Dont believe the hype, the GOP candidate for Governor in VA, doesnt want to make it illegal for your wife to blow you.

Ok it might come as a shock,  I'm about to actually and legitimately call out liberal propaganda as bullshit.

Now hold on, before you have a heart attack, I'm not defending the republicans either, its just that on this one, the liberals are actually making shit up to scare you.

Ok for the last few days liberal websites have been full of headlines like this:

"Virginia GOP Gubernatorial Candidate Wants To Outlaw Oral Sex, Even For Married Couples"

 or 

"Virginia Gubernatorial Candidate Wants to Outlaw Oral Sex—Yup, That Includes Between Married Couples"

Well see heres the thing, thats an outright lie, thats not at all what Ken Cuccinelli wants.

BUT Ken Cuccinelli is also lying to you.

See he's claiming that the law in question here, the "crimes against nature statue" is to protect kids from pedophiles and ONLY for that purpose. He even has a Website dedicated to that claim.

Now how do I know both sides are lying?

Well I'll start with Cuccinelli. In his case I know he's lying because I can read.

See heres the law in question

"A. If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony [1 year in jail], except as provided in subsection B.

B. Any person who performs or causes to be performed cunnilingus, fellatio, anilingus or anal intercourse upon or by his daughter or granddaughter, son or grandson, brother or sister, or father or mother is guilty of a Class 5 felony. However, if a parent or grandparent commits any such act with his child or grandchild and such child or grandchild is at least 13 but less than 18 years of age at the time of the offense, such parent or grandparent is guilty of a Class 3 felony.

C. For the purposes of this section, parent includes step-parent, grandparent includes step-grandparent, child includes step-child and grandchild includes step-grandchild."

Now clearly section B and C do help protect children from sexual abuse by SOME their own family members....but only by SOME of their own family members, not from random strangers/unrelated persons or even creepy uncles.

But the big issue for Cuccinelli is in Section A. Note the second and third word "ANY PERSON". And note the total lack of "age" in that sentence at all.

There is no restriction on Section A at all, it applies to ANY PERSON.

Oh and one other thing, in 2004 a proposed amendment was made to the law it would have added these words to the end of Section A.
"The provisions of clause (ii) of this subsection shall not apply where all persons are consenting adults who are not in a public place and who are not aiding, abetting, procuring, engaging in or performing any act in furtherance of prostitution."

The amendment didnt pass, and one of the people who voted against that change was then State Senator Ken  Cuccinelli.

So not only is he well aware that the law he's talking about actually does apply to all, he made damn well sure it did.

He just doesnt want you to know that. He's hoping that if he lies to you about what the law will do you will support it and help him further his true goal. Now what is his true goal? well to get to that, I actually have to explain how the liberals are lying to you.

Ok so you may have noticed I keep changing my tense in relation to the bill, most of the time I use a future tense, suggest this is something Cuccinelli wants to do, but then I mentioned a 2004 vote that already happened.

You see thats the first part of the liberal lie. This isnt a new law Cuccinelli is proposing, its already on the books, and its been on the books FOR YEARS. It just hasnt been enforced.

What Cuccinelli wants to do is enforce it.

Which itself is a problem, see enforcing that law would be illegal. In 2003 the US Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence V Texas, that your right to privacy extents to consensual sex acts, basically overturning any existing law (which all 50 states had at some level) restricting legal types of sex acts. Some states took their laws off the books, some didnt bother (VA being one of those).

The 2004 amendment was a bipartisan attempt to basically make the law apply where it legally still could....to pedophiles.

However because the law is still on the books, Cuccinelli can try to enforce it (and clearly wants to), even though doing so would spark a legal challenge. Which is what Cuccinelli wants so he can try to overturn Lawrence, which itself overturned a previous SCOTUS case Bowers v. Hardwick, a case that said basically your right to privacy didnt include sex acts.

But that brings us back to the original liberal lie. You see despite the above paragraph Cuccinelli's target isnt married couples at all, or even unmarried heterosexuals. It's gays.

First think about this, under the Virginia law which is already on the books, pretty much everyone reading this would be in jail, I know me personally, I likely wouldnt be getting out till near the year 4000, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. Hell I'd bet money that Cuccinelli is one of those who would be in jail himself, he and his wife.
Yet no one's ever heard of this law before is also my guess. Its not one anyone lived in fear of thats for sure, including those sexual active in Virginia before 2003 when the law was still enforced.

Because no one ever intended to enforce it on straight people, and really unless you get caught giving head on a park bench, doing so would be more or less impossible anyways.

There is a legal concept called "probable cause" which the police need to arrest you. Basically it means the odds are better then 50/50 the law is being broken. Using the aforementioned park bench blowjob, the odds are clearly 100% since the cop can see you.

But what about other times? Lets say I take a woman back to my place and we head to the bedroom. 3 things could be happening; oral sex, anal sex, or vaginal sex, and that last one (which would still be legal) is still by far the most likely for any random couple.

But what about gay folks? Well as a rule, they dont have both sets of parts needed for vaginal sex. So by default it would have to fall under oral sex or anal sex. I realize there are some exceptions (especially for lesbians) but still as a general rule, it kinda holds.

So if anyone sees 2 men making out on the street/in a bar/whatever, and sees them go home together and the bedroom light goes out.....well odds are pretty close to 100% they are having some form of illegal sex, because they cant have the legal kind.

So they call the cops, and report illegal sex, and the cops can come and arrest the people, because again if they are having sex, by definition it has to be the illegal kind if your gay. (and yes, that has happened back before all these laws were overturned)

So how do we get from that to "Cuccinelli wants to make it illegal for your wife to suck you off"?

Well thats easy. See Cuccinelli is hiding his true objective in part, because he presumably believes that people really arnt that opposed to gay sex AND because he KNOWS people wont know enough about the law to know they cant be targeted/believe even they as straights will be targeted.

Liberals meanwhile also presumably believe that people really are that opposed to gay sex and gay marriage (at least in Virginia) BUT agree with Cuccinelli on straights being basically too stupid to know the law wont apply to them. That and on paper at least (the law itself) they are technically correct.

So yea, to sum up, if you hear about how your about to lose your right to a BJ in VA, its a lie, unless your gay. But here's the thing, if liberals really are going to stand up for gay rights for the sake of standing up for gay rights, this would be the perfect place to start.
They fact that your gay friend (and hell we all have them) is going to lose his right to a BJ should be more than enough to motivate liberals. Yes mention the truth that it is technically possible it would apply to straights in very small situations, and add that as proof its a badly designed law. But dont push with that. Grow a pair and push with the "attacking the rights of gays" line and embrace it. To do otherwise is just an act of political cowardice and bullshit, and leave those to Mr. Cuccinelli, and call him on his bullshit.