Skip to comments.
State's law on sex act challenged
Daily Press (Hampton Roads) ^
| March 30, 2004
| MONIQUE ANGLE
Posted on 03/30/2004 9:50:22 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian
NEWPORT NEWS - A Newport News woman charged with a felony for receiving oral sex in a car is challenging a state law that prohibits certain types of sex between consenting adults.
A police officer says he found the 21-year-old woman in a parked car receiving oral sex from a man about 3 a.m. Jan. 29. Both were charged with a felony under the statute for crimes against nature.
The woman's attorney is arguing that the charge is unconstitutional because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a Texas case that states can't pass laws that restrict the private sex lives of consenting adults.
Virginia's statute on crimes against nature says people can't have oral or anal sex, whether homosexual or heterosexual. But the law doesn't specify whether the sex is illegal in public or in private.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailypress.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: crimeagainstnature; sexact; sodomy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
A police officer says he found the 21-year-old woman in a parked car receiving oral sex from a man about 3 a.m. Jan. 29. Both were charged with a felony under the statute for crimes against nature. When cunnilingus is outlawed, only outlaws...
To: Lurking Libertarian
I knew a cunning linguist once...spoke 7 languages.
2
posted on
03/30/2004 9:53:45 AM PST
by
stuartcr
To: Lurking Libertarian
If they can get that law repealed, they've got it licked. (groan)
To: Lurking Libertarian
On Monday - under an agreement with prosecutors - the man pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of indecent exposure. ?????
4
posted on
03/30/2004 9:56:26 AM PST
by
Hodar
(With Rights, comes Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
To: Lurking Libertarian
crime against nature, don't tell my wife!
5
posted on
03/30/2004 9:56:26 AM PST
by
breakem
To: Lurking Libertarian
=== The woman's attorney is arguing that the charge is unconstitutional because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a Texas case that states can't pass laws that restrict the private sex lives...
Private? What was private about this sex act?
6
posted on
03/30/2004 9:56:58 AM PST
by
Askel5
To: Lurking Libertarian
Both were charged with a felony under the statute for crimes against nature. I think that should ultimately depend on what she looks like.
7
posted on
03/30/2004 9:58:04 AM PST
by
TomB
(I voted for Kerry before I voted against him.)
To: Lurking Libertarian
What did they charge the man with or did he likety split?
8
posted on
03/30/2004 9:58:39 AM PST
by
Piquaboy
To: Lurking Libertarian
She better hope her attorney doesn't muff it.
To: Lurking Libertarian
they were arrested because they weren't wearing their seat belts....
10
posted on
03/30/2004 10:00:19 AM PST
by
ken5050
(JIm Angle rocks!!!!)
To: Lurking Libertarian
False advertising.
11
posted on
03/30/2004 10:01:16 AM PST
by
NativeNewYorker
(Don't blame me. I voted for Sharpton.)
To: Askel5
Private? What was private about this sex act?The law in question bans oral sex (gay or staight) no matter where it takes place. As such, it's unconstitutional. She could have been charged under a public indecency statute or something like that, but she wasn't.
To: PBRSTREETGANG
I look forward to his brief, but the oral argument may win the day.
13
posted on
03/30/2004 10:04:52 AM PST
by
breakem
To: dakine
You've gotta read this thread.....
To: Lurking Libertarian
Interesting. Instead of charging the couple for indecent exposure in a public place, they chose to charge them with "crimes against nature." The charge they chose is surely going to end up with the law being declared unconstitutional, whereas the other possible charge would have been upheld.
What's the agenda here? To overturn the law in Virginia, I'd guess, since even a really stupid D.A. would know the law they did use to charge them will fail to hold up.
Silliness.
15
posted on
03/30/2004 10:07:44 AM PST
by
MineralMan
(godless atheist)
To: Askel5
This is really the only thing that bothers me, I don't care about the particular act, however I do care that it was basically done in the street.
16
posted on
03/30/2004 10:08:03 AM PST
by
HELLRAISER II
(Give us another tax break Mr. President)
To: Lurking Libertarian
This fails the Lady Astor test: "As long as they don't do it in the streets and scare the horses ..."
17
posted on
03/30/2004 10:10:45 AM PST
by
RonF
To: Lurking Libertarian
Was the guy also using a Cigar? Has anyone seen BJ Clinton lately?
18
posted on
03/30/2004 10:11:08 AM PST
by
Paradox
(Click clack, click clack click click clack clack clack.)
To: NativeNewYorker
Only if you think "sex" is "love." Many do know the difference.
19
posted on
03/30/2004 10:16:44 AM PST
by
vharlow
Comment #20 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson