Ken Cuccinelli Gets A Sodomy Smackdown From SCOTUS ... And He Probably Loved It

Ooh snap.

Last week U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts denied a request by Virginia Attorney General, the virulently anti-gay and yet same-sex obsessed, Ken Cuccinelli that a lower court ruling overturning Virginia’s sodomy law be put on hold while the Supreme Court decides whether to hear Cuccinelli’s appeal; Roberts, acting on behalf of the full court, did not issue an explanation for his denial.

It was just dee-nied.

Cuccinelli had asked the Supreme Court to put a stay on the Fourth Circuit Court’s ruling shortly after he filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to hear his appeal; SCOTUS is expected to decide later this year, or early next year, whether to hear the case, and if it decides against hearing it, the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court ruling remains in place.

And Cuccinelli gets pissy.

It all started when the Fourth Circuit overturned a felony conviction by a Virginia judge in the case of William Scott MacDonald, a 47-year-old man accused of soliciting oral sex from a 17-year-old woman. Although no sex took place, MacDonald, had been charged with soliciting someone to commit a sexual act that his attorneys argued was no longer illegal.

The Fourth Circuit Appeals Court agreed with his attorneys, ruling 3-1 that the 2003 Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas invalidated the Virginia Crimes Against Nature law as unconstitutional, thereby preventing it from being enforced.

Cuccinelli, who likes to shove his head into everyone’s sexual business because he’s obsessed with other people’s sexual activities, had argued the Lawrence decision did not apply to sexual relations between an adult and a minor—for the record, the age of consent in Virginia is 15—and he has stated in political ads for his campaign to become Virginia’s next governor, that the outdated, unconstitutional, none of your damn business, sodomy law is needed to protect children from sexual predators.

He seems to forget that there are already laws, even in Virginia, that allow for the prosecution of adults who engage in sex with minors.

Ken Cuccinelli. Same-sex sodomy obsessed gubernatorial candidate approved this message.

ALLEGEDLY.

source

In Baton Rouge Consensual Gay Sex Can Still Get You Arrested

Sid Gautreaux

You know how folks make jokes about the South and how backwards it all seems? Turns out, sometimes, hell, a lot of the time, it’s true. Like this story from down in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, where it appears that the Sheriff’s Office has been conducting stings to find men willing to have consensual gay sex and then arresting them for, ahem, crimes against nature.

Now, there isn’t a hint that any money changed hands, so these crimes cannot be considered prostitution; these are men, adult men, consenting to have sex with other adult men in the privacy of one of the men’s homes. And yet, for the East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Office, that warrants arrest after arrest; at least a dozen since 2011, with the most recent occurring about two weeks ago.

These men arrested for the crimes of consensual sex, have never been prosecuted because they have committed no crime; consensual sex between two adults, two adult males, is not a crime, even in Louisiana. But still, men are being arrested and jailed and paying fines for doing nothing wrong.  

Casey Rayborn Hicks, a spokeswoman for the Sheriff’s Office, released a statement, and she and the department clearly do not realize that they aren’t arresting criminals:

“This is a law that is currently on the Louisiana books, and the sheriff is charged with enforcing the laws passed by our Louisiana Legislature. Whether the law is valid is something for the courts to determine, but the sheriff will enforce the laws that are enacted. … The issue here is not the nature of the relationship but the location.

These are not bars. These are parks. These are family environments. Manchac Park, where the stings have largely taken place, has been known as a place where “cruising” for anonymous sex takes place, but neither talking about sex nor agreeing to sex are violations of obscenity laws.”

But the men are not having sex in the park, or in any other public place; after being propositioned by the undercover officers, the men go to their own homes, and that is where they are arrested. Apparently just having sex violates the law in Louisiana.

Except it’s not supposed to violate the law. When Lawrence v Texas—a landmark decision by the Supreme Court striking down sodomy laws in Texas, and thirteen other states, including Louisiana—then-Louisiana Attorney General Richard Ieyoub issued a statement asserting that the state’s anti-sodomy law could not be enforced, except in cases of prostitution and bestiality.

And yet, in backwards Louisiana the law stayed on the books for a sheriff, Sid Gautreaux,  who has nothing better to do than to troll parks asking men to have sex with undercover officers, to use as a weapon. And is now claiming ignorance as his excuse, with his office releasing a new statement: 

"To our knowledge, the Sheriff’s office was never contacted or told that the law was not enforceable or prosecutable."

And that lame explanation, the excuse of ignorance of the law, isn’t sitting too well with at least one Louisiana lawmaker, Baton Rouge Metro Councilman John Delgado:

“Does [Gautreaux] know that slavery is no longer around? Does he know that we have cars and no longer horse and buggies?”

Delgado is demanding apologies be issued to the 12 men who were arrested.

Gautreaux's office is now saying they will no longer enforce the out-dated law, and will work with state legislators to have it removed from the books. But that doesn’t explain the hows and whys that the sheriff’s office targeted these men, nor does it explain their strange explanation for doing so:

“The Sheriff’s Office has not, nor will it ever, set out with the intent to target or embarrass any part of our law-abiding community. Our goal is to Protect and Serve the public. When we receive calls from the public about lewd activity near our children, we have to respond. Our park operations, conducted at the specific request of the BREC Park’s Ranger, were an attempt to deter or stop lewd activity occurring in the park near children.

The deputies in the cases were acting in good faith using a statute that was still on the books of the Louisiana criminal code. The deputies used a statute that they felt fit the situation in order to remedy the concerns of the parents and park officials. The deputies presented sworn affidavits of probable cause, a set of circumstances that would lead a normal person to believe that a crime has been committed or will be committed, to judges for review. In the cases we have reviewed, the judges set bond, in effect concurring that there was probable cause for arrest. To our knowledge, the Sheriff’s office was never contacted or told that the law was not enforceable or prosecutable.

In hindsight, however, we feel we should have taken a different approach. We will consult with others in the legislative and judicial branches to see what can be done to remove this law from the criminal code that each deputy receives and to also find alternative ways to deter sexual and lewd activity from our parks.

We want to reiterate our intent in these cases. It was NEVER to target a certain segment of our population. It was only in response to parents, park officials and members of the public concerned that our parks were not safe. When we receive reports of public masturbation, sex and other lewd activity in a park where children are playing, me MUST take these concerns seriously. Our intent was honorable, our approach, however, is something we must evaluate and change.

The Sheriff’s Office is not concerned with what consenting adults do in private residences. We are concerned with what is going on in public, especially a public place frequented by children. In light of new information, we feel that we need to work with our deputies to provide them with better resources and training to deal with these issues in more appropriate ways. It is very important to us that the public understands our intent and agenda was safety and never prejudiced toward any group.”

They never intended to target gay men, they just approached gay men and asked if they wanted to have sex, went back to the man’s apartment with him, and then placed him under arrest using a law that has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Back.Wards. And this is why the South gets a bad rap.

via Think Progress

Just A Thought: Indiana and Montana Hate The Gays

Apparently the members of the Indiana Senate don't read polls; you know, like the new one that came out last week that says a majority--and yes, it's a slim majority--of Americans don't have an issue with marriage equality.

But in Indiana the Republican controlled House and Senate set aside what seems to be the will of the people and approved a proposed amendment that would not only ban gay marriage, but also ban civil unions.

Now, while doing this, they also failed to do anything about jobs, the economy, the environment, or any of those pesky little annoyances; it was much more important for the Indiana state legislators to enact Hate.

Now, it's not all said and done in Indiana, and when the people of the state waked up and realize their elected officials are not focusing on the issues near and dear to the hearts of the voters, these Republican asshats will be swept from office.

See, the Indiana General Assembly still needs to pass this anti-LGBT measure again in 2013 or 2014, and then it goes before the voters, and then the Indiana state constitution can be amended to add Hatred and Bigotry and Intolerance.

Isn't it lovely?

And while current Indiana state law already prohibits gay marriages--See? It's already illegal--amendment sponsor, Republican wingnut with too much time on his hands and not even good sense in his head, Senator Dennis Kruse says the measure would provide maximum protection for the basic family unit of society.

Cuz, you know, we Gays are out to destroy the family. It's been our plan ever since we were invented.

And now, onto Montana, Big Sky Country, er, Big Lie Country.

The Montana House blocked an attempt this week to blast a stalled bill out of committee so that state representatives could debate whether to repeal the state law declaring gay sex to be illegal.

Yes, in Montana it's illegal for The Gays to have sex. They are legislating what Gay folks do in their own homes. Now, to be fair, the Montana Supreme Court, in a unanimous 1997 decision, struck down the law banning gay sex as unconstitutional, but no one ever bothered to remove it from the state law books, but before the Supreme Court ruling, gays and lesbians in Montana risked being charged with felonies and if convicted, they could have faced a maximum penalty of a 10-year prison sentence and a $50,000 fine.

For having consensual sex. In.Their.Own.Homes.

A leading opponent said the court didn't strike down the law as unconstitutional.

Judiciary Chairman, Republican Congressman Ken Peterson, says the Supreme Court ruling held that same-sex adults, in private, not-for-commercial purposes, are protected by the right to privacy, not that the law was unconstitutional.



Diane Sands

Democratic Congresswoman Diane Sands says, "It's been almost 15 years since the Supreme Court ruling. It's about time we removed that language from the books....It's about the value we all place on the constitutional right to privacy and the right of members of the gay and lesbian community of Montana to not be criminals under the law Let's bring it to the floor and debate it and take action on it." 

It was Congresswoman Sands who proposed getting the bill out of the House Judiciary Committee, but her motion received just 51 votes in the 100-member House, not the 60 votes needed. 

Diane Sands' motion drew support from one Republican, Congressman Steve Gibson, who said the issue is not about gay marriage or religion, but rather "about freedom, privacy, respect, personal responsibility."

Yes, a Republican said that. And, he added, "Do you want the government in your bedroom? I don't. I'm sure everybody in the House knows someone in their family, a friend or a person that is homosexual. Do you love them? Do you respect them? I do."

But then, the less cool and rational Republican heads got into the fray, with one, Republican Congressman Michael Moore--No, not that one--arguing against Sands' motion, actually citing Scripture and natural law and "eternal law": "I would say that the protections provided in the privacy clause of the Montana Constitution, which are extensive and which we've been over numerous times in the House Judiciary Committee, the protections are sufficient."

But keep the Hate Law on the books?

Let's give Diane Sands the last word: "You know, we are members of your family and your community. We sit next to you in your pew at church and in some cases we're your pastor, whether you know it or not. We care for your parents in nursing homes. We're your nieces and nephews. We fill the potholes on your streets, and we even serve beside you as members of the House and the Senate. These days we serve beside you in the House and the Senate as out members of the lesbian and gay community, partly because we were not under the threat of this law."

Oh, Montana.
Oh, Indiana.

The times are a'changing. Are you sure you want to be at the back of the line as we march toward freedom, or do you want to be remembered as the ones who stood up against intolerance and bigotry and hate?

The choice is yours.

Montana
Indiana