Thursday, August 15, 2013
Ken Cuccinelli's battle against sex
I get a little tetchy when I hear of efforts to limit sex. My views related to human sexuality are rooted in a theology that contends sex is created to be enjoyed and serves the purpose of more than just making babies. There are days when I feel like pimp slapping Augustine for writing The Confessions. He started this mess.
I also believe in individual freedoms. What happens between two people in the bedroom should not be limited by law. Besides, we have a Constitution that protects the freedoms of all citizens.
Not according to the lemon suckers hell bent on redefining the Constitution. Ken Cuccinelli is captain of the lemon sucker party and Attorney General in Virginia. Cuccinelli, a Republican candidate for governor, went to battle against a court’s decision that struck down a Virginia law involving sodomy and oral sex.
The case involved William MacDonald, a 47-year-old man who solicited oral sex from a 17-year-old woman. Given 15 is the legal age of consent in Virginia, MacDonald couldn’t be charged for statutory rape. Officials charged him with soliciting a minor by inducing her to commit sodomy. He served a year in prison and was forced to register as a sex offender.
In March, the Virginia sodomy law was struck down by the federal court. MacDonald’s conviction was thrown out based on Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court decision that ruled anti-sodomy statues can’t be used by states to regulate private consensual sex among adults.
Lemon suckers rarely take no as an answer. Cuccinelli decided to appeal the case to the Supreme Court, arguing the court should interpret the sodomy law to apply only to sex involving 16-17-year-olds. Cuccinelli wanted the court to ignore the meaning and intent of the law to advance his goals.
The Supreme Court didn’t bite the lemon. It didn’t help Cuccinelli’s cause that the Virginia sodomy statute fails to mention age. Proof is in the pudding, they say. In this case “they” are right. The Virginia legislature attempted to rewrite the law to include the age limits. Cuccinelli killed the bill proving he had other plans with the law.
Cuccinelli’s trick would have carried a boat load of hypocrisy. In asking a federal court to convert a state anti-sodomy law into an anti-statutory rape law, MacDonald could have intercourse with a 17-year-old girl without facing a felony conviction, but would be charged as a felon and forced to register as a sex offender for merely asking for oral sex.
Young people between the age of 16 and 17 would face felony charges for choosing oral or anal sex over vagina sex. That prospect should alarm all parents in Virginia with gay teens. Old lemon sucker says the law was intended to protect youth, but its real intent is to punish kids who are gay.
I’m certain that Cuccinelli’s fellow lemon suckers affirm the Attorney General’s position with a resounding amen and thank ya Jesus. But hold on before the Holy Ghost sends you to dancing. What is asserted in this attack against sodomy?
Virginia’s law describes sodomy as "crimes against nature," which include all oral as well as anal sex, even between consenting adults. That dude running to become the Governor of the state wanted to make it a felony. He wanted to criminalize activity that is considered normal between consenting adults. That includes married couples.
You have to be careful when you start playing with laws. A few changed words could be the difference between getting the old freak on and being sent to prison. If interpreted a certain way, a sodomy law could lead to married couples being sent to prison for having oral sex.
Gulp. Did that one hurt? Did I just hear someone cry, “Arrest me officer?”
Of course that’s a farfetched possibility, but shouldn’t we ponder the consequences of all presuppositions? Shouldn’t we be apprehensive of laws that view anal and oral sex as illegitimate activity deserving punishment even when performed by married couples? Shouldn’t we be careful in pressing laws that call into question the way heterosexual couples choose to celebrate their bond of love?
Based on the Virginia law, aren’t most of us guilty of sodomy? Given it’s defined as "crimes against nature," and includes all oral as well as anal sex, even between consenting adults, shouldn’t most of us be concerned?
Are you a criminal?
If not, pick up a copy of Alex Comfort’s book The Joy of Sex. There’s much more to life than the missionary position. God forbid if everything else is made unlawful.