It just doesn’t get much dumber than this, friends.
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.
Ethics Alarms 
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
I stand corrected.
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?
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?
You think it makes sense to encourage kids to have genital sex rather than oral sex? It’s called stupid drafting and perverse incentives.
How does this encourage juvenile sex, Jack? The bill, as I see it, is to protect children against devant sexual assault by adults by making it a felony. I can’t discredit that!
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.
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.
The link is in the post…
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.
That is not full contact debate, that is abuse. It is personal, unjustified, and foul.
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?
I’d like to be the “fly on the wall” listening to the oral arguments as this bill is debated.