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

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

[Cultural Jihad]

Speaking of unintended consequences, ever since homosexuality was legalized by the liberals some 30 years ago (when they declared closed doors as somehow sacrosanct) we have come to the point in our society where the Boy Scouts are now horrid villains, as well as anyone who complains about perverted sex in the public parks.

[Torie]

It is the duty of the citizen to make intelligent distinctions. Are you up to it?

[Dosa26]

Leave them alone, unless the nuisance becomes too extreme

Couldn't a public nuisance ordinance/law blanket all these problems without enough single spaced microfice to kill an elephant?(re:repealing unenforced laws) Admittedly the law would need to give leaway to the local judge, but he is elected no?

[Torie]

Devolving power to judges rather than cops on a micro basis also requires some thought. There are no easy answers on these matters, as to what is the perfect course. It may vary over time, and place, and circumstance. The main thing is that one should focus on what does matter, and not deflect energies into dealing with affairs that won't make much difference. That is what is done in practice among those who actually have responsibility. But that does not include most of us.

In fact, moving to the macro, I am surprised how little interest there is in trying to parse and understand and comment on the huge big ticket federal items like social security and medical services. Or say, tax cuts, and the supply side and economic implications over the long haul Perhaps it is all too complicated. Instead, we would rather chat about sodomy, and the restrictions on guns at the margin, or immigration, about which there is more heat than light posted. It is all so much easier.

[zygoat]

I see this case in a different light. The left is always screaming about G.W.'s nominees to the bench. Its always about how they have the "wrong" mind set-too "extreme" too "right wing". As if there is a litmus test that only THEY can administer and diagnose. In that case, I find this judge to be far too "left wing", too "extreme" to rule fairly and without bias in any legal action involving homosexual pliantiffs or defendants.

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

It qualifies them to be President, doesn't it?

LOL!! You got me there.

[DannyTN]

I thought it was that women couldn't go faster than five miles an hour unless talking on the cell phone while driving a large SUV also known as urban assualt vehicles.

And it's not that a man must run, it's that he better run because she's talking and not paying attention.

[FF578]

Our Nation's laws against homosexuality go back beyond it's founding. In every single civilized nation since the beginning of time, homosexuality was considered immoral, a crime against nature, and usually was a capital offense. Let's look at a few quotes:

"Homosexual conduct is, and has been, considered abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature's God upon which this Nation and our laws are predicated. Such conduct violates both the criminal and civil laws of this State and is destructive to a basic building block of society -- the family." ---- Chief Justice Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court in a decision denying custody of children to a lesbian mother.

The Corpus Juris Civilis is the sixth-century encyclopedic collection of Roman laws made under the sponsorship of Emperor Justinian. "It is Justinian's collection which served as the basis of canon law (the law of the Christian Church) and civil law (both European and English)."

The following is a statement in Law French from Corpus Juris: "'Sodomie est crime de majeste vers le Roy Celestre,' and [is] translated in a footnote as 'Sodomy is high treason against the King of Heaven.' At common law 'sodomy' and the phrase 'infamous crime against nature' were often used interchangeably."

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination." (KJV) Leviticus 18:22

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them."(KJV) Leviticus 20:13

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NASB)

"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel." (KJV) Deuteronomy 23:17

No matter how much society appears to change, the law on this subject has remained steadfast from the earliest history of the law, and that law is and must be our law today. The common law designates homosexuality as an inherent evil... ---- Chief Justice Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court in a decision denying custody of children to a lesbian mother.

"The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. None of the fundamental rights announced in this Court's prior cases involving family relationships, marriage, or procreation bear any resemblance to the right asserted in this case. And any claim that those cases stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable. " The United States Supreme Court in BOWERS v. HARDWICK, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) 478 U.S. 186

Criminal sodomy laws in effect in 1791:

Connecticut: 1 Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut, 1808, Title LXVI, ch. 1, 2 (rev. 1672). Delaware: 1 Laws of the State of Delaware, 1797, ch. 22, 5 (passed 1719). Georgia had no criminal sodomy statute until 1816, but sodomy was a crime at common law, and the General Assembly adopted the common law of England as the law of Georgia in 1784. The First Laws of the State of Georgia, pt. 1, p. 290 (1981). Maryland had no criminal sodomy statute in 1791. Maryland's Declaration of Rights, passed in 1776, however, stated that "the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England," and sodomy was a crime at common law. 4 W. Swindler, Sources and Documents of United States Constitutions 372 (1975). Massachusetts: Acts and Laws passed by the General Court of Massachusetts, ch. 14, Act of Mar. 3, 1785. New Hampshire passed its first sodomy statute in 1718. Acts and Laws of New Hampshire 1680-1726, p. 141 (1978). Sodomy was a crime at common law in New Jersey at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The State enacted its first criminal sodomy law five years later. Acts of the Twentieth General Assembly, Mar. 18, 1796, ch. DC, 7. New York: Laws of New York, ch. 21 (passed 1787). [478 U.S. 186, 193] At the time of ratification of the Bill of Rights, North Carolina had adopted the English statute of Henry VIII outlawing sodomy. See Collection of the Statutes of the Parliament of England in Force in the State of North-Carolina, ch. 17, p. 314 (Martin ed. 1792). Pennsylvania: Laws of the Fourteenth General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ch. CLIV, 2 (passed 1790). Rhode Island passed its first sodomy law in 1662. The Earliest Acts and Laws of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations 1647-1719, p. 142 (1977). South Carolina: Public Laws of the State of South Carolina, p. 49 (1790). At the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, Virginia had no specific statute outlawing sodomy, but had adopted the English common law. 9 Hening's Laws of Virginia, ch. 5, 6, p. 127 (1821) (passed 1776).

Criminal sodomy statutes in effect in 1868:

Alabama: Ala. Rev. Code 3604 (1867). Arizona (Terr.): Howell Code, ch. 10, 48 (1865). Arkansas: Ark. Stat., ch. 51, Art. IV, 5 (1858). California: 1 Cal. Gen. Laws,  1450, 48 (1865). Colorado (Terr.): Colo. Rev. Stat., ch. 22, 45, 46 (1868). Connecticut: Conn. Gen. Stat., Tit. 122, ch. 7, 124 (1866). Delaware: Del. Rev. Stat., ch. 131, 7 (1893). Florida: Fla. Rev. Stat., div. 5, 2614 (passed 1868) (1892). Georgia: Ga. Code 4286, 4287, 4290 (1867). Kingdom of Hawaii: Haw. Penal Code, ch. 13, 11 (1869). Illinois: Ill. Rev. Stat., div. 5, 49, 50 (1845). Kansas (Terr.): Kan. Stat., ch. 53, 7 (1855). Kentucky: 1 Ky. Rev. Stat., ch. 28, Art. IV, 11 (1860). Louisiana: La. Rev. Stat., Crimes and Offences, 5 (1856). Maine: Me. Rev. Stat., Tit. XII, ch. 160, 4 (1840). Maryland: 1 Md. Code, Art. 30, 201 (1860). Massachusetts: Mass. Gen. Stat., ch. 165, 18 (1860). Michigan: Mich. Rev. Stat., Tit. 30, ch. 158, 16 (1846). Minnesota: Minn. Stat., ch. 96, 13 (1859). Mississippi: Miss. Rev. Code, ch. 64, LII, Art. 238 (1857). Missouri: 1 Mo. Rev. Stat., ch. 50, Art. VIII, 7 (1856). Montana (Terr.): Mont. Acts, Resolutions, Memorials, Criminal Practice Acts, ch. IV, 44 (1866). Nebraska (Terr.): Neb. Rev. Stat., Crim. Code, ch. 4, 47 (1866). [478 U.S. 186, 194] Nevada (Terr.): Nev. Comp. Laws, 1861-1900, Crimes and Punishments, 45. New Hampshire: N. H. Laws, Act. of June 19, 1812, 5 (1815). New Jersey: N. J. Rev. Stat., Tit. 8, ch. 1, 9 (1847). New York: 3 N. Y. Rev. Stat., pt. 4, ch. 1, Tit. 5, 20 (5th ed. 1859). North Carolina: N.C. Rev. Code, ch. 34, 6 (1855). Oregon: Laws of Ore., Crimes - Against Morality, etc., ch. 7, 655 (1874). Pennsylvania: Act of Mar. 31, 1860, 32, Pub. L. 392, in 1 Digest of Statute Law of Pa. 1700-1903, p. 1011 (Purdon 1905). Rhode Island: R. I. Gen. Stat., ch. 232, 12 (1872). South Carolina: Act of 1712, in 2 Stat. at Large of S. C. 1682-1716, p. 493 (1837). Tennessee: Tenn. Code, ch. 8, Art. 1, 4843 (1858). Texas: Tex. Rev. Stat., Tit. 10, ch. 5, Art. 342 (1887) (passed 1860). Vermont: Acts and Laws of the State of Vt. (1779). Virginia: Va. Code, ch. 149, 12 (1868). West Virginia: W. Va. Code, ch. 149, 12 (1868). Wisconsin (Terr.): Wis. Stat. 14, p. 367 (1839).

"Forasmuch as there is not yet sufficient and condign punishment appointed and limited by the due course of the Laws of this Realm for the detestable and abominable Vice of Buggery committed with mankind of beast: It may therefore please the King's Highness with the assent of the Lords Spiritual and the Commons of this present parliament assembled, that it may be enacted by the authority of the same, that the same offence be from henceforth ajudged Felony and that such an order and form of process therein to be used against the offenders as in cases of felony at the Common law. And that the offenders being herof convict by verdict confession or outlawry shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their good chattels debts lands tenements and hereditaments as felons do according to the Common Laws of this Realme. And that no person offending in any such offence shall be admitted to his Clergy, And that Justices of the Peace shall have power and authority within the limits of their commissions and Jurisdictions to hear and determine the said offence, as they do in the cases of other felonies. This Act to endure till the last day. of the next Parliament" Buggery act of England 1553

Britton, i.10: "Let enquiry also be made of those who feloniously in time of peace have burnt other's corn or houses, and those who are attainted thereof shall be burnt, so that they might be punished in like manner as they have offended. The same sentence shall be passed upon sorcerers, sorceresses, renegades, sodomists, and heretics publicly convicted" English law forbidding sodomy dating back to 1300AD.

These quotes are just a few of the many that are avaliable.

Now, why did these laws exist? Libertarians and other assorted liberal folk don't like any laws that protect society and prevent the moral decline of a nation's people. They are immoral people and they want to be free to be immoral.

What did our founders say about this? Way back in 1815, The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided an important case, here are excerpts from that case:

This court is...invested with power to punish not only open violations of decency and morality, but also whatever secretly tends to undermine the principles of society... Whatever tends to the destruction of morality, in general, may be punishable criminally. Crimes are public offenses, not because they are perpetrated publically, but because their effect is to injure the public. Buglary, though done in secret, is a public offense; and secretly destroying fences is indictable.

Hence it follows, that an offense may be punishable, if in it's nature and by it's example, it tends to the corruption or morals; although it not be committed in public.

Although every immoral act, such as lying, ect... is not indictable, yet where the offense charged is destructive of morality in general...it is punishable at common law. The destruction of morality renders the power of government invalid...

No man is permitted to corrupt the morals of the people, secret poision cannot be thus desseminated.

Keep in mind now that the judges on this court had lived through the revolution and fought for the nation's survival. This was just a few years after the Constitution was Adopted. SO the libertarians who are going to scream that these judges didn't know what they were talking about are way off base. (They want you to think that your basic pot head knows more about the Constitution than the men who were actually there at the nation's founding.)

Now why did the court take that position? Simple, a Nation without morality cannot function. A nation that loses site on principle is doomed to go the way of the Roman Empire. Every single nation that has lost sight of basic moral principles has fallen. Homosexuality is anathema to morality. The two cannot exist together. Homosexuality is unnatural (no matter how much liberals will try to convince you otherwise.) And it is immoral. It cannot be tolerated period.

Homosexuality is immoral, Indecent, abhorant, and repugnant. It is a stain on our society, and must never ever be tolerated.

[Woahhs]

She doesn't do it in her home...she harrassed a subordinate that didn't want a relationship with her.

[Snidely Whiplash]

You're a bit obsessive on the gay thing, aren't ya? Maybe you ought to seek therapy. Thinking about gay sex so much can't possibly be healthy, especially if you're not gay.

Snidely

[Remedy]

POST#128 - READ, REMEMBER AND RECITE IT REPEATEDLY!

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Our Nation's laws against homosexuality go back beyond it's founding. In every single civilized nation since the beginning of time, homosexuality was considered immoral, a crime against nature, and usually was a capital offense."

---

I agree 100%. Even if the fact that homosexual sodomy can rarely be prosecuted, since it occurs in private, laws prohibiting such acts are important because (i) it makes sure that such acts are not done in public, lest the perpetrators want to risk getting some serious jail time, and (ii) to make clear to one and all that such behavior is deemed immoral by a majority of citizens.

An earlier poster stated that there is no evidence that the judge has violated Virginia law, since we don't know what she does in her bedroom. That's true, and perhaps she could not be convicted of violating the law. But if a judge was a self-identified crack-smoker, wouldn't that be enough evidence to vote against her confirmation even if you've never seen her smoke crack? She's admitted her guilt by telling the world what a freak she is. Frankly, I hope she isn't confirmed. If someone has a psychological condition that makes her be attracted to people of her same sex (or to animals or to children or to her close relatives), she should seek help, not tell the world she was "born that way" and force everyone else to accept her immoral behavior. Same thing goes for kleptomaniacs.

[Ligeia]

Jan 24, 2003

Dismissal of judges not unusual

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) _ A review of judicial appointments shows the firing of Newport News Circuit Judge Verbena M. Askew was not unprecedented.

After Askew failed to win reappointment Wednesday, some legislators called it a "lynching" and complained that she was a victim of racism. Others said Askew deserved her fate after a courthouse employee accused her of sexual harassment, and the city of Hampton paid the woman $64,000 in a settlement.

Records reviewed by The Virginian-Pilot of Norfolk show that the General Assembly fails to reappoint, on average, one or two judges every year. Some are black, like Askew, but most are white. Some are women, but most are men.

In 1996, when Democrats controlled the General Assembly, Hanover Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Judge Nina K. Peace, who is white, was kicked off the bench after a nine-hour public hearing in which lawmakers ripped her temper, her treatment of lawyers and her handling of cases.

Just as in the Peace case, Askew sat through an all-day hearing to expose her flaws. And just as in the Peace case, some Democrats joined Republicans to kill her reappointment.

Last year, the General Assembly rejected three sitting judges and forced a fourth to retire. All were white men:

_Circuit Judge Roy Willett of Roanoke County was not reappointed after serving 24 years on the bench. His career ended when House Majority Leader H. Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, said he could no longer support Willett because lawyers had complained about his courtroom demeanor and that Willett spent too much time in job-related travel and committee work.

_Circuit Judge Donald A. McGlothlin of Russell County was fired after lawmakers criticized his slow pace and his backlog of cases.

_Circuit Judge Richard Pattisall of Roanoke County announced his retirement just as the General Assembly was about to dismiss him. Pattisall had earlier flip-flopped on his retirement, angering some lawmakers. In addition, critics accused him of dragging his feet in a case to determine whether new legislative districts were legally drawn.

_Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Judge J. Wesley McClintock III in southwest Virginia was not reappointed after prosecutors complained about his conduct.

When lawmakers fired a judge, they often cited the lack of proper "judicial demeanor." That was the complaint two years ago against General District Judge Katherine Howe Jones of Norfolk, who is black. Critics said she was rude and abrupt. Supporters said she was a victim of politics.

Sometimes political reasons are more overt.

In 1997, Gov. George Allen killed the reappointment of Circuit Judge James L. Berry, of Clarke County, who is white. Berry angered Republicans by revoking the concealed-weapon permit of Iran-Contra figure Oliver North, shortly before North's 1994 campaign against Sen. Charles Robb. [bwahahahaha]

The General Assembly deadlocked on Berry's reappointment, so Allen got to make the appointment. He replaced Berry with a Republican on the Winchester City Council.

Sen. Kenneth W. Stolle, chairman of the Senate Courts of Justice Committee, said Thursday that the rejection of judges is infrequent. "The vast majority we select for the bench are very high-caliber people," said Stolle, R-Virginia Beach.

He said the judicial process is more open since Republicans made it an issue in the early 1990s. Previously closed hearings have been opened and lawmakers can question judges on the legal reasoning behind their decisions, he said.

But Sen. L. Louise Lucas, D-Portsmouth, said the investigation of Askew amounted to a witch hunt. If a group of lawmakers wants to unseat a judge, she said, "they'll find a reason."

Askew referred questions to her attorney, Robert C. Nusbaum of Norfolk.

Nusbaum said Republican lawmakers had already made up their minds about Askew before last week's seven-hour committee hearing on her qualifications.

"I'm not prepared to say race didn't play a part in it," Nusbaum said, "but I believe it was a political issue."

RTD

[Elsie]

A "no-knock raid" on her home at 2 in the morning, or a half hour after the lights go out, might provide some hard evidence.

---

...wrong gender........

[The Grammarian]

I disagree its an unnatural law. However as a pragmatist ill support the law UNTIL this likely liberal feminist judge is driven from the bench.

Actually, it's a law against unnatural acts.

Virginia isn't the only state that has 'crimes against nature' laws, either. North Carolina and Indiana do too, and the vast majority of states did up until the twentieth century.