WASHINGTON — Although most people think sodomy laws have been unconstitutional since the Supreme Court's 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli would like to explain why — in his view — that's not so. What's more, he wants the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to agree with him and uphold the constitutionality of Virginia's sodomy law — which makes anal and oral sex between people of any sex a crime — in the process.
Cuccinelli last week asked the full appellate court to reverse a three-judge panel's decision and uphold the application of the law in a criminal prosecution against William Scott MacDonald, a very unsympathetic defendant. MacDonald, 47 at the time, was convicted of violating the state's criminal solicitation statute, which applies whenever a person over 18 "commands ... or otherwise attempts to persuade" a person under 18 to commit a felony.weren't these the same guys who wants to keep the gov. out of your bedrooms? under 18 ok jail bait, but like every other law they pass in will be corrupted, and end up being a law of choice as oppose to the law. with the foot dragging and non vote of the right wing to VAWA shows they are not worried about under 18, they IMO are attempting to omit or lessen laws aganist rape for that kind of person Texas is a fertile field, indian reservations, undocumented Mexican those who are so incline can have a field day, like their get away with murder law stand your ground?
In considering Cuccinelli's argument, the appeals court discussed the various ways courts attempt to "save" statutes from being found unconstitutional by interpreting them narrowly but also noted that the Supreme Court has warned about "the dangers of too much meddling" because that would mean the judicial branch has taken over the role of the legislative branch. New laws can be passed in certain situations that might be constitutional even where a previous law cannot be "saved."The court concluded that Virginia's sodomy law after the Lawrence decision is such a law, writing, "We are confident, however, that we adhere to the Supreme Court's holding in Lawrence by concluding that the anti-sodomy provision, prohibiting sodomy between two persons without any qualification, is facially unconstitutional."
and there goes another one going of the edge and trying to introduce archaic ways back into today's society, where this stuff is foreplay getting to the business at hand, the is unconstitutional and so is the idea of pushing ones misguided morality in anothers face and expecting compliance?
it's good to see the courts working with their eye on the prize of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
