Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (95363)	1/15/2005 10:16:09 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793800

The times they are finally changing in Virginia. Amazing. Singles' Sex No Longer a Va. Crime Defense in Herpes-Based Suit Leaned on 19th-Century Law By Carol Morello Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, January 15, 2005; Page B05 The state Supreme Court yesterday struck down as unconstitutional a 19th-century Virginia law making it a crime for unmarried couples to have sex. "We find no principled way to conclude . . . that the Virginia statute criminalizing intercourse between unmarried persons does not improperly abridge a personal relationship that is within the liberty interest of persons to choose," said the decision, written by Justice Elizabeth B. Lacy. The ruling strikes down a law criminalizing fornication as a Class 4 misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $250. The law had been on the books since the early 1800s but has not been enforced against consenting adults since 1847, lawyers said. The court based yesterday's ruling on a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning an anti-sodomy law in Texas. The opinion did not deal with a separate Virginia law prohibiting sodomy. But attorneys for both parties in the case said it suggested that the court considers most laws regulating sex between consenting adults to be unconstitutional violations of the 14th Amendment's right to due process. "It has far-reaching ramifications," said Paul Curley, an attorney for Kristopher J. Ziherl, the defendant in the case. "When you deal in any way with consensual acts -- sodomy, bigamy, adultery -- I'm not sure how any of them stand at this point." The case involved a woman who sued her former boyfriend. Muguet S. Martin of Dinwiddie asked for $5 million in damages from Ziherl when she learned she had contracted herpes after they had had unprotected sex. She alleged that Ziherl knew about his condition but failed to inform Martin. Circuit Court Judge Theodore J. Markow in Richmond dismissed the lawsuit, concluding that Martin was not entitled to sue for damages that occurred during an illegal act. The state Supreme Court ruling reinstates the lawsuit, which will proceed in Circuit Court. "I can't say we're pleased we made Virginia safe for fornication," said Neil Kuchinsky, Martin's attorney. "Though some will thank me, I'm sure. What we're saying is, there's a new sexual rule of procedure in Virginia. That is, 'If you're not asked, do tell.' " Martin, 30, said she had no idea she was committing a misdemeanor during her two-year relationship with Ziherl. Comparing the ruling to laws regulating drinking and driving, she said yesterday's ruling means Virginians should act responsibly. "Ultimately, the message is, we are adults and we do engage in activities that are not always current with the law books," she said. "If you're going to do something, be responsible about it." Curley agreed that it is wise and moral to inform sexual partners of any sexually transmitted diseases. But, he added, "To some degree, you assume the risk of contracting a disease if you have unprotected sex with someone." Yesterday's ruling relied heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which involved a man who had been convicted of sodomy. In that case, the justices ruled in favor of the right for personal relationships to be free of governmental interference. "The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime," the opinion said. Virginia's justices stressed that their ruling affects only private behavior between consenting adults. "Our holding does not affect the Commonwealth's police power regarding regulation of public fornication, prostitution or other such crimes," the opinion said. Curley said the opinion strips lawmakers of the authority to legislate most sexual acts. "It's ironic in this case," he said. "Had the plaintiff complied with Virginia's fornication statute, she would not have gotten herpes." © 2005 The Washington Post Company

To: Lane3 who wrote (95363)	1/15/2005 10:23:34 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793800

For about forty posts I was arguing that Bush's expression of his religious beliefs were irrelevant to my observation about his lack of inclusiveness. You can't have it both ways. You can not be an intellectual Conservative. Either you are a Karl Rove/GWB Conservative, or you are 'ginst us <gggg>. All your "finessing" is getting you nowhere. I don't know how CB does it, but she seems to be able to do both and get away with it (sort of)..

To: Lane3 who wrote (95363)	1/16/2005 7:12:59 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 793800

"For about forty posts I was arguing that Bush's expression of his religious beliefs were irrelevant to my observation about his lack of inclusiveness." Oh really? It has already been established that the "lack of inclusiveness" line is a bogus figment of your liberally biased imagination. FWIW, so to is your assertion that Bush's religious beliefs were irrelevant. This debate is more proof of your longstanding history of obvious liberal bias. You apply clearly differing standards to liberal Presidents than to Bush. In fact, you give liberals a complete pass, yet you apply extremely rigid standards to Bush, all with ZERO evidence to substantiate any of your standards or assertions. From the very beginning you made it clear that Bush's religious beliefs were extremely relevant to your POV. In your own words....... ... "I don't think that most Christians are intolerant of religious differences. Some of them simply find something deficient in "others." My read of Bush is that he is among them, at least regarding the non-religious." "Bush has a script on this subject. It's a ticklish area and he and doesn't have any wiggle room. Any ad lib is precarious."... ... "I can't forget that it took more than a year for "or not worship" to be added to be added to that script. Likewise "or no religion at all." That cannot help but color my evaluation of his attitudes."... ... "My conclusion was and continues to be that those of no religion are outside his sphere of interest. I will not change that view until and unless he does something affirmative to indicate he accepts non-believers into his family."... RE: Bush allegedly being non-verbally dismissive of the non-religious established how "insulted" you were: "We who were among the step children noticed."... CobaltBlue said: "I can't imagine giving a damn what any President thinks about my opinions or beliefs about anything" Your reply (in which you contradict your self again): ... "Me neither. And I don't. But I do care when the individual who sets the tone for the country considers a class of people to which I belong to be not quite fully members of his constituency, not quite fully Americans. When that class of people is already an object of prejudice, the tone of the leader of the country validates of invalidates that prejudice. So it matters how he treats us."... ..."I already said I didn't care what the President thought about my beliefs... Nor do I feel insulted. I'm quite sure I didn't say anything about feeling insulted."... ..."The best I can answer your question is to tell you that no president before Bush ever said anything that registered with me as a wrong note, singling out the non-religious for exclusion."... ..."Carter never said anything that struck me wrong. He never said anything that came across to me as considering the non-religious to be second-class citizens."... (My note) Hmmm... Neither did Bush, yet you found fault with him! Yet in the face of clearly conflicting evidence & zero evidence to support your completely unsubstantiated opinion, you said this... ..."That is why I have limited my complaint against Bush to what is observable. I have charged him with exclusion, which is that very absence of something."... In spite of the straw men your erected, conflicting assertions, clear evidence to the contrary & a complete lack of evidence supporting your opinions; you stated the following.... ..."I have been quite circumspect and quite logically sound, I think, in my assertions."... ..."Yes, it was some months after 9/11 that he finally sent a message that he got the message." "I fiddled with my data base last night and have partially restored it. If I can come up with the various columns that prodded Bush on this subject, I will post them."... (my note) We're still waiting. In spite of ZERO evidence to support your opinion, you made the following unsubstantiated assertions....... ..."The reason Bush had some 'splaining to do is because he's the only one who was ever caught excluding the non-religious. Who, in turn, made a stink. And he, in turn, responding by acknowledging them affirmatively, thus the quotes you posted."... ..."The other presidents never said anything that appeared to exclude the non-religious so they were never called upon to rectify anything."... You even help disprove your unsubstantiated opinions, yet you still lack any evidence whatsoever to support your, thus far, clearly discredited assertions...... ..."I came upon an earlier inclusive message from Bush. I'm still looking for the old non-inclusive ones and the op-eds."... Gee, I thought you said your weren't insulted??? ..."My recollection was that reaction to that was what finally triggered the inclusion of the non-religious, as well, the ultimate insult being to play second filled to ragheads."... Message 20942865 Message 20943336 Message 20943473 Message 20944011 Message 20945255 Message 20946544 Message 20947037 Message 20947122 Message 20949760 Message 20951602 Message 20951789 Message 20951897 Message 20951991