Posted on 01/22/2003 5:38:45 AM PST by H8DEMS
(CNSNews.com) - A key Republican lawmaker in Virginia has threatened to block the re-appointment of a local judge because, in the lawmaker's judgment, the judge's personal behavior as a lesbian violates the state's sodomy law.
Homosexuality advocates are protesting the lawmaker's lifestyle inquiry, which they claim has nothing to do with Newsport News Circuit Judge Verbena Askew's qualifications.
Delegate Robert McDonnell (R-Virginia Beach) recently said Askew's homosexuality might prevent her from being sworn in for a second eight-year term. Virginia's "crimes against nature" law strictly prohibits anal and oral sex between consenting adults, regardless of gender.
Speaking as chairman of the Virginia House Committee on Courts of Justice, McDonnell reportedly said Askew's homosexual conduct "certainly raises some questions about the qualifications to serve as a judge."
Askew is the first female African-American circuit court judge in Virginia and one of 60 judges statewide whose terms expire this year.
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."
Adams said Askew should be considered for re-appointment based on her tenure and history on the bench and not held to "extraneous things" such as Virginia's sodomy law, which he deemed a "pretext for discrimination" against homosexuals.
"It's a law that is used to persecute gays and lesbians, it's an inappropriate use of the state's power in a discriminatory fashion, and it's not just Lambda that thinks so," Adams said.
When LAMBDA filed a brief last week with the Texas Supreme Court to challenge a sodomy law in that state, Adams said, conservative organizations like the Cato Institute and Institute for Justice filed their own briefs on the same side of the argument.
LAMBDA's defense team is currently trying to overturn Texas' sodomy law, which could effectively strike down similar laws in 12 states, including Virginia's longstanding "crimes against nature" statute.
According to Adams, Virginia has invoked its sodomy law in recent years only to prevent homosexuals from adopting children and to discriminate against homosexuals involved in child custody battles. He could not recall any instance of the law being used against a heterosexual defendant.
But conservative legal expert Phil Kent, president of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, said the law is primarily enforced by police as a result of other illegal circumstances.
"Police aren't running around the country invading peoples' bedrooms just to see what's going on in there. These cases are occurring because warrants are being served, [and] they're going into the home with another warrant," Kent said. "You can't be doing anything else illegal in your home, whether it's drugs, homosexual sex or, conceivably, oral sex under that Virginia statute."
Kent said anyone under criminal investigation could be considered "fair game" under Virginia's sodomy law, including Askew.
When asked whether Askew had a criminal record that would merit such an official inquiry into her lifestyle, Adams said, "There is no indication that she has, as far as we know, been involved in any type of criminal prosecutions...under this law or any other law."
However, according to a recent report in the Hampton Roads Daily Press, a former Newport News Drug Court official did allege that she was propositioned by Askew. The city hired an attorney, who found the allegations to be invalid, but Askew's accuser reportedly persisted in her complaint, claiming she was still being harassed by Askew and that her supervisor and co-workers were failing to protect her. In 2001, the city of Hampton Roads paid the woman $64,000, including $10,000 to her lawyer.
Both Askew and her accuser reportedly signed a letter of understanding, which specified that neither woman could sue the other or make disparaging remarks about the other. Nothing in the woman's complaint against Askew suggests that the judge acted in violation of the state's sodomy law.
"I think that the members of the Virginia Legislature have every right to question her conduct," Kent said. "It certainly raises some questions about her qualifications to serve as a judge."
Kent said the state legislature has every legal right to rescind Askew's judgeship for the sole reason that she is a lesbian, and by definition, is in violation of Virginia's sodomy law.
Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute in Washington, D.C., added that people who are openly homosexual make their sexuality part of their identity.
"I don't think there's any homosexual without the 'sexual'. In other words, this idea of identity without actions is nonsense, it's non-existent," Knight said. "To forge an identity based on engaging in a wrongful activity such as homosexuality shows, at the least, lack of judgment."
In 1998, Kent said the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case of Robin Shahar, a woman who had her job offer rescinded because she was a lesbian. A Georgia appellate court had earlier ruled that the woman's civil rights were not being denied by the decision to rescind the job offer.
"The Bowers v. Hardwick case was the precedent-setting court decision that upheld Georgia's sodomy law," Kent said. "It was Mike Bowers who fired Robin Shahar, who he had previously given the job offer to in his attorney general's office. The reason was that her lesbian relationship violated the Georgia sodomy law."
Kent said the bottom line in cases like those involving Askew and Shahar is that traditional morality must be upheld by all citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation.
"Lesbians can't do whatever they want, and neither can the rest of us," Kent said. "That's why there are laws on the books...and, when they're on the books, they shouldn't be undermined."
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?
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.
LOL!! You got me there.
"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.
Snidely
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."
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.
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.