Oh Virginia gubernatorial candidate and state attorney general Ken Cuccinelli. You are so damn cray. You just launched a website whose sole purpose is to promote the enforcement of Virginia’s unconstitutional ban on oral and anal sex. Double down, indeed.
“It’s for the children!” You say. Well, technically you say “Keep Virginia Children Safe!” But all the law has done is keep 90 people on the sex offender registry, which is pretty useless in terms of safety and extremely problematic in terms of who gets included and residency restrictions. So good job.
Some libertarians want us to look beyond Cuccinelli’s backwards and unconstitutional legislative maneuverings because his intentions there are good and because he says he’ll lower taxes. But that’s kind of the difference between a libertarian and a Republican, isn’t it?
A Republican says it’s okay to grow government when a Republican is president. It’s okay to grant vast new powers of surveillance and detainment if it’s for national security. It’s okay to start wars in foreign countries if it’s to spread democracy. It’s okay to violate individual liberty and discard the principles of limited government if you’ve got a good reason.
But the libertarian says, “Well, no, not really.” The libertarian points out that the point of limited government is that government can’t be trusted do just do what you want it to with the powers you give it. The libertarian points out that as soon as you give government vast surveillance powers, it will use it to spy on enemies not of the people, but of government itself.
Laws are serious violations of liberty. It’s beyond ridiculous to sit back and trust government, as some even “libertarians” have done, to only use sodomy laws to punish child molesters. We KNOW FOR A FACT that sex offender laws are currently being used by racist parents to punish 18-year-old black boys who date their white high school daughters, or homophobic parents to punish their kids’ queer girlfriends.
So no, it does not matter to me that Cuccinelli might have good intentions. Which terrible, terrible laws aren’t justified that way? This law is wrong. A judge has already ruled it unconstitutional. It will not survive further judicial scrutiny. It’s a clear violation of individual liberty. All such laws end up being used to screw vulnerable people.
Every time Republicans and libertarians sit back and say it’s just fine, you still have my vote, when our politicians do stuff like that, we’re wrong.
Besides, as soon as you make blowjobs illegal, only criminals will give blowjobs. Or something.
Being from Virginia and being a Virginia politics junkie, Ken Cuccinelli is just wrong for anyone who believes even in the slightest amount of liberty. He came and spoke at my college and he is just terrifyingly anti-everything. The fact that there is any libertarian even thinking of voting for him is crazy to me. Oh and he’s an idiot – he could have fixed that case (the one that started this whole thing) simply by passing a law that made Crimes Against Nature fit into the Lawrence v. Texas framework but he’s so anti-homosexuality and just anti-anything fun that he wouldn’t compromise.
But the democrats ads against him are brutal. .
Well-armed oral sex aficionado against this fool.
“It will not survive further judicial scrutiny. It’s a clear violation of individual liberty.”
Exactly. Seems like it’s a bunch of Tea Party posturing. Even if he wants this, he’ll never get it because SCOTUS has already struck it down. Plus, I’ve heard Cuccinelli has started to lean in the libertarian direction on marijuana legalization.
It’s funny that you take this one issue and then basically lump him in with George W. Bush as if he supports all that other crap you brought up. I am not even defending him on this single issue… but other than this particular issue, he doesn’t seem all that bad.
And that is exactly what this article is dealing with. If you let the “one issue” slide, you are wrong. And yes, Cuccinelli is anti-liberty on so many other fronts as well.
YES! Libertarians need to provide a clear and consistent message if they ever want to be a big ticket party. . . This aggression will not stand, man!
Whoa Whoa, this guy isn’t a libertarian. Ken is a Republican. The Libertarian candidate in this race is Robert Sarvis. Get your facts straight.
Keep the government out of our bedrooms. What kind of a twisted moron could want this kind of legislation to be law? Next thing you know, cops will be busting our doors down with the excuse that they had reason to believe that we were having oral sex. What are they going to do to prove it? A breathalyzer test? A rape kit?
Ken is is not a Libertarian, he’s running as a Republican. The Libertarian candidate is Robert Sarvis. NO Libertarian, at least no true libertarian would vote for someone that wants to extend the law into your bedroom. Quit calling these REPUBLICANS, libertarian!
>We KNOW FOR A FACT that sex offender laws are currently being used by
racist parents to punish 18-year-old black boys who date their white
high school daughters, or homophobic parents to punish their kids’ queer girlfriends.
Because what really matters is the “human rights” of a bunch of coal burners and dykes who probably won’t even be all that adversely affected by this as a whole. Please get out of the liberty movement, Reisenwitz. kthnxbai
Could you please do me a favor and post some ‘enlightening’ articles about McAuliffe and no more of Cuccinelli? I respect you as a Libertarian, but a quick internet search will reveal that the Liberals have already attacked Cuccinelli on this issue… There is hardly anything damaging to McAuliffe though.
Hmmm. That’s interesting. I mean higher taxes and economic redistribution, right? Is there a lot more to say about McAuliffe?
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.