GOP State Senator Wants Emergency Bill to Make Anal and Oral Sex a Felony

Thomas Garrett: Damn! That mare is hot!! Image via Thomas A. Garrett’s Facebook page

Thomas Garrett: Damn! That mare is hot!! Image via Thomas A. Garrett’s Facebook page

If you live in Virginia you should be on the look out because there’s an emergency happening in your state, right now!  Stay tuned to the emergency broadcast channels because any minute you will hear that high school students are having too much anal and oral sex so it’s time to start imprisoning the little bastards, making them felons for the rest of their lives.

So says Virginia Republican state senator Thomas A. Garrett, who was, no surprisingly, endorsed by failed former Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli.

Garrett is attempting to resurrect Virginia’s “crimes against nature” statute. Cuccinelli, as Virginia’s AG, tried to convince the U.S. Supreme Court that the law was both necessary or constitutional. He failed.

Of course, the goal behind the bill is to make sex between two people of the same gender more consequential. The bill does not make penile-vaginal sex between minors a felony, because that’s not a “crime against nature.”

Josh Israel at Think Progress notes that “under Virginia law, anyone who encourages or asks another to commit a felony is automatically guilty of a felony. As such, while an adult having consensual vaginal intercourse with a 16- or 17-year-old would be a misdemeanor, an adult simply asking a 17-year-old for oral sex would be a Class 5 felony.”

Israel adds that “Virginia law permits heterosexual 16 or 17 years old to marry,”  but under “Garrett’s bill, two 17-year-olds could be legally wed but would both become felons if they engaged in oral sex — or even suggested doing so.”

And with Virginia’s marriage inequality constitutional amendment, a 17-year-old same-sex couple would not only be unable to marry, but would each be guilty of a felony if they engaged in any sexual relations at all.

That “emergency” part?

The bill’s language claims “an emergency exists and this act is in force from its passage.”

Story contributions by TheNewCivilRightsMovement,  with a hat tip to Jesse.

Did you like this? Share it:
Posted by on January 10, 2014. Filed under NEWS I FIND INTERESTING. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
Back to Main Page

75 Responses to GOP State Senator Wants Emergency Bill to Make Anal and Oral Sex a Felony

  1. E.A. Blair Reply

    January 10, 2014 at 2:41 pm

    May I suggest a caption for the photo? Here it is:

    Damn! That mare is hot!!

    • Michael John Scott Reply

      January 10, 2014 at 2:56 pm

      Ha Ha! That would be perfect E.A. Thanks man 🙂

    • Jess Reply

      January 10, 2014 at 3:14 pm

      dude even looks like a horse fucker doesn’t he?

  2. Jess Reply

    January 10, 2014 at 3:14 pm

    Seriously an emergency bill about blowjobs and eating at the Y, not what they think it means is it? Yeah go ahead on Virginia, telling teens to stop having the oral and teh buttsechs is sure to work for you. I CANNOT wait to see Joe Hagstrom’s take on this.

    • Michael John Scott Reply

      January 10, 2014 at 4:50 pm

      Abstinence is taught in a lot of Virginia schools thanks to the Krazy Kristians, so students have decided not to engage in good ole’ regular sex but to substitute the “other stuff” instead. Not breaking any rules there Mom. Praise the Jeebus.

      • Jess Reply

        January 10, 2014 at 6:27 pm

        Abstinence, they’re doing it all wrong, since most of the states with all the Jeebus teachings have higher than normal pregnancy rates. They should stick to the “other stuff” since no chance of getting pregnant that way 🙂 That might lead to dancing though, so we can’t have that. I am still waiting for Joe H to get wind of this. Know who else this story is just written for Greg G.

        • Michael John Scott Reply

          January 10, 2014 at 7:22 pm

          Dancing! Oh gasp. Jeebus would turn over in his grave. Oh wait!

          P.S. Lol on Greg G. So right!

          • Jess Reply

            January 10, 2014 at 7:30 pm

            If I had his email address I would send him an urgent one.

          • E.A. Blair Reply

            January 10, 2014 at 8:20 pm

            Of course you know why Baptists never have sex standing up?

            • Jess Reply

              January 10, 2014 at 8:38 pm

              Yeah because it might lead to dancing 🙂

              • E.A. Blair Reply

                January 11, 2014 at 12:27 am

                Actually, the answer I had in mind was that someone might mistake it for dancing.

                • Jess Reply

                  January 11, 2014 at 12:40 pm

                  Dammitall, I just knew I would get this all kinds of wrong when I answered it.

                  • E.A. Blair Reply

                    January 11, 2014 at 12:57 pm

                    Either way, the whole point of the joke is dancing being worse than sex.

                    • Jess

                      January 11, 2014 at 2:43 pm

                      I guess it depends on how you are doing it 🙂

  3. smith Reply

    January 10, 2014 at 3:50 pm

    damn , i hate stereotyping ……….. BUT, he does look like the closet type. and not just the gay closet either, all kinds of unusual ……..(quirks)

  4. Rachael Reply

    January 10, 2014 at 9:21 pm

    OMG! I LOVE that caption. LOL LOL!

  5. walt stawicki Reply

    January 11, 2014 at 3:17 am

    virginia ..that starts with v…same as vagina and that arouses my carnal appetites and please stop me before i eat again.

  6. James Smith Reply

    January 11, 2014 at 2:12 pm

    If this law were passed and successfully enforced, they would have to build a prison every couple of blocks. Who would run this prisons would be a problem, but perhaps the inmates could run the asylum. Wait, it seems they are doing that now, at least in the Virginia State Legislature.

  7. Bill Formby Reply

    January 11, 2014 at 3:06 pm

    Excuse me, but has this idiot not heard about a little case called Lawrence v Texas? The big court has already said keep your damn state nose out of the friggin bedroom of consenting adults.
    “The Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause. Pp. 3—18.”

    By this holding the sodomy laws in general were struck down so I think that this dudes law is moot before it even gets voted into law.

    • Jess Reply

      January 11, 2014 at 4:50 pm

      Ah see Bill, there is where it gets all difficult. This is for minors having other than penis goes in the vagina sexytimes not adults. Don’t you know, minors can be owned this way because..duh minors and they don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground, according to some of the daddy figures in the GoOper party. You know damn well, some GoOper is fapping away thinking this shit up. If we wanted to get all technical and facty, sodomy does encapsulate oral sex, anal sex, and anything done with no procreation in mind, so there is that hope some enterprising young teen can go to court with… they are taking away his or her god given right to do that nasty, dirty, sexy sex stuff they are talking about here.

  8. Maggie Reply

    January 12, 2014 at 2:35 am

    Hello! This has nothing to do with gay people. Garrett & Cuccinelli are fighting to keep a creepy diddler in jail. A 47 year old man coerced or forced a 17 year old girl to perform oral sex. The man is trying to get out of jail by saying that Lawrence v Texas invalidated the sodomy law in Virginia. Garrett & Cuccinelli are saying that the sodomy law is still in effect when it is applied to pervert adults going after underage girls.

    Garretts emergency is to clarify that the law doesn’t apply to two consenting adults or two consenting teens. In other words, he is clarifying that the law has nothing to do with gay people. Isn’t that what you would want? Stop shouting “NO!” until you find out what he’s actually doing.

    Calm down people, when you hear the word “sodomy” it isn’t automatically about gay people.

    Garrett & Cuccinelli can’t give William Scott McDonald what he deserves (bread and water in a dungeon) but they are trying to use the Unnatural Acts law to keep this person away from other children….let them.

    • James Smith Reply

      January 12, 2014 at 6:16 am

      So to keep one person in jail they will pass a law affecting everyone and can easily be misapplied? Nothing to do with gays? You are sadly, hopelessly deluded.

      Do you also believe a 17 y/o has had no previous experience or knowledge of oral sex? Doesn’t all that sand around your head irritate your eyes?

      • Maggie Reply

        January 12, 2014 at 3:18 pm

        No, this is a test case. There are plenty of other convicts waiting to file based on the outcome. For example a man who robbed & raped a female bartender had extra time added b/c he sodomized her with an object. Should he have his sentence reduced b/c the man (Garrett) proposing the clarification is more conservative than you like?

        • James Smith Reply

          January 12, 2014 at 4:08 pm

          Maggie, all of your excuses, even if you really do believe them, do not change the facts. This legislation is designed to go after gays.
          To insist otherwise is to simply show that to you, facts that are blindingly obvious to others, don’t matter at all.

          You are bringing in a case that is totally irrelevant in an attempt to change the subject. That’s what the religious reich always does when it has no facts, logic, or rational statements to make.

          Tell us, exactly where are these other convicts? When you have n facts, just invent some. No matter that they make you appear to be a liar and a very poor one at that.

          • Maggie Reply

            January 13, 2014 at 3:33 pm

            This is exhausting. You are basing your opinion on suppositions. I did give links to the original case and quoted the text of the clarification. Is your scroll key broken?

            The case I cited is relevent b/c the defendent was given extra time under the unnarural acts law.

            You are the one bringing in irrelevant subjects like religion which does not come into this in any way except in your imagination.

            I haven’t made a single “excuse”. I can’t prove your imagination is running wild. I can just cite the text of the clarification & the case that prompted the clarification to be filed.

    • E.A. Blair Reply

      January 12, 2014 at 9:13 am

      Maggie – The age of consent in New Jersey is sixteen. This means that a seventeen-year-old is legally capable of consenting. If the issue is that a teen of legal age was coerced into a sexual act, it is not a matter of what that act was, it was rape (and, in this case, not a statutory rape). That man is already prosecutable for rape and an exception citing Lawrence v. Texas does not apply, and no sane defense attorney would try to make that case. Of course if New Jersey is following biblical law, an unmarried female rape victim must marry her rapist unless the woman is married or it happens in a city and the woman is not married, in which case both rapist and victim must be killed.

      Where this becomes an issue about gay sex is that it seeks to criminalize all non-reproductive sex (presumably including masturbation), which, de facto, targets gay individuals since that is their only option.

      • James Smith Reply

        January 12, 2014 at 12:15 pm

        Good points. But this is in Virginia, not New Jersey. I don’t know the age of consent in “Ole Virginny” but coercion is often the case with many sex acts at any age. Then the issue is, “What is coercion?” How about, “If you loved me, you’d…” Or, “I love you so much, I want to prove our love to each other. I’ll do it for you willingly.”

        Maggie really is trying to turn a blind eye (too much sand maybe) to another christian attempt to control the sex lives of everyone.

        All totalitarian groups, governments, social organizations, religions, etc. want to first take control of your sex life. When they are given the power to tell you when, how, and with whom to have sex, controlling the rest is easy.

        • Jess Reply

          January 12, 2014 at 1:39 pm

          VA age of consent is 18 James. Like you said, they all want to control sexytimes of everyone and this will open a backdoor into going after all kinds of people again, under the ruse of ” why can’t you think of the children”

          • Maggie Reply

            January 12, 2014 at 3:26 pm

            Jess, there is no backdoor being opened. The proposed legislation
            “Clarifies that engaging in consensual sodomy is not a crime if all persons participating are adults, are not in a public place, and are not committing, attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, aiding, or abetting any act in furtherance of prostitution. The bill states that an emergency exists and it is in force from its passage.”

            • Jess Reply

              January 12, 2014 at 4:37 pm

              What they are saying matters nothing, if the law can be found to have a loophole in it, to go after another group. Thankfully there is a semi sane guy in the governor’s mansion now and not the crook that was in there. If you cannot see the bigger picture in some of these laws, that will affect a larger group of people, not our fault. I’ll say it again slowly this time, RAPE is RAPE is RAPE no matter the age of the victim if forcible sex is involved and no extra little ditties have to be added because one guy did/didn’t do this or one woman did/didn’t do that…

        • Maggie Reply

          January 12, 2014 at 3:29 pm

          Read the legislation for yourself. I am not turning any blind eye. I am simply not conflating issues and looking for a problem where there is no problem. If the female bartender in the case I cited were your sister, you would not want her rapists sentence reduced by a minute.

          This legislation is merely about keeping sick people where they belong, out of society.

          Religion has nothing to do with this case.

          • James Smith Reply

            January 12, 2014 at 4:16 pm

            You should pray to your non-existent god that no legislation to keep “sick people” out of society never is passed. You’d be one of the first to go.

            • Maggie Reply

              January 13, 2014 at 3:35 pm

              Your insults don’t make you right, just pathetic. Again, what do my religious beliefs have to do with the facts? Nothing.

              • James Smith Reply

                January 13, 2014 at 3:41 pm

                Finally, you do not lie about something. “what do my religious beliefs have to do with the facts? Nothing” That is true. Religion has nothing to do with facts.

                What is pathetic is your insistence that this is not aimed at gays and you refusal to answer simple questions, such as, “Who says these are unnatural acts?” That’s the song of religion. So yes, this is a bout religion and your beliefs. Your denial of these things does make them not true, it makes you a liar, a fool, and a hypocrite. Typically christian.

                Answer the questions and stop evading them. Stop trying to change the subject and deny this has nothing to do with religion Stop being a goddamned (pun intended) liar and fool.

              • James Smith Reply

                January 13, 2014 at 3:46 pm

                Your stubborn stupidity and willful ignorance doesn’t make you right, just pitiful. You hatred of Obama shows your true motivations, too. You’re another religious reich neo-con that opposed anything Obama does, no matter if it’s right, wrong, or indifferent.

                I personally have some bones to pick with his administration but I do not destroy my credibility by blaming everything in the world o him.

                • Maggie Reply

                  January 13, 2014 at 5:16 pm

                  Again, all you have are insults. Again, you have no proof of your allegations. Again, you have nothing to support your arguments except bias.

                  I link the clarification and instead of reading it, you just accuse me of lying.

                  I link the case that brought about the need for the clarification, you just accuse me of lying.

                  I ask for one example of reasonable opposition to the actual clarification. Not a blogger or special interest group, but a fellow legislator or administration official. But you just slam my religion.

                  You are completely without logic. Talk about believing things without proof! You are a fanatic in the true sense of the word. Your religion is victimhood. You chant your dogma about all Republicans being evil.

                  Normal people like me just sit back and laugh, you are a sad little minority.

                  • James Smith Reply

                    January 13, 2014 at 5:41 pm

                    The only things you have proven is that you are a gay-hating religious fanatic with your head buried in the sand. You refuse to acknowledge what even people of sub-normal intelligence plainly can see.

                    You are refusing to even recognize that questions are being asked. That proves that you are a coward mentally, and morally.

                    When have I said all Republicans are bad. You’re projecting your concept of Democrats upon me. That’s more proof of your mental deficiencies.

                    How am I a victim? That’s another lie from you. I have never even hinted that I am a victim. Again, that’s projecting your own attitudes upon others. The religious reich always cries “persecution!” whenever they don’t get their own way or are prevented from persecuting others.

                    Again, who says these are unnatural acts? Each time you evade answering a simple question you prove I am right about you.

                    BTW, when it’s true, it’s not an insult, it’s a description. Oops, awkward moment for you. Truth has no place in your world, does it?

                    • Michael John Scott

                      January 13, 2014 at 7:14 pm

                      James you have the great honor of addressing “Boston Maggie” a well known Right Wing baby blogger who has been championing the causes of Republican nutters for long as I can remember. Nothing you say will change her mind or cause her to reconsider her opinion. Have fun 🙂

                    • James Smith

                      January 13, 2014 at 7:18 pm

                      Of course I am not going to get her to reconsider her opinion. That would involve using facts and actually thinking. Clearly she is unable or unwilling to do either.

                      It is fun exposing her mental and ethical shortcomings, though. 🙂

      • Maggie Reply

        January 12, 2014 at 3:21 pm

        It’s not New Jersey. It’s Virginia. The prosecutor used the laws that were available at the time. This clarification has zero to do with people’s lifestyles.

    • Jess Reply

      January 12, 2014 at 1:38 pm

      So Maggie, nothing about perverted women going after underage boys then, it’s only men that molest kids. Oh and not for nothing, what you are describing by an older man forcibly coercing a girl into oral sex is RAPE, always has been always will be. Who brought gays into this conversation anyway, other than to say the sodomy laws in LvT were struck down nationwide. Yeah it was initially brought by gay men but like I said up there, sodomy includes people like me who have sex for the sheer enjoyment of it and don’t produce or cannot produce little ankle biters.

      • Maggie Reply

        January 13, 2014 at 5:19 pm

        To be clear Jess, a woman going after an underage boy is indeed disgusting and criminal. I was only saying that to my knowledge none of the cases that will come up for review without the clarification involve that circumstance.

        • Jess Reply

          January 14, 2014 at 1:41 pm

          This is what we are trying to tell you. It’s like all the talk of legitimate, real rape vs what.. the mystery that is non real rape we heard over the course of last year from some mouths. Rape is rape no matter what is used to sexually assault another person, if that sex is forced on the victim.

          • Maggie Reply

            January 14, 2014 at 5:00 pm

            Well while I agree that rape is rape no matter the gender of the victim or perp; the law does recognize different circumstances. Not my call. I am just acknowledging the existence of those laws.

            The point of laws penalizing sexual contact between children and adults is that children can’t give informed consent. I am only saying that I believe that is a good thing.

            If you can use an existing law to add time to the sentence of a child molester, I want it used.

            William Scott MacDonald was 47 and his victim was 17. It was his 3rd offense, the other two victims were 16 and 17. He has served his sentence and is now a registered sex offender. He lives in North Carolina now. His appeal, if successful will take him off the the sex offender registry.

            Is it so important to oppose a Republican that you would stand athwart his efforts to keep MacDonald on the sex offender registry?

            • Jess Reply

              January 14, 2014 at 5:56 pm

              Well yes I am an unabashed liberal and have no qualms saying that, but where has it been said by me or anyone else here that we would thwart efforts because someone is a republican. Project much do you? Sure use an existing law but this is not an existing law he wants to use, he wants to bring back a sodomy law that was found unconstitutional. What happens when a loophole is found for that one case, falling through the cracks on a technicality, that truly is a disgusting perv of a person who has harmed someone sexually. Slippery slope there. This is the issue for a lot of people, dem and repub alike, no looking at what the big picture holds and hoping beyond hope no one sees it before it can get fixed.

              • Maggie Reply

                January 14, 2014 at 6:36 pm

                Jess, the title of the post is “GOP State Senator…”. Many comments reference political party. Should I copy and paste them all?

                Garrett is not trying to enact or revive a law. He is bringing the current law into compliance.

                The law was originally enacted in 1950 before Garrett was born. It has been amended in some way at least 7 times that I can find. Garrett’s “clarification” is an attempt to bring the current law into compliance with Lawrence v Texas. His clarification is an acknowledgement of Lawrence v Texas.

                • Michael John Scott Reply

                  January 14, 2014 at 7:17 pm

                  Nonsense Maggie.

                • Jess Reply

                  January 14, 2014 at 8:21 pm

                  Aw shit, I’m high and I forgot we were talking about a senator, I get all my crazy elected republicans mixed up because there are just so many of them in office. Ooooh, condescend much there, projection and that not a good mix at all. I don’t care if Jesus himself carved it onto the side of the space shuttle before he was born, while reloading his ak on the back of a dinosaur, it’s been found unconstitutional.

              • Michael John Scott Reply

                January 14, 2014 at 7:45 pm

                Only a raging Right Winger could fail to find the truth behind the fiction. Oh. That’s Maggie 🙂

                • Maggie Reply

                  January 14, 2014 at 9:08 pm

                  I am not highlighting the fact that he is a Senator, I was highlighting the fact that GOP is brought up immediately. And if you scroll through the comments, many just bash the guy personally for his politics and religion.

                  All of which are just a distraction so no one gets that there is nothing to be outraged about.

                  Like I have asked elsewhere, if the Senator in question were a “tough on crime” Democrat would he be attacked this way? I don’t believe so.

                • Maggie Reply

                  January 14, 2014 at 9:11 pm

                  Michael, what “truth”?

                  There is a case. There is a response. Period. Everything else you bring up is conjecture. Calling me stuff like “raging Right Winger” doesn’t upset me. It’s comical. You don’t know me.

                  • Michael John Scott Reply

                    January 15, 2014 at 9:21 am

                    Maggie the fact that you don’t think you’re a “raging Right Winger” is what is comical.

    • Bill Formby Reply

      January 12, 2014 at 4:20 pm

      There are already laws on the books for that if the girl was underage and especially if there was force or coercion. It could be sexual assault, sexual assault on a minor, molestation, etc. The court would probably look at this issue from that perspective. There are already sufficient laws to deal with this predator. To say differently the courts would have to establish inequality of treatment of the same specific sexual act based solely on age. I don’t think the court was to get that specific on anything.

  9. Maggie Reply

    January 12, 2014 at 3:24 pm

    To my knowledge there is no current case where this law is being used in such a case. So it is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

    I did not bring gays into this. But that’s who amicus briefs are being filed on behalf of.

    The prosecutor at the time used the unnatural acts to keep the man in prison where he belongs.

    • James Smith Reply

      January 12, 2014 at 4:13 pm

      “Unnatural acts?” Says who? You? As always, you religious reich people want to impose your own sick beliefs upon everyone else.
      Then you try to hide your evil intent by pretending it is about something else entirely. You are posting your poison in the wrong place.

      People here are too intelligent, to well informed, and too accustomed to thinking fr themselves. You are being shot down every time. Doesn’t it bother you at all t be shown to be a hypocritical liar? Perhaps you have a form of mental masochism that gives you a cheap thrill to expose your mental and moral weaknesses in public?

    • Bill Formby Reply

      January 12, 2014 at 4:23 pm

      Why didn’t he used the laws regarding sexual assault or molestation if, in fact, that we the case. It sounds to me like the prosecutor was very sure he had a very good case otherwise.

  10. Maggie Reply

    January 12, 2014 at 3:48 pm

    The proposed legislation has nothing to do with keeping teens from having oral sex. This link may help.

    http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/virginia-anti-sodomy-law-overturned-in-colonial-heights-case/article_14f16891-33b7-5f10-89fc-4ee329ea24ff.html

    • Bill Formby Reply

      January 12, 2014 at 4:33 pm

      Why didn’t he used the laws regarding sexual assault or molestation if, in fact, that we the case. It sounds to me like the prosecutor was very sure he had a very good case otherwise.

      As the appellant court clearly said there was not a need to predicate the case on an unnatural sex act when it was clear that having sex with a minor was illegal as well as solicitation.

      • Maggie Reply

        January 13, 2014 at 3:42 pm

        He used the laws available to him at the time. Vis a vis your second sentence, the prosecutor did have a good case and got a conviction.

        A three person decision is not the opinion of the full appellate court. Also, it was not unanimous. The dissenting opinion was from an Obama appointee. Is that justice also a wingnut?

        The option to appeal to the full appellate court is available to either party.

        And if this “clarification” is so flawed why is all the opposition coming from blog writers/readers instead of Garrett’s fellow legislators? Or the new “sane” Governor?

        • Michael John Scott Reply

          January 13, 2014 at 7:16 pm

          Maggie you haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about. I suggest you stay with liberal bashing because your understanding of the law and the criminal justice system leaves much to be desired.

          • Maggie Reply

            January 14, 2014 at 4:51 pm

            Michael John Scott, Where have I bashed “liberals” as a group? How has any comment I have made been bashing? I have said that people who take their opinions from blogs and headlines without reading source material are wrong. That is true of any person of any political persuasion.

            What is it that I am saying that shows I don’t know what I am talking about? I am quoting the text of the “clarification”. I am linking to the case directly relating to it.

            I am the only one showing any understanding of the law. You can not pass a law to deal with a case which has already been adjudicated. William Scott MacDonald was tried and convicted using the Unnatural Acts law. I didn’t write that law. I don’t necessarily agree with it (no matter what some people want to think). It’s just a fact. Fair or unfair, right or wrong, that was the law on the books. Lawrence v Texas invalidated the Unnatural Acts Law. Virginia wanted to salvage the part of the law that did not deal with consenting adults. They are doing this in response to MacDonald’s suit to get his conviction overturned.

            What part of that has to do with homosexuality or religion or Republicans or Democrats?

            And the fact that I am quoting the law and linking that case has people in this thread bringing up my religion? Because I can read? Because I want MacDonald’s conviction upheld? Because I know people who work in the correctional system of Virginia who tell me about the other cases that will be filed? And I have emailed the person who told me the story for the name of the convict and will post a link as soon as possible.

            Why don’t you show me a case being adjudicated now that will illustrate this law harming innocents.

            • James Smith Reply

              January 14, 2014 at 5:00 pm

              With every breath you take, yu hate liberals. You lie, dissemble, evade, and display everything distasteful about neo-cons. You refuse to accept that “unnatural acts” laws are aimed at gays. If they were not,, the entire country would be guilty of felonies yes, including you.

              Are you saying you have never had oral sex? That would be as believable as the rest of your despicable posts.

              Answer my question instead of hiding like the moral and mental coward you show yourself to be. “Who says oral and anal sex are unnatural acts”? Only the religious reich, which shows they are hypocritical as you are.

            • Jess Reply

              January 14, 2014 at 6:00 pm

              I tell you what, if you post a name here or anywhere else from the corrections system in Virginia of any convict, I will make a phone call shortly after to have that person fired and you for getting information that is not of the public record unless you have been doing your research will be questioned in the matter. Trust me, I know people and they know WAY more people. Nope, I’m not threatening you I am telling you beforehand how it will go down so you are warned.

              • Maggie Reply

                January 14, 2014 at 6:30 pm

                The man’s crimes are public record. He told the CO his story. He’ll tell it to anyone who wants to listen. i would never advocate someone abusing their position to access private info.

              • Michael John Scott Reply

                January 14, 2014 at 7:44 pm

                Go Jess!!

            • Michael John Scott Reply

              January 14, 2014 at 7:47 pm

              Maggie you do know I hold graduate degrees in Criminal Justice and teach at several major universities right?

              • James Smith Reply

                January 14, 2014 at 8:16 pm

                Not necessarily. If she is half as good at avoiding plainly stated facts as she is at ignoring questions stated repeatedly.

                After all, she has covered herself with the black cloak of willful ignorance. The clear light of basic truths is not permitted to penetrate the gloom that surrounds her skull.

                Shall we all bate our breath waiting for answers. I’m especially interested in how she’ll evade the oral sex one. 😉

                BTW, what’s the difference between “bate your breath” and “abate…?”

              • Maggie Reply

                January 14, 2014 at 9:12 pm

                Michael, the fact that you profess to have those credentials makes this even sadder.

                • Michael John Scott Reply

                  January 15, 2014 at 9:19 am

                  LOL! You’re telling me that I’m lying? The fact is Maggie, you don’t have a clue as to what you’re talking about when trying to discuss complex legal issues. I have the background and education to discuss those issues, whereas you do not.

  11. Maggie Reply

    January 15, 2014 at 1:38 pm

    Look, I thought that you were up in arms about this piece of legislation because your sources were missing actual facts. So I cited these facts. But it’s clear you want to be offended, facts be damned.

    You don’t care about the facts. You just want to ridicule any and all Republicans. So have at it.

    I don’t care what sort of background you have. This dispute is a matter of simple facts vice partisan sniping. I would disagree with F. Lee Bailey if he told me this case was about anything else than what the facts say it’s about. I am expected to provide links to facts that are child’s play to Google, but you get to type that your some legal expert and be immediately deferred to? OK, whatever. I’ll stipulate you have a legal background. Big deal, you are still wrong.

    You can misconstrue me political views; impugn my intelligence and whatever else you care to. I don’t care. My politics, sexual proclivities, choice of worship are immaterial. When you ridicule how I exercise my 1st Amendment rights, you merely put your ignorance on display.

    • James Smith Reply

      January 15, 2014 at 2:04 pm

      When you decline to answer simple questions or even acknowledge they were asked you put your own ignorance, intellectual and ethical cowardice on display.

      Fut little things like truth and honesty are not part of your world view are they?

      No one is misconstruing your views. You’ve made yourself perfectly clear. You refuse to acknowledge that these laws have been used specifically against gays and that they have been struck down by the courts.

      Those are facts, but you despise facts and those that use them. Facts never support your favorite delusions, do they?

    • Jess Reply

      January 15, 2014 at 9:14 pm

      Seriously you are trotting out the ridicule of your 1st amendment rights to the guy that runs and owns this blog. He has nothing to do with government (unless I am mistaken) shutting down your ability to say what you want freely, in fact, it’s the opposite. He let you say what you wanted, he lets the rest of us say what we want always. I wish truly, I really do wish, that people would look at the 1st amendment when they start to call it out, that it is all about the government not shutting your speech down. Nothing in the 1st says anyone has to agree with anything another person says, only that they have the right to say it and others can call bullshit on it without fear of government intrusion. This has been a free lesson on the first amendment from an informed in her own mind, tree hugging, chai tea drinking, pro choice, pro LGBT, militant atheistic,limousine liberal. Yer welcome.

  12. rowdy62 Reply

    January 15, 2014 at 6:40 pm

    What’s up with this Maggie person? I’ve been coming here for years and it’s rare to find someone so intransigent and nasty. Typical republican I guess.

  13. Maggie Reply

    January 15, 2014 at 11:35 pm

    Jess, I never said anyone was restricting my 1st amendment rights. I said my choices were ridiculed. I didn’t say that others didn’t have the right to ridicule them, they obviously do. What I said was that doing so in leiu of debating facts showed ignorance.

    Rusty, I’m sorry if you feel I’m being nasty. It was not my intent. I wanted to discuss the case on it’s merits but I grow weary of the personal attacks.

    Once again I will state that a sexual predator is trying to have his conviction overturned. Garrett is trying to stop that. In that endeavor he has my support.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.