Irelevant? Its what the op was about. And double irony points for bringing up strawman
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
Have you been reading this thread at all?
OP himself stated:
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?
That second line? It's IMPORTANT here. OP's statement is not anything to do with the MacDonald case, it's a condemnation of the freakishly-stupid "crimes against nature" law which forbids penetrative sex acts other than PiV between consenting adult partners anywhere, anytime, and of the AG who seems determined to ignore SCOTUS' previous ruling on that sort of thing and rather than get government out of people's bedrooms, seems intent on pushing further into them, presumably with CCTV cameras at the ready to make sure that someone somewhere can't get away with having a good time (in other than The Approved Mannerâ„¢) with a consensual adult partner. Followups by others went along that same thread - I know mine did, since I explicitly stated that multiple times.
You don't really imagine that Phyphor was defending the molester in the MacDonald case, do you? Or that the rest of us speaking out against this law are attempting to do so?
Sometimes, one can extract important details from a media report (even from Mother Jones, it seems - as the saying goes, even a stopped clock is right twice a day) which have little or nothing to do with the main subject of that report. The only connection to the child molester's case at all is that said law came up in that case, bringing people's attention to an irredeemably-stupid law. Since he committed bonafide crimes, he doesn't get out of it because the "crimes against nature" law is irredeemably stupid, there's other stuff he's on the hook for anyways. One can agree with the fact that Chester the Molester is apparently getting what he deserves and still hold (as we are here) that 18.2-361(A) is not only freakishly, irredeemably stupid, it's a violation of basic human rights, and that efforts by the Attorney General to reinstate it in full rather than get the useful bits in 18.2-361 rewritten into a valid law (if they aren't already covered somewhere else, which at least some of them already ARE) are likely to amount to political suicide.
If said law gets the public attention it should, and Cuccinelli continues his apparent quest to declare open season on the sex lives of millions of Virginians and convert them into felony records for all involved in violation of the prior SCOTUS ruling on the subject, then yeah, I'd have to agree he's shooting his political career in the foot. Or maybe the nuts. But at least that wouldn't be a violation of 18.2-361, so perhaps he's okay with that; at least there'd be no oral or anal contact with a consenting partner involved.
And CSD? Arguing something entirely other than what we've been expressing anger over as if that other thing had any realistic connection to it (hint - the existence of the irredeemably-stupid "crimes against nature" law does not in any way depend on the existence or disposition of the MacDonald case, nor does said case in any way justify the existence of said law), that pretty well qualifies as a straw-man argument. This is what VASkidmark is doing with his "devil's advocacy". The issue never was about the case, it had nothing to do with a child molester getting caught having oral sex with a couple of teens below the age of consent. It was always about the law, which position has been repeated multiple times.
Or hey, go ahead and turn yourself into the local VSP station for violation of 18-2.361(A), and plead guilty to that Class 6 felony for having sex in other than The Approved Mannerâ„¢ with a freely-consenting adult partner, for all I care. Give up your rights, and any possibility of a reasonably-decent life, for doing something the government has no legitimate authority to penalize (or even KNOW ABOUT), because "it's the law, and it's the AG's job to uphold the law."
Question: if Phyphor, or someone else, had been randomly reading the Commonwealth's criminal code and stumbled across 18.2-361 and brought it to our attention, and we had reacted in exactly the same way as we did here, what would YOUR position be then?
Or how about this, to try to recast this into something which might be a little more accessible to some here - is it right and proper for the government to use paperwork violations of the NFA/GCA/FOPA/whatever pointless and arguably-unConstitutional gun law you care to name to destroy the lives of gun owners they can pin said violations on, just because "that's the law, as written"? Even though said violations may not be intentional, and hurt no one at all in any possible manner? Or would it be better and more proper for the DAs and AGs involved to say, "This law is pointless, stupid, and unConstitutional as written, and this office will not support prosecutions under it as written." (granted, it would be a pipe dream...). How is that different from what's happening here? An official upholding an idiotic and unConstitutional law is not carrying out any kind of principled stand for states' rights. It's nothing more noble than a demonstration of lack of fitness for political office, and should be punished as such.
Just for giggles - what would the "actual issue" be?
That you can continue to ask that after being straight-out told that answer multiple times makes me wonder if you maybe ought to be hanging out under a bridge somewhere conducting toll transactions with billy-goats. How many times do you need me to tell you that the outrage is over the EXISTENCE of a law which explicitly penalizes sex acts between freely-consenting adult partners, and an AG who seems bent on ensuring that said law is returned to power rather than assuring the public that he's working to have it struck from the books? He, and the State, have no business saying that freely-consenting adults can or can't perform this or that sex act with each other. Period. Since he's doing so anyways, he deserves to be "rewarded" with abject failure at the polls in his quest for further political power.
Consider this one more time, and hopefully that's enough.
