VA's Ken Cuccinelli is freaking insane!!!
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: VA's Ken Cuccinelli is freaking insane!!!

  1. #1

    VA's Ken Cuccinelli is freaking insane!!!

    So I'm watching a video about this Ken Cuccinelli from Virginia who is trying to make sodomy against the law even though the US Supreme Court said that is unconstitutional. This is a subject that is all over the country so I'm not really paying attention till I see what's covered in the "sodomy" category.... according to him...

    What's more, he wants the 4th 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
    Grasp that true meaning... If could be illegal for a wife to orally pleasure her HUSBAND (or visa versa) of 30 years if this nut job gets his way.

    I just had to throw that out there, I know, wow.... sex talk on a gun site.... just goes to show how this government is screwed up

    You can read more here

    Ken Cuccinelli Fights To Keep Sodomy Law On The Books

  3. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    I believe it was Texas that defended their sodomy law to the SCOTUS ruling you reference. Most southern states still have them on the books, and most of them would've fought it like TX did had they been the subject of the case that went to SCOTUS.

    Hate to break it to you, but SCOTUS got it wrong. Not because I'm a moralist about marital sex, but because they got it wrong on the law. All anyone has to do to figure that out is read Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution delineating the powers of Congress, and then read the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights reserving all powers not delegated to the federal government (of which SCOTUS clearly is a part) within the Constitution to the states and/or The People. Since marriage and/or sexual matters are not delegated to the .fedgov, the states and The People are within their constitutional authority to set up the boundaries and parameters for their society as they see fit. The system worked fine with various sodomy and other "blue" laws existing side-by-side with states that had none for about 220 (+/-) years before SCOTUS sodomized the states' collective ass with their nose (stuck their nose where it doesn't belong - for the metaphorically-challenged) in the ruling you alluded to.

    I left CA in '92 mostly for economic reasons. No way to start the business we wanted to start with the limited capital we had there. But other considerations included CA's far-left bent in government that affected many aspects of our lives there, from 2nd Amendment considerations to abortion policies and practices to radical environmentalism taking hold and some other less significant issues too. We did a lot of homework on where to move to before we left, and tried as hard as we could to cover as many of those kinds of concerns as we could. While I personally don't have anything against gays (other than believing that they condemn themselves to Hell), it's just a plain fact that the most conservative states will discourage their migration there, and you must realize that the blue laws Cuccinelli is trying to preserve, revolve mostly around that effort, at least these days. In the South though, they were more likely written back in the day having little or nothing to do with homosexuality, but derived from a purely Puritanical perspective. Much of that Puritanism still exists in this part of the country, but even to more open minded people who don't support their government being involved in such personal issues (like me, for instance), the laws being on the books have never been a hindrance to husbands and wives having umm.....a healthy sex life, shall we say.

    Alabama just removed some of the segregationist language from our Constitution last year, after several election cycles in a row of citizen-sponsored referendums trying unsuccessfully. I seriously doubt that the nearly identical sodomy language as Cuccinelli is talking about will ever be removed, in spite of SCOTUS's ruling. I have no problem with it either way. My state has the right to pass any law that isn't a violation of the federal Constitution. I have the brains, will, and ability to discern which ones I will abide by or ignore in the privacy of my own home, as does everybody else, and I use those powers of discernment regularly. The SCOTUS ruling makes it moot on the subject of sex, but that doesn't prevent me from also using those powers of discernment to honestly believe that SCOTUS got it wrong in that ruling. In any case, I've been a VERY happily married man for 25 years now. I imagine there were lots of the same in VA before the SCOTUS ruling, and there will be lots during Cuccinelli's fight to reinstate the law, just as there will be plenty after he gets shot down in his efforts (which I predict he undoubtedly will). Wouldn't worry too much about it.

    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  4. What the Heck???

    My wife said that was already against the law!!

    She has some explaining to do!

  5. #4
    I think it should be a crime if they are not performing those acts. i wonder if that makes me a conservative or a liberal?
    Due to the increased cost of Ammunition I will be forced to discontinue warning shots as of now! USAF Chief Master Sergeant, Retired, 1979-2005

  6. #5
    still in the UCMJ as well, IIRC.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts