Ken Cuccinelli's War on Oral Sex

[RDM]

Sherri Shepherd of ABC's "The View'" has not exactly been the most ardent champion of gay rights in the past, having supported (http://gawker.com/5079637/sherri-shepherds-goodwill-vanishes-as-she-repeats-insane-prop-8-falsehoods) Proposition 8 in 2008. But yesterday on the show she commented (http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/07/22/2336161/the-view-ridicules-ken-cuccinelli-he-wants-the-government-on-my-back-and-my-husband-off-of-it/) that if Virginia GOP gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli -- who is intent on reinstating Virginia's Crimes Against Nature law -- really thinks oral sex (between any two people) is the same as gay sex, then she, a self-professed evangelical Christian, "is gayer than a gay two-dollar bill."

Read full story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/ken-cuccinelli-oral-sex_b_3639244.html

[PaleoPaul]

I really hope Cooch drops this.

If he can manage to defeat McAuliffe, that would be a HUGE blow to Ready for Hillary, who is working to make sure that Hillary is some sort of kingmaker to help boost her credibility for 2016.

[AuH20]

This looks like a HuffPo hit piece rustling up the culture war on an issue that pertains to sexual predation as opposed to oral sex. McAuliffe is a Clintonite with nothing to offer.

[Sola_Fide]

Worthless thread. Who cares about any of this?

[AuH20]

Worthless thread. Who cares about any of this?

The progressive NAZIs want you to care, so you vote for Terry McAuliffe. Eff them!!! They have nothing to run on so the race degrades into the realm of oral sex.

[BuddyRey]

Really, this is the kind of candidate RPFers are getting behind now? Someone who wants to use the force of government to punish and imprison people for a completely voluntary, non-violent act that's nobody else's business?

Sorry guys, but just because the other candidate might be just as bad or even worse doesn't mean we should throw our support behind a theocrat who wants government involved in consenting adults' bedrooms.

[Carlybee]

Really, this is the kind of candidate RPFers are getting behind now? Someone who wants to use the force of government to punish and imprison people for a completely voluntary, non-violent act that's nobody else's business?

Sorry guys, but just because the other candidate might be just as bad or even worse doesn't mean we should throw our support behind a theocrat who wants government involved in consenting adults' bedrooms.

Not me. I think it's ridiculous to try and reinstate that law..it's unenforceable anyway. This is the type of thing that is going to hand elections over to the Dems.

[AuH20]

Really, this is the kind of candidate RPFers are getting behind now? Someone who wants to use the force of government to punish and imprison people for a completely voluntary, non-violent act that's nobody else's business?

Sorry guys, but just because the other candidate might be just as bad or even worse doesn't mean we should throw our support behind a theocrat who wants government involved in consenting adults' bedrooms.

I think you have a mighty big, shiny lure in your mouth. Can they (the homosexual lobby) have it back? This law has nothing to do with gay sex acts. It's about a case involving a 47 year old serial sexual predator. I'll bold the most important sections for the large mouthed bass of the world:


“As we said when the Fourth Circuit rendered its decision in March, this has nothing to do with sexual orientation or private acts between consenting adults. In fact, the law can’t be used for those purposes. This case is about using current law to protect a minor from a 47 year-old repeat sexual predator,” said Cuccinelli. “Prosecutors use this important tool to obtain felony charges against adults who commit or solicit this sex act with minors. The law is only applied to offenses committed against minors, against non-consenting or incapacitated adults, or in public. It is not – and cannot be — used against consenting adults acting in private.“

For the life of me, I just can't understand why Huff Po would be so fast and loose with the truth.

[BuddyRey]

Not me. I think it's ridiculous to try and reinstate that law..it's unenforceable anyway. This is the type of thing that is going to hand elections over to the Dems.

You bet! Plus, when Dems see us rally behind garden-variety conservatives like this, it gives them even more rhetorical ammo to drive interested people away from us by reinforcing the myth that the term "libertarian" is just a meaningless re-branding of the same old right-wing Republicans.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Where's the part about banning sushi bars?

:rolleyes:

-t

[RDM]

Really, this is the kind of candidate RPFers are getting behind now? Someone who wants to use the force of government to punish and imprison people for a completely voluntary, non-violent act that's nobody else's business?

Sorry guys, but just because the other candidate might be just as bad or even worse doesn't mean we should throw our support behind a theocrat who wants government involved in consenting adults' bedrooms.

Didn't we used to bust Frothy's balls (no pun intended) for trying to regulate the bedroom?

[69360]

The article is a blatant lie.

Read this-

http://www.vachildpredators.com/

[AuH20]

The article is a blatant lie.

Read this-

http://www.vachildpredators.com/

Did you hear that the aspiring GOP candidate for governor wants to ban gay sex? No way!!!!!!!!! (THIS WOULD BE LOW-INFO VOTER GOLD!!)


These fools think we're dumb and we can't see right through these bait and switch tactics. The GOP has some strange birds like Frothy, but this is just desperation on the part of the dems.

[BuddyRey]

Didn't we used to bust Frothy's balls (no pun intended) for trying to regulate the bedroom?

Yes, absolutely. And as it later turned out, Frothy wasn't just a Big Government guy when it came to social issues, but a whole host of fiscal, foreign policy, and civil liberties issues as well. He was that rare specimen of Republicrat that was consistently collectivist on nearly everything. And, though this isn't universally true and there are some exceptions, my general finding has been that people who think some personal hangup of theirs is enough justification to get the government involved is usually harboring many more collectivist, authoritarian impulses just under the surface. Scratch a prohibitionist, find a tyrant.

[RDM]

The article is a blatant lie.

Read this-

http://www.vachildpredators.com/
The idea behind Cuccinelli's challenge is pretty clear. He wants to use the anti-sodomy law, particularly the part that criminalizes oral sex, as cause to level a felony charge against MacDonald. One might rightly wonder though, if Cuccinelli wanted to help current and future victims, shouldn't he be pushing for changes to Virginia's age of consent laws? Surely, no one thinks it is wrong to attempt to charge MacDonald to the fullest degree possible in light of his crimes. The anti-sodomy law however, is not the way to accomplish that. The law is based on discriminatory thinking and reflects a shameful, ignorant time in American history. Arguing that one or two sections of the legislation are still applicable does not justify its reinstatement. A law that essentially criminalizes an individual's sexual orientation and private sexual behavior has no place in government, no matter what the rationalization. http://www.examiner.com/article/cuccinelli-defends-virginia-s-anti-sodomy-law

[BuddyRey]

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/06/ken-cuccinelli-virginia-oral-anal-sex-sodomy


Cuccinelli claims he will only use the sodomy law to bring cases involving minors or sexual assault, and argues that Virginians need not worry about him prosecuting "consenting adults," because the part of the law that would enable him to do so was defanged by the Supreme Court's Lawrence decision. But in 2004, when a bipartisan group of state Senators was trying to fix the sodomy law so that it would only apply to cases involving minors and non-consensual sex, Cuccinelli, then a state Senator, blocked the effort. And in 2009, as my colleague Andy Kroll has noted, Cuccinelli made clear that he objected to oral and anal sex (at least between gay people) on principle, telling the Virginian-Pilot, "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."

[69360]

When was the last time 2 consenting adults were prosecuted for oral sex in Virginia? I'd guess the 50's or 60's. If I was a resident of VA I could live with that law on the books if it let the state prosecute sex offenders who prey on children. The Lawrence decision by SCOTUS prohibits prosecuting consenting adults anyway, so that part of the law is meaningless.

[Antischism]

Big Brother in your bedroom.

This guy's a clown. There's no amount of justification in the world that would make reinstating such a law an acceptable choice. I already see an appeal to emotion splattered all over this (http://www.vachildpredators.com/) page. IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN. DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN! WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN! Isn't that what a lot of people here like to mock Democrats for?

[surf]

he wants to keep minors from having (or getting) oral sex....

damn glad i'm out of high school

seriously - this is why republicans are such easy prey. just walk away.

[juleswin]

The man is a clown who is looking for ways to lose the election. Between him and the loud mouth Lt. Gov, I seriously don't care who wins anymore. Anyone who continues making moves like this after what happened to Akin is not someone with the mental aptitude to govern.

[enoch150]

When was the last time 2 consenting adults were prosecuted for oral sex in Virginia? I'd guess the 50's or 60's. If I was a resident of VA I could live with that law on the books if it let the state prosecute sex offenders who prey on children. The Lawrence decision by SCOTUS prohibits prosecuting consenting adults anyway, so that part of the law is meaningless.

We're not talking about 5 year olds, here. The children in question were 16 and 17. That's a misdemeanor in Virginia and not a crime at all in half the states (because biology changes at state lines.) The guy was convicted for the misdemeanor offense. Cuccinelli wants to make him a felon for the "crime." Having sex with 5 year olds is already a felony. Cuccinelli is making this a political issue to further his own career.

The law in question:
§ 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.

B. Any person who performs or causes to be performed cunnilingus, fellatio, anilingus or anal intercourse upon or by his daughter or granddaughter, son or grandson, brother or sister, or father or mother is guilty of a Class 5 felony. However, if a parent or grandparent commits any such act with his child or grandchild and such child or grandchild is at least 13 but less than 18 years of age at the time of the offense, such parent or grandparent is guilty of a Class 3 felony.

C. For the purposes of this section, parent includes step-parent, grandparent includes step-grandparent, child includes step-child and grandchild includes step-grandchild.
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?000+cod+18.2-361

[dillo]

I really dont buy that its a law to protect minors, do they really not already have a law that bans child rape?

[tangent4ronpaul]

because biology changes at state lines

+rep

-t

[69360]

Big Brother in your bedroom.

This guy's a clown. There's no amount of justification in the world that would make reinstating such a law an acceptable choice. I already see an appeal to emotion splattered all over this (http://www.vachildpredators.com/) page. IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN. DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN! WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN! Isn't that what a lot of people here like to mock Democrats for?

The portion that applies to adults is unenforceable via the SCOTUS Lawrence decision. So yes it is actually for the children.


he wants to keep minors from having (or getting) oral sex....

damn glad i'm out of high school

seriously - this is why republicans are such easy prey. just walk away.

Not true. Consenting teenagers are not being prosecuted.


The man is a clown who is looking for ways to lose the election. Between him and the loud mouth Lt. Gov, I seriously don't care who wins anymore. Anyone who continues making moves like this after what happened to Akin is not someone with the mental aptitude to govern.


We're not talking about 5 year olds, here. The children in question were 16 and 17. That's a misdemeanor in Virginia and not a crime at all in half the states (because biology changes at state lines.) The guy was convicted for the misdemeanor offense. Cuccinelli wants to make him a felon for the "crime." Having sex with 5 year olds is already a felony. Cuccinelli is making this a political issue to further his own career.

The law in question:
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?000+cod+18.2-361

The reason Cucinelli is pushing this is a case where a 47 year old male forced a 17 year old female child to perform oral sex on him. I don't know about you, but yes I think a 17 year old is still a child and I think that should be a felony. This was the law they used to charge him with a felony. If overturning it holds, he is no longer a registered sex offender.

Cuccinelli is putting it on the line in an election year for this girl and others like her. The democrat smears are the result. Re-instating the law is not a perfect solution at, but it could work. Yes a law just about nobody likes will be on the books, but the portion that applies to consenting adults can not be enforced.

[Occam's Banana]

The reason Cucinelli is pushing this is a case where a 47 year old male forced a 17 year old female child to perform oral sex on him. I don't know about you, but yes I think a 17 year old is still a child and I think that should be a felony.

If force was involved, what does it matter that the victim was a "17 years old," "female" OR a "child" ... ?


This was the law they used to charge him with a felony.

So if the victim of forced oral sex had been an "80 year old," "male" and "adult," this would NOT have been a felony?

If not, isn't that the problem? And if so, what is this particular law needed for?

IOW: how is this particular law not either (1) completely inadequate, or (2) entirely superfluous?

[Anti Federalist]

Not me. I think it's ridiculous to try and reinstate that law..it's unenforceable anyway. This is the type of thing that is going to hand elections over to the Dems.

Ohhh, I don't know about that... can think of a number of surveillance methods that could enforce that.

And since it "causes cancer" well, hell, if it saves one life, amirite?

[jbauer]

Worthless thread. Who cares about any of this?

I don't live in Virginia but I do like BJ's :cool:

[JCDenton0451]

Worthless thread. Who cares about any of this?

I do. It is very annoying that the choice we face in so many races is between corrupt progressive statists and the Christian Taleban. Cooch really is part of Taleban. He and McAuliffe can both go to hell as far as I'm concerned.

[AuH20]

Worthless thread. Who cares about any of this?

Low info voters. Being lazy and complacent, they'll simply believe he wants to "ban oral sex" and deploy a task force ready to lock up all violators. This is like the Lee Atwater strategy progressive style.

http://rense.com/1.imagesH/debt_dees.jpg

[69360]

If force was involved, what does it matter that the victim was a "17 years old," "female" OR a "child" ... ?



So if the victim of forced oral sex had been an "80 year old," "male" and "adult," this would NOT have been a felony?

If not, isn't that the problem? And if so, what is this particular law needed for?

IOW: how is this particular law not either (1) completely inadequate, or (2) entirely superfluous?

Because for whatever reason, not worth debating here this is the law VA used to charge this child molester and others with a felony. If you say that wasn't so smart, I'd agree, but it is what it is. If the overturning stands, they are no longer registered sex offenders, they don't have to disclose it and nobody can be notified about them.

[fr33]

Just the other day Eduardo tried to claim that nobody is proposing to use the old sodomy laws. :rolleyes:

Cuccinelli can eat a dick.

[pcosmar]

I really dont buy that its a law to protect minors, do they really not already have a law that bans child rape?

Exactly. There are already laws against rape. And laws against sex with underage people.

Not sure if this is being brought up honestly or if it is just another unneeded and unnecessary law..and it is political suicide. (as it should be)

GOP needs to find someone else to get behind.

[AuH20]

Because for whatever reason, not worth debating here this is the law VA used to charge this child molester and others with a felony. If you say that wasn't so smart, I'd agree, but it is what it is. If the overturning stands, they are no longer registered sex offenders, they don't have to disclose it and nobody can be notified about them.

Correct. The Virginia DA is not responsible if those 90 go off the radar and possibly commit more sexual predation crimes. It's not his responsibility what happens afterward. It's just a token position. [sarc] This law is all about banning both homosexual and heterosexual sexual acts, or so I heard through the idiot box.

[donnay]

When was the last time 2 consenting adults were prosecuted for oral sex in Virginia? I'd guess the 50's or 60's. If I was a resident of VA I could live with that law on the books if it let the state prosecute sex offenders who prey on children. The Lawrence decision by SCOTUS prohibits prosecuting consenting adults anyway, so that part of the law is meaningless.

Selective enforcing an unconstitutional law is good, in your opinion?

There are all kinds of stupid laws on the books. Let's just take a look shall we...

Silly Maine Laws:

After January 14th you will be charged a fine for having your Christmas decorations still up.

You may not step out of a plane in flight.

Augusta

To stroll down the street playing a violin is against the law.

Biddeford

It is illegal to gamble at the airport.

South Berwick

It is illegal to park in front of Dunkin Donuts.

[JCDenton0451]

Low info voters. Being lazy and complacent, they'll simply believe he wants to "ban oral sex" and deploy a task force ready to lock up all violators. This is like the Lee Atwater strategy progressive style.



Stop it. Crearly, lots of people on this board care about this. And this is not a distraction. As a governor Cooch will have power to make life difficult for people practicing oral sex...and birth control...and abortion etc.

[AuH20]

Stop it. Crearly, lots of people on this board care about this. And this is not a distraction. As a governor Cooch will have power to make life difficult for people practicing oral sex...and birth control...and abortion etc.

Give me an example of this overreach you state. Where is the task force? Where is the funding for this type of initiative? Show me. This law is about a singular case EXCLUSIVE to sexual predators and has no overlap to consenting adults. Read the statute. It's clear cut.

[Nobexliberty]

For the sake of everyone on this forum, I am going to let Eduardo take full care of sodomy is evil debate that will come when he reads this thread.

[69360]

Selective enforcing an unconstitutional law is good, in your opinion?

In general no, in this specific case yes. There is no good alternative to letting 90 convicted child predators more or less get away with and be free to do it again.

Cucinelli is standing up for those victims, in an election year in the face of a democratic smear campaign with no basis in fact. I think that is worthy of our praise.

[pcosmar]

Because for whatever reason, not worth debating here this is the law VA used to charge this child molester and others with a felony. If you say that wasn't so smart, I'd agree, but it is what it is. If the overturning stands, they are no longer registered sex offenders, they don't have to disclose it and nobody can be notified about them.

NO,, He had sex (allegedly) with a young woman,, not a child. If he raped or forced her then charge him with that and let a jury decide.

perhaps the age of consent laws should be examined,, and changed to be more in line with reality.

Perhaps (if you like more and more stupid laws) some Lolita Laws to protect men from predatory girls. ( I do not advocate such)

But get real. Sex is part of Human nature..

[69360]

NO,, He had sex (allegedly) with a young woman,, not a child. If he raped or forced her then charge him with that and let a jury decide.

perhaps the age of consent laws should be examined,, and changed to be more in line with reality.

Perhaps (if you like more and more stupid laws) some Lolita Laws to protect men from predatory girls. ( I do not advocate such)

But get real. Sex is part of Human nature..

A 17 year old is still a child in the society of this country.

[mwkaufman]

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.

Having laws like these on the books is insane, and I'm thankful judicial activism has struck it down.


It is not - and cannot be -- used against consenting adults acting in private.

Well it certainly could be, but no reasonable court would hold it up. It doesn't mean attorneys can't threaten citizens with a law they're clearly guilty of in order to get them to plead to something, it's no good to have this on the books. Cuccinelli's argument here is he ought to be able to get a felony against this guy, and that the court would allow a law making it a felony for activity between someone over 18 and someone that is 17, so why can't he just use this one? The problem is this law says no such thing. We can't just have laws that are so overly broad that the court has to write the law. If you do, you might end up with no law at all, as happened here.

Going down the road of overly broad laws, you could just make breathing illegal and have no other law on the books. Arrest the guy and start to spin a tale like, well no judge will actually convict you for breathing, but you were breathing with your mouth on the lips of a 17 year old girl, which is clearly illegal, throw him in jail.


This law is about a singular case EXCLUSIVE to sexual predators and has no overlap to consenting adults. Read the statute. It's clear cut.

You read the statute, I quoted it above, it clearly makes all oral and anal sex a felony. I'm not against updating §18.2-371 to make it apply to oral and anal sex also, I am against the law as written.

[AuH20]

For the sake of everyone on this forum, I am going to let Eduardo take full care of sodomy is evil debate that will come when he reads this thread.

I don't agree with Eduardo, but this entire Cuccinelli controversy is manufactured to say the least. He doesn't believe homosexuality to be a natural act (how could he ever arrive at that conclusion? LOL) and as a result, the social engineering police are concocting false and erroneous claims against him to such a degree, that the Huffington Post author went as far to declare that he's "waging war against oral sex" when that's not even what the statute entails.

[Pericles]

For the life of me, I just can't understand why Huff Po would be so fast and loose with the truth.

Sure you can ;)

[JCDenton0451]

Give me an example of this overreach you state. Where is the task force? Where is the funding for this type of initiative? Show me. This law is about a singular case EXCLUSIVE to sexual predators and has no overlap to consenting adults. Read the statute. It's clear cut.

It's a red herring. If what Chooch really cares about is rape, why single out oral sex specifically? This is what social issues warriors do. They take something they hate personally (abortion, oral sex) and try to tie it to something most people find ugly and evil (rape, murder).

Cooch wants to change public opinion on oral sex by associating it with molestation. He is using public office as a resource in his war against non-traditional sexual practices.

[Icymudpuppy]

I can't believe that anybody on my beloved RPF's is supporting this asswipe. Seriously, get your government out of the bedroom!!!!!!

This guy is already being charged with Sexual assault. Rape is rape regardless of what orifice he used, and reinstating this law is just a way to further the anti-gay agenda, but it also effectively criminalizes perfectly normal heterosexual foreplay. I say this as a man who doesn't even like blowjobs.

[pcosmar]

A 17 year old is still a child in the society of this country.

No. They are not.
Age of consent varies.. from 15 to 18.

And in my life I have known several girls that were sexually active (voluntary and predatory) at 11 or 12.
One such I lived with for 2 years. from 16 to 18.. at 16 she was quite proficient. (*manipulative and predatory)

Of course i have known people in their thirties or later that still act like children.

(* and these many years later I still remember her fondly)

[JK/SEA]

hey cooch.....BLOW ME.

[AuH20]

It's a red herring. If what Chooch really cares about is rape, why single out oral sex specifically? This is what social issues warriors do. They take something they hate personally (abortion, oral sex) and try to tie it to something most people find ugly and evil (rape, murder).

Cooch wants to change public opinion on oral sex by associating it with molestation. He is using public office as a resource in his war against non-traditional sexual practices.

Did you read the details of the case or are you going to partake in hypothetical hearsay? This particular individual was a repeat offender with multiple violations prior. This wasn't some innocent guy who fell into a spontaneous oral sex session, who had plausible deniability. They should throw the book at him. Forcing oneself on another human being isn't a libertarian position last I checked.

[JCDenton0451]

Did you read the details of the case or are you going to partake in hypothetical hearsay? This particular individual was a repeat offender with multiple violations prior. This wasn't some innocent guy who fell into a spontaneous oral sex session, who had plausible deniability. They should throw the book at him. Forcing oneself on another human being isn't a libertarian position last I checked.

Like Icymudpuppy (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?23229-Icymudpuppy) said, it shouldn't matter which orifice he used.

[pcosmar]

Did you read the details of the case or are you going to partake in hypothetical hearsay? This particular individual was a repeat offender with multiple violations prior. This wasn't some innocent guy who fell into a spontaneous oral sex session, who had plausible deniability. They should throw the book at him. Forcing oneself on another human being isn't a libertarian position last I checked.

If he is a repeat offender,, why is he on the street in the first place?

And if it was an actual rape then let him be charged with that, on the merits of the evidence and let a jury decide.

If it is simply some statutory bullshit being pushed let the jury nullify it,, if they decide such.

More intrusive laws are not needed.

[VBRonPaulFan]

If he is a repeat offender,, why is he on the street in the first place?

And if it was an actual rape then let him be charged with that, on the merits of the evidence and let a jury decide.

If it is simply some statutory bullshit being pushed let the jury nullify it,, if they decide such.

More intrusive laws are not needed.

As a Virginian, I pretty much totally agree with this. There is no reason to try to twist this old, weird ass statute to somehow apply to this specific case. What he did was rape, so throw his ass away for rape for as long as possible and be done with it. He's 47, they only need to get him at least 30 consecutive years to essentially make his sentence a life one, so he won't be able to do what he did again.

[Uriah]

Scratch a prohibitionist, find a tyrant.


Haha!

[AuH20]

As a Virginian, I pretty much totally agree with this. There is no reason to try to twist this old, weird ass statute to somehow apply to this specific case. What he did was rape, so throw his ass away for rape for as long as possible and be done with it. He's 47, they only need to get him at least 30 consecutive years to essentially make his sentence a life one, so he won't be able to do what he did again.

In Virginia, there is a loophole for rape charges if "vaginal sex" is not consummated. That's where this bizarre law comes into play as being a valuable tool for prosecutors, who's hands are tied in cases with a clear cut sexual predator who posssesses a long rap sheet. I believe that there has been 90 other successful prosecutions utlizing this law since 2003 and a fair share of these litigators were democrats. So the question that bears repeating is, why is this controversy being so magnified if democrats, the supposed gay friendly party, have been utilizing this law to imprison sexual predators? That tells you right there that this crusade is hollow on all merits.

[VBRonPaulFan]

In Virginia, there is a loophole for rape charges if "vaginal sex" is not consummated. That's where this bizarre law comes into play as being a valuable tool for prosecutors. I believe that there has been 90 other successful prosecutions utlizing this law since 2003 and a fair share of these litigators were democrats.

So fix the goddamn loophole. If we've prosecuted 90 other people using this bizarre, probably inappropriate addendum to some old statute, the state has had PLENTY OF TIME to fix the original problem. The fact that we're even debating if forcing someone to give you oral sex is 'technically' rape in Virginia or not is insane.

[ladyjade3]

GOP needs to find someone else to get behind.

This. This issue demonstrates that this is just one of those races where there is NO liberty candidate. And there are unfortunately many many of those races. We don't want to hang our hats with any more idiots like this. Just leave him alone. Please.

[JCDenton0451]

This. This issue demonstrates that this is just one of those races where there is NO liberty candidate. And there are unfortunately many many of those races. We don't want to hang our hats with any more idiots like this. Just leave him alone. Please.

I hear there is a Libertarian candidate in the race...

[donnay]

In general no, in this specific case yes. There is no good alternative to letting 90 convicted child predators more or less get away with and be free to do it again.

Cucinelli is standing up for those victims, in an election year in the face of a democratic smear campaign with no basis in fact. I think that is worthy of our praise.

You need to rethink your stance on liberty, my friend. You cannot pick and choose laws like ordering off a Chinese Take-out Menu. There are already enough laws on the books that are enforceable and stupid laws, unconstitutional laws that need to be eliminated.

We already have a police state, and that is the standing army our founders warned us about. That standing army will enforce unconstitutional laws that take away our liberty. There is already too much surveillance going on, our privacy should not be eroded because the government wants to nanny every situation. It is impossible and the government has proven time and time again they are incapable of it.

Nevertheless, the REAL issue for these diversions are to gain total control over each and every one of us. Because, instead of innocent until proven guilty, it has become guilty until proven innocent.

Jury nullification and fully informed citizens is our only way to stop crimes like this--politicizing them, as many politicians do only creates more problems and more diversions.

[69360]

So fix the goddamn loophole. If we've prosecuted 90 other people using this bizarre, probably inappropriate addendum to some old statute, the state has had PLENTY OF TIME to fix the original problem. The fact that we're even debating if forcing someone to give you oral sex is 'technically' rape in Virginia or not is insane.

Yes they should fix the loophole problem. But that will not keep the 90 offenders from for all intents getting away with it. This is a pragmatic solution for those specific cases.

There is a time to be pure in your beliefs and times you just take a practical pragmatic approach to a specific problem, this is one of them.

[VBRonPaulFan]

I hear there is a Libertarian candidate in the race...

It doesn't matter right now - it really doesn't. If you lived here, you would understand.

So many in this state are so totally dependent on the military-industrial complex and its associated spending, that they will never ever support anyone who even entertains the thought of cutting military spending.

That is why we have assholes like Randy Forbes and Cuccinelli and others who'll scream bloody murder about 'excessive government spending' in one breath and then aggressively chastise any possible cuts to military spending. It's completely insane, it really is.

[69360]

You need to rethink your stance on liberty, my friend. You cannot pick and choose laws like ordering off a Chinese Take-out Menu. There are already enough laws on the books that are enforceable and stupid laws, unconstitutional laws that need to be eliminated.

We already have a police state, and that is the standing army our founders warned us about. That standing army will enforce unconstitutional laws that take away our liberty. There is already too much surveillance going on, our privacy should not be eroded because the government wants to nanny every situation. It is impossible and the government has proven time and time again they are incapable of it.

Nevertheless, the REAL issue for these diversions are to gain total control over each and every one of us. Because, instead of innocent until proven guilty, it has become guilty until proven innocent.

Jury nullification and fully informed citizens is our only way to stop crimes like this--politicizing them, as many politicians do only creates more problems and more diversions.

Tell that to those 90 children who's abusers now get away with it. Sometimes a practical approach is better. This is one. Everything isn't so black and white in the real world. This wouldn't hurt anyone else but the abusers. The Lawrence decision makes it completely unenforceable against consenting adults.

[BuddyRey]

It is very annoying that the choice we face in so many races is between corrupt progressive statists and the Christian Taleban.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

[PursuePeace]

I hear there is a Libertarian candidate in the race...

Robert Sarvis (http://www.robertsarvis.com/)

[pcosmar]

In Virginia, there is a loophole for rape charges if "vaginal sex" is not consummated. That's where this bizarre law comes into play as being a valuable tool for prosecutors, who's hands are tied in cases with a clear cut sexual predator who posssesses a long rap sheet. I believe that there has been 90 other successful prosecutions utlizing this law since 2003 and a fair share of these litigators were democrats. So the question that bears repeating is why is this controversy being so magnified if democrats, the supposed gay friendly party, have been utilizing this law to imprison sexual predators? That tells you right there that this crusade is hollow on all merits.

That only tells me there is a lot of Bullshit in the state if Virginia. (what else is new?)

I went looking for the details of this case,, and found very little.

The article is a blatant lie.

Read this-

http://www.vachildpredators.com/

I started there.. just to find the name of the guy.. because the case (though much referenced in this thread) was not ever posted.

What I found was a case of he said/she said.. with no forced rape occurring at all. A BJ in the back seat.

seems pretty slim to even charge over and likely should have been thrown out long before it ever got this far.

If you want to read this convoluted mess,,
https://www.motherjones.com/files/appellateopinion.pdf

[VBRonPaulFan]

Yes they should fix the loophole problem. But that will not keep the 90 offenders from for all intents getting away with it. This is a pragmatic solution for those specific cases.

There is a time to be pure in your beliefs and times you just take a practical pragmatic approach to a specific problem, this is one of them.

Are you honestly telling me that you don't think there is a way to both fix the loophole, and also keep those 90 offenders in jail?

The 'pratical pragmatic approach' is what has led us here in the first place. Some old, poorly worded addendum instead of fixing the underlying issue.

[pcosmar]

Oh and if you want one on Female predators,,here is one, Oddly enough with the same name and age as the other.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/02/valerie-bartkey-amanda-johnson_n_1248510.html

[69360]

Are you honestly telling me that you don't think there is a way to both fix the loophole, and also keep those 90 offenders in jail?

The 'pratical pragmatic approach' is what has led us here in the first place. Some old, poorly worded addendum instead of fixing the underlying issue.

No, they can't be retried, it's double jeopardy. I believe most are already released and on the sex offenders listing. They would get off. There is no other solution.

[VBRonPaulFan]

No, they can't be retried, it's double jeopardy. I believe most are already released and on the sex offenders listing. They would get off. There is no other solution.

So let them go and drop off the lists, fix the law, and let the state explain to its people how it completely fucked up and dropped the ball here.

I can see how politicians might have a problem with taking some responsibility here, though.

This is the solution. This isn't the one that politicians want, it certainly isn't necessarily the solution I want, but this entire thing is just silly at this point. It's just a circle jerk of people who won't do anything because they're too busy pointing at the next guy while exclaiming 'he did it!'.

Fix it, deal with the fallout, and move forward. The current discussion certainly isn't and probably will never be fruitful or constructive.

(I'm not totally convinced that a solution couldn't be worked out that could apply retro-actively to those 90 folks who were convicted under this weird statute, though)

[AuH20]

Now onto the real issues that matter. It appears that the crony corporatist and CoC crowd does not like Cuccinelli for standing up to thief Bob McDonnell and his profligate spending ways:


But it was his opposition to McDonnell’s transportation legislation — a legacy bill for the outgoing governor that includes new taxes — that has many establishment Republicans at their wit’s end. Cuccinelli not only publicly stated his opposition to the measure, which passed the legislature in a dramatic weekend session, but rushed an overnight legal opinion out early Saturday morning that McDonnell loyalists saw as an unambiguous attempt to torpedo the bill.

Establishment republicans and shady corporate interests despise Cuccinelli? The horror... Where can I donate to him?

[surf]

Tell that to those 90 children who's abusers now get away with it. Sometimes a practical approach is better. This is one. Everything isn't so black and white in the real world. This wouldn't hurt anyone else but the abusers. The Lawrence decision makes it completely unenforceable against consenting adults.no offense intended, but to me that sounds eerily similar to what Chris Christie said to Rand regarding the families and victims of 9/11

[GunnyFreedom]

Meh, what he is trying to do isn't as bad as some are making it out to be, but here in this movement we operate on principle rather than practicalities. Were I in VA I couldn't vote for the guy based on this, mere assurances that it won't be used on consenting adults is not enough. The law is wrong full stop. You don't advocate a wrong law just because in practice it will have some temporary positive effect. One could just as well advocate making the possession of sugar a felony to go after a fat mob boss. It's a bad idea. Still, people calling the guy a Christian Talibani are working from gut reaction rather than reason.

I'm with the majority here who are dropping Cucinelli like a hot potato, but I'm NOT with the majority calling the guy a SoCon bedroom warrior. That's just not what he is doing. Apparently 90~ish genuine sexual predators were convicted on a bad law, and the effort is to prevent the expungement of their predations. While the effort itself is of some merit, the support for bad law is without merit.

I couldn't support Cucinelli based on this, but I will say that most of the anti-Cucinelli folks in this thread are operating from the propaganda rather than the objective reality.

Both the pro and the anti are a bit off here.

Guy is just trying to prevent the ongoing predation of sexual predators. His methods are wrong, but it's not like he's actually trying to criminalize consensual sex. That may be the effect of his effort but it's not his intent. He should be opposed for some kind of ignorance to how government and laws work and effect people. To call him a bedroom Taliban though isn't really accurate.

He's wrong. Don't misunderstand me here. I tell you I wouldn't vote for the guy based on this, but we don't need the propagandistic exaggeration of his intent, it's counterproductive. He is far more guilty of perpetuating the unintended consequences of good intentions than he is of the bad intentions of trying to police consensual sex.

He is wrong and I couldn't support him, but the anti-Cucinelli folks in this thread are dealing more in propaganda than reality. The reality is bad enough without having to delve into distortions.

[pcosmar]

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/about.aspx

Fix the "system" before adding any more armaments to it's arsenal.

[Carlybee]

Thanks for explaining it Gunny but it's usually about perception...most voters won't delve that deeply into the details and the perception of being the bedroom police gives Dems ammunition and turns off independents and libertarians who lean right. The GOP in general has a big problem with perception and these type of slippery slope issues are always used against them.

[69360]

no offense intended, but to me that sounds eerily similar to what Chris Christie said to Rand regarding the families and victims of 9/11

Not really. Christie is exploiting those victims for his own political gain to further himself. Cuccinelli is support these victims despite knowing it's a political loser and will hurt his campaign.

[AuH20]

Meh, what he is trying to do isn't as bad as some are making it out to be, but here in this movement we operate on principle rather than practicalities. Were I in VA I couldn't vote for the guy based on this, mere assurances that it won't be used on consenting adults is not enough. The law is wrong full stop. You don't advocate a wrong law just because in practice it will have some temporary positive effect. One could just as well advocate making the possession of sugar a felony to go after a fat mob boss. It's a bad idea. Still, people calling the guy a Christian Talibani are working from gut reaction rather than reason.

I'm with the majority here who are dropping Cucinelli like a hot potato, but I'm NOT with the majority calling the guy a SoCon bedroom warrior. That's just not what he is doing. Apparently 90~ish genuine sexual predators were convicted on a bad law, and the effort is to prevent the expungement of their predations. While the effort itself is of some merit, the support for bad law is without merit.

I couldn't support Cucinelli based on this, but I will say that most of the anti-Cucinelli folks in this thread are operating from the propaganda rather than the objective reality.

Both the pro and the anti are a bit off here.

Guy is just trying to prevent the ongoing predation of sexual predators. His methods are wrong, but it's not like he's actually trying to criminalize consensual sex. That may be the effect of his effort but it's not his intent. He should be opposed for some kind of ignorance to how government and laws work and effect people. To call him a bedroom Taliban though isn't really accurate.

He's wrong. Don't misunderstand me here. I tell you I wouldn't vote for the guy based on this, but we don't need the propagandistic exaggeration of his intent, it's counterproductive. He is far more guilty of perpetuating the unintended consequences of good intentions than he is of the bad intentions of trying to police consensual sex.

He is wrong and I couldn't support him, but the anti-Cucinelli folks in this thread are dealing more in propaganda than reality. The reality is bad enough without having to delve into distortions.

Well said. I can't stand the misleading agenda and responded in turn. This is more complex than sensationalist headlines and can't be boiled down simply to that Cuccinelli wants to ban oral sex. Yet I understand why some folks would not support him. However, I look at candidates from the full spectrum perspective and his platform is extremely strong on a multitude of issues. There is an anti-federalist streak to Cuccinelli that is lacking in state capitols nearly everywhere.

[PaleoPaul]

I really dont buy that its a law to protect minors, do they really not already have a law that bans child rape?
Exactly. What difference does it make how a child has been molested?! In the end, the child's innocence and virginity have been stolen. The child will be permanently damaged, no matter how he or she has been abused.

[69360]

Exactly. What difference does it make how a child has been molested?! In the end, the child's innocence and virginity have been stolen. The child will be permanently damaged, no matter how he or she has been abused.

Because VA has messed up laws that only let prosecutors go after a felony in cases of vaginal penetration.

They needed this messed up law to get felony convictions on other sorts of abuse.

It wasn't the right way to do it obviously and they should fix it. But these 90 abusers shouldn't get away with over this.

[AuH20]

Like I said, in terms of full spectrum, Cuccinelli is very appealing:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/12/1578761/medicare-is-despicable-and-nine-other-crazy-ideas-in-ken-cuccinellis-new-book/

[JCDenton0451]

Because VA has messed up laws that only let prosecutors go after a felony in cases of vaginal penetration. Cooch isn't arguing in favor of changing these laws, right?

[PaleoPaul]

Because VA has messed up laws that only let prosecutors go after a felony in cases of vaginal penetration.

They needed this messed up law to get felony convictions on other sorts of abuse.

It wasn't the right way to do it obviously and they should fix it. But these 90 abusers shouldn't get away with over this.
Then why not just change the child sexual abuse statutes to include ANY form of penetration or sexual advances?!

Because Cooch has a bedroom warrior agenda.

[69360]

Then why not just change the child sexual abuse statutes to include ANY form of penetration or sexual advances?!

Because Cooch has a bedroom warrior agenda.

Double jeopardy. They could not retry those predators and they would get away with it. The scope of this would be limited to 90 people if VA kept this law and fixed the underlying problem. Nobody in recent history has been tried for consensual adult sodomy nor would be.

It's not as simple an issue as sensational headline make it appear.

[BuddyRey]

Since no one seemed to read this excerpt containing a quote from Cuccinelli himself on his intention behind reviving the bill, I'll post it again.


Cuccinelli claims he will only use the sodomy law to bring cases involving minors or sexual assault, and argues that Virginians need not worry about him prosecuting "consenting adults," because the part of the law that would enable him to do so was defanged by the Supreme Court's Lawrence decision. But in 2004, when a bipartisan group of state Senators was trying to fix the sodomy law so that it would only apply to cases involving minors and non-consensual sex, Cuccinelli, then a state Senator, blocked the effort. And in 2009, as my colleague Andy Kroll has noted, Cuccinelli made clear that he objected to oral and anal sex (at least between gay people) on principle, telling the Virginian-Pilot, "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."

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/06/ken-cuccinelli-virginia-oral-anal-sex-sodomy

Don't get me wrong, I completely respect that there are people, like Ron Paul, who personally oppose aberrant sexual behaviors on religious grounds, and they have every right to feel that way. But this is a guy who, by his own admission, wants "to have policies that reflect" his own hangups and biases. That's not liberty, that's not natural law, and frankly, it isn't even conservatism defined faithfully as a belief in very limited government. How could a government with the power to jail you for something you do at home be said to be "limited" in any true, non-euphemistic sense of the word?

[GunnyFreedom]

Since no one seemed to read this excerpt containing a quote from Cuccinelli himself on his intention behind reviving the bill, I'll post it again.



http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/06/ken-cuccinelli-virginia-oral-anal-sex-sodomy

Don't get me wrong, I completely respect that there are people, like Ron Paul, who personally oppose aberrant sexual behaviors on religious grounds, and they have every right to feel that way. But this is a guy who, by his own admission, wants "to have policies that reflect" his own hangups and biases. That's not liberty, that's not natural law, and frankly, it isn't even conservatism defined faithfully as a belief in very limited government. How could a government with the power to jail you for something you do at home be said to be "limited" in any true, non-euphemistic sense of the word?

I read it, and that's at least in part why I couldn't support him. The criminalization of consensual behavior is just wrong, from an old-school American liberty perspective.

[69360]

I read it, and that's at least in part why I couldn't support him. The criminalization of consensual behavior is just wrong, from an old-school American liberty perspective.

But the thing here is, if they reinstate the law, consensual activity by adult could NOT be prosecuted because of the SCOTUS Lawrence decision.

It's surely not an elegant solution. I just don't see what else the state can do about this situation.

[AuH20]

Since no one seemed to read this excerpt containing a quote from Cuccinelli himself on his intention behind reviving the bill, I'll post it again.



http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/06/ken-cuccinelli-virginia-oral-anal-sex-sodomy

Don't get me wrong, I completely respect that there are people, like Ron Paul, who personally oppose aberrant sexual behaviors on religious grounds, and they have every right to feel that way. But this is a guy who, by his own admission, wants "to have policies that reflect" his own hangups and biases. That's not liberty, that's not natural law, and frankly, it isn't even conservatism defined faithfully as a belief in very limited government. How could a government with the power to jail you for something you do at home be said to be "limited" in any true, non-euphemistic sense of the word?

I think you're conflating his natural law perspective and the aforementioned unique case, which entailed no HOMOSEXUAL activity. Based on Cuccinelli's widely publicized convictions, he is anti-gay, but the "bedroom warrior" smears are beyond ridiculous and purely political for obvious reasons. That's the shock value used to intimidate potential low-info voters as opposed to giving them an honest account of his positions.

[Snew]

Since no one seemed to read this excerpt containing a quote from Cuccinelli himself on his intention behind reviving the bill, I'll post it again.

Don't get me wrong, I completely respect that there are people, like Ron Paul, who personally oppose aberrant sexual behaviors on religious grounds, and they have every right to feel that way. But this is a guy who, by his own admission, wants "to have policies that reflect" his own hangups and biases. That's not liberty, that's not natural law, and frankly, it isn't even conservatism defined faithfully as a belief in very limited government. How could a government with the power to jail you for something you do at home be said to be "limited" in any true, non-euphemistic sense of the word?

Completely agree; this post pretty much sums it up for me.

[PaleoPaul]

Double jeopardy. They could not retry those predators and they would get away with it. The scope of this would be limited to 90 people if VA kept this law and fixed the underlying problem. Nobody in recent history has been tried for consensual adult sodomy nor would be.

It's not as simple an issue as sensational headline make it appear.
I don't mean for the past predators. I mean for any predators arrested and convicted AFTER the revised child abuse statute was passed.

[GunnyFreedom]

But the thing here is, if they reinstate the law, consensual activity by adult could NOT be prosecuted because of the SCOTUS Lawrence decision.

It's surely not an elegant solution. I just don't see what else the state can do about this situation.


I don't think we can on principle support bad law just because we are confident that it's intent will be favorably misconstrued by SCOTUS. The better approach would be to re-write the section these 90 were convicted on to specify rape and predation. Murder statutes are re-written all the time without necessitating the release of murderers. That would accomplish the preservation of predator status for the 90, without renewing a plainly bad law that criminalizes consensual behavior between adults.

[VBRonPaulFan]

The better approach would be to re-write the section these 90 were convicted on to specify rape and predation. Murder statutes are re-written all the time without necessitating the release of murderers. That would accomplish the preservation of predator status for the 90, without renewing a plainly bad law that criminalizes consensual behavior between adults.

Thanks, this is what I was alluding to earlier - I just wasn't sure what it was called.

[GunnyFreedom]

No, they can't be retried, it's double jeopardy. I believe most are already released and on the sex offenders listing. They would get off. There is no other solution.

Murder statutes are re-written all the time in all 50 States and that action does not necessitate the release of murderers, nor does it require a new trial, thus double jeopardy does not apply. Why suddenly in this case would the re-writing of a statute void convictions and sentencing when no other laws anywhere in America do that upon re-writing?

[GunnyFreedom]

Double jeopardy. They could not retry those predators and they would get away with it. The scope of this would be limited to 90 people if VA kept this law and fixed the underlying problem. Nobody in recent history has been tried for consensual adult sodomy nor would be.

It's not as simple an issue as sensational headline make it appear.


If you had to release convicts and double jeopardy applied whenever a criminal statute were re-written, then nobody would stay in jail longer than 5 years for any reason in any state in the union.

[thoughtomator]

Cuccinelli has NOT made "laws against nature" a part of his campaign. It's entirely the McAuliffe camp and traditional Democrat allies doing so. This is nothing but your typical leftist campaign-time social propaganda campaign.

Nobody in Virginia is going to be arrested for giving a blow job under Governor Cuccinelli.

[Todd]

He is wrong and I couldn't support him, but the anti-Cucinelli folks in this thread are dealing more in propaganda than reality. The reality is bad enough without having to delve into distortions.

Gunny said it best above. I was a staunch supporter of Ken during his run for AG. He was one of the few Virginia legislators who lead the way against the Real ID here in the state. He also led the way in this country for states to attack the legality of Obama care as the AG. He ran a tremendous grassroots campaign, but after he won things always seemed a bit off though once he got into the big leagues. The comments he made about legislating Sexual acts based on natural law are very troubling indeed.

[69360]

If you had to release convicts and double jeopardy applied whenever a criminal statute were re-written, then nobody would stay in jail longer than 5 years for any reason in any state in the union.

I don't think any of the ones in question are still in prison. They would have reword the sexual offender notification laws to include listing offenders without a criminal record if they have their record expunged based on the overturned law. I'm not sure that is possible?

[GunnyFreedom]

I don't think any of the ones in question are still in prison. They would have reword the sexual offender notification laws to include listing offenders without a criminal record if they have their record expunged based on the overturned law. I'm not sure that is possible?


I don't understand how they would not have a record, or how they would get their records expunged? You re-write the statute in question to account for what these 90 did, and they still stand convicted of the given statute. Any judge looking at expungement will compare the re-written statute to the crime they were convicted of and boot them out of his or her courtroom. I don't understand how convictions would magically disappear just because a statute is re-worded.

[pcosmar]

Nobody in Virginia is going to be arrested for giving a blow job under Governor Cuccinelli.

Then there is no need for a law if it will never be used. So why propose one?

[pcosmar]

I don't think any of the ones in question are still in prison. They would have reword the sexual offender notification laws to include listing offenders without a criminal record if they have their record expunged based on the overturned law. I'm not sure that is possible?

They should do away with them(registries) altogether. either sentence them to life imprisonment, or leave them the hell alone once a sentence is completed.

For actual Rape,, I would favor life imprisonment. Statutory rape needs to be done away with entirely. I can think of few laws more abused.

[amy31416]

Is Cuccinelli a warmonger?

I ask only because it seems that it's mostly the war-happy few here are defending this seemingly bizarre legal reincarnation.

[GunnyFreedom]

Then there is no need for a law if it will never be used. So why propose one?

Nobody is proposing a law, actually. They are considering the reactivation of a defunct law because some 90~ish (alleged) sexual predators were convicted under it, and given the obsolescence of the law the fear is that they could seek expungement or lose their requirement to be listed on the sexual offender database.

The intent of Cucinelli is to prevent the expungement of sex offenses from these 90 people's records, and to maintain their requirement to be listed in the sex offender database.

I am making no value statements whatever on the propriety of this intent, just clearing up some misconceptions and misconstructions. I have already said that I do not support Cucinelli's efforts.

[thoughtomator]

Then there is no need for a law if it will never be used. So why propose one?

Where do you see that someone has actually proposed one?

Read a few articles on the subject. Notice not one actually references any time when Cuccinelli actually proposed a law. 100% of what he is guilty of here is not bowing down to militant political correctness when publicly confronted with it.

What the original article and the collection of other articles on this topic all represent is a collective propaganda effort. There's not one non-Democrat-partisan story on the subject - it's a totally made up controversy for the purpose of scoring political points in an election. The most recent quotes in these stories are from 2009 and they go back to 2003 when Cuccinelli first came "out" as a person not easily intimidated by Marxists.

Here's the actual platform he's running on: http://www.cuccinelli.com/issues/

Notice "protect Constitutional rights" is in there. "Make blowjobs illegal" isn't, and as AG it really hasn't been a focus of his, either.

[pcosmar]

I am making no value statements whatever on the propriety of this intent, just clearing up some misconceptions and misconstructions. I have already said that I do not support Cucinelli's efforts.

Nor do I. I would advocate they abolish of the Sex offender registry in entirety.

I knew someone on it for taking a piss.

[GunnyFreedom]

They should do away with them(registries) altogether. either sentence them to life imprisonment, or leave them the hell alone once a sentence is completed.

For actual Rape,, I would favor life imprisonment. Statutory rape needs to be done away with entirely. I can think of few laws more abused.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Once a person has carried out their sentence, to continue punishing them is obscene. If they are going to rape people or molest children again, then they should stay in prison. If they are not going to rape or molest, then giving them the scarlet letter is wrong. How that is determined I do not know. I do know someone who is listed as a registered sex offender because he was caught urinating in public while drunk, and the prosecutor decided he wanted a gold star and went for exposure to children. Now he is registered for no good reason, and is fortunate to have married into money because he cannot get a well paying job being on the registry.

[GunnyFreedom]

Nor do I. I would advocate they abolish of the Sex offender registry in entirety.

I knew someone on it for taking a piss.


Apparently this is more common than I thought. :(

[pcosmar]

Apparently this is more common than I thought. :(

It is,, as well as parents pushing Statutory rape charges on someone in a relationship simply because they don't like him.
Or girls claiming rape after the fact when no rape occurred.

That does not even get into the cases that have been overturned by the Innocence Project, (a very small percentage of success)

[thoughtomator]

Is Cuccinelli a warmonger?

I ask only because it seems that it's mostly the war-happy few here are defending this seemingly bizarre legal reincarnation.

No. He's a "Tea Party"/Libertarian hybrid. If you got a Tea Party captain and a solid libertarian thinker in the same room and they made a hypothetical candidate with a precisely 50/50 split of their views and priorities, you'd get something that wouldn't be too far from Cuccinelli.

[AuH20]

Where do you see that someone has actually proposed one?

Read a few articles on the subject. Notice not one actually references any time when Cuccinelli actually proposed a law. 100% of what he is guilty of here is not bowing down to militant political correctness when publicly confronted with it.

What the original article and the collection of other articles on this topic all represent is a collective propaganda effort. There's not one non-Democrat-partisan story on the subject - it's a totally made up controversy for the purpose of scoring political points in an election. The most recent quotes in these stories are from 2009 and they go back to 2003 when Cuccinelli first came "out" as a person not easily intimidated by Marxists.

Here's the actual platform he's running on: http://www.cuccinelli.com/issues/

Notice "protect Constitutional rights" is in there. "Make blowjobs illegal" isn't, and as AG it really hasn't been a focus of his, either.

You encapsulated the entire wellspring of this concerted disinfo campaign. The democrats are very fearful of a red wave in the midterms so if they can peel off 5% with tabloid journalism, McAuliffe can sneak in through the back door. Furthermore, beyond Cucinelli's noted independent streak that separates him from establishment repugs and democrats, I don't want to see McAuliffe, Bill Clinton's former consiglieri, as the governor of a state Rand may need in 2016.

[JCDenton0451]

I don't understand why it's so important. Mcdonnell was governor in 2012. Did it help Romney?

Also, 66% of Virginia voters support abortion rights. Given that I'm shocked that Cooch is competitive.

[AuH20]

You couldn't make this shit up? Anti-science zealot? Not only will he ban oral sex but he will publicly flay global warming scientists. Hell, I'm so sick that I'm to send this guy 100 bucks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/ken-cuccinelli-climate_n_3671334.html

[thoughtomator]

I don't understand why it's so important. Mcdonnell was governor in 2012. Did it help Romney?

Also, 66% of Virginia voters support abortion rights. Given that I'm shocked that Cooch is competitive.

Given that the extent of the "social conservative" part of his campaign is stating his pro-life and traditional marriage beliefs and leaving it at that, running his actual campaign on topics on which the Democrat/McAuliffe record is spectacularly bad, this is what Democrats had left in the quiver.

[JCDenton0451]

I think what may really hurt Rand in 2016 is Republican legislatures and Republican governors in swing states like Virginia passing stict anti-abortion bills. This is bound to alienate moderate voters and Rand will have to answer questions about this and take responsibility for this policy. The number of anti-abortion bills increased drastically after 2010, and the Dems used this to great effect to drive female voters to the polls.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2f/Guttmacher_Abortion_Restrictions.SVG/497px-Guttmacher_Abortion_Restrictions.SVG.png

[AuH20]

No more cowering to the TPTB.


Receipt
Please note that the charge will appear on your credit card
or bank account statement as "RALLY/PIRYX"

RECEIPT DETAILS
Date 7/30/2013
Amount $100.00 (One Time)
Transaction ID 5af168a304084dcebb997f68e9ffbeea
Payment Method Credit Card (Amex) ending in
Organization Ken Cuccinelli for Governor
Org. Website http://www.cuccinelli.com

Payment Page Donate to Ken Cuccinelli for Governor
PAYEE INFORMATION

[DamianTV]

So, who is the VICTIM? There cant be a CRIME without a VICTIM. Me? Im willing, which makes me the opposite of a victim!

[thoughtomator]

I think what may really hurt Rand in 2016 is Republican legislatures and Republican governors in swing states like Virginia passing stict anti-abortion bills. This is bound to alienate moderate voters and Rand will have to answer questions about this and take responsibility for this policy. The number of anti-abortion bills increased drastically after 2010, and the Dems used this to great effect to drive female voters to the polls.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2f/Guttmacher_Abortion_Restrictions.SVG/497px-Guttmacher_Abortion_Restrictions.SVG.png

To really understand this chart we would also need to see the number of repeals of restrictions per year as well. The abortion situation was really overboard anyway, with it being apparently fairly common to kill kids who survive the abortion attempt and are born alive, so to see some increased level of restriction on the industry is somewhat appropriate. There's also a quality difference between "ban PBA" and "ban all abortion" which isn't reflected in the chart at all, but makes a huge difference politically.

[mad cow]

You couldn't make this shit up? Anti-science zealot? Not only will he ban oral sex but he will publicly flay global warming scientists. Hell, I'm so sick that I'm to send this guy 100 bucks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/ken-cuccinelli-climate_n_3671334.html

Heh,from your link:


Cuccinelli has developed a reputation as one of the most high-profile climate change deniers in the country. He previously sued to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from moderating fossil-fuel pollution and from regulating stormwater runoff as a pollutant. He also alleges that the agency will hinder the U.S. economy and has called it the "Employment Prevention Agency."

They say that like it is a bad thing? :rolleyes:

[AuH20]

Heh,from your link:



They say that like it is a bad thing? :rolleyes:

He's in their heads. That's why Rand went all in with him at the beginning. If he wins, Huff Po and Daily Kos will meltdown.

[Nobexliberty]

So, who is the VICTIM? There cant be a CRIME without a VICTIM. Me? Im willing, which makes me the opposite of a victim! The victim is society according to almost all pre 1970s politicians from all sides of the political spectrum.

[DamianTV]

The victim is society according to almost all pre 1970s politicians from all sides of the political spectrum.

Ah yes, that is according to Politicians. However, Society itself can not claim to be a victim if the results of any situation do not have any impact on non participants in any way shape or from. It would be like me claiming to be a victim because an Irishman and a Norweigan played a game of Lawn Darts.

This does break away from the Gorilla in the Room. Govt wants people to feel as if they (society) are Victims for every single thing another person does in their lives, there by altering our Perception and causing many people to cry out against what ever the Propoganda Machine wants the people to cry out against. And the Govt uses things that people tend to carry a sense of Guilt over as a tool. People feel Guilty for being fat. Why? Because the Propoganda Machine wants people to feel Guilty for being fat. Apply to ANY topic. Smoking. Abortion. Speeding. Using household utensils as Weapons. Foul Language. Conspiracy Theories. Terrorism. Economy. Religion. Mastubation. Taxes. Pornography.

The more that people feel that they are victims of ANY subject, the more those same people cry out for ever bigger and bigger Govt. This whole thing has NOTHING to do with Blow Jobs. It is ALL about making people demand bigger Govt by making people feel like Victims that only a Bigger Govt can protect them from.

[Nobexliberty]

Ah yes, that is according to Politicians. However, Society itself can not claim to be a victim if the results of any situation do not have any impact on non participants in any way shape or from. It would be like me claiming to be a victim because an Irishman and a Norweigan played a game of Lawn Darts.

This does break away from the Gorilla in the Room. Govt wants people to feel as if they (society) are Victims for every single thing another person does in their lives, there by altering our Perception and causing many people to cry out against what ever the Propoganda Machine wants the people to cry out against. And the Govt uses things that people tend to carry a sense of Guilt over as a tool. People feel Guilty for being fat. Why? Because the Propoganda Machine wants people to feel Guilty for being fat. Apply to ANY topic. Smoking. Abortion. Speeding. Using household utensils as Weapons. Foul Language. Conspiracy Theories. Terrorism. Economy. Religion. Mastubation. Taxes. Pornography.

The more that people feel that they are victims of ANY subject, the more those same people cry out for ever bigger and bigger Govt. This whole thing has NOTHING to do with Blow Jobs. It is ALL about making people demand bigger Govt by making people feel like Victims that only a Bigger Govt can protect them from. Not everthing is in a more vs less goverment stance, sometimes it is just about buying votes.

[DamianTV]

Not everthing is in a more vs less goverment stance, sometimes it is just about buying votes.

Then who is this guy trying to win votes from? The Amish?

[Nobexliberty]

Then who is this guy trying to win votes from? The Amish? Christians.

[DamianTV]

Christians really believe that people should not be allowed to take anothers temperature with an all beef thermometer? What I dont get about their perspective is how oral sex affects them when it doesnt involve them in any way shape or form?

[paulbot24]

Christians really believe that people should not be allowed to take anothers temperature with an all beef thermometer? What I dont get about their perspective is how oral sex affects them when it doesnt involve them in any way shape or form?

Sort of like gay marriage.;)

[Occam's Banana]

Yes they should fix the loophole problem. But that will not keep the 90 offenders from for all intents getting away with it. This is a pragmatic solution for those specific cases.

There is a time to be pure in your beliefs and times you just take a practical pragmatic approach to a specific problem, this is one of them.

This all sounds very nice & unobjectionable on the surface - until you realize that it doesn't really do anything but beg the question. Part of the "specific problem" you invoke is whether the defendants in these 90 cases should, would or could have been convicted had it not been for this dubious law. IOW: the reason these 90 convicts are deemed to be predators in the first place is in part because they were convicted under this law - but it is the propriety of this very law that is under question. Ergo, convictions under this law are not "admissible" for purposes of justifying it.

If those people were guilty of rape or some other kind of sexual assault, then they should have been tried for such. The fact that they were not strongly suggests that adequate cases did not exist for such charges. But prosecutors don't get to put notches on their belts for mere misdemeanor convictions, so let's allow them to pad their resumes with felony convictions achieved by gaming the system via the application of dubious laws ...

Thanks, but no thanks. I prefer the Rule of Law - not the Rule of "Let's Decide These People Ought To Be Put In Prison Beforehand and Then Find Some Law That Can Be Used As An Excuse To Let Us Do That."

[enoch150]

Here's the actual platform he's running on: http://www.cuccinelli.com/issues/

Notice "protect Constitutional rights" is in there. "Make blowjobs illegal" isn't, and as AG it really hasn't been a focus of his, either.

In 2000 Bush didn't list indefinite detention and war with Iraq on his campaign web site.

[enoch150]

Cuccinelli is support these victims despite knowing it's a political loser and will hurt his campaign.

It's a political loser in the northeast and west. In the southeast there are a lot of whacko christian laws and plenty of voters who agree with them.

For example, Alabama made the news a few years back for banning the sale of sex toys. The law says
(a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly distribute, possess with intent to distribute, or offer or agree to distribute any obscene material or any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs for any thing of pecuniary value.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/alcode/13A/12/4/5/13A-12-200.2

And
Virginia has some of the country’s strictest laws governing strip clubs. Performers must wear bottoms and pasties at all times, and lap dances are prohibited.
http://www.arlnow.com/2010/05/14/crystal-city-restaurant-owner-va-stripper-law-crazy/

[enoch150]

They should throw the book at him. Forcing oneself on another human being isn't a libertarian position last I checked.

No force was used, according to this article:


The man in the case, William MacDonald, was in his late 40s when he was charged with having consensual oral sex with two young women who were, at the time, ages 16 and 17. While that might be seen as creepy, in Virginia, the age of consent is 15 years old. It is considered statutory rape—a felony offense—to have sex with anyone under that age. Under state law, an adult can be prosecuted for "causing" delinquency by having sex with someone between the ages of 15 and 18, but that is only a misdemeanor. MacDonald was convicted of such a misdemeanor, and his lawyers aren't challenging that conviction.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/more-cuccinellis-defense-virginias-anti-sodomy-law

[tod evans]

In the southeast there are a lot of whacko christian laws and plenty of voters who agree with them.


This Christian doesn't agree with this type of legislation.

Being from a Southern local I don't know any of the type of people you portray....[Then again I'm not from Al.]

[enoch150]

This Christian doesn't agree with this type of legislation.

Being from a Southern local I don't know any of the type of people you portray....[Then again I'm not from Al.]

Not all Christians, obviously, and they aren't exclusively in the southeast. I was going to suggest Rick Santorum as an example of one who wasn't from the southeast, but it turns out he was born in Virginia. A substantial block of Christians in the southeast vote that way, anyway.

[enoch150]

In 2012 Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich all pledged to enforce anti-obscenity laws. They were targeting a certain type of Christian, in this case in Iowa. My point is, it's not a political loser in certain areas of the country. Kansas. Utah. Some other places.


“Federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced,” Santorum told the group. “If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so.”

Romney told the group it was “imperative that we cultivate the promotion of fundamental family values.”

“This can be accomplished with increased parental involvement and enhanced supervision of our children,” he said in a statement.

“It includes strict enforcement of our nation’s obscenity laws, as well as the promotion of parental software controls that guard our children from Internet pornography.”

Gingrich also said he would appoint an Attorney General who would enforce federal obscenity laws.

Santorum and Gingrich previously signed a pledge by the conservative Christian group The Family Leader in which they vowed to protect women and children from “seduction into promiscuity and all forms of pornography.” But Romney refused to sign, saying the pledge was “undignified and inappropriate for a presidential campaign.”

[tod evans]

In 2012 Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich all pledged to enforce anti-obscenity laws. They were targeting a certain type of Christian, in this case in Iowa. My point is, it's not a political loser in certain areas of the country. Kansas. Utah. Some other places.

The federal government has no authority to draft or enforce "anti-obscenity laws".

Politicians and jurists who attempt to vest this power must be held accountable!

[Todd]

Is Cuccinelli a warmonger?

I ask only because it seems that it's mostly the war-happy few here are defending this seemingly bizarre legal reincarnation.

Hard to tell what a state legislator who has only served at the local levels really thinks about foreign policy. As AG of Va. I haven't really heard much of his position on this.

[osan]

This looks like a HuffPo hit piece rustling up the culture war on an issue that pertains to sexual predation as opposed to oral sex. McAuliffe is a Clintonite with nothing to offer.

Department of Redundancy Department.

[osan]

Worthless thread. Who cares about any of this?

Thread winner.

/thread.

[osan]

Not me. I think it's ridiculous to try and reinstate that law..it's unenforceable anyway. This is the type of thing that is going to hand elections over to the Dems.

Au contraire. It is EMINENTLY enforceable. Like the drug laws and so many others, it can and will be used selectively. We now have decades of no-knock entries based on warrants (or no warrants) attested to with lies. We have no-knocks served routinely on the WRONG ADDRESSES AND PERSONS. "Ooopsie... wrong house... but now that we've caught you with your dick in someone's mouth I guess we are just going to have to drag you away."

If this becomes an "issue" for Themme, it can and will be used against us. Let us review the past 8,000 years of human history: A steady monotonic rise the claims of authority by Themme over the rest with but a few dips here and there. And now with the asymptotic rise in technological leverage those claims are being jacked through the roof without equivocation or pause. Theye will NEVER stop unless we stop them. To assume a law is unenforceable is high folly because no law need be universally so. It's utility lies in the Tyrant's ability to take it out, just as with any other tool of despotism, and make its good use when desired.

[osan]

For the life of me, I just can't understand why Huff Po would be so fast and loose with the truth.

Because it's Huff Po?