Editors' Note: Bob Wilson is a concerned Virginia voter, unable to disclose his superhero identity. By day, he's a mild mannered something, and by night a not-so-mild-mannered LGBT activist.
Dear Mr. Cuccinelli:
It has come to my attention that you are in favor reinstating Virginia's "Crimes Against Nature" statute which was found unconstitutional by the federal courts. The law prohibits sodomy and, as a gay man, would make my sex life a class 6 felony. To my understanding, it's your perspective that if you don't criminalize me, a professional in my mid 30s, from butt-loving my 31 year old boyfriend, that it will open the door to legalize sodomy between adults and minors.
I assume you took the Virginia Bar Exam. The criminal law portion of it ensures that you know that the age of consent in Virginia is 15 (unless a detainee in a detention center). While I don't agree with the age difference of the man you're trying to convict and his "victim," it could have still consensual in Virginia, since the girl was 17. However, you don't need a "Crimes Against Nature" statute to convict the man. There are other statutes you could use, such as the statute against solicitation. This covers sodomy.
In addition, if you want to protect people under the age of consent, there are already statutes in place for that, including: § 18.2-61. Rape. § 18.2-63. Carnal knowledge of child between thirteen and fifteen years of age. § 18.2-64.1. Carnal knowledge of certain minors. § 18.2-67.1. Forcible sodomy. § 18.2-67.2. Object sexual penetration; penalty. § 18.2-67.3. Aggravated sexual battery; penalty. § 18.2-67.4. Sexual battery. § 18.2-67.4:1. Infected sexual battery; penalty. § 18.2-67.4:2. Sexual abuse of a child under 15 years of age; penalty. § 18.2-67.5. Attempted rape, forcible sodomy, object sexual penetration, aggravated sexual battery, and sexual battery.
The only reason these don't protect minors between 15 and 17 is the age of consent. If there are already all of these laws on the books to protect people under the age of consent, but they don't protect all minors, why not raise the age of consent if you're so concerned? That would be a narrow tailoring of the law to suit your purpose. It would also be something that doesn't affect consensual relations between people of voting age.
If the government's purpose is to protect minors, criminalizing consensual adult sexual activity is irrational. Your question of the age of consent and the definition of what types of sex are allowable between consenting adults are completely different questions. It's like those Neanderthals that compare gay sex (between two consenting adults) with bestiality (one adult and one piece of property incapable of consent). They are completely unrelated and no rational basis exists for the comparison.
Now, I have a question for you about the whole Tea Party thing. Doesn't the Tea Party advocate not using government funds to regulate private matters like gun control laws? Isn't that exactly what you'd be doing by enacting your "Crimes Against Nature" law? You propose to spend the government's money enforcing a law that governs private conduct between all consenting adults.
I don't know if you're aware of this, but your constituents like all kinds of sex. Some like fellatio, some like anal intercourse, anilingus, cunnilingus, camming, role play, furries, a dirty Sanchez, Cleveland steamers, threesomes (including double penetration), swinging, slings, daisy chains, gangbangs, bondage & discipline, sado-masochism, watersports, and those are just the commonly known ones. Oh, I almost forgot! Some do like missionary, but I don't know if those are the kind of people who would really be fun to hang out with.
The point is, you can't govern private, consensual conduct that doesn't injure anyone. If you've taken the Virginia Bar Exam, you may also know that consent is a defense to assault, rape, and other person-on-person crimes. Why would you make consenting adults criminally liable for something that's already criminal if non-consensual, and why would you use government funds to do it? You'd have to hire more police and more prosecutors to handle the increased caseload and increase the already ridiculous expenditures on corrections facilities.
It violates what the Tea Party stands for. The Tea Party stands for limited government - not increased government. In addition, you'd prevent otherwise law-abiding citizens from practicing their trade. As I said, I'm gay and I have gay friends who are and who plan to be lawyers. If they were convicted of a felony, they would lose their licenses. How many other people would be in the same boat?
While I understand that your views on marriage equality won't change, and the state government doesn't have to spend any additional money on enforcing the marriage ban, this is not about the freedom to marry and the Supreme Court has said that sex does not need to be linked to marriage. This is an issue that affects all of your voters and you propose to spend the government's money against them - when all you need to do to achieve your stated purpose of protecting minors is raise the age of consent. I only hope the Tea Partiers can see how wrong this law is under their own ideals.
You say this isn't an anti-gay law, but who would you target (as if I have to guess)? Quite simply, you would have your investigators login to a hookup website or app and start propositioning the people on there. Nobody could show their faces without worry that Big Brother could be watching. Even if you didn't specifically target gay people, the only way to enforce would be to target predominantly single people (as the most likely to use those apps and websites), which would also not be allowable.
Your law is archaic, overly broad, irrational, expensive, damning, and against everything that the Tea Party stands for, not to mention Democratic ideals - although I doubt you'd get many Democratic votes anyway. As a staunch Democrat, I never thought that I'd agree with Tea Party ideals, but this is similar to the solar power argument in Georgia with the Green Tea movement, and I hope that the Tea Party will stand with me in doing everything possible to oppose your government interference and ask you to stop wasting the government's funds now on this idiotic battle that only burdens the people.