Ken Cuccinelli Loses Petition to Uphold Anti-Sodomy Law

[DieselJester]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/1 ... nt_top_art

So I'm confused here and am wondering about Mr. Cuccinelli's true motivations behind trying to get the Virginia Anti-Sodomy Law upheld. While I applaud his apparent concern to protect a minor girl, I question his true motivations given his attitude towards the LGBT crowd. I also find it funny that he says:

"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. I happen to think that it represents (to put it politely; I need my thesaurus to be polite) behavior that is not healthy to an individual and in aggregate is not healthy to society,"

So it's ok for guys to love guys and gals to love gals so long as they're not actively screwing each other then?

[B5B7]

The US is not

a natural law-based country

but a human-law based country. Of course, there is also the fact that people like him invent their own terminology - natural law is the laws of nature, therefore the laws of physics such as gravity, not some minority human proscription about sexual activity.

[Panzersharkcat]

The US is not

a natural law-based country

but a human-law based country. Of course, there is also the fact that people like him invent their own terminology - natural law is the laws of nature, therefore the laws of physics such as gravity, not some minority human proscription about sexual activity.

Ahem. Not saying he's right (he's not) on the butt-fucking. Just a head's up.
EDIT: Natural law comes up a lot in libertarian literature. It's the only reason I know about it.

[B5B7]

Thanks. I actually knew about that philosophical usage but forgot; so yeah there is that.
'Natural Law' and 'Laws of Nature' - easy to mix them up.

[LaCroix]

Well, if its against natural law, then all those homosexual lions, cheetas, horses, penguins, dolphins, flamingos, etc. have some explaining to do, right?

[Simon_Jester]

Panzer's right in that the US has a legal tradition of using 'natural law' to set up law, inherited from the English common law tradition. The idea of doing this isn't totally off-base, in that we start by asking "well, what kind of social interactions are common, desired by all, and in need of being upheld?" Or "well, what crimes are despised in all societies, that should be banned here too?" Both of those are pragmatic, and imperfect, but at least sane ways of identifying what you should and should not have a law against. It beats just legislating whatever obscure set of hangups King Bob XII has.

It runs into problems mostly when you have people whose concept of natural law refuses to accept patches and updates.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

The way I've seen the phrase being used, I'd think "natural law" is a shortening of "it looks natural to me, so it should be passed into law".

[Elfdart]

Ken Cuccinelli should be glad he failed since he can now shake hands with other homophobes without being arrested for being a prick that touched an asshole.

[KrauserKrauser]

Going to be hard to win the race for Governor when the opposition can rightly say that "Ken cuccenelli wants to make blowjobs illegal"

Fucking crazy.

[Dalton]

I like how a supposed small-goverment conservative is so concerned about the health and well-being of his constituents that he's willing to pass a law to make it illegal to do what they want with their own bodies.

[General Zod]

I like how a supposed small-goverment conservative is so concerned about the health and well-being of his constituents that he's willing to pass a law to make it illegal to do what they want with their own bodies.

If they were honest they'd just admit that it's small government only for the stuff we like.

[amigocabal]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/1 ... nt_top_art

So I'm confused here and am wondering about Mr. Cuccinelli's true motivations behind trying to get the Virginia Anti-Sodomy Law upheld. While I applaud his apparent concern to protect a minor girl, I question his true motivations given his attitude towards the LGBT crowd. I also find it funny that he says:

"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. I happen to think that it represents (to put it politely; I need my thesaurus to be polite) behavior that is not healthy to an individual and in aggregate is not healthy to society,"

So it's ok for guys to love guys and gals to love gals so long as they're not actively screwing each other then?

That is what Christian theology teaches.

Regarding the case, I do believe that it was wrongly decided, and agree with the dissent. Lawrence did not go so far as to invalidate all applications of anti-sodomy laws. Indeed, it explicitly declined to addressed the issue of whether sodomy between adults and minors, or solicitation thereof, violated due process. 539 U.S. 558 at 578

Indeed, if Lawrence was as broad as the Fourth Circuit interpreted, laws against public sodomy and sodomitic prostitution would be invalid.

Not surprisingly, there was a circuit split. See e.g. United States v. Marcum, 60 M.J. 198 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (rejecting facial challenge to military anti-sodomy law)

[Metahive]

That is what Christian theology teaches.

So whoop-di-friggin-what? It also teaches a host of other things too that Christians, especially fundietards regularly ignore. What makes this particular part so special that the Christofascists absolutely need to inject it into secular law?

[Terralthra]

Whether MacDonald committed an act that should have been illegal is an entirely separate debate from whether or not the law which was applied to MacDonald's court case is constitutional. MacDonald, 47, tried to solicit a 17 year-old for sodomy (I can't find whether this meant oral sex or anal sex, in this case). Should that be illegal? Sure. Totally. But the Crimes Against Nature law is this:

[quote="[url=http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504 ... d+18.2-361]§ 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 anus 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.[/quote]

By that law, oral sex or anal sex - no matter the age of the participants - is a felony. That rather clearly falls under the liberty rights protected by the due process clause, which Lawrence outlined quite well. The circuit court mentioned, in fact that Cuccinelli opposed an amended version of the crimes against nature law which would have criminalized oral/anal sex with minors, but left adults acting consensually and in private alone. They said such a law would be perfectly constitutional, but that MacDonald's act, despite violating a hypothetically constitutional law, isn't sustainable as a conviction under an unconstitutional law.

With which part do you disagree?

[Terralthra]

Whether MacDonald committed an act that should have been illegal is an entirely separate debate from whether or not the law which was applied to MacDonald's court case is constitutional. MacDonald, 47, tried to solicit a 17 year-old for sodomy (I can't find whether this meant oral sex or anal sex, in this case). Should that be illegal? Sure. Totally. But the Crimes Against Nature law is this:

A. 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 Class 6 felony, except as provided in subsection B.

By that law, oral sex or anal sex - no matter the age of the participants - is a felony. That rather clearly falls under the liberty rights protected by the due process clause, which Lawrence outlined quite well. The circuit court mentioned, in fact that Cuccinelli opposed an amended version of the crimes against nature law which would have criminalized oral/anal sex with minors, but left adults acting consensually and in private alone. They said such a law would be perfectly constitutional, but that MacDonald's act, despite violating a hypothetically constitutional law, isn't sustainable as a conviction under an unconstitutional law.

With which part do you disagree?

[Vendetta]

I like how a supposed small-goverment conservative is so concerned about the health and well-being of his constituents that he's willing to pass a law to make it illegal to do what they want with their own bodies.

The question that needs to be posed to them, then, is "and how many tax dollars will enforcement and prosecution of this new law cost?".

[DieselJester]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/1 ... nt_top_art

So I'm confused here and am wondering about Mr. Cuccinelli's true motivations behind trying to get the Virginia Anti-Sodomy Law upheld. While I applaud his apparent concern to protect a minor girl, I question his true motivations given his attitude towards the LGBT crowd. I also find it funny that he says:

"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. I happen to think that it represents (to put it politely; I need my thesaurus to be polite) behavior that is not healthy to an individual and in aggregate is not healthy to society,"

So it's ok for guys to love guys and gals to love gals so long as they're not actively screwing each other then?

That is what Christian theology teaches.

Fundamental Christian theology also inheriantly teaches racism, sexism, wholesale manslaughter, enslavement, and a variety of other things and that's just in Genesis alone! I abhor people who hide behind so-called 'Christian Values' in order to mask their own bigotry.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Can we have Krystal Ball from MSNBC's old pics with the caption that Kenny wants to make this illegal between husband and wife.