Incompetent Elected Official Of The Month: Virginia Delegate Tom Garrett (R-Lynchburg)

It just doesn’t get much dumber than this, friends.

Why are Republicans still picking on Bill Clinton?

Why are Republicans still picking on Bill Clinton?

Delegate Garrett has proposed a bill that would make oral or anal sex with a minor a felony in Virginia. The state’s laws currently make regular, run of the mill sex between an adult and a 15-to-17-year-old a misdemeanor only, and designate sex between 15-to-17-year-olds as no crime at all. So, Professor Eugene Volokh points out,  “if two 17-year-olds are choosing whether to have oral sex or genital sex, the law would push them towards the form of sex that is more likely to transmit disease, and more likely to cause unwanted pregnancy.” The law also covers prostitution, making oral sex with a prostitute a felony for both sides, while genital sex is  only a misdemeanor.

Just as children shouldn’t be allowed to play with sharp objects, weapons and matches, individuals as devoid of common sense and basic reasoning skills as Tom Garrett should never, ever be allowed to participate in law-making. OR play with sharp objects, weapons and matches.

__________________________

Pointer and Source: Volokh Conspiracy.

 

13 thoughts on “Incompetent Elected Official Of The Month: Virginia Delegate Tom Garrett (R-Lynchburg)

  1. Wrong. Individuals as devoid of common sense and basic reasoning skills as Tom Garrett should be encouraged to play with sharp objects, weapons and matches, especially in enclosed areas where they only do harm to themselves. Sheeez!

    jvb

  2. He should be charged with felony oral expression for speaking without engaging his brain. Don’t these people have staff or colleagues who could tell them they’re off the deep end?

  3. Obviously, I’m missing something. Mr. Garrett’s bill, from what I can see, is aimed at filling in a loophole in the law that would allow savage sexual usage of a minor to be made a felony rather than a mere misdemeanor. Have I got that right? If so, what is the objection?

    • If Prof. Volokh’s reading is correct then the bill would, accidentally I hope, criminalize two 17-year-olds experimenting, and punish them more severely for engaging in safer acts.

      “Accidentally” means “negligently” in the case of someone entrusted to draft laws.

  4. Could I please request a URL of the bill so I can read it myself?
    Given the track record of Republicans in Virginia, I think it most likely that Jack called it, but nothing beats a fact-check.

    • Given the track record of Democrats everywhere, I’m not surprised that you (Australian version) take exception to a measure that seems to have the purpose of keeping perverted hands (etc.) off the bodies of children. As I’ve continually pointed out, that free availability is one of their chief goals.

        • It’s also sorrowfully true. Pedophilism is an integral part of the deviant movement and has been from the beginning. Is their new excuse now to be that if they’re not allowed to turn children into tools of perversion, they may do something else that’s sexual? How about just protecting them from adult exploiters- deviants and other kinds- and give them a chance to grow up in some state of decency? Or is that asking too much these days?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.