Sunday, August 04, 2013

Ken Cuccinelli's Sodomy Obsession. Would He Prosecute Grandmothers?

As I have noted in prior posts, my own conjecture on why GOP gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli is so obsessed with Virginia's unconstitutional sodomy statute is because he is a self-loathing closet case (college contemporaries thought he was gay and I continue to receive a trail of rumors) who takes his marching orders from the Christofascists at The Family Foundation.   To mask the real source of his obsession, Cuccinelli has made it a campaign claim that the sodomy statute be saved to allow the Commonwealth to protect minors from sexual predators.  This, claim, like most of what Cuccinelli claims, is untrue.  A post at the Bilerico Project expands on some of the issues I addressed previously that cut Cuccinelli off at the knees on these dishonest lies.  And a post in Huffington Post underscores that long married heterosexual couples would be made felons under the statute that Cuccinelli seeks to reinstate.   The man is mentally ill in my view.  Here are excerpts from the Bilerico piece:
To my understanding, it's your perspective that if you don't criminalize me, a professional in my mid 30s, from butt-loving my 31 year old boyfriend, that it will open the door to legalize sodomy between adults and minors.

I assume you took the Virginia Bar Exam. The criminal law portion of it ensures that you know that the age of consent in Virginia is 15 (unless a detainee in a detention center). While I don't agree with the age difference of the man you're trying to convict and his "victim," it could have still consensual in Virginia, since the girl was 17. However, you don't need a "Crimes Against Nature" statute to convict the man. There are other statutes you could use, such as the statute against solicitation. This covers sodomy.

In addition, if you want to protect people under the age of consent, there are already statutes in place for that, including: § 18.2-61. Rape. § 18.2-63. Carnal knowledge of child between thirteen and fifteen years of age. § 18.2-64.1. Carnal knowledge of certain minors. § 18.2-67.1. Forcible sodomy. § 18.2-67.2. Object sexual penetration; penalty. § 18.2-67.3. Aggravated sexual battery; penalty. § 18.2-67.4. Sexual battery. § 18.2-67.4:1. Infected sexual battery; penalty. § 18.2-67.4:2. Sexual abuse of a child under 15 years of age; penalty. § 18.2-67.5. Attempted rape, forcible sodomy, object sexual penetration, aggravated sexual battery, and sexual battery.

The only reason these don't protect minors between 15 and 17 is the age of consent. If there are already all of these laws on the books to protect people under the age of consent, but they don't protect all minors, why not raise the age of consent if you're so concerned? That would be a narrow tailoring of the law to suit your purpose. It would also be something that doesn't affect consensual relations between people of voting age.

If the government's purpose is to protect minors, criminalizing consensual adult sexual activity is irrational. Your question of the age of consent and the definition of what types of sex are allowable between consenting adults are completely different questions.

Why would you make consenting adults criminally liable for something that's already criminal if non-consensual, and why would you use government funds to do it? You'd have to hire more police and more prosecutors to handle the increased caseload and increase the already ridiculous expenditures on corrections facilities.
As for the impact of Cuccinelli's quest to save the unconstitutional law, a piece in Huffington Post underscores the pernicious nature of the statute:

Never in my 79 years, nearly 59 of them married to the only man I have ever known, did I imagine being able to say -- much less write -- this:

I am guilty of sodomy.  For that matter, so is my husband, pleasurably so.

We live in Virginia, home base for all our married -- as well as courting -- years. And in Virginia, the state's anti-sodomy law is again front and center. The law describes sodomy as "crimes against nature," which include all oral as well as anal sex, even between consenting adults, and is to be prosecuted as a felony. In other words, ordinary human behavior, criminalized.

Having the statute invalidated by the Appeals Court could easily have been have been the end of the matter. But it's Virginia. And it's an election year.  .  .  .  .  So, the present Attorney General and Republican candidate for governor, Ken Cuccinelli, has appealed the Fourth Circuit's decision to the Supreme Court and requested a stay of the ruling pending the appeal. The Chief Justice has asked the other side for a response by next Monday. We shall see. That I might conceivably be guilty of sodomy had never remotely crossed my mind until the issue bounced brashly into the news. 

[T]he net effect of the Attorney General's attempt to reinstate the Crime Against Nature Law has been to make Virginia once again a laughing stock, open to legitimate ridicule.

What outrages me is that this law is a not-even-thinly-disguised attack on homosexuality and plays into only sometimes-coded anti-gay rhetoric. Indeed, all the anti-sodomy laws that remain on the books fit that description. Apparently, legislatures are not removing them even though they are effectively unenforceable because too many politicians fear the effect that would have on their reelection chances.  Cuccinelli's views on homosexuality are widely known. 
This grandmother is correct.  Gays are the real targets of the sodomy statute and it is used to impose harsher sentences and longer prison terms.  That's Cuccinelli's real goal.  He wants to punish those who are having the kind of sex he knows in his heart he desperately wants himself.  The man needs to be not only defeated in November but outed.  

Bring me a credible witness who will sign a sworn affidavit and let's take this closet case down.

No comments: