Comment: nah

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Haa ha ha (see in situ)

nah

First point: Just because an organization hates conservatives does not automatically mean everything they say is false.

Secondly: Cucinelli was trying to get a conviction on a technicality. (A bad technicality, that could not be logically argued.) The fact is, there is NO law in Virginia that covers an adult soliciting sex with a 17 year old. That is above the age of consent. So then what Cucinelli did, is he took a law that was written for the purpose of restricting sex acts between consenting adults, and got struck down by the Supreme Court, and then stating that rather than applying that law, (which was still on the Virginia books despite being declared unconstitutional) ... for its intended purpose, to instead utilize that law to declare that 17 is in fact under the statutory age for sex ... because apparently Cucinelli was unhappy with the fact that the legislative branch did not make the legal age high enough.

Now the type of sex that could actually make the 17 year old girl pregnant would not be considered illegal in Virginia, regardless of whether Cucinelli could get the man convicted of soliciting oral sex from the 17 year old. So Cucinelli's personal crusade to raise the age of consent was not even really a proper final solution to what he was attempting (or claiming to attempt) to accomplish.

Third point: Do you honestly believe, that Cucinelli would not like to have a law against sodomy? That is what is most disturbing about him. Cucinelli was not stating that "the law would not be used against consenting adults" because he personally believes that such government interference is wrong; he was simply acknowledging that he knows the Supreme Court will not stand for it. And in the end, the Supreme Court also did not allow him to redefine the age of consent in Virginia.