A sodomy law is a law that defines certain sexual acts as crimes. The precise sexual acts meant by the term sodomy are rarely spelled out in the law, but are typically understood by courts to include any sexual act deemed unnatural. It also has a range of similar euphemisms.^[1] These acts typically include oral sex, anal sex and bestiality; in practice such laws have rarely been enforced against heterosexual couples.^[2]

Sodomy laws can be found around the world. Today, consensual homosexual acts between adults are illegal in about 70 out of the 195 countries of the world (approximately 36%); in 40 of these, only male-male sex is outlawed.^[3]

History[link]

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2011)

The Middle Assyrian Law Codes (1075 BC) state: If a man has intercourse with his brother-in-arms, they shall turn him into a eunuch. This is the earliest known law condemning the act of male-to-male intercourse in the military.^[4]

In the Roman Republic, the Lex Scantinia imposed penalties on those who committed a sex crime (stuprum) against a freeborn male minor. The law may also have been used to prosecute male citizens who willingly played the passive role in same-sex acts.^[5] The law was mentioned in literary sources but enforced infrequently; Domitian revived it during his program of judicial and moral reform.^[6] It is unclear whether the penalty was death or a fine. For adult male citizens to experience and act on homoerotic desire was considered natural and permissible, as long as their partner was a male of lower social standing.^[7] Pederasty in ancient Rome was acceptable only when the younger partner was a prostitute or slave.

Most anti-sodomy laws in Western countries originated from a Christian world-view established from the Bible. The New Testament has been said to condemn Sodomy; {Romans 1:24, 26-28} In England, Henry VIII introduced the first legislation under English criminal law against sodomy with the Buggery Act of 1533, making buggery punishable by hanging, a penalty not lifted until 1861.

Following Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England,^[8] the crime of sodomy has often been defined only as the abominable and detestable crime against nature, or some variation of the phrase. This language led to widely varying rulings about what specific acts were encompassed by its prohibition.

Following the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution led by V.I. Lenin and Leon Trotsky, Russia became the 1st nation to legalize homosexuality. The new Bolshevik legal code contained within it the concept that if there was no victim, there was no crime. This unprecedented championing of sexual freedom gave hope to gays and lesbians the world over. When Joseph Stalin came to power these gains were reversed bit by bit until homosexuality along with other freedoms gained by women were effectively made illegal again by the bureaucratic regime.

After the publishing of the Wolfenden report in the UK, which asserted that "homosexual behaviour between consenting adults in private should no longer be a criminal offence", many western governments, including the United States, have repealed laws specifically against homosexual acts. In June 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that state laws criminalizing private, non-commercial sexual activity between consenting adults at home on the grounds of morality are unconstitutional since there is insufficient justification for intruding into people's liberty and privacy.

As of 2011, sodomy laws have been repealed or judicially struck down in all of Europe, North America, and South America, except for Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago. Sodomy remains a serious crime in these countries and in many other parts of the world.

This trend among Western nations has not been followed in all other regions of the world (Africa, some parts of Asia, Oceania and even western countries in the Caribbean Islands), where sodomy often remains a serious crime. For example, male homosexual acts, at least in theory, can result in life imprisonment in Barbados and Guyana.

In Africa, male homosexual acts remain punishable by death in Mauritania, Sudan, and some parts of Nigeria and Somalia. Male and sometimes female homosexual acts are minor to major criminal offences in many other African countries; for example, life imprisonment is a prospective penalty in Sierra Leone, Tanzania and Uganda. A notable exception is South Africa, where same-sex marriage is legal.

In Asia, male homosexual acts remain punishable by death in Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen; but anti-sodomy laws have been repealed in Israel (which recognises but does not perform same-sex marriages), Japan, Kazakhstan, India, The Philippines, and Thailand. There have never been Western-style sodomy laws in the People's Republic of China, Taiwan, North Korea, South Korea, or Vietnam. Additionally, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia were part of the French colony of 'Indochine'; so if there had been any laws against male homosexual acts in those countries, they would have been dismantled by French colonial authorities, since male homosexual acts have been legal in France and throughout the French Empire since 1791. Other discriminatory measures may exist against homosexual men (and women) in the countries discussed, however; and certainly do exist in the rest of Asia. For example, life imprisonment is the formal penalty for male homosexual acts in Bangladesh, the Maldives, Myanmar (formerly Burma), Pakistan, and Qatar.

Sodomy laws by country[link]

Australia[link]

Australia inherited the United Kingdom's sodomy laws on colonisation in 1788. These were retained in the criminal codes passed by the various colonial parliaments during the 19th century, and by the state parliaments after Federation.^{[citation needed]}

Following the Wolfenden report, the Dunstan Labor government introduced a consenting adults in private type legal defence in South Australia in 1972. This defence was initiated as a bill by Murray Hill, father of former Defence Minister Robert Hill, and repealed the state's sodomy law in 1975. The Campaign Against Moral Persecution during the 1970s raised the profile and acceptance of Australia's gay and lesbian communities, and other states and territories repealed their laws between 1976 and 1990. The exception was Tasmania, which retained its laws until the Federal Government and the United Nations Human Rights Committee forced their repeal in 1997. The details are given in the book Living out Loud: A History of Gay and Lesbian Activism in Australia.^{[citation needed]} Male homosexuality was decriminalised in the Australian Capital Territory in 1976, then Norfolk Island in 1993, following South Australia in 1975 and Victoria in 1981. At the time of legalization (for the above), the age of consent, rape, defences, etc. were all set gender-neutral and equal^{[citation needed]}. Western Australia legalised male homosexuality in 1989 – Under the Law Reform (Decriminalization of Sodomy) Act 1989, as did New South Wales and the Northern Territory in 1984 with unequal ages of consent of 18 for New South Wales and the Northern Territory and 21 for Western Australia. Then since 1997, the states and territories that retained different ages of consent or other vestiges of sodomy laws have tended to repeal them later; Western Australia did so in 2002, and New South Wales and the Northern Territory did so in 2003. Tasmania was the last state to decriminalise sodomy, doing so in 1997 after the groundbreaking cases of Toonen v Australia and Croome v Tasmania (it is also notable that Tasmania was the first jurisdiction to recognize same-sex couples in Australia since 2004 under the Relationships Act 2003.^[9]) Currently, the age of consent for anal sex in Queensland is higher at eighteen, as opposed to sixteen for both oral sex and vaginal sex (as the same in Canada) under section 208 of the Queensland Criminal Code.^[10]

Brazil[link]

Brazilian criminal law does not punish any sexual act performed by consenting adults, but allows for prosecution, under statutory rape laws and the children's protection act, when one of the participants is under 14 years of age and the other an adult, as per Articles 214, 223, 224 and 225 of the Brazilian Penal Code and Articles 240 and 244-A of the Estatuto da Criança e do Adolescente – Law 8.069. Article 235 of the Brazilian Military Criminal Code – DL 1.001/69-, however, does incriminate any contact deemed to be libidinous, be it of a homosexual nature or not, made in any location subject to military administration. Since the article is entitled Of pederasty or other libidinous acts, gay rights advocates claim that, since the Brazilian armed forces are composed almost exclusively of males, the article allows for witch-hunts against homosexuals in the military service.

Canada[link]

Before 1859, Canada relied on British law to prosecute sodomy. In 1859, Canada repatriated its buggery law in the Consolidated Statutes of Canada as an offence punishable by death. Buggery remained punishable by death until 1869. A broader law targeting all homosexual male sexual activity ("gross indecency") was passed in 1892, as part of a larger update to the criminal law. Changes to the criminal code in 1948 and 1961 were used to brand gay men as "criminal sexual psychopaths" and "dangerous sexual offenders." These labels provided for indeterminate prison sentences. Most famously, George Klippert, a homosexual, was labelled a dangerous sexual offender and sentenced to life in prison, a sentence confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. He was released in 1971.

Canadian law now permits anal sex by consenting parties above the age of 18, provided no more than two people are present.^[11] The bill repealing Canada's sodomy laws was the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69 (Bill C-150), which received royal assent on June 27, 1969. The bill had been introduced in the House of Commons by Pierre Trudeau,^[12] who famously stated that "there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation".^[13] In the 1995 Court of Appeal for Ontario case R. v. M. (C.), the judges ruled that the relevant section (section 159) of the Criminal Code of Canada violated section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when one or both of the partners are 16 to 18 years of age; this has not been tried in court again.

A similar decision was made by the Quebec Court of Appeal in the 1998 case R. v. Roy.^[14]

China, People's Republic of[link]

Sodomy was never explicitly criminalized in China. The Chinese Supreme Court ruled in 1957 that voluntary sodomy was not a criminal act.^[15] Private sex in any form between two consenting adults does not violate laws. However, if someone under 18 is involved, the adult partner will be prosecuted. In a notable case in 2002, a man who had anal intercourse with a teenager was sentenced to three and a half years in prison.^{[citation needed]}

Hong Kong[link]

"Homosexual Buggery". According to the Hong Kong Crimes Ordinance Section 118C,^[16] both of the two men must be at least 21 to commit homosexual buggery legally or otherwise both of them can be liable to life imprisonment. Sect 118F states that committing homosexual buggery not privately is also illegal and can be liable to imprisonment for 5 years.

"Heterosexual Buggery". A man who commits buggery with a girl under 21 can also be liable to life imprisonment (Sect 118D) while no similar laws concerning committing heterosexual buggery otherwise than in private.

In 2005, Judge Hartmann found these 4 laws: Sect 118C, 118F, 118H, and 118J were discriminatory towards gay male and unconstitutional against the Hong Kong Basic Law and Bills of Rights Ordinance in the judicial review filed by a Hong Kong resident. It was believed that the age of consent had been reduced from 21 to 16 for any kind of homosexual sex acts. Still, no revision has been made to the four deemed unconstitutional laws so far.

Macau[link]

In Macau SAR, according to Código Penal de Macau Article 166 & 168, committing anal coitus with whomever under the age of 17 is a crime and shall be punished by imprisonment of up to 10 years (committing with whoever under 14) and 4 years (committing with whoever between 14 and 16) respectively.

China, Republic of (Taiwan)[link]

In Taiwan, the Criminal Code of Republic of China Article 10 officially defines anal intercourse to be a form of sexual intercourse, along with vaginal and oral intercourse. The age of consent is 18, and Article 277 and the Child and Youth Sexual Transaction Prevention Act Article 22 make it a criminal offense to engage in sexual contact with minors. The law is written in gender neutral terms and does not discriminate against homosexual conduct.

Denmark[link]

In 1933 Denmark became the third country in Europe to fully legalize homosexuality. The age of consent has been set at 15 since 1977.

France[link]

Since the Penal Code of 1791, France has not had laws punishing homosexual conduct per se between over-age consenting adults in private. However, other qualifications such as "offense to good mores" were occasionally retained in the 19th century (see Jean Jacques Régis de Cambacérès).

In 1960, a parliamentary amendment by Paul Mirguet added homosexuality to a list of "social scourges", along with alcoholism and prostitution. This prompted the government to increase the penalties for public display of a sex act when the act was homosexual. Transvestites or homosexuals caught cruising were also the target of police repression.

In 1981, the 1960 law making homosexuality an aggravating circumstance for public indecency was repealed. Then in 1982, under president François Mitterrand, the law from 1942 (Vichy France) making the age of consent for homosexual sex higher (18) than for heterosexual sex (15) was also repealed,^[17] despite the vocal opposition of Jean Foyer in the National Assembly.^[18]

Germany[link]

Paragraph 175, which punished "fornication between men", was eased to an age of consent of 21 in East Germany in 1957 and in West Germany in 1969. This age was lowered to 18 in the East in 1968 and the West in 1973, and all legal distinctions between heterosexual and homosexual acts were abolished in the East in 1988, with this change being extended to all of Germany in 1994 as part of the process of German Reunification.

In modern German, the term Sodomie has a meaning different from the English word "sodomy": it does not refer to anal sex, but acts of Zoophilia.

Gibraltar[link]

In Gibraltar, a British overseas territory, male homosexual acts (but not heterosexual anal sex) have been decriminalised in Gibraltar since 1993, where the age of consent was 18 higher for male homosexual acts. Then under a Supreme Court decision in April 2011, the age of consent became 16, regardless of sexual orientation and/or gender.^[19] At the same time, under the same decision heterosexual anal sex was also decriminalised as well.^[20] In August 2011, the new gender-neutral Crimes Act 2011 was approved, which sets an equal age of consent of 16 regardless of sexual orientation, and reflects the decision of the Supreme Court in statute.^[21]

Hungary[link]

Homosexuality in Hungary was decriminalized in 1962, Paragraph 199 of the Hungarian Penal Code from then on threatened "only" adults over 20 who engaged themselves in a consensual same-sex relationship with an underaged person between 14 and 20. Then in 1978 the age was lowered to 18. Since 2002, by the ruling of the Constitutional Court of Hungary repealed Paragraph 199 – Which provided an equal age of consent of 14, regardless of sexual orientation and/or gender. Since 1996, the Unregistered Cohabitation Act 1995 was provided for any couple, regardless of gender and/or sexual orientation and from 1 July 2009 the Registered Partnership Act 2009 becomes effective, and provides a registered partnership just for same-sex couples – since that opposite-sex already have marriage, this would in-turn create duplication.^[22]

Iceland[link]

Homosexuality has been legal in Iceland since 1940, but equal age of consent was not approved until 1992. Civil union was legalised by Alþingi in 1996 with 44 votes pro, 1 con, 1 neutral and 17 not present. Those laws were changed to allow adoption and artificial insemination for lesbians 27 June 2006 among other things. Same-sex marriage was legalised in 2010.

India[link]

India inherited anti-sodomy laws in its criminal code from the British Raj, which were not present in its history of codified or customary legal system before. Since that section of Indian law, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code violated the fundamental right of life and liberty and the right to equality as guaranteed by the Constitution of India,^[23] it was read down by the Delhi High Court on July 2, 2009 in so far that it can no longer be applied to consensual sex between adults (of any gender) in private.^[24] Section 377 called for a maximum punishment of life imprisonment for all carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal (primarily interpreted to be homosexuality, especially sodomy, including between consenting adults). This law had rarely been executed, if at all, in case of consenting adults, although sometimes was in the news when a homosexual rapist was apprehended. Police repression in alleged or real gay bars is common, and is often highlighted by the contemporary media. Same-sex marriages are de jure banned.^{[citation needed]}

Israel[link]

The State of Israel inherited its sodomy ("buggery") law from the British Mandate of Palestine but there is no record that it was ever enforced against homosexual acts that took place between consenting adults in private. In the late 1960s the Supreme Court of Israel ruled that these laws could not be enforced and they were formally repealed by the Official legislature in 1988. The age of consent for both heterosexuals and homosexuals is sixteen years of age.

Italy[link]

In Italy, same-sex intercourse between consenting adults, as well as anal sex between heterosexual partners above the legal age of consent has not been a crime since 1870.

Japan[link]

In the Meiji Period, sex between men was punishable under the sodomy laws announced in 1872 and revised in 1873. This was changed by laws announced in 1880 （ja:同性愛#同性愛に関する法と政治）. Since that time no further laws criminalizing homosexuality have been passed. From 1 January 2008 sexual acts are governed by the Anti-Prostitution Law (Japanese) and sex related to children under 18 are protected by Law for Punishing Acts Related to Child Prostitution and Child Pornography, and for Protecting Children (Japanese).

Korea, North[link]

No laws regarding homosexuality are known to exist in North Korea and the North Korean Government states they "respect" homosexuals, however, they reject western gay culture.

Korea, South[link]

Sexual relationships between same sex are regarded as sexual harassment in the Military Penal Code.

Malaysia[link]

Section 377 of the penal code prohibits heterosexual and homosexual sodomy with punishments including up to twenty years in prison and/or fines and flogging.^[25]

New Zealand[link]

New Zealand inherited the United Kingdom's sodomy laws in 1854. The Offences Against The Person Act of 1867 changed the penalty of buggery from execution to life imprisonment for "Buggery". In 1961 in a revision of the Crimes Act, the penalty was reduced to a maximum of 7 years between consenting adult males.

Homosexual sex was legalised in New Zealand as a result of the passage of the Homosexual Law Reform Act 1986. The age of consent was set at 16 years, the same as for heterosexual sex LGBT rights in New Zealand.

Since 4 September 2007 two out of the three territories of New Zealand (Niue and Tokelau) legalized homosexuality with an equal age of consent as well by the Niue Amendment Act 2007. Cook Islands still has a sodomy law on the books Crimes Act (1969), s153 and a155.

Poland[link]

Poland is one of the few countries where homosexuality has never been considered a crime. Forty years after Poland lost its independence, in 1795, the sodomy laws of Russia, Prussia, and Austria came into force in the occupied Polish lands. They were officially abandoned in 1932, even though they had not been enforced since Poland regained its independence in 1918.

Russia[link]

In Russia sexual activity between males was criminalized by state law on March 4, 1934. Sexual activity between females was not mentioned in the law. On May 27, 1993, homosexual acts between consenting males were decriminalized.

Singapore[link]

Section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code criminalise "outrage of decency" and additionally punish commission, solicitation, or attempted male same-sex "gross indecency", with imprisonment of up to two years'.^[26] Section 377 was added by the British colonial administration in 1858, replacing Hindu law at the time which did not criminalise consensual same-sex activity. In October 2007, Singapore repealed section 377 of the Penal Code and reduced the maximum sentence for male-male sex to a maximum term of 2 years' imprisonment under the maintained section 377A.^[27]

South Africa[link]

The common-law crimes of sodomy and "commission of an unnatural sexual act" in South Africa's Roman-Dutch law were declared to be unconstitutional (and therefore invalid) by the Witwatersrand High Court on 8 May 1998 in the case of National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Justice,^[28] and this judgment was confirmed by the Constitutional Court on 9 October of the same year.^[29] The ruling applied retroactively to acts committed since the adoption of the Interim Constitution on 27 April 1994.^[30]

Despite the abolition of sodomy as a crime, the Sexual Offences Act, 1957 set the age of consent for same-sex activities at 19, whereas for opposite-sex activities it was 16. This was rectified by the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act, 2007, which comprehensively reformed the law on sex offences to make it gender- and orientation-neutral, and set 16 as the uniform age of consent.^[31] In 2008, even though the new law had come into effect, the former inequality was retrospectively declared to be unconstitutional in the case of Geldenhuys v National Director of Public Prosecutions.^[32]

Sweden[link]

Sweden legalized homosexuality in 1944. The age of consent is 15, regardless of whether the sexual act is heterosexual or homosexual, since equalization in 1972. The Swedish Crime Law (SFS 1962:700), chapter six ('About Sexual Crimes'), shows gender-neutral terms and does not distinguish between sexual orientation. The only sexual act specifically mentioned in the law is intended indecent exposure (SUS 1762:779), chapter seventeen.

Thailand[link]

Sodomy was decriminalized in Thailand in 1956.^[33]

United Kingdom[link]

Sodomy was historically known in England and Wales as buggery, and is usually interpreted as referring to anal intercourse between two males or a male and a female. In England and Wales buggery was made a felony by the Buggery Act in 1533, during the reign of Henry VIII. The punishment for those convicted was the death penalty until 1861. A lesser offence of "attempted buggery" was punished by 2 years of jail and some time on the pillory. In 1885, Parliament enacted the Labouchere Amendment,^[34] which prohibited gross indecency between males, a broad term that was understood to encompass most or all male homosexual acts. Following the Wolfenden report, sexual acts between two adult males, with no other people present, were made legal in England and Wales in 1967, in Scotland in 1980, Northern Ireland in 1982, Guernsey in 1983, Jersey in 1990 and the Isle of Man in 1992.

In the 1980s and 1990s, gay rights organizations made attempts to equalize the age of consent for heterosexuals and homosexuals, which had previously been 21 for homosexuals but only 16 for heterosexual acts. Efforts were also made to modify the "no other person present" clause so that it dealt only with minors. In 1994, Conservative MP Edwina Currie introduced an amendment to Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill which would have lowered the age of consent to 16. The amendment failed, but a compromise amendment which lowered the age of consent to 18 was accepted. The July 1, 1997 decision in the case Sutherland v. United Kingdom resulted in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 which further reduced it to 16, and the "no other person present" clause was modified to "no minor persons present". Today, the universal age of consent is 16 in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Sexual Offences NI Order 2008 ^[35] brought Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom on 2 February 2009 (prior to that, the age of consent for both heterosexuals and homosexuals was 17). The three UK crown territories also have an equal age of consent at 16 since 2006 on the Isle of Man, since 2007 in Jersey and since 2010 in Guernsey.

• Age of consent Europe

United States[link]

Sodomy laws in the United States were largely a matter of state rather than federal jurisdiction, except for laws governing the U.S. Armed Forces. By 2002, 36 states had repealed all sodomy laws or had them overturned by court rulings. The remaining sodomy laws were invalidated by the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas.

As for the U.S. Armed Forces, because "the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society,"^[36] its ban on sodomy, Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, is not entirely without force despite Lawrence v. Texas. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has ruled that the Lawrence v. Texas decision applies to Article 125. 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,"^[37] but went on to say that despite the application of Lawrence to the military, Article 125 can still be upheld in cases where there are "factors unique to the military environment" that would place the conduct "outside any protected liberty interest recognized in Lawrence."^[38] Examples of such factors could be fraternization, public sexual behavior, or any other factors that would adversely affect good order and discipline.^[38] Convictions for consensual sodomy have been overturned in military courts under the Lawrence precedent in both United States v. Meno^{[citation needed]} and United States v. Bullock.^[39]

Zimbabwe[link]

Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe has waged a violent campaign against homosexuals, claiming that before colonization Zimbabweans did not engage in homosexual acts.^[40] His first major public condemnation of homosexuality came during the Zimbabwe International Book Fair in August 1995.^[41] He told the audience that homosexuality:

"...Degrades human dignity. It's unnatural and there is no question ever of allowing these people to behave worse than dogs and pigs. If dogs and pigs do not do it, why must human beings? We have our own culture, and we must re-dedicate ourselves to our traditional values that make us human beings... What we are being persuaded to accept is sub-animal behaviour and we will never allow it here. If you see people parading themselves as lesbians and gays, arrest them and hand them over to the police!"^[42]

In September 1995, Zimbabwe's parliament introduced legislation banning homosexual acts.^[41] In 1997, a court found Canaan Banana, Mugabe's predecessor and the first President of Zimbabwe, guilty of 11 counts of sodomy and indecent assault.^[43] Banana's trial proved embarrassing for Mugabe, when Banana's accusers alleged that Mugabe knew about Banana's conduct and had done nothing to stop it.^[44] Regardless, Banana fled Zimbabwe only to return in 1999 and served one year in prison for his homosexual acts. Banana was also stripped of his priesthood.

See also[link]

• Homophobia
• LGBT rights by country
• Societal attitudes towards homosexuality
• Homosexuality laws of the world

References[link]

Sources[link]

• David Bianco, First Sodomy Laws in the American Colonies
• Daniel Ottosson, International Lesbian and Gay Association, "With the Government in Our Bedrooms: A Survey on the Laws Over the World Prohibiting Consenting Adult Sexual Same-Sex Acts (Nov. 2006)
• International Lesbian and Gay Association, "World Legal Wrap-Up" (Nov. 2006)

Further reading[link]

• Graham Willett, Living out Loud: A History of Gay and Lesbian Activism in Australia, 2000. ISBN 1-86448-949-9.
• Peter McWilliams, Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do, 1998. ISBN 0-931580-58-7.
• International Human Rights Law and the Criminalization of Same-Sex Sexual Conduct, International Commission of Jurists, 2010
• Steve Hail, "My Secret Service - A gay man in the REME"

External links[link]

• International Lesbian and Gay Association World Legal Survey (2000)
• Sodomy Laws Around the World
• Where Having Sex is a Crime: Criminalization and Decriminalization of Homosexual Acts, IGLHRC (2003)
• The Accidental Legacy of a Homophobic Humanitarian — The Times, October 2, 2000

Ken Cuccinelli
Cuccinelli in October 2011.
Attorney General of Virginia
Incumbent
Assumed office January 16, 2010
Preceded by	Bill Mims
Member of the Virginia Senate from the 37th district
In office August 2002 – January 12, 2010
Preceded by	Warren Barry
Succeeded by	David W. Marsden
Personal details
Born	Kenneth Thomas Cuccinelli II (1968-07-30) July 30, 1968 (age 43) Edison, New Jersey
Political party	Republican Party
Spouse(s)	Alice Monteiro 'Teiro' Cuccinelli
Children	7 (five daughters and two sons)
Residence	Fairfax County, Virginia
Alma mater	University of Virginia George Mason University George Mason University School of Law
Profession	Litigation & Business Attorney
Committees	Courts of Justice Committee, Transportation Committee, Local Government Committee, Rehabilitation and Social Services Committee, and Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources Committee.
Religion	Roman Catholic
Website	www.cuccinelli.com

Kenneth Thomas "Ken" Cuccinelli II (born July 30, 1968) is a U.S. politician and the Attorney General of Virginia.^[1] From 2002 until January 16, 2010 he was a Republican member of the Senate of Virginia, representing the 37th district in Fairfax County.^[2][3] A Republican convention selected him over two other candidates to run against Democrat Steve Shannon for Attorney General,^[4] and he won the November 2009 general election.^[5] He took office as Virginia's Attorney General in January 2010. He is seeking the Republican nomination for Governor of Virginia in 2013.^[6]

Early life, education, and early career[link]

Cuccinelli was born in Edison, New Jersey. He graduated from Gonzaga College High School in 1986,^[7] and received his B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Virginia, a J.D. degree from George Mason University School of Law, and an M.A. in International Commerce and Policy from George Mason University.^[3]

Cuccinelli has served on a number of state commissions, including:^[8]

• Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Project
• Public / Private Partnership Advisory Commission
• Commission on the Prevention of Human Trafficking
• Joint Subcommittee to Study Liability Protections for Health Care Providers
• Virginia Supreme Court Commission on Mental Health in the Justice System

Cuccinelli cofounded a small, general practice law firm in Fairfax City, Virginia.^[9]

Early political career[link]

While a 4th year student during the 1989-1990 academic year at the University of Virginia, Cuccinelli served on the University's Judiciary Committee.

Cuccinelli was elected to the Senate in an August 2002 special election after his predecessor, Republican Warren Barry, resigned to take a seat on the Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Board.^[10] Cuccinelli was reelected in 2003 and 2007, with the latter race being close enough to require a recount. Cuccinelli would go on to win by a margin of 98 votes out of about 37,000 cast.^[11]

In the Senate Cuccinelli sat on the Courts of Justice, Local Government, Rehabilitation and Social Services, and Transportation Committees.^[2] During his time in the Senate Cuccinelli took conservative positions on issues including abortion, gay marriage, illegal immigration, taxes, government spending, property rights, and the second amendment, while advocating on behalf of law enforcement and increased care for the mentally disabled.^[12]

2009 Attorney General election[link]

On May 30, 2009, delegates at the Republican Party of Virginia State Convention selected Cuccinelli over two other candidates to become the Republican nominee for Attorney General.^[13] In the November 2009 general election, Cuccinelli obtained 58% of the vote (1,123,816 votes) to Steve Shannon's 42% (828,221 votes). In a Republican sweep of Virginia's state-wide offices, Cuccinelli was joined by Bob McDonnell as Governor and Bill Bolling as Lt. Governor.

Endorsements[link]

In addition to the NRA and Republican National Coalition for Life, Cuccinelli was endorsed by Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, Morton Blackwell, William A. Zimmerman, Virginia Citizens Defense League PAC, Virginia Shooting Sports Association, Eagle Forum PAC, Congressman Rob Wittman, the Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia, the Lincoln, Douglass & Washington Society, the National Federation of Independent Business, the Virginia Farm Bureau, and the Virginia Fraternal Order of Police.^[14]

Cuccinelli received editorial board endorsements from the Richmond Times-Dispatch,^[15] The Daily Progress,^[16] and Culpeper Star-Exponent.^[17] The Daily Progress based their endorsement on Cuccinelli’s “mature, considered, and well-balanced approach,” while the Star-Exponent gave a “slight edge to Cuccinelli for his proactive solutions, legal expertise, fighting disposition and strong conservative moorings.”

Several papers who chose not to endorse Cuccinelli wrote editorials critical of his political views. According to the Virginian Pilot, “Cuccinelli’s election would bring embarrassment to Virginia, instability to the state’s law firm and untold harm to the long list of people who don’t fit his personal definition of morality.”^[18] The Washington Post echoed a similar sentiment, writing, “given his bizarre ideas, he would very likely become an embarrassment for the commonwealth” in an editorial titled "Mr. Cuccinelli's Bigotry"^[19]

Attorney General of Virginia[link]

Cuccinelli's office reviews each bill passed by the General Assembly for Constitutionality and consistency with other existing laws.^[20] Two weeks after taking office, Cuccinelli drew cricitism for continuing to represent a private client in a court proceeding; however, his appearance did not violate any state laws or rules.^[21]

On August 23, 2010, Cuccinelli issued a legal opinion concluding that the Virginia Board of Health had the power to require abortion clinics to meet hospital-type standards, even though the General Assembly had rejected legislation to achieve the same result. Under current law, abortion clinics can perform first trimester abortions while second and third trimester abortions are performed in hospitals. From 2002 to 2008, bills were introduced that sought to treat abortion clinics as "ambulatory surgery centers" and require them to meet hospital-type regulations, but the bills did not pass. Pro-choice advocates argue that complying with ambulatory surgery center regulations would make abortions more expensive and force some clinics to close. It does not appear that the Board of Health will regulate abortion clinics based on Cuccinelli's opinion.^[22]

Healthcare[link]

On March 23, 2010, Cuccinelli filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia challenging the constitutionality of the Federal Health Care bill passed on March 21, claiming that it exceeded the Federal government's power under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution.^[23] On May 24, 2010, the federal government responded to Virginia’s lawsuit over the recently enacted federal health care law with a motion to dismiss the suit. The Federal Government argues 1) that as of matter of jurisdiction and procedure, Virginia has no right to bring this case now, 2) that Congress has the authority under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to order Americans to buy health insurance and 3) that the health insurance mandate is lawful under the Taxing and Spending Clause of the Constitution.^[24] On June 7, 2010 Virginia responded to the federal government’s motion to dismiss the state’s lawsuit.^[25]

On July 1, 2010, Federal district court judge Henry E. Hudson heard arguments on the motion to dismiss the suit. On August 2, Judge Hudson ruled that the case can go forward^[26] and a two-hour summary judgment hearing was held on October 18, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. to address the constitutional claims.^[27] The hearing focused on whether the entire law must be invalidated if the requirement that individuals purchase insurance is held unconstitutional and whether the requirement to purchase insurance is a "tax" or a "penalty."^[28] On December 13, 2010, Judge Hudson ruled that the individual mandate portion of the health care bill was unconstitutional, but did not enjoin the implementation of the law.^[29][30]

Immigration[link]

On July 14, 2010, Cuccinelli joined eight other states in filing an amicus brief opposing the federal government's lawsuit challenging an Arizona immigration enforcement statute.^[31]

On August 2, 2010, Cuccinelli issued a legal opinion authorizing law enforcement officials to investigate the immigration status of anyone that they have stopped. Prior to this opinion, law enforcement investigated immigration status of those actually arrested. Cuccinelli noted that the authority to investigate the immigration status of a stopped person should not "extend the duration of a stop by any significant degree." Critics note that the opinion circumvents changing the policy by legislation and that bills to make this change have died in the General Assembly.^[32] In November 2010, Cuccinelli rendered a legal opinion requested by Delegate Scott Lingamfelter (R-Prince William) regarding a legislative proposal from Prince William County Board of Supervisors Chairman Corey Stewart to expand an anti-immigration county ordinance into a state-wide law. Cuccinelli opined that some provisions would be redundant with existing laws and others would be unconstitutional.^[33]

Gay rights[link]

On March 4, 2010, one month after Governor Bob McDonnell issued an Executive Order which did not include protections for gays and lesbians employed by the Commonwealth, Cuccinelli issued a letter to Virginia's public colleges and universities that said, in part, "It is my advice that the law and public policy of the Commonwealth of Virginia prohibit a college or university from including 'sexual orientation,' 'gender identity,' 'gender expression,' or like classification as a protected class within its non-discrimination policy absent specific authorization from the General Assembly,"^[34] He then advised that the schools should "take appropriate actions to bring their policies in conformance with the law and public policy of Virginia."^[35] According to the Washington Post, "leaders of academia attacked the state directive on several fronts"^[36] including criticisms from the American Association of University Professors and Cuccinelli's own alma mater, the University of Virginia.^[36]

On March 10, 2010, McDonnell issued Executive Directive One (a statement of executive policy) to all state agency heads directing them not to fire employees based on sexual orientation.^[37] Despite the controversy, Cuccinelli stood by his letter, saying state universities are governed by the Dillon rule and had inadvertently circumvented state law.^[38] In a letter written to the University of Virginia community (Cuccinelli's alma mater), state senators Creigh Deeds, Mark Herring and Ralph Northam pointed out that McDonnell's directive was only a directive and did not "carry any weight of law" and would still prevent students or employees "who are discriminated against because of their sexual orientation" from seeking "a course of action". They further added, "the University of Virginia is more than capable of deciding what policies advance its mission, and should do so without meddling from Attorney General Cuccinelli."^[39] The Washington Post also noted that the Directive was not "legally-binding".^[40] Governor McDonnell stated in a subsequent interview that though he supported the acknowledged the legal reasoning of Cuccinelli's letter, he would not permit colleges or other state agencies to practice discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Despite Cuccinelli's lack of support on college campuses, support came to him through other groups: the Family Foundation emailed supporters with the subject reading "AG Follows Law, Gets Ripped" opposed any push to have the legislature address the issue.^[36]

Environmental policies[link]

On February 16, 2010, Cuccinelli filed a request with the United States Environmental Protection Agency to reopen its proceeding regarding EPA's finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health. He also sought judicial review of EPA's finding in Federal court. His press statement explained, "We cannot allow unelected bureaucrats with political agendas to use falsified data to regulate American industry and drive our economy into the ground”.^[41] On March 19, Cuccinelli announced that the total number of states supporting Virginia’s position is now at least 15. “While we made the decision to intervene based on what was in the best interests of Virginia and her citizens, it is gratifying to have the support of so many other states,” said Cuccinelli.^[42]

On April 1, 2010, Cuccinelli announced he will be challenging the new March 2010 standards for fuel efficiency for cars and trucks finalized by the Obama administration and Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act.^[43][44] The new standards move up goals set in December 2007 when President Bush signed The Energy Independence and Security Act, which passed on a bipartisan vote of 314 to 100, which set the higher fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks by law for the first time in 32 years.^[45]

Litigation with University of Virginia[link]

In April 2010, Cuccinelli served a civil investigative demand on the University of Virginia seeking a broad range of documents related to Michael E. Mann, a climate researcher now at Penn State who was an assistant professor at UVA from 1999 to 2005.^[46][47] Cuccinelli is investigating Mann's putative violation of the 2002 Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, although no evidence of wrongdoing was given to explain the invocation of the law.^[48] While climate change skeptics have challenged Mann's work, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and a Penn State investigation cleared Mann of charges that he falsified or suppressed data^[49] The Washington Post quotes Rachel Levinson, senior counsel with the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) as saying Cuccinelli's request had "echoes of McCarthyism."^[50] A. Barton Hinkle of the Richmond Times-Dispatch criticized Cuccinelli for "employing a very expansive reading of Virginia’s Fraud Against Taxpayers Act," writing:^[51]

This is not a maneuver gracefully executed by an Attorney General who is arguing, in the ObamaCare case, against Washington’s overly expansive reading of the Commerce Clause. How does Cuccinelli explain adopting the narrowest possible interpretation of the relevant language in that case, and the broadest possible interpretation of the relevant language in the Mann case? ... . Nothing about the Mann case evokes a sense of modesty or restraint. If Cuccinelli wants to rein in government power, then he could start at home.

Among the groups urging the University of Virginia to resist producing the data are: a letter published in Science signed by 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences, the American Civil Liberties Union and the AAUP.^[47] Also in May 2010, the University of Virginia Faculty Senate Executive Council wrote a letter strongly rebuking Cuccinelli for his civil investigative demand of the Mann records, stating that "[Cuccinelli's] action and the potential threat of legal prosecution of scientific endeavor that has satisfied peer-review standards send a chilling message to scientists engaged in basic research involving Earth’s climate and indeed to scholars in any discipline."^[52] In 2011 in response to the escalating attacks form the Virginia AG's office, the Union of Concerned Scientists published a defense of scientific integrity and "Timeline: Legal Harassment of Climate Scientist Michael Mann".^[53]

On May 27, 2010, the University of Virginia began legal proceedings by filing a petition to resist Cuccinelli's investigative demand. In addition to challenging the investigative demands on academic freedom grounds, the petition states that Virginia's "Fraud Against Taxpayers Act" (FATA) cited by Cuccinelli is not applicable in this case, as four of the five grants were federal, and that the fifth was an internal University of Virginia grant originally awarded in 2001. The FATA was enacted in 2003, and it is not retroactive.^[54][55]

On August 20, 2010, Albermarle Circuit Court Judge Paul Peatross heard argument on when Cuccinelli should get the requested data, including emails between Mann and his research assistants, secretaries and 39 other scientists across the country.^[56] On August 30, 2010, the judge ruled that while the Virginia Attorney General could investigate state grants awarded to scientists, Cuccinelli and his staff failed to demonstrate that such an investigation was warranted in this case. “The nature of the conduct is not stated so that any reasonable person could glean what Dr. Mann did to violate the statute,” the judge wrote,^[57] “… The Court … understands the controversy regarding Dr. Mann’s work on the issue of global warming. However, it is not clear what he did that was misleading, false or fraudulent in obtaining funds from the Commonwealth of Virginia.” At this point, Cuccinelli can either rewrite the civil investigative demand or appeal the decision.^[58][59] Cuccinelli has filed a notice of appeal of the judge's ruling.^[60]

On September 29, 2010 Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli sent a new civil subpoena to the University of Virginia renewing a demand for documents related to the work of Mann that was stymied when a judge blocked his previous request. Cuccinelli has narrowed his request, and has now limited the request to documents related to a grant that funded research unrelated to climate change. However, the demand seeks emails between Mann and 39 other climate change scientists.^[60] Mann has been previously investigated by those who, like Cuccinelli, do argue that the science behind global warming is sound. The Washington Post described Cuccinelli's actions as an "anti-climate science crusade"^[61] and expressed fears that it was a "fishing expedition designed to intimidate and suppress honest research and the free exchange of ideas upon which science and academia both depend — all because he does not like what science says about climate change".

Campaign contributions controversy[link]

Cuccinelli has been criticized for his handling of $55,500 in campaign contributions from Bobby Thompson, who was a director of a veterans group now under investigation, the U.S. Navy Veterans Association. Thompson was Cuccinelli's second-largest campaign donor.^[62][63] After receiving the contribution, Cuccinelli met with Samuel F. Wright, a USNVA representative on February 15, 2010, to discuss legislation which had passed the State Senate that would exempt the group from having to register with Virginia regulators.^[64]

After an investigative report in the St. Petersberg Times in March 2010 raised questions about the Navy Veterans Association and Thompson, all other Virginia politicians, including Gov. Bob McDonnell, have given the contributions from Thompson to other veterans' organizations. At that time, Cuccinelli refused to do so, despite calls from Virginia Democrats. Cuccinelli's spokesman said "if Mr. Thompson was convicted of wrongdoing relative to the misappropriation of funds, and contributions to our campaign came from money that was supposed to go to active duty military or veterans, we would donate those contributions to military support organizations here in Virginia."^[63] Sen. Don McEachin asserted that the standard for donations should be "much higher than that."^[65] A month later in June, a Cuccinelli spokesman said $55,500 would be set aside in a restricted account pending the outcome of the investigation into Thompson and USNVA.^[66] On July 28, 2010, Cuccinelli announced that he will donate the $55,000 to veterans charities in Virginia. Cuccinelli stated that his decision was prompted by statements from Thompson's lawyers indicating that Thompson can no longer be located.^[67] The Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray announced that a nation-wide arrest warrant had issued for Bobby Thompson, who had stolen the identity and Social Security Number of a victim who was not connected to the USNVA. Corday stated, “We know he bilked Ohioans out of at least $1.9 million, and we estimate that nationally he collected at least $20 million.”^[68]

Virginia seal[link]

Cuccinelli caused a small controversy when he used a historical state seal which shows Virtus, the Roman goddess of bravery and military strength, carrying a breastplate to cover her left breast on lapel pins he provided as gifts to his office staff.^[69][70] The current official seal shows Virtus holding a spear and her left breast is exposed. The original state seal was designed by George Wythe, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and adopted in 1776.^[71] The historic seal on which Cuccinelli's version is based is a Confederate-era seal that appeared on the flag of a Virginia unit in the American Civil War.^[72] Cuccinelli's spokesman, Brian Gottstein, said lapel pins with the breast covered were paid for by Cuccinelli’s political action committee, not with taxpayer funds. On May 3, following media coverage, Cuccinelli announced that he was dropping his "family friendly" version of the seal.^[73][74] He stated, "I cannot believe that joking with my staff about Virtue being a little more ‘virtuous’ in this antique version has become news."^[72]

Usury[link]

Since 2007, the Virginia Attorney General's Office has negotiated settlements with eight auto-title lenders to provide refunds or interest rate reductions of almost $8 million.^[75][76] The office filed a lawsuit on May 18, 2010 against CNC Financial Services, Inc., doing business as Cash-N-A-Flash, a Hampton-based auto “title lender,” for charging interest rates of 300 percent or more on its loans. This rate is alleged to exceed the 12 percent limit in the Virginia’s Consumer Finance Act. However, effective October 1, 2010, Virginia's interest rate limit will increase to 264 percent.^[75][76][77]

The Attorney General's Office filed two separate lawsuits against two Virginia Beach-based mortgage modification companies for charging customers up to $1,200 in illegal advance fees in exchange for allegedly helping to prevent foreclosure.^[78]

Advocacy for veterans[link]

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli announced plans to introduce a new level of veterans advocacy to the Attorney General’s office, including training state agencies how to use the law to better advocate for their clients when it comes to obtaining federal veterans benefits. Cuccinelli said that one of the most important things he could do for veterans was to help speed up the process for them to obtain the services they are eligible for from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Other priority issues include ensuring that veterans have opportunities to become and stay employed in Virginia and working with the Virginia judiciary to determine how best to educate judges on how Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury issues affect veterans.^[79][80]

Antitrust enforcement[link]

A $173 million settlement was reached with six international manufacturers of computer chips. The settlement resolved claims that the companies engaged in a price-fixing arrangement that cost government purchasers and consumers millions of dollars in overcharges for their chips. Attorney General Cuccinelli and 32 other state attorneys general participated in the investigation and the settlement of a court case that was first filed in Court in 2006, before Cuccinelli took office.^[81]

Extradition of Jens Soering to Germany[link]

Jens Soering, 43, the son of a German diplomat and former Jefferson scholar at the University of Virginia, was convicted in 1990 and sentenced to two life terms for the 1985 first-degree stabbing deaths of his then-girlfriend's parents, Derek and Nancy Haysom, in their Bedford County home. He is currently being held at the Buckingham Correctional Center in Dillwyn, VA. Former Gov. Timothy Kaine, on the last day of his administration in January, 2010, approved a request from the German government and asked the Justice Department to transfer Soering back to Germany to complete his sentence. Newly-elected Gov. Bob McDonnell, along with Cuccinelli, adamantly opposed the transfer. McDonnell formally notified the Justice Department just three days after taking office that it was imperative that Soering serve his time in Virginia and not in Germany, where he could be freed in two years. On July 7, 2010, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that he will not consider transferring Soering to a prison in his home country without the state's "clear and unambiguous" consent and, thus, Soering will remain in prison in Virginia.^[82][83]

Education Policy[link]

On November 24, 2010, Cuccinelli issued a legal opinion with regards to the searching of students' cell phones by police, school administrators, and teachers. He opined that such authorities could search students' cell phone on the basis of reasonable suspicions in order to deter cyberbullying and sexting. However, the ACLU and the Rutherford Institute stated that Cuccinelli's opinion was in error, lacking a legal foundation.^[84][85]

On January 28, 2011, Cuccinelli issued a legal opinion saying that school systems could not charge students the $75 testing fee when students take Advance Placement (AP) tests. Typically, AP courses are offered to academically advanced high school students to teach college-level materials. At the end of the course, students take a nationally-administered AP test, and can receive college credit if the test score meets a specified level. Cuccinelli claimed that public schools are required to provide a free education, so schools can not charge the exam fee on students taking the AP class.^[86]

2013 run for governor[link]

After his election as Attorney General, Cuccinelli was speculated as a potential candidate for governor in the 2013 election^[87] or for the United States Senate in 2014. Cuccinelli himself stated that he was considering running for the Senate,^[88] but two days later, one of his aides said, "We haven't ruled out anything. He's not actively considering a run for any particular office at the moment. Ken is operating under the assumption that he will run for reelection [in 2013]. He hasn't ruled out any option besides running for president, which he has no desire to do."^[89]

On November 30, 2011, The Washington Post reported that Cuccinelli would announce within days that he was running for governor in 2013. The next day, Cuccinelli confirmed that he would run, writing to colleagues, "I hope you have known me long enough to know that I do this out of my love for our commonwealth and to further the principles on which this country was founded. Although I originally expected to serve as attorney general for another term, my job is that of public servant, and I feel that two years from now, I can best serve the people of Virginia from the governor’s office."^[90] Cuccinelli said he would continue serving as Attorney General during his run.

Political views[link]

Abortion[link]

Cuccinelli is opposed to abortion, and is endorsed by the Republican National Coalition for Life.^[14] In November 2008 he was named the Family Foundation “Legislator of the Year.”^[91] Cuccinelli has sponsored a number of bills to discourage abortions, including requiring doctors to anesthetize fetuses undergoing late term abortions,^[92] altering the licensing and regulation of abortion clinics,^[93] requiring that a doctor save the fetal tissue when performing an abortion on a woman under age 15 for forensic use.^[94]

Immigration[link]

During his Senate career, Cuccinelli introduced bills urging the United States Congress to amend the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to revoke citizenship rights for children of illegal immigrants who are born in the U.S.,^[95] to allow businesses to sue others that hire undocumented immigrants,^[96] and to establish inability to speak English in the workplace as cause for disqualification to receive unemployment benefits.^[97]

Second Amendment/gun control[link]

Cuccinelli’s support of the Second Amendment brought him an endorsement by the National Rifle Association (NRA).^[98] He has sponsored legislation to repeal the prohibition on carrying a concealed handgun in a restaurant or club,^[99] for Virginia to recognize concealed handgun permits from other states,^[100] to shield concealed handgun permit application data from Freedom of Information Act requests,^[101] and to prevent disqualification for a handgun permit based on a sworn, written statement from a law enforcement official that the applicant is likely to use a weapon unlawfully to endanger others. Under Cuccinelli’s proposal a person could only be disqualified for such a permit by a court ruling based on the applicant’s past actions.^[102] In the 2009 legislative session, Cuccinelli introduced and won passage of bill that, for the purposes of granting a Virginia concealed handgun permit, requires the state to accept as proof of "handgun competence" any certificate from an online handgun safety course featuring an NRA-certified instructor.^[103]

Taxes[link]

Cuccinelli opposes higher taxes. He helped lead an unsuccessful campaign to stop Mark Warner’s 2004 budget.^{[104][citation needed]} In 2006 Cuccinelli sent out a fundraising letter that criticized the Virginia Senate’s Republican majority for passing a gasoline tax increase. The letter elicited rebuke from fellow Republican Tommy Norment.^[105]

Eminent domain[link]

In the 2005, 2006 and 2007 Legislative Sessions, Cuccinelli worked to pass eminent domain laws that now prevent local and state governments from taking private homes and businesses for developers’ projects.^[106] In April 2010, Cuccinelli told the Roanoke Chamber of Commerce that he wants to add stronger property rights protection to Virginia’s Constitution. “There is no consistency on the application of eminent domain throughout Virginia,” he said.^[20]

Law enforcement[link]

In 2005 Cuccinelli helped pass legislation that provided law enforcement officers are entitled to overtime pay from local governments for hours worked while on vacation or any other form of leave.^[107]

Sex education[link]

Cuccinelli has been a strong advocate of the abstinence-only sex education programs with state funding. He stated "The longer you delay the commencement of sexual activity, you have healthier and happier kids and more successful kids.".^[108]

In 2005 Cuccinelli condemned a "Sextravaganza" event at George Mason University. The event sponsors, who received GMU Student Activity funds that are not appropriated by the state, said the event merely explored issues of safe sex, date rape and sexual health. However, Cuccinelli stated that the event was “designed to push sex and sexual libertine behavior as far, fast and furiously as possible” and promote “every type of sexual promiscuity you can imagine.”^[109]

Sexual orientation[link]

In 2004, Cuccinelli stated "homosexuality is wrong"^[110] and during his 2009 campaign for attorney general opposed a nondiscrimination policy against gays and lesbians and stated about homosexual acts: "I happen to think that it represents (to put it politely; I need my thesaurus to be polite) behavior that is not healthy to an individual and in aggregate is not healthy to society."^[111] More directly, Cuccinelli said that “homosexual acts are wrong” and that “in a natural law based country it’s appropriate to have policies that reflect that.”^[18]

Obama's citizenship[link]

During a 2010 appearance as attorney general, an audience member asked, "what can we do about Obama and the birth certificate thing". Cuccinelli responded that if Virginia challenged a law, he could seek to invalidate it because "someone qualified to be President didn't sign it", and the possibility that Obama was born in Kenya did not "seem beyond the realm of possibility". Cuccinelli subsequently issued a statement saying his response was only a hypothetical, and he believes Obama was born in the United States.^[112]

See also[link]

• Virginia elections, 2009
• Wildlife Protection Act of 2010

References[link]