Virginia lawmaker who lead vote against appointing gay judge: "Sodomy not a civil right"

Recently Republican Virginia lawmakers, 31 one of them, voted against the appointment of Thorne-Begland, an openly gay man, in becoming a Virginian General District Court judge. The 31 republican opposition votes along with 36 other missed votes or abstained votes blocked Thorne-Begland from becoming what would be the first gay General District court judge in Virginia.

While the Republican law makers who had opposed the appointment deny their decision had anything to do with Thorne-Begland's sexuality, the leader of the pack, Robert G. Marshall (R), made a number comments concerning sodomy and Thorne-Begland's private life:



Really Marshall? Homosexuality in the bedroom isn't a civil right? So you have absolutely no problem with the government monitoring the private bedrooms of folks on their own private properties? Unbelievable, I don't know what to say. This idea that the government has the authority to regulate certain sexual acts between two consenting adults in the bedroom, how can anybody support this??

Marshall couldn't resist himself. He didn't appear to give any relevant answers for his and his fellow Republicans opposition towards Thorne-Begland's appointment, he just decided to yap on about the evils of sodomy and you name it.

Marshall, the Family Foundation of Virginia and others who raised concerns about Thorne-Begland’s nomination said they did not object to him because he is gay, but because of his outspokenness on the subject of gay rights.

“I would guess — law of averages — we’ve probably nominated people who have homosexual inclinations,” Marshall said. He faulted Thorne-Begland for coming out as a gay Naval officer on “Nightline” two decades ago to challenge the military’s now-repealed ban on gays openly serving in the military. He said that the action amounted not just to insubordination, but to a waste of taxpayer dollars, since it resulted in his dismissal from the Navy. “The Navy spent $1 million training him,” Marshall said. “That’s cheating the country out of the investment in him.”

www.washingtonpost.com...

No no no, they didn't vote against Thorne-Begland because he was gay! They voted against him because they think he'll be biased for gay rights. Wonder where they got that idea from?

Unbelievable.

Various governments, in this country and elsewhere, have held that they have the authority to declare certain sex acts to be criminal. Why does this situation clearly involve a "civil right?" Are we creating a new definition for "civil right" to include whatever we want to do? Why not say drug usage is a "civil right"? Or farm fresh raw milk sales?

In short, is "civil right" becoming a nonsensical, vague term which is being misapplied here?

Originally posted by charles1952
Various governments, in this country and elsewhere, have held that they have the authority to declare certain sex acts to be criminal. Why does this situation clearly involve a "civil right?" Are we creating a new definition for "civil right" to include whatever we want to do? Why not say drug usage is a "civil right"? Or farm fresh raw milk sales?

So by your logic, if we allow consenting adults to do whatever sex act they want in the privacy of their own homes, this will lead to us legalizing heroin and all those other nasty things? Right?

Why are you ok with the government regulating sex acts in the bedroom? Seriously? Doesn't this disturb you? This notion that the government can have such far reaching control over your private life? I mean you're ok with this? Well I can't say anything more on that, it's a shame that you don't value your individual liberties.

Home of the brave and land of the free... Yeah right.

The more I read about the attitudes of people in America today, the more backwards the people over there seem. I know there are decent Americans, but seriously the number is definitely getting fewer and fewer. This sort of attitude is what I expect in some 3rd world backwater, what next religious police going round beating gay men and women in the streets? beating women for showing to much leg? Maybe you could force everyone to go to church and beat the lords will into them.

USA, you used to once stand tall as the bastion of freedom and tolerance, but you are turning into Saudi part two, its really sad to watch

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Dear Southern Guardian,

Forgive me, it seems I didn't express myself clearly. What I was primarily interested in is what is this "civil right" thing. For a long time, sodomy was considered illegal. How did it go from being illegal to a "civil right" in 50 years? We've had a strong civil rights movement, but this wasn't recognized as a civil right, even at the height of the movement. What does it take to be a civil right now?

So by your logic, if we allow consenting adults to do whatever sex act they want in the privacy of their own homes, this will lead to us legalizing heroin and all those other nasty things? Right?

That's not quite what I meant. I was trying to ask, in a different way, how do we identify a civil right? Could it be drug use or raw milk? What factors make something a civil right?

Why are you ok with the government regulating sex acts in the bedroom? Seriously? Doesn't this disturb you? This notion that the government can have such far reaching control over your private life? I mean you're ok with this? Well I can't say anything more on that, it's a shame that you don't value your individual liberties.

Is government intrusion the same issue as civil rights? The government intrudes and takes away freedom in so many areas that I've lost count. Put up a lemonade stand, ride without a helmet, smoke in a bar, pack twinkies in your kid's lunch, etc. ad infinitum. Of course I'm not happy about it, but why isn't a lemonade stand a civil right? (Or maybe it is, how can I tell?)

I want to defend civil rights forcefully wherever I can, I just want to make sure that what I'm defending is a civil right.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Dear Southern Guardian,

Forgive me, it seems I didn't express myself clearly. What I was primarily interested in is what is this "civil right" thing. For a long time, sodomy was considered illegal. How did it go from being illegal to a "civil right" in 50 years?

Lawrence v Texas, 2003. There many laws in place that have only hindered civil liberties, and over time those laws have been dismantled. For me, civil rights is the same as that of individual liberties, the ability of individual to make their own decisions in their personal lives.

Is government intrusion the same issue as civil rights? The government intrudes and takes away freedom in so many areas that I've lost count. Put up a lemonade stand, ride without a helmet, smoke in a bar, pack twinkies in your kid's lunch, etc. ad infinitum. Of course I'm not happy about it

Why isn't a lemonade stand a civil liberty? Why can't we let kids be kids? I agree.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Sodomy is not a civil right? I suppose masturbation isn't a civil right? I bet this guy talking on the video masturbated a few times in his life. What about having sex with multiple partners, is that not a civil right? Who defines a civil right, God or the People?

All rights not enumerated are retained by the states and the people respectively (that means in that order). I never saw any mention in the Constitution that though shalt not lay with a member of the same sex.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Dear Southern Guardian,

For me, civil rights is the same as that of individual liberties, the ability of individual to make their own decisions in their personal lives.

Thanks, that's solved it. I was thinking of civil rights as a special class of rights and liberties, somehow a bit "above" normal rights. Now I'm with you. Keep guarding.

With respect,
Charles1952