Appeals Court Upholds Virginia Sodomy Law
Supreme Court? We don't care about your Supreme Court! Rule of law? We don't care about your rule of law! 14th Amendment? This is Virginia, and if we want one set of laws for the gays and another for "normal" people, then that's just what we'll do!
Apparently, Virginia doesn't have a law specifically outlawing sex in public. (Can that be possible?)
(Yes it is possible.) So prosecutors had to use a law that says any "person who 'carnally knows' a male or female's sexual organs via mouth has committed a felony." So let's get this straight. What would have happened if a man proposed to have vaginal sex with a woman in a public restroom? Nothing?
I guess Virginia really is for (straight) lovers.
Appeals Court Upholds Virginia Sodomy Law
by The Associated Press
Posted: November 8, 2005 7:00 pm ET
(Richmond, Virginia) The Virginia Court of Appeals on Tuesday upheld the conviction of a Virginia Beach man who police say solicited oral sex from an undercover officer in a department store restroom.
The court rejected defense arguments that a U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down anti-sodomy and similar state laws nullified a Virginia statute outlawing oral sex.
"We're still considering whether or not to take an appeal," said Greg Nivens, an Atlanta-based attorney with Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a gay rights group representing Joel Singson.
In a 20-page opinion, Judge Robert J. Humphreys dismissed suggestions that Virginia's sodomy law violated Singson's constitutional rights and that a six-month sentence imposed upon him last year constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
Singson, 38, was convicted in 2003 after he approached a male officer in a public restroom and asked if he could perform oral sex on the man in a handicapped stall. A court sentenced him to three years, with all but six months suspended.
Virginia code 18.2-361 says any person who "carnally knows" a male or female's sexual organs via mouth has committed a felony.
Attorneys for Singson contended that Virginia's sodomy law was unconstitutional because it, combined with related codes, restricted everything from private sexual acts to discussions of such acts. For the latter reason, they argued, the law also violated protected speech.
But Humphreys said the law wasn't targeting speech.
"Code 18.2-361 itself does not criminalize speech or expressive conduct. Rather, it only prohibits sexual conduct," he wrote. "Solicitation of a sexual act is not communicative speech, but rather, non-expressive conduct."
The crux of Singson's argument, however, rested on the question of public and private sexual acts and whether the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Lawrence vs. Texas made Virginia laws surrounding those acts invalid.
That 2003 ruling banished state statutes criminalizing gay sex as a violation of an individual's constitutional right to sexual privacy.
Nevins argued the decision invalidated any statute that failed to distinguish between public and private sexual acts. He said Virginia's code falls under that category.
But he said prosecutors argued the law could be applied specifically to public acts. Humphreys agreed.
"Because Singson's conduct occurred in a public place--not a private location--we hold that he lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of code 18.2-361 on this ground," the judge wrote.
Nivens called the decision a disappointment and a possible indicator that homophobia still thrives in Virginia.
"That you would try to save a law that clearly has been homophobic throughout the ages is kind of inexplicable," he said. "The problem here is just a refusal to recognize that laws like this one are invalid."
©365Gay.com 2005
http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/11/110805sodomy.htm
The Virginia Court of Appeals on Tuesday upheld the conviction of a Virginia Beach man who police say solicited oral sex from an undercover officer in a department store restroom. Singson, 38, was convicted in 2003 after he approached a male officer in a public restroom and asked if he could perform oral sex on the man in a handicapped stall. A court sentenced him to three years, with all but six months suspended.
Apparently, Virginia doesn't have a law specifically outlawing sex in public. (Can that be possible?)
(The attorney for the Singson) argued the (2003 Supreme Court) decision invalidated any statute that failed to distinguish between public and private sexual acts. He said Virginia's code falls under that category. But he said prosecutors argued the law could be applied specifically to public acts.
(Yes it is possible.) So prosecutors had to use a law that says any "person who 'carnally knows' a male or female's sexual organs via mouth has committed a felony." So let's get this straight. What would have happened if a man proposed to have vaginal sex with a woman in a public restroom? Nothing?
I guess Virginia really is for (straight) lovers.
Appeals Court Upholds Virginia Sodomy Law
by The Associated Press
Posted: November 8, 2005 7:00 pm ET
(Richmond, Virginia) The Virginia Court of Appeals on Tuesday upheld the conviction of a Virginia Beach man who police say solicited oral sex from an undercover officer in a department store restroom.
The court rejected defense arguments that a U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down anti-sodomy and similar state laws nullified a Virginia statute outlawing oral sex.
"We're still considering whether or not to take an appeal," said Greg Nivens, an Atlanta-based attorney with Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a gay rights group representing Joel Singson.
In a 20-page opinion, Judge Robert J. Humphreys dismissed suggestions that Virginia's sodomy law violated Singson's constitutional rights and that a six-month sentence imposed upon him last year constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
Singson, 38, was convicted in 2003 after he approached a male officer in a public restroom and asked if he could perform oral sex on the man in a handicapped stall. A court sentenced him to three years, with all but six months suspended.
Virginia code 18.2-361 says any person who "carnally knows" a male or female's sexual organs via mouth has committed a felony.
Attorneys for Singson contended that Virginia's sodomy law was unconstitutional because it, combined with related codes, restricted everything from private sexual acts to discussions of such acts. For the latter reason, they argued, the law also violated protected speech.
But Humphreys said the law wasn't targeting speech.
"Code 18.2-361 itself does not criminalize speech or expressive conduct. Rather, it only prohibits sexual conduct," he wrote. "Solicitation of a sexual act is not communicative speech, but rather, non-expressive conduct."
The crux of Singson's argument, however, rested on the question of public and private sexual acts and whether the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Lawrence vs. Texas made Virginia laws surrounding those acts invalid.
That 2003 ruling banished state statutes criminalizing gay sex as a violation of an individual's constitutional right to sexual privacy.
Nevins argued the decision invalidated any statute that failed to distinguish between public and private sexual acts. He said Virginia's code falls under that category.
But he said prosecutors argued the law could be applied specifically to public acts. Humphreys agreed.
"Because Singson's conduct occurred in a public place--not a private location--we hold that he lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of code 18.2-361 on this ground," the judge wrote.
Nivens called the decision a disappointment and a possible indicator that homophobia still thrives in Virginia.
"That you would try to save a law that clearly has been homophobic throughout the ages is kind of inexplicable," he said. "The problem here is just a refusal to recognize that laws like this one are invalid."
©365Gay.com 2005
http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/11/110805sodomy.htm
posted by JimG at 7:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home