It’s no secret that Virginia Attorney General and GOP Gubernatorial Nominee Ken Cuccinelli hates us. After all, this is the man who celebrates sodomy laws as appropriate in “a natural-law based country.” Now it turns out that Cuccinelli’s decision to keep the state’s unconstitutional sodomy law has put at risk the convictions of sexual predators who were sentenced to jail under the outdated law.
Virginia had a long-standing Crimes Against Nature law, which was used as a cudgel against the state’s LGBT citizens. When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws as unconstitutional in 2003, Virginia should have modified the law to eliminate the offending sections. Instead, religious right leaders mounted a campaign to keep the law intact, an approach that Cuccinelli embraced. Despite some attempts in the legislature to deal with the problem, the law remained unchanged.
But not unused. Prosecutors have relied upon other sections of the law to convict sexual predators. The law is also used to underpin other statutes, including those forbidding online solicitation of minors. So when the state Supreme Court overturned the law earlier this year, as many as 90 sex offenders stood to go de-registered because they were convicted under an unconstitutional law.
Cuccinelli has tried to make hay of this in his campaign, saying the ruling “puts tools prosecutors need to protect children in jeopardy.” But, thanks to an in-depth look at the issue by ThinkProgress, it’s clear that it was Cuccinelli’s intransigence that caused the problem. If he had been willing to amend the law, the sex offenders’ convictions would still stand.
But amending the law to recognize that consensual same-sex acts are legal was more than Cuccinelli could apparently bear. Virginia could be paying a steep price for that warped — and unconstitutional — principle.
As I drive around the roads in Nelson County, Virginia and I see Cuccinelli campaign signs, they sicken me. This man has no business in politics. God help Virginia if he and Jackson are elected. The man is a rabid right wing nut and likely a Dominionist as well.
More Hate from the GOP: what a surprise!
It’s a moot point. The Cooch is down by 20 points, so it’s in the bag for McAuliffe. So why print this? Oh, that’s right: Queerty hates Republicans and feels it’s their responsibility to regularly bully them.
That’s right, I used the B word. And if you think otherwise, imagine what the response would be if Cuccinelli used the same rhetoric regarding us.
@BJ McFrisky: Wait I am sorry, but why is it bullying to state the facts of what is happening? Are you so supportive of Republicans that you can’t stand to see them called out when they are clearly wrong, clearly homophobic. Do you not feel that sodomy laws are illegal and morally wrong? Do you feel that it is okay for government to come and arrest a person for sexual acts with another adult? Cuccinelli’s feeling against gays caused this situation. Queerty is totally correct calling this man out for this. That isn’t a question. The question is why to you feel the need to protect a man who clearly has no love for gays, and actively works against us?
@Scribe38 : you are right. And many others here think the same. BJ McFrisky always defends the Republicans because he is a Republican, even if he denies it. I don’t beleive a word he is saying, now i know who he is.
@BJ McFrisky: I have yet to see you actually make an informed contribution to any of the political discussions outside of attempting to “call out” the “left” for discussing the politics of the “right”. What I would love to see are your thoughts on the actual POLICIES that are being reported on. Since you clearly side with the “right”, please offer us an insight as to why you support these policies. That would be a helpful contribution to the conversation.
Where you see “bullying”, I simply see a blog post from someone who clearly sides with the opposing viewpoint from Cuccinelli. It is not bullying to simply report on a story and offer your take on it. Bullying would be if this article made fun of his looks, his mannerisms, his intelligence, etc. The only posts here that seem like they might fall into that category are the ones that call Christie fat. Outside of that, it’s simply political blogging with an espoused idealogical stance. Not bullying.
@daveliam : i agree with you. Now i see who is really BJ McFrisky.
I’m not a Republican. I know it comes across that way, but the fact is I’m not defending the Right or Cuccinelli in any way, I’m simply identifying liberal hypocrisy.
Listen, Cuccinelli, like other hardcore people of religion, is delusional in his beliefs about us, we all know that. But what’s the point of this article? Is it unbiased? No, it’s a smear piece, hence the “bully” reference. Imagine Fox News printed a similar article about a gay politician. Would you object? Would you consider it an attack? Seriously—imagine your response.
Just because he’s been brainwashed by some church into believing we’re bad is no reason to attack him—we should be reaching out. That’s my position.
@BJ McFrisky: I guess I’m just failing to see why this article in particular is viewed as an “attack”. I don’t see anything in here that would indicate it’s a “smear piece” or “bullying” or “attacking”. It’s fairly straight forward: reporting the facts with commentary that is clearly left leaning idealogically. No where in the article, which I went back a reread again just to make sure, attacks Cuccinelli on a personal level.
With regard to your comment about a gay politician, I work in NYC. There are attacks on Christine Quinn as a Bloomberg lacky all the time. While I don’t completely agree with that stance, I certainly don’t see them as “anti-gay” simply because they are critiquing a gay politician. It’s about her policy, not her person.
Perhaps that is where the issue is for me with regard to your constant anti-left comments. Critiquing opponents of pro-gay policies isn’t bullying NOR hypocritical. That’s politics. It’s necessary to do so in a two party system with such drastically different ideals. For example, if I call Chris Christie a hypocrite for making a statement against the SCOTUS because of their recent gay marriage rulings when he did, essentially, the same thing by vetoing the bill in NJ, that’s not bullying. It’s critiquing his policies as unfair and hypocritical. However, if I end the statement with: “And how would he feel if we had a bill that wouldn’t let fat people marry?”, then I step over the line to bullying because I’m not picking on his physical being. That’s how I see it.
@Daveliam : good points !!! I agree with you.
@BJ, gay Republicans need to be reminded what they actually support!
@BJ McFrisky: I hope it isn’t “bullying” for me to suggest a review of the cases Cucinelli prosecuted. The criminal justice system is weighted heavily in favor of prosecutors; indeed, they can wrongfully prosecute people with impunity. Reasonable to wonder if he went across the line to prosecute people knowing they were innocent or, the more common problem, charging people with a crime more serious than the actual offense.
Well, if you look at past articles, you’ll find 100+ insults chastising Christie for being fat, and not for his policies. That is bullying. If you think otherwise, you’re just hopelessly biased. Calling someone all the slurs aimed at Christie is bullying. And if they’re not ragging on him about his weight (which they would never do to a fat liberal), it’s because he doesn’t support gay marriage, so therefore he’s fair game for attacks o his physique. Now look at reason: When Obama and Hillary were anti-gay-marriage, no one around here made a peep about it. But when they “evolved” (gotta love that word) into supporting gay marriage, Queerty readers creamed their pants over it. So if you believe that Queerty’s attacks on Republicans and Fox News isn’t a form of bullying, then that’s your fantasy to deal with, because if it were Fox News saying the same about us, there would be boycotts and protests and everything else. A perfect example is the comment by JayHobeSound, who “wonders if” Cuccinelli intentionally prosecuted innocent people. Where the hell did that come from? Oh, that’s right—he’s a Republican, therefore he’s a malicious criminal.
See what I mean? It’s bias, pure and simple.
as Clarence replied I am alarmed that a student able to make($)8920 in a few weeks on the internet. look at this now,,, http://smal.ly/4WYqe
A state that came this close to putting Oliver North into elected office, and gave the world George ‘macaca’ Allen, has to keep trying harder to spotlight its willful ignorance, and Cuccinelli fills the bill …until even he has to be topped.
Comments are closed.