State's Sodomy Law Puts Lesbian's Judgeship In Jeopardy

CNSNews.com ^ | January 22, 2003 | Michael L. Betsch

[Sparta]

The law may be horrible, but the law has to be followed.

[AppyPappy]

How does he know what she does in her home?

[iron tongue]

Virginia's sodomy law "has nothing to do with whether Judge Askew is fit to serve as a judge."

Just like being convicted of murder would have nothing to do with whether someone is fit to serve as a judge.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

According to Michael Adams, spokesman for the homosexual advocacy group, LAMBDA Legal Defense and Education Fund, Virginia's sodomy law "has nothing to do with whether Judge Askew is fit to serve as a judge."

Someone admitting that they don't honor the law qualifies them to be a judge??

[connectthedots]

Virginia's "crimes against nature" law strictly prohibits anal and oral sex between consenting adults, regardless of gender.

Within th context of marriage, at least parts of this law cannot be supported by the Bible.

[Burkeman1]

Exactley. This is sordid. Is the Republican lawmaker going to ask about her specific bedroom practics at a hearing? What about his? Does he engage in Sodomy with his wife or girlfriend? Should he be questioned? What a moron.

[mickie]

"With in the contents of marriage...."
Whatever you mean, this pratice is still a fithy, unhealthy action!

[mickie]

"With in the contents of marriage...."
Whatever you mean, this pratice is still a fithy, unhealthy action!

[Adder]

Perhaps the tack that should be taken is to question her qualifications in light of the harrassment claim. That ALMOST worked against Clarence Thomas. In Verbena's case, there is an agreement which would indicate some element of guilt.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Whatever you mean, this pratice is still a fithy, unhealthy action!

Only when you're doing it right.

[Catspaw]

How does he know what she does in her home?

He doesn't. But I do want him to ask her if they have a hearing--in detail.

Of course, when he runs for re-election, I do want him to answer the same questions at a public candidate forum.

[APBaer]

"When Robert McDonnell (R-Virginia Beach) himself was asked if he ever ran afoul of this law, his answer was, 'Not that I recall'".

If he can't recall whether he *ever* got a blow job, how does he have the mental faculties to be in the legislature?

[Celtjew Libertarian]

If he can't recall whether he *ever* got a blow job, how does he have the mental faculties to be in the legislature??

Maybe he never got one when he was sober, but doesn't recall what happened at those drunken bacchanals he's been to.

[H8DEMS]

Here's what Lambda Legal's website is promoting: Tell Us Your Story - How Have Sodomy Laws Affected You? This is a historic moment for our community -- the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Lambda Legal's challenge to Texas's "Homosexual Conduct" law, which criminalizes oral and anal sex by consenting gay couples and is used widely to justify discrimination against LGBT people. We now have a tremendous opportunity -- a chance to convince the nation's highest court to address the widespread harms caused by Texas's law and others like it. Sodomy laws are used as an excuse for generally denying basic rights and equal treatment to LGBT people. We are branded as criminals and treated as second-class citizens. These laws are also widely used to justify discrimination in our everyday lives -- to deny us employment, to block custody or visitation with our children, and even to intimidate us out of exercising our First Amendment rights. Now is the time to strike the final blow in a decades-long struggle against these laws and for justice and equality. We need your help. Tell us how sodomy laws have affected you. Speak up. Speak out. Make history. (HAVE FUN!)

[Corin Stormhands]

McDonnell is running for Attorney General (election in 2005). He's trying to make headlines and score points with the right wing of the party.

If the party (very foolishly) decides to go with a nominating convention again instead of a primary, the candidate that wins has to be the darling of the religious right.

[steve-b]

These cases are occurring because warrants are being served, [and] they're going into the home with another warrant,"

This so-called "legal expert" has, as his next assignment, the writing of the following text five hundred times, switching back and forth between black and red ink:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.