4 Apr 2013 10:33 am
Looks to me as if you're lying again. Gosh, there's a surprise.It appears that Cucinelli wants to overturn the "right" to sodomy, so as to prosecute child molesters.So how come in 2004, Cuccinelli opposed a bipartisan bill that would have amended the law to comply with Lawrence v. Texas and still be applicable in the MacDonald case?In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Courts Lawrence v. Texas ruling held that states may not ban private non-commercial sex between consenting adults. Virginias Crimes Against Nature statute, which made oral sex (even between consenting married couples) a felony, was clearly the sort of legislation the Court was referencing.A year later, a bipartisan group in the Virginia Senate backed a bill that would have fixed the states Crimes Against Nature law to comply with Lawrence eliminating provisions dealing with consenting adults in private and leaving in place provisions relating to prostitution, public sex, and those other than consenting adults. Cuccinelli opposed the bill in committee and helped kill it on the Senate floor.This is not about sex with minors, Cuccinelli wants homosexual sex to be illegal.In 2009, he (Cuccinelli) told a newspaper that he supported restrictions on the sexual behavior of consenting adults: "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." As a result, the laws text remains unchanged a decade after the Supreme Courts ruling.Here is a bit of advice Mr. Know It All, instead of just reflexively calling me a liar, you should look into things a little further.Cuccinelli has made no secret of the fact that he thinks that there should be laws against sodomy, not to protect minors, but to legislate homosexual behavior, nevermind that in the process it affects all consenting adults, gay or straight. Big government at it's finest.