to uphold the state's right/10th Amendment  notion that the Commonwealth ought to be allowed to determine how and to what extent it protects its children, and will not allow some yahoos that most likely needed a seeing eye dog to find their asses the day they tried to cram a SCOTUS decision about two consenting adults into a case involving a 47-year old adult and a 17-year old minor?

Or is it that you really do want Lawrence and progeny applied not only to consenting adults in any number and combination of sexes, but to sexual activity involving non-adult children who cannot legally consent to any sexual activity with an adult?  You know, that whole NAMBLA argument?

I know that once a hole has been dug deep enough it may be difficult to climb out of it.  That could especially be so if one climbed/fell/was pushed into the wrong hole to begin with.  I have been "spun up" over the fact that most of the reporting and discussion about the Virginia AG's appeal of the 4th Circuit panel decision has been pushing folks into the wrong hole by discussing the strawman that was so lovingly built up about what ought to be how we treat two consenting adults when the case is ABOUT THE CHILLLLLLDRENNNNNNNN.

Applying the right law to the wrong set of circumstances still gets you a wrong decision.  Cuccinelli seems to be working overtime to avoid having that happen.

stay safe.

[MicroBalrog]

No, at any point, I do not think it is the state's place in what pose you had sex with someone. If there is statutory rape you still should not be getting extra prison time for doing it in a given combination of orifices than another. And to point this out is not some kind of creepynambla argument.

And no, I do not think that 17-year-olds are children. Where this 'victim' to commit a crime - say, murder a man - everyone would be falling all over themselves to have him tried as an adult.

[Fitz]

I just read the laws

Me and Amanda should move before we end up in jail

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Ever see a prosecution?saw a guy catch 2 years

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[vaskidmark]

No, at any point, I do not think it is the state's place in what pose you had sex with someone. If there is statutory rape you still should not be getting extra prison time for doing it in a given combination of orifices than another. And to point this out is not some kind of creepynambla argument.

And no, I do not think that 17-year-olds are children. Where this 'victim' to commit a crime - say, murder a man - everyone would be falling all over themselves to have him tried as an adult.

First, let me point out, in case it has been missed/misunderstood, that I have been playing devil's advocate/explaining the position of the Commonwealth of Virginia, as opposed to expressing my personal opinion(s).  Since they are personal you will most likely not hear those opinions expressed directly.

SCOTUS and the Commonwealth of Virginia agree with you that it is nobody's business what/how two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom.  More than likely, if pushed, both SCOTUS and the Commonwealth of Virginia would extend that notion to any number (odd or even) of consenting adults.

The Commonwealth of Virginia asserts that since SCOTUS did not address the rights of minor CHILLLLLDRENNNN to do whatever they want with whatever number of adults in the privacy of their bedroom or elsewhere, that the Commonwealth of Virginia may continue to express and exert its theories and notions of controlling the behavior of minor CHILLLLLDRENNNN without interference from the federal government.  To that end the Commonwealth of Virginia suggests that the 4th Circuit panel take the 10th Amendment out of their fundament, unfold it, and actually read the document.

Further, the Commonwealth of Virginia states and asserts that in spite of having a tin foil hat jammed tightly about its ears, applying the standards applicable to adults to the behavior of THE CHILLLLLDRENNNN would in fact mean that there would be no way to stop those icky NAMBLA creeps from doing icky things to THE CHILLLLLDRENNNN.

Further, the Commonwealth of Virginia asserts that it has the right and power to decide at what age THE CHILLLLLDRENNNN of the Commonwealth shall be deemed legally able to consent to have any kind of sex in any position in any location with an adult, and that it boldly, loudly, and defiantly says that as far as it is concerned there is no age at which one of THE CHILLLLLDRENNNN can lawfully/legally consent to have any kind of sex in any position in any location with an adult.  In other words, let them wait until they are an adult themselves.

Further, the Commonwealth of Virginia asserts that what it does with regard to controlling the sexual activity/behavior of THE CHILLLLLDRENNNN has nothing to do with how it deals with THE CHILLLLLDRENNNN regarding the commission of any other crime(s).  The 10th Amendment says the federal mgovernment should not be sticking its nose into issues of at what age we decide THE CHILLLLLDRENNNN can be given the needle, so long as that age is at or above the arbitrary minimum set and forced on the Commonwealth by SCOTUS in a fight the Commonwealth lost and does not wish to elevate to the importance of the Late Unplesasantness by fighting over again.  The Commonwealth of Virginia further asserts that any differnce in the age at which it will execute one of THE CHILLLLLDRENNNN has nothing to do with at what age THE CHILLLLLDRENNNN can consent to have any kind of sex with an adult.

And just to clear the air, using 18.2-361(A) to prove the violation of 18.2-29 is not a penalty enhancer of any sort or stripe.  The Commomwealth cannot merely allege thast you contributed to the delinquency of a minor - it must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed some act that in fact did, by its commission, contribute to the delinquency.

There is no "statutory rape" in the Commonwealthof Virginia - all rape is "rape rape".  And nobody accused MacDonald of rape, so why is that issue even being brought up?

You want to have sex of any kind in any position in any location with a partner who is less than 18 years of age?  Go to some state that has an age of consent less than 18.  Just do not bring a Virginia CHILLLLDDDD with you to that state because the feds will nail your hide to the barn under the Mann Act.  Further, you do not want to know what the Commonwealth of Virginia will do to you before or after the feds get finished with you.  Oh, wait!  Let's just look at the MacDonald case, as it pretty much covers the subject.

[/ explaining the position of the Commonwealth of Virginia]

stay safe.

[vaskidmark]

I just read the laws

Me and Amanda should move before we end up in jail

Relax.  SCOTUS' ruling in Lawrence says that as long as you keep it in the bedroom where it belongs, with the lights off, you can do anything you want to each other.  Most folks seem pretty sure SCOTUS also meant whatever you do anywhere else inside the house is OK, but SCOTUS only mentioned the bedroom.  The garage, with the door closed, is even iffier.  The garage with the door open is a big NO-NO.

Yes, before Lawrence prosecutors who could not pin anything else on soeone they wanted to pin something - anything - on would go on fishing expeditions using "crimes against nature" and use  lawyer-speak to trick the spouse into waiving the common law prohibition about being compelled to testify against their spouse and into voluntarily testifying.  The best part of that was if the one the prosecutor wanted to pin something on would not at that point roll over the prosecutor would use the spouse's "voluntary" testimony as the basis for bringing "crimes against nature" charges against the spouse.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  And all perfectly according to the law.

Nowadays most defense lawyers and some judges can recite Lawrence backwards in their sleep.  There are rumors that more than two Commonwealth Attorneys have heard of it.

stay safe.

[Fitz]

What about in the back of a truck outside a venue I'm playing at

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Is it visible?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2