Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reason Magazine)   GOP gubernatorial candidate wants state law banning oral sex   (reason.com) divider line 222
    More: Dumbass, GOP, Cuccinelli, state law, Attorney General of Virginia  
•       •       •

7575 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Jun 2013 at 9:53 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



222 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-28 04:47:54 PM  
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, the GOP's nominee for governor, filed an appeal on Tuesday asking the Supreme Court to revive the state's law banning oral and anal sex.

Well, I guess A2M is out of the question.
 
2013-06-28 04:48:18 PM  
Hmmmm...where to start on this one.....?

Let's ban everything a child molester might do or use.  Everyone chop off their hands!

I would have accepted (though disagreed with) some sort of public health excuse for this ridiculous intrusion into our private lives.  But this was dumber than expected.
 
2013-06-28 04:51:16 PM  
I wonder how Mrs.  Cuccinelli feels about this.
 
2013-06-28 04:53:00 PM  
Oh my god, Reason is linking a Mother Jones article?

Also, sodomy laws are explicitly unconstitutional. Virginia's law was struck down just ten years ago as a result of Lawrence v. Texas.
 
2013-06-28 04:53:51 PM  
The party of small government strikes again.
 
2013-06-28 04:54:48 PM  

Diogenes: I wonder how Mrs.  Cuccinelli feels about this.


Maybe he's one of those people who only get turned on when they're breaking the law. Really he's trying to save his marriage by doing this.

/VIRGINA!
 
2013-06-28 04:55:58 PM  
  FTFA: Cuccinelli claimed that the law, which the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled unconstitutional earlier this year, is "an important tool that prosecutors use to put child molesters in jail."

You know, maybe it's just me, but it seems like the logical course of action would be to just explicitly outlaw any kind of sexual contact with a child.  How does a blanket ban on oral sex help?
 
2013-06-28 04:56:58 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: FTFA: Cuccinelli claimed that the law, which the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled unconstitutional earlier this year, is "an important tool that prosecutors use to put child molesters in jail."

You know, maybe it's just me, but it seems like the logical course of action would be to just explicitly outlaw any kind of sexual contact with a child.  How does a blanket ban on oral sex help?


Wrong. Outlaw having children. That will solve everything.
 
2013-06-28 04:57:12 PM  
Oh, blow me
 
2013-06-28 04:58:13 PM  

kingoomieiii: Oh my god, Reason is linking a Mother Jones article?

Also, sodomy laws are explicitly unconstitutional. Virginia's law was struck down just ten years ago as a result of Lawrence v. Texas.


And the Mother Jones article links to Huff Po.
 
2013-06-28 05:01:28 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: FTFA: Cuccinelli claimed that the law, which the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled unconstitutional earlier this year, is "an important tool that prosecutors use to put child molesters in jail."

You know, maybe it's just me, but it seems like the logical course of action would be to just explicitly outlaw any kind of sexual contact with a child.  How does a blanket ban on oral sex help?


Precisely what I was wondering.  Statutory rape is somehow insufficient?

Plus, this from the Mother Jones piece, but couple with kingoomieiii's observation further confuses me:

Cuccinelli warned that the appeals court's decision to strike down the statute "threatens to undo convictions of child predators that were obtained under this law" since 2003, when the Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that laws criminalizing oral and anal sex-sometimes referred to as sodomy bans-areunconstitutional.

So Virginia was still prosecuting people for sodomy even after Lawrence v. Texas?  How is that possible?  Or maybe someone appealed and that's why VA finally dumped the law?
 
2013-06-28 05:05:25 PM  
So much for Virginia being for lovers
 
2013-06-28 05:06:43 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Diogenes: I wonder how Mrs.  Cuccinelli feels about this.

Maybe he's one of those people who only get turned on when they're breaking the law. Really he's trying to save his marriage by doing this.

/VIRGINA!


Well great for him but it would put a serious crimp in my dating life.
 
2013-06-28 05:09:40 PM  
Cuccinelli claimed that the law, which the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled unconstitutional earlier this year, is "an important tool that prosecutors use to put child molesters in jail."

So, then I guess if you're going to molest a child, be sure it's a girl, and be sure you penetrate her vaginally?  Because apparently, that's A-OK!

This may seem like a radical concept to some, but instead of outlawing certain sexual acts between consenting adults, how about, I dunno, just outlawing sex with children?  I know, it sounds kinda crazy, but it's so crazy that it just might work!
 
2013-06-28 05:11:44 PM  

Diogenes: TuteTibiImperes: FTFA: Cuccinelli claimed that the law, which the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled unconstitutional earlier this year, is "an important tool that prosecutors use to put child molesters in jail."

You know, maybe it's just me, but it seems like the logical course of action would be to just explicitly outlaw any kind of sexual contact with a child.  How does a blanket ban on oral sex help?

Precisely what I was wondering.  Statutory rape is somehow insufficient?

Plus, this from the Mother Jones piece, but couple with kingoomieiii's observation further confuses me:

Cuccinelli warned that the appeals court's decision to strike down the statute "threatens to undo convictions of child predators that were obtained under this law" since 2003, when the Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that laws criminalizing oral and anal sex-sometimes referred to as sodomy bans-areunconstitutional.

So Virginia was still prosecuting people for sodomy even after Lawrence v. Texas?  How is that possible?  Or maybe someone appealed and that's why VA finally dumped the law?


Ah reading more from the article linked from the linked article, he also has this to say:

"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."

So really he's trying to use a 'think of the children' argument to ban things he thinks are icky.

But it sounds like the whole hubbub came from a case where they tried to prosecute a 47 year old for having sex with a 17 year old, even though the 17 year old was above VA's age of consent.   I wouldn't classify that as child molestation absent some other details of the case.

Basically VA wanted to prosecute people for having sex with people above the age of consent, and use the sodomy statute as an end run around that, and now that they're getting called on it, they're complaining about convictions being based on their shenanigans being overturned.  Statutory rape laws would still kick in for victims under the VA age of consent, which is 15.

So, either raise the age of consent, or stop bellyaching about not being able to lock people up for not breaking the law as written.
 
2013-06-28 05:13:11 PM  
"an important tool that prosecutors use to put child molesters in jail."

How, in any way was this law used as a tool to prosecute child molesters? Give me one f*cking example where a case hinged on this law.
 
2013-06-28 05:23:05 PM  

violentsalvation: "an important tool that prosecutors use to put child molesters in jail."

How, in any way was this law used as a tool to prosecute child molesters? Give me one f*cking example where a case hinged on this law.


The Mother Jones article has a brief rundown of the case.  Basically a 47 year old dude asked a 17 year old girl to perform sexual acts with him that would fall under VA's 'Crimes Against Nature' law, that was later ruled unconstitutional.  Because the age of consent in VA is 15, and the girl was over that age, the only thing they could charge him with was 'contributing to the delinquency of a minor' which is just a misdemeanor.

Now, how having sexual relations with someone over the age of consent is considered child molestation I'm not sure, but apparently those are the cases this guy is worried about.  It seems to me that they shouldn't have been prosecuted in the first place.  If VA is worried about 16 and 17 year olds having sex with middle aged people, they should raise the age of consent, not use an outdated and unconstitutional law as an end run around what would otherwise be considered legal sexual activity in that state.
 
2013-06-28 05:24:46 PM  
My wife's idea of oral sex is tellin' me "No". - Rodney Dangerfield
 
2013-06-28 05:30:04 PM  
Apparently he's just really pissed at the popularity of Garfunkel&Oates' new video.
 
2013-06-28 05:32:41 PM  
child molesters often use the internet to entrap their victims.

so let's ban the internet.
 
2013-06-28 05:34:49 PM  

Diogenes: I wonder how Mrs.  Cuccinelli feels about this.


Relived?

/It was probably her idea.
 
2013-06-28 05:36:45 PM  

Kyosuke: Apparently he's just really pissed at the popularity of Garfunkel&Oates' new video.


Thanks for the tip, I didn't realize they had a new one out.

Link for the uninitiated (NSFW language)
 
2013-06-28 05:40:00 PM  

sno man: Diogenes: I wonder how Mrs.  Cuccinelli feels about this.

Relived?

/It was probably her idea.


How many married men still get blowjobs...from their wives, that is? My guess is that he figures "I ain't getting it, why should anyone else?"
 
2013-06-28 05:42:11 PM  
So I guess that whole "Virginia is for Lovers" thing is a lie, then?
 
2013-06-28 05:46:21 PM  
Yeah yeah, oral sex is just great.

Until someone loses an eye!
 
2013-06-28 05:47:33 PM  

FlashHarry: child molesters often use the internet to entrap their victims.

so let's ban the internet.


Child molesters often use the English language to entrap their victims.  Let's ban English.

Better yet; child molesters often use the promise of divine reward to entrap their victims.  Let's ban religion.
 
2013-06-28 05:49:07 PM  
i487.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-28 05:51:35 PM  

FloydA: FlashHarry: child molesters often use the internet to entrap their victims.

so let's ban the internet.

Child molesters often use the English language to entrap their victims.  Let's ban English.

Better yet; child molesters often use the promise of divine reward to entrap their victims.  Let's ban religion.


And candy
 
2013-06-28 06:01:57 PM  
Your law sucks!
 
2013-06-28 06:02:19 PM  

FlashHarry: child molesters often use the internet to entrap their victims.

so let's ban the internet.


Child molesters often kidnap children at gunpoint.

Obviously, the solution is to ban guns.
 
2013-06-28 06:05:31 PM  
Child molesters breathe air. I think we all know what has to be done...
 
2013-06-28 06:12:06 PM  
Look, I hate Cooch, but from the Huff Post article (which you can clock through to from the link), he's taking the position that the statute is only unconstitutional as to adults and the anti-sodomy statute can still be used as written to convict in a case involving a minor. He's not arguing that the statute is actually constitutional in light of Lawrence v. Texas, just that Lawrence was limited to cases involving consenting adults.
 
2013-06-28 06:13:02 PM  

Sgt Otter: FlashHarry: child molesters often use the internet to entrap their victims.

so let's ban the internet.

Child molesters often kidnap children at gunpoint.

Obviously, the solution is to ban guns.


We just need to find the place where child molesters live and nuke it from orbit.

encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com

It's the only way to be safe.
 
2013-06-28 06:20:42 PM  
can i still do the wiggly thing i do with my toes?
 
2013-06-28 06:26:39 PM  

kronicfeld: Look, I hate Cooch, but from the Huff Post article (which you can clock through to from the link), he's taking the position that the statute is only unconstitutional as to adults and the anti-sodomy statute can still be used as written to convict in a case involving a minor. He's not arguing that the statute is actually constitutional in light of Lawrence v. Texas, just that Lawrence was limited to cases involving consenting adults.


It also says that he personally blocked an attempt back in '04 to rewrite the law to only apply to minors.

It's just a bad law for what he's trying to do.  Why should vaginal sex between a 30 year old and a 17 year old be legal, but oral or anal sex illegal?  How would this apply to consenting homosexual couples where one is legally an adult but both are over the age of consent?  How would it apply for consenting homosexual couples where both are over the age of consent, but still minors?

He's arguing to still use a law in a hacky way that it wasn't intended for.  If he wants to raise the age of consent, he should raise the age of consent, but there shouldn't be a difference in the eyes of the law between heterosexual and homosexual sex, and between vaginal, oral, or anal sex.
 
2013-06-28 06:36:15 PM  

Cake Hunter: can i still do the wiggly thing i do with my toes?


Not within 1000 yards of a schoolzone
 
2013-06-28 06:39:12 PM  

kronicfeld: Look, I hate Cooch, but from the Huff Post article (which you can clock through to from the link), he's taking the position that the statute is only unconstitutional as to adults and the anti-sodomy statute can still be used as written to convict in a case involving a minor. He's not arguing that the statute is actually constitutional in light of Lawrence v. Texas, just that Lawrence was limited to cases involving consenting adults.


Virginia has a notably low age of consent, which means, in effect, that vaginal sex between a 47-year-old and a 17-year-old is legal, but oral and anal sex between the same two people is not. 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."
 
2013-06-28 09:00:20 PM  
When oral sex is outlawed, only outlaws will have oral sex... Or something...
 
2013-06-28 09:23:50 PM  
Just make everyone get married. Problem solved
 
2013-06-28 09:23:50 PM  
costumenetwork.com

"oh no!"
 
2013-06-28 09:29:35 PM  
Well I am personally against anal sex whether I am on the giving or receiving end. Oral on the other end is a beautiful thing whether I am giving or receiving. However, if the people involved are consenting adults, WTF? Leave people the fark alone. Why are Republicans so Goddamned obsessed with ass sex? There isn't anything in the Bible about getting a hummer or eating pussy.
 
2013-06-28 09:32:53 PM  
Gosh, a politician trying to override the Supreme Court with "think of the children!"  What a piece of sh*t. The MoJo article cites his history where he does the opposite of his promise to only apply it to guys going after underaged girls above the age of consent.

Just raise the damn age of consent!
 
2013-06-28 09:46:03 PM  
We need mandatory quotas for vaginal sex in order to curb oral sex.
 
2013-06-28 09:57:12 PM  

clancifer: Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, the GOP's nominee for governor, filed an appeal on Tuesday asking the Supreme Court to revive the state's law banning oral and anal sex.

Well, I guess A2M is out of the question.


Only on special occasions
 
2013-06-28 09:57:15 PM  
Virginia is for holding hands, but only in that handshake arrangement, not with intertwined fingers.
 
2013-06-28 10:00:42 PM  
i78.photobucket.com

Definitely does not approve.
 
2013-06-28 10:03:02 PM  
Well there goes his chances for election.
 
2013-06-28 10:03:16 PM  
Republicans seem very interested in how people get their rocks off and why its a bad .... Bad bad bad... And should be Punished!!! Spanked over and over and over and oooooh
 
2013-06-28 10:03:31 PM  
Earlier today I said that after 11/12, Drew hired all the FarkConTrolls to be subbies (given the sheer amount of trolltastic headlines recently).

I amend my statement that while I believe they may in fact be paid trollmitters now, there isn't really anything to defend any more.

Everyone loves blowjobs.

EVERYONE loves blowjobs.

The fact that this guy doesn't is indefensible and not even the trolliest of trolls can defend him.
 
2013-06-28 10:04:00 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Diogenes: I wonder how Mrs.  Cuccinelli feels about this.

Maybe he's one of those people who only get turned on when they're breaking the law. Really he's trying to save his marriage by doing this.

/VIRGINA!


http://www.altfg.com/blog/movie/john-carter-mars-movie-france-box-offi ce/

You mean this guy? Dontar Soljak?
 
Displayed 50 of 222 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report