Virginia Attorney General wants to regulate what consenting adults do in the bedroom

reply to post by charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
All he's doing is asking the Democrat to take a side??

What's the problem?

I'm astounded that you don't appear even alittle uncomfortable at what this man is proposing? Instead of going off topic why don't you focus on what he clearly believes and what he clearly campaigning for:

Mr. Cuccinelli has filed a petition with the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond asking all 15 judges to please reconsider their decision to overrule the embarrassingly antiquated and invasive law.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Today Virginia gubernatorial candidate and state attorney general Ken Cuccinelli launched a website promoting his effort to enforce the state's law banning oral and anal sex. "Keep Virginia Children Safe!"

www.motherjones.com...

He is not campaigning to put this law back in place because it's his job as attorney general, clearly it isn't and you're smart enough to recognize this fact. He's defending it because he supports the law, plain and simple. If you want to complain about the fact his Democratic opponent doesn't have a side to pick you can start another thread. This is about Cuccinelli and what are clearly his beliefs. Do you agree with him? Should the government be allowed to regulate what consenting adults do in the bedroom with one another? Why don't you pick a side?

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Dear Southern Guardian,

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but this thread has been a farce from the beginning, neither the headline or the majority of comments seem to deal with the facts.

I'm astounded that you don't appear even alittle uncomfortable at what this man is proposing? Instead of going off topic why don't you focus on what he clearly believes and what he clearly campaigning for:

Then you're easily astounded. Tell me, what is he proposing? A new law? No. A new interpretation of an existing law? No. Regulating what adults do in their bedroom? No, and once more, no. So, tell me what he is proposing that I should be uncomfortable about.

The Democrat's opinion on the same question is off-topic? If this was a bad idea, you'd think he'd oppose it, but he hasn't. Maybe he agrees with Cucinelli. Maybe he doesn't, but if he agrees, I think that changes things.

Today Virginia gubernatorial candidate and state attorney general Ken Cuccinelli launched a website promoting his effort to enforce the state's law banning oral and anal sex. "Keep Virginia Children Safe!"

Even Mother Jones is saying he just wants to enforce an existing law. It was instructive to visit the website that is being talked about. Here are some of the things you can find on it:

•William Scott MacDonald was 47 when he was convicted of soliciting oral sex from a minor girl. This was a repeat offense.

•This case is about using current law to protect a minor girl from a 47 year-old repeat sexual predator. The law is only applied to sodomy committed against minors, against non-consenting adults, or in public. In fact, contrary to misinformation peddled by Terry McAuliffe and his liberal allies against the defenders of this law, the law is not – and cannot be – used against consenting adults acting in private.

So, again, what exactly am I supposed to be upset about?

Do you agree with him? Should the government be allowed to regulate what consenting adults do in the bedroom with one another? Why don't you pick a side?

But they're not trying to regulate what adults do in the bedroom. That's an important point to note and remember. I don't have any problem with picking a side, but seriously, why does it matter what I think? Especially since I haven't read the entire law or the court briefs.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Yeah, we need some real leaders ASAP..these little idiot governmental managers are just not cutting it anymore.

This is twilight zone insane.

Status quo.....HAVE YOU LOST YOUR FLIPPING MIND?

I mean , damn, you must be retarded.....

How is this man still allowed to hold a public office?



Why are we even talking about this like its a viable avenue for the protection of minors...?

reply to post by charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
Tell me, what is he proposing? A new law? No. A new interpretation of an existing law? No. Regulating what adults do in their bedroom? No, and once more, no. So, tell me what he is proposing that I should be uncomfortable about.

Let us have a look once again at Cuccinellis position. Back in 2004 where did he stand on anti-sodomy laws in the case of consensual adults and Lawrence V Texas? Let's see:

But as a state senator in 2004, Cuccinelli voted against a bill excluding private consensual acts from the law.

He clearly has history of supporting anti-sodomy law in all cases. Has Cuccinelli even come out claiming that he doesn't plan on criminalizing what consenting adults do in the bedroom? Has he clarified whether he intends to bring the law back to enforce an act between two consenting adults? No. All he's done so far is propose the entire law be brought back onto the books and enforced and that's it. He rationalizes the reasons behind his push, to 'protect' children but that's it. He has no substance behind his claim and here you are pushing this nonsense.

The Democrat's opinion on the same question is off-topic? If this was a bad idea, you'd think he'd oppose it

If he mentions his support for it then let me know eh? Then we can then lump them both as one in the same.

So, again, what exactly am I supposed to be upset about?

Invasion of privacy? Government regulating what two consenting adults do in the bedroom. If this isn't upsetting to you then I really have to question what other reasons you'd have to be upset about this president.

I don't have any problem with picking a side,

Then it shouldn't be too hard to answer the question then right? Should government have the right to regulate what consenting adults do in the bedroom? Should the government have the right to make 'sodomy' illegal between two consenting adults? yes or no? Very simple question. Considering that you're so concerned about his democratic opponent not having a position, I find it alittle hypocritical that you're so reluctant to reveal yours.

Which is it?

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Dear Southern Guardian,

Sorry to be away for so long. It doesn't seem anybody else is interested in this discussion, but if you feel like taking the time, you might want to read the case that Cucinelli is talking about. There's a link to it here:
sclawreview.org...
That'll give you a summary, but the opinion itself is interesting.

I'm sure you're familiar with Lawerence case, adults can do what they want in their own bedroom? Virginia's not challenging that. Basically they're saying, "Fine, we can live with Lawrence." People who claim that Virginia is attempting to regulate what consenting adults do in the bedroom, are either knowingly or ignorantly in error.

What's going on in this case is that the Supremes said that adults can do what they like in their bedrooms, but they specifically said that Lawrence didn't apply to minors. In the case in Virginia, the victim was 17, so the state figures (rightly, in my opinion) that Lawrence doesn't apply.

There are more details than that, of course, but the Circuit was split 2-1 so an appeal seems reasonable.

Anyway, interesting case having nothing do to with consenting adults. I hope to see how this turns out.

With respect,
Charles1952