HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Marshall says 'sodomy is ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu May 17, 2012, 05:26 PM

Marshall says 'sodomy is not a civil right'

Source: Richmond Times-Dispatch (Virginia)

In a testy interview today with CNN's Brooke Baldwin on the Virginia legislature's recent refusal to appoint openly gay Richmond prosecutor Tracy Thorne-Begland to a judgeship, Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Prince William, declared that "sodomy is not a civil right."

Marshall, a U.S. Senate candidate and one of the General Assembly's most conservative members, denied that he had lobbied against Thorne-Begland because he is gay, but instead termed him an "activist."

Marshall rejected Baldwin's comparison of the issue to civil rights and women's suffrage, remarking: "Sodomy is not a civil right. It's not the same as the civil rights movement."



Read more: http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/virginia-politics/2012/may/17/marshall-says-sodomy-is-not-a-civil-right-ar-1922377/



These are seriously troubling times in Virginia.

69 replies, 10281 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 69 replies Author Time Post
Reply Marshall says 'sodomy is not a civil right' (Original post)
swimboy May 2012 OP
Skittles May 2012 #1
Solly Mack May 2012 #7
asjr May 2012 #29
AlbertCat May 2012 #37
freshwest May 2012 #66
liberal N proud May 2012 #2
phantom power May 2012 #3
Blue_Tires May 2012 #4
FiveGoodMen May 2012 #11
Ken Burch May 2012 #40
Dont call me Shirley May 2012 #5
truthisfreedom May 2012 #6
gratuitous May 2012 #8
XemaSab May 2012 #9
47of74 May 2012 #15
XemaSab May 2012 #16
Bucky May 2012 #19
lunatica May 2012 #10
The Wielding Truth May 2012 #23
marble falls May 2012 #12
montanto May 2012 #13
24601 May 2012 #21
cindyperry2010 May 2012 #14
HERVEPA May 2012 #58
swimboy May 2012 #59
swimboy May 2012 #17
24601 May 2012 #18
SoutherDem May 2012 #20
chollybocker May 2012 #31
beac May 2012 #53
joshcryer May 2012 #61
CurtEastPoint May 2012 #22
Blue_Tires May 2012 #35
Ken Burch May 2012 #41
smirkymonkey May 2012 #69
AlbertCat May 2012 #42
La Lioness Priyanka May 2012 #24
47of74 May 2012 #25
La Lioness Priyanka May 2012 #27
slackmaster May 2012 #26
Faygo Kid May 2012 #28
tabasco May 2012 #30
Fearless May 2012 #32
azurnoir May 2012 #33
provis99 May 2012 #43
azurnoir May 2012 #47
cindyperry2010 May 2012 #55
Laughing Mirror May 2012 #34
bluestateguy May 2012 #36
Ken Burch May 2012 #38
swimboy May 2012 #52
Ken Burch May 2012 #54
kestrel91316 May 2012 #39
RainDog May 2012 #65
yurbud May 2012 #68
HockeyMom May 2012 #44
1Greensix May 2012 #45
mikeytherat May 2012 #57
Salviati May 2012 #46
Ian David May 2012 #48
jtuck004 May 2012 #49
Flubadubya May 2012 #50
undeterred May 2012 #51
frylock May 2012 #56
sofa king May 2012 #60
PurityOfEssence May 2012 #62
Tarheel_Dem May 2012 #63
RainDog May 2012 #64
Poll_Blind May 2012 #67

Response to swimboy (Original post)

Thu May 17, 2012, 05:29 PM

1. see how these repukes are?

he cannot see gay people beyond their sex lives, the same way he cannot see immigrants beyond their legal status.....if you're not rich, white, male and straight, and American-born, there's always some other factor that is more important than your right to be treated fairly as a human being

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #1)

Thu May 17, 2012, 05:36 PM

7. +1

That's it exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #1)

Thu May 17, 2012, 06:42 PM

29. And this guy can discriminate any time he wishes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #1)

Thu May 17, 2012, 07:24 PM

37. he cannot see gay people beyond their sex lives,

And we can see how boring and depleted his sex life is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #1)

Sun May 20, 2012, 12:41 AM

66. They are denying intelligence and talent in favor of their own cult of stupidity. What a waste.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swimboy (Original post)

Thu May 17, 2012, 05:30 PM

2. Huh? What?

Tell me if I am wrong, but I don't think he sees the point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swimboy (Original post)

Thu May 17, 2012, 05:30 PM

3. The conservatives in the 60s were totally sure equality for blacks wasn't a civil right either.

same as it ever was

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swimboy (Original post)

Thu May 17, 2012, 05:32 PM

4. This clown needs a fist in his face...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #4)

Thu May 17, 2012, 05:39 PM

11. So does anyone who votes for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #4)

Thu May 17, 2012, 07:28 PM

40. Or he wants one...er...someplace else...

(...come on...y'all were thinkin' it...)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swimboy (Original post)

Thu May 17, 2012, 05:32 PM

5. Let's see, who is the real activist here?

Marshall needs to stay out of people's bedrooms. Snooping into others' bedrooms is not a Constitutional right, it is a deviation of our right to privacy in our homes, the 4th Constitutional Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swimboy (Original post)

Thu May 17, 2012, 05:33 PM

6. Right to privacy, pursuit of happiness...

This guy is a neanderthal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swimboy (Original post)

Thu May 17, 2012, 05:36 PM

8. I had no idea

Virginia must have some, uh, unique requirements for their judges. In Oregon, we just want them to know and apply the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swimboy (Original post)

Thu May 17, 2012, 05:38 PM

9. $5 says that guy was wearing diapers, a butt plug, and/or a studded leather cock harness

when he made that pronouncement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XemaSab (Reply #9)

Thu May 17, 2012, 05:50 PM

15. Probably, but I really do not want to find out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 47of74 (Reply #15)

Thu May 17, 2012, 05:52 PM

16. Oh, I do

Hopefully right before this tool comes up for election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XemaSab (Reply #16)

Thu May 17, 2012, 06:06 PM

19. The point being, that the gov't shouldn't find out if WE have plugs...

You have a right to privacy. Sodomy is very much included among our civil rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swimboy (Original post)

Thu May 17, 2012, 05:38 PM

10. Isn't it a right to have the government out of your bedroom?

That guy is a disgusting creep. Definitely has issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #10)

Thu May 17, 2012, 06:17 PM

23. It is not in the realm of government to oversee what is done sexually in private between consenting

adults!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swimboy (Original post)

Thu May 17, 2012, 05:41 PM

12. In that sex is a form of expression between two folks, wouldn't it come under "freedom of speech"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #12)

Thu May 17, 2012, 05:48 PM

13. Yes, it's the freedom to ASSociate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to montanto (Reply #13)

Thu May 17, 2012, 06:13 PM

21. It likely was discussed in the court's "Oral Argument", but not all sodomy is Anal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swimboy (Original post)

Thu May 17, 2012, 05:48 PM

14. Welll what was that study awhile back

by psychology today? The most virulent homophobes are deep deep deep in the closet ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cindyperry2010 (Reply #14)

Fri May 18, 2012, 11:29 AM

58. Or not. I think that's generalization that can't be made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HERVEPA (Reply #58)

Sat May 19, 2012, 03:24 PM

59. Thank you very much.

I agree with you. People like Marshall give us plenty of other valid and verifiable reasons for criticizing, even insulting them. I am NOT comfortable with the supposition that the most active of LGBT opponents are themselves LGBT. I also think going all in with that type of response undercuts the more reasoned and fact-based responses.

If however, an opponent should happen to go all Ted Haggard on us? Pile on and don't spare the horses (to mix a metaphor)!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swimboy (Original post)

Thu May 17, 2012, 05:59 PM

17. Virginia Conservatives are in an unholy alliance with this woman:



Victoria Cobb is the Executive Director of the Virginia Family Foundation (http://familyfoundation.org/)

Her group sends out fear-mongering bulletins that warn Virginians whenever there is a danger that someone will treat LGBT people fairly. As she puts it regarding the Thorne-Begland vote: "General Assembly Votes to Ensure Judicial Integrity"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swimboy (Original post)

Thu May 17, 2012, 06:00 PM

18. There is USSC precedent that is on point. "Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)

is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court. In the 6-3 ruling, the Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in thirteen other states, making same-sex sexual activity legal in every U.S. state and territory."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #18)

Thu May 17, 2012, 06:07 PM

20. I was going to say that too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #18)

Thu May 17, 2012, 06:50 PM

31. Correct.

What consenting adults do behind closed doors, including sodomy, is still protected IN LAW by Lawrence v. Texas. This guy is wrong in every respect. Who votes for these ignoramuses?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #18)

Thu May 17, 2012, 10:15 PM

53. In GOP land, there is no "right" to anything legal if it makes some

narrow-minded bigot uncomfortable.

Here's Sideshow Bob's contact info should anyone wish to join me in mailing/faxing or calling to read a copy of Lawrence v. Texas:

Robert G. Marshall
Delegate of 13th District
P.O. Box 421
Manassas, VA 20108

703 361 5416 (office and fax)
703 853 4213 (cell) (preferred)


Since he "prefers" we call him on his cell, I say we keep that thing ringing all day and night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #18)

Sat May 19, 2012, 06:26 PM

61. The same is soon to happen with gay marriage, as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swimboy (Original post)

Thu May 17, 2012, 06:16 PM

22. He thinks gay guys will 'eye' him in the foxhole. What a doofus.

"It's a distraction when I'm on the battlefield and have to concentrate on the enemy 600 yards away and I'm worried about this guy who's got eyes on me."

Sorry, Bob.... not gonna happen. Even if you were 20 years old instead of 112.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CurtEastPoint (Reply #22)

Thu May 17, 2012, 07:15 PM

35. I like how even in hatred, their ego is big enough to think they are irresistable to gay men

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #35)

Thu May 17, 2012, 07:29 PM

41. Or, perhaps, they're afraid that they AREN'T.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #41)

Sun May 20, 2012, 02:37 PM

69. Or anybody else for that matter.

You know he probably molests innocent animals or something equally perverse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CurtEastPoint (Reply #22)

Thu May 17, 2012, 07:30 PM

42. I'm on the battlefield and have to concentrate on the enemy 600 yards away

Now, why on Earth would he think the gay soldier isn't trying to do the same thing instead of checking out his fat ass? The gay soldier is in danger from YOU, Bob, if you would be so irrationally distracted in such a situation! Your homophobia is harmful to the platoon! We cannot allow homophobes to serve!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swimboy (Original post)

Thu May 17, 2012, 06:20 PM

24. lol. i love how the same states and the same people pretend that the were pro-civil rights

when it happened. this may not be the same things as civil rights in the 60' but these same people were against civil rights in the 60's too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #24)

Thu May 17, 2012, 06:38 PM

25. And a lot of times they just replaced communist/black/etc...

...with the word homosexual in their rants. Word for word their rants are pretty much the same ones they used to rail against civil rights or communism (which in many cases was their blanket term for treating anyone on the same level as white males).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 47of74 (Reply #25)

Thu May 17, 2012, 06:40 PM

27. IMO these people are also trying to wedge african americans vs gays but they

were hardly friends of african americans either.

this is why i find it so ridiculous when old white GOP men start talking about how this is not the same as civil rights. maybe, its not the same, but its not like you guys loved the civil rights movement either.


smh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swimboy (Original post)

Thu May 17, 2012, 06:39 PM

26. Maybe not PUBLIC sodomy

 

Or sodomy as defined in the UCMJ as applied to people in the military.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swimboy (Original post)

Thu May 17, 2012, 06:41 PM

28. Stupidity is not a civil right, either.

Not just him - also the bigots who voted for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swimboy (Original post)

Thu May 17, 2012, 06:45 PM

30. What a gutless fucker.

Afraid to say he opposed Thorne-Begland because he's gay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swimboy (Original post)

Thu May 17, 2012, 07:05 PM

32. He can't have oral sex anymore?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swimboy (Original post)

Thu May 17, 2012, 07:06 PM

33. something I'm sure Mrs Marshall can attest to

but as for the rest of us..............

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #33)

Thu May 17, 2012, 07:35 PM

43. wanna bet he sodomizes Mrs. Marshall?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to provis99 (Reply #43)

Thu May 17, 2012, 08:12 PM

47. well I'm sure that

if Mrs Marshall is a 'proper' lady she exercises her civil right to say no

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #47)

Thu May 17, 2012, 11:00 PM

55. But it's okay as long as they aren't gay for each other

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to swimboy (Original post)

Thu May 17, 2012, 07:23 PM

36. Actually, it is

Lawrence v. Texas.

All this controversy has done is to make Bob McDonnell look reasonable when he surely does not deserve such a classification.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swimboy (Original post)

Thu May 17, 2012, 07:26 PM

38. Time to start the pool on how long it'll be 'til this guy gets caught with a rent boy at Motel 6

I've got ten bucks on July 4th at the latest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #38)

Thu May 17, 2012, 10:01 PM

52. Look, I think Marshall is a tool, but I see a repetitive pattern in your posts that is off the mark.

On the day he is exposed as a closeted gay man, pile on. Until then, don't make unfounded allegations that he's so twisted that he must be gay, please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swimboy (Reply #52)

Thu May 17, 2012, 10:18 PM

54. OK.

It's just that that's how it's played out with so many of these types.

But I'll leave it for now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swimboy (Original post)

Thu May 17, 2012, 07:27 PM

39. Sodomy is not just a male-on-male thing. Does this freak think he can legislate

sex acts between man and women in the same way??

Reminds me of the places in the US where you can't even buy vibrators. Effing puritans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #39)

Sun May 20, 2012, 12:29 AM

65. I know. This stupid jerkoff doesn't know he's talking about oral sex

Yeah, try telling heterosexuals they can't have oral sex. LOLOLOL.

good luck getting votes with that one. Vote Republican! They hate it when you enjoy consensual sex and foreplay!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #39)

Sun May 20, 2012, 11:40 AM

68. a clumsy straight guy could easily commit a felony and not know it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swimboy (Original post)

Thu May 17, 2012, 07:37 PM

44. A lot of married men (straight)

would disagree with this. I will not say more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swimboy (Original post)

Thu May 17, 2012, 07:40 PM

45. But he LOVES girl-on-girl porn

Marshall is like all conservatives. He's against gay men, but loves watching girl-on-girl porn on his computer. What a dirtbag. Who cares what people do with their love lives anyway? No one by Republicans, who want government out of their lives, but wnat it into someone else's life Greedy, homophobic, racists. Shoot them all, and the world would be a lot better off. The Civil War was LOST a hundred and fifty years ago, buttheads. You LOST. Get over it. If it happened again today, you'd lose even worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1Greensix (Reply #45)

Fri May 18, 2012, 11:16 AM

57. To them, girl-on-girl sex is not homosexual.

The mere fact that it sure is does not compute with them. I raised this very question about 20 years ago, when two very conservative friends of mine were watching girl-on-girl porn. I asked them why they were watching gay porn, and they looked at me like I was nuts. Then one said, "Are you a fag?" I haven't spoken to either one since.

mikey_the_rat

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swimboy (Original post)

Thu May 17, 2012, 07:48 PM

46. It seems pretty self evident to me...

that the right to love whomever you want is included in the "pursuit of happiness", thus is an unalienable right; the type that laws _should_ be made to protect.




(Edit to correct grammar, I hope, and to change the emphasis to respond more pointedly to the subject)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swimboy (Original post)

Thu May 17, 2012, 08:45 PM

48. So, should we ban from the bench anyone who has ever given or received a blow-job?

At the very least, we should be asking Del. Robert G. Marshall about his own, personal, sexual history at every public opportunity. Since he thinks it's important enough to disqualify someone from a judgeship.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swimboy (Original post)

Thu May 17, 2012, 08:46 PM

49. Fascism, bigotry, and oppression are not, but that doesn't stop you, Marshall. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swimboy (Original post)

Thu May 17, 2012, 09:38 PM

50. I know that old saw, but sex is sex...

Honey, if it's my sex it's "sodomy"... if it's your sex it's DIVINE!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swimboy (Original post)

Thu May 17, 2012, 09:47 PM

51. So judges are in the business of judging sexual acts of other judges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swimboy (Original post)

Fri May 18, 2012, 12:13 AM

56. these people must lie awake at night thinking about that awful AWFUL gay sex..

just obsessing on how awful and sinful it is. it's all they ever talk about ffs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swimboy (Original post)

Sat May 19, 2012, 05:38 PM

60. Neither is playing World of Warcraft naked.

But we don't tell Robert Marshall what he can do in his office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swimboy (Original post)

Sat May 19, 2012, 07:17 PM

62. Sounds like the pursuit of happiness to me...

Just sayin'...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swimboy (Original post)

Sat May 19, 2012, 11:52 PM

63. This is why we can't listen to those voices that tell us Dems = Repukes. It's already started here.

"there's no difference" is a load of horseshit. I, for one, don't want a repeat of 2000 when some were fooled into thinking that Gore = Bush. It wasn't true then, and Obama certainly doesn't = Mittens.

It's worth asking yourself if the person or persons who are disseminating this bs are actually working for your benefit, or if there's another "agenda" at play.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swimboy (Original post)

Sun May 20, 2012, 12:25 AM

64. It's a constitutional right

In both United States v. Stirewalt and United States v. Marcum, the court ruled that the "conduct falls within the liberty interest identified by the Supreme Court,"


(not to mention Lawrence v. Texas)

According to the Supreme Court, "liberty" interests have their source in the Constitution.It is grounded in the 14th Amendment and this liberty interest exists for heterosexuals as well.

Sodomy is oral sex too, not just anal. Pry from my cold dead fingers and all that, you Puritan killjoy. lol.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swimboy (Original post)

Sun May 20, 2012, 01:31 AM

67. The way I do it, it should be. nt

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread