5 Apr 2013 10:10 am
Oh gosh, looks like you're wrong again, at least on one aspect of this case.http://www.weeklysta...ase_714528.htmlI'm absolutely, positively sure that you'll immediately make a correction.Not! The Weekly Standard Blog? What a shock!I'm not wrong and I will correct nothing.Cuccinelli used an unconstitutional law to prosecute the 47 year old man, and as a result the case and the law have been thrown out.He could have amended the law in 2004 to exclude consenting adults, and bring it in line with Lawrence v Texas, but he refused, because he wanted to keep sodomy illegal for homosexuals.You need to do a little research on your AG and the man you will be voting for, for your next governor.He has made no secret of how he feels about legislating the behavior of homosexuals.The reason he refused to change the Crimes Against Nature law is that it would have made sodomy between consenting adults legal, and that would include homosexuals.Instead he decided to keep the law on the books as is, when it was clearly deemed unconstitutional by the Lawrence v Texas decision.Not a very good lawyer is he?I guess his hatred of gays overrides his common sense.The big lie from Cuccinelli and right wing blogs like the one you quoted is that "This case is not about sexual orientation, but using current law to protect a 17 year-old girl from a 47 year-old sexual predator."Had he not killed the bill that would have amended the Crimes Against Nature law in 2004, the law would have been constitutional and could still have been used to prosecute sexual predators.