Lowell Feld, DPVA Defends Pedophilia; Calls Opposition an “Extreme Social Agenda”


The word outrage in politics is much abused.  Today, it will be applied in a case so appropriate, the extremes certain members of the progressive left — Lowell Feld at Blue Virginia and the Democratic Party of Virginia in particular — are willing to embrace will give you a true window on just how sick the progressive wing of the Democratic Party has become.

First, let’s go to Cuccinelli’s strongly worded (and very brief) response to the DPVA/Lowell Feld/Think Progress feeding frenzy:

“It is sad and unfortunate the day has come that Democrats attack someone for protecting children from sexual predators. This case is about prosecuting a 47 year-old man who solicited sexual acts from a 17 year-old girl. It’s appalling Terry McAuliffe and his cronies would stoop this low.” – Cuccinelli Campaign Spokeswoman Anna Nix.

So what incurred that?

Before we get there, let’s provide another, seemingly separate news event.  Fast forward here to radical progressive California Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA)  who believes — are you ready for this one folks? — that pedophilia is a sexual orientation that ought to be protected… by law…

No joke, folks — read here:

California Congresswoman, Rep. Jackie Speier CA (D), wants to federalize a state law to prohibit counseling to change a person’s sexual orientation. That doesn’t sound that extreme, but pedophilia is a sexual orientation according to this bill as well.

Under the bill’s language, a mental health counselor could be sanctioned if there was an attempt to get a pedophile or gay individual to change his behavior or speak negatively about their behavior as it relates to sexuality.

. . .

Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that, “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation.” However, the Democrats defeated the amendment. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law, and accordingly decided that pedophilia is a sexual orientation that should be equally as embraced as homosexuality.

You did not read that incorrectly folks.


So why are Virginia Democrats putting down covering fire on Ken Cuccinelli for challenging a 4th Circuit Court decision that protected a 47 year old man from soliciting oral sex from a 17 year old girl?

The answer is simple.  DPVA and Lowell Feld agree with Rep. Speier.

…and need to make opposition to turning pedophilia into a protected class something odious… and extreme.

Enter Cuccinelli, and the dots magically connect.

Think that’s too much?  Well… read the reaction to the 4th Circuit Court decision from the progressive left in their own words courtesy of the Washington Blade:


The case in which the three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the Virginia sodomy law involved a man charged with soliciting oral sex from a 17-year-old woman.

“We believe the panel decision was erroneous, and that the dissent correctly concludes that the petitioner was not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief, Gibson said, referring to the court’s decision to overturn the man’s conviction under the sodomy law. “So the full court should have the opportunity to decide this matter,” she said.

“Like most people, we think the court made the right decision,” said James Parrish, executive director of the LGBT advocacy group Equality Virginia.

Protecting pedophiles was the right decision, according to Equality Virginia and the DPVA.

…and Lowell Feld over at Blue Virginia, too.

The following statement is from the Democratic Party of Virginia, referencing the Washington Blade story, “Cuccinelli challenges Va. sodomy ruling.” The guy is utterly incorrigible, in addition to several other choice adjectives I can think of.

Of course, the ladies over at Think Progress just had to chime in as well…

Virginia prosecutors had charged a 47-year-old man with soliciting oral sex from a 17-year-old girl — a felony under the disputed law. But whether or not Cuccinelli’s appeal succeeds, his vote to ignore a U.S. Supreme Court ruling when he was a state Senator in 2004 helped create the uncertainty over the provisions.

In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Lawrence v. Texas ruling held that states may not ban private non-commercial sex between consenting adults. Virginia’s Crimes Against Nature statute, which made oral sex (even between consenting married couples) a felony, was clearly the sort of legislation the Court was referencing.

A year later, a bipartisan group in the Virginia Senate backed a bill that would have fixed the state’s Crimes Against Nature law to comply with Lawrence — eliminating provisions dealing with consenting adults in private and leaving in place provisions relating to prostitution, public sex, and those other than consenting adults.

This is a basic case of progressive Dems backing one another’s play.  They see the opening, they have a foil, and they are not-so-quietly building the case.

Folks, this has nothing to do with consenting adults.  There is a force march on to attempt to turn pedophilia into a sexual orientation protected by law using Lawrence v. Texas to accomplish this disgusting, predatory end.

The question is, are the progs really this desperate to land a glove on Cuccinelli that they are willing to wrap their arms around pedophiles in order to find something to disagree with Cuccinelli on?  How sick is the progressive left when they are championing the rights of pedophiles rather than putting those sick bastards in mental institutions?  Have we really reached a time when Congressional Democrats — and Virginia Democrats —  are seriously considering treating pedophilia as a protected class along with women, African-Americans, and Hispanics?  

This is just the lowest of the low.  Time for the Democratic Party of Virginia, Lowell Feld, and the Think Regress crowd to reconsider whether promoting pedophiles and other sexual predators is a Virginia value.

Outrageous… isn’t it?


  • Well put, Shaun. There’s so much to this case that gets left out of all the reporting; granted, there are some esoteric legal issues, but the way it’s being sensationalized at the expense of the facts of the case is irresponsible.

    First of all, the appeal came up from the district court under AEDPA review. That means (as you know) that federal courts can’t “grant relief unless the state court’s adjudication of the claim resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.”

    Which leads to the second issue: when SCOTUS ruled in Lawrence v. Texas did they invalidate all anti-sodomy laws categorically, or did they only invalidate the Texas sodomy statute as it applied to Lawrence and Gardner (i.e., consenting adults in a private residence)? The Virginia Court of Appeals concluded that the latter was the case and that SCOTUS did not mean to invalidate sodomy statutes as applied to acts involving an adult and a minor. Given that Justice Kennedy went to great length to list all the cases that were not before the Court in Lawrence (including cases involving minors), one can see how the Court of Appeals might have reached their conclusion (one with which the federal district court agreed).

  • Warmac9999

    Once the flood gate was opened to alternate lifestyles, nothing is prohibited in the exercise of that lifestyle – this is how progressives think. I note that NAMBLA has been actively lobbying for the lowering of the age of sexual consent. Most studies of homosexual behavior indicate that the lifestyle is very youth oriented and narcissistic. So the connection is relatively east to see.

    • Chad Parker

      “Most studies of homosexual behavior indicate that the lifestyle is
      very youth oriented and narcissistic. So the connection is relatively
      east to see.”

      You mind going into this a little more? Your broad, generic terms are a bit confusing. What studies? What is “the lifestyle”? And what connection is easy to see?

      • Warmac9999

        It takes a bit of digging, but you can google the subject. Also, I can attest to the fact that google has done a great deal to hide the studies by making the wording of the search highly specific, but if you try various combinations of words regarding gay behaviors and molestation or youth orientation, you will stumble into the studies which are roundly condemned by the homosexual communnity as biased against gays. The studies on foster care abuses and homosexual parenting are very specific, but again you must read carefully because the gays will say that there are more heterosexual child abuse cases than homosexual child abuse cases. This is true but you must remember that heterosexuals outnumber homosexual by about 25 to 50 to 1 based on the data and the claims.

        • Chad Parker

          Nope, sorry–I’m going to hold you to an answer, rather than just “Google it.” You must have a wealth of knowledge of studies of homosexual behavior (“Most studies of homosexual behavior indicate”), so just name a few reputable studies.

          Also, you didn’t answer the other questions: what is “the lifestyle,” and what connection is easy to see?

          • Warmac9999

            http://Www.familyresearchinst.org and how much molestation in homosexual foster care. Give it a try.

          • Chad Parker

            Again, let’s forget for a minute that you said “most studies of homosexual behavior,” (because its a little more difficult to prove that), and let’s focus on one or two studies. Show me actual reputable studies (not websites), that prove your point.

          • Warmac9999

            If you bothered to look, the data cited is not from the family research institute but simply placed on their site. As far as reputable, that is in the eye of the beholder; however, the data speaks for itself. It appears that you have no real interest in pursuing the facts as you ask questions but never provide an answer of any kind.

          • Chad Parker

            The link you provided is to a website. I’m looking for an actual reputable study. And no, “reputable” is not “in the eye of the beholder.” Reputable means the researcher and/or the study itself is accepted in the field, stands the test of impartial review, and has the backing (or at least a neutral response) from a professional organization of the field–be it the American Medical Association, American Psychology Association, or some such group.

            Try again.

          • Son, the study is published on the website. Can’t you read?

          • Son?

          • Chad Parker

            Pops, there are quite a few articles on the website. I have no idea which one Warmac9999 thinks is a reputable study. When he/she says “Most studies of homosexual behavior,” and I ask him/her to back up that assertion with at least one study as evidence, I’m not looking to comb through a website.

            Post a link to the actual study, and we can go from there–first determining if it is actually a reputable study, if it is similar to “most” research in the field, and whether “the connection” is actually there, or just a product of the mind of yet another batshit crazy bigoted member of the fringe.

  • Why did you take the quotation from James Parrish of Equality Virginia out of context? Here’s the complete section from the Washington Blade article you cite:

    “‘Like most people, we think the court made the right decision,’ said James Parrish, executive director of the LGBT advocacy group Equality Virginia.

    “’We think what needs to happen is the General Assembly needs to remove the current sodomy law that has been declared unconstitutional,’ he said.

    “Parrish said Equality Virginia wouldn’t object to a careful revision by the legislature of the state’s criminal code to allow for continued prosecution of offenses such as sex with minors.

    “’What we’re saying is we agree with the court ruling that, in this case, the law was used unconstitutionally. The best course of action would be for the General Assembly to address that, just like they did with the cohabitation law that they took off the books this year,’ he said.

    “’We think that’s a better recourse than the Attorney General filing another appeal and diverting precious state resources on an issue that the General Assembly should address because the court made the correct ruling on March 12,’ Parrish said.”

    That third paragraph is key to understanding the actual position of Equality Virginia, which is hardly inconsistent with your own.

    • Because as you well know, the Crimes Against Nature statute is typically what is used to prosecute pedophiles in Virginia. James Parrish knows this as well…

      How many appeals from convicted pedophiles are we going to see in Virginia because of this court decision?

      • DJRippert

        Wow. What an absolute indictment against the Virginia General Assembly. Lawrence v Texas was decided in 2003, 10 years ago. You’re telling me that prosecutors in Virginia had to continue to use an unconstitutional anti-sodomy law to prosecute pedophiles because The Imperial Clown Show in Richmond couldn’t get around to writing a constitutional anti-pedophile statute?

        Also, if the anti-sodomy statute is the only effective means of prosecution against pedophiles what happens to a pedophile that has intercourse with a child?

        Most importantly, where has our Attorney General been while prosecutors were using an unconstitutional law to convict pedophiles? Was he out like writing a book or something?

    • Rick,

      Shaun is right. Without a Petition for rehearing filed by the AG, the complete invalidation of the statute will give countless predators of children the ability to set aside convictions pursuant to habeas relief.

      The Fourth Circuit decision has too many dangerous side effects. Rewriting the law sounds like a reasonable course of action, but rewriting the law does not retroactively validate decades of convictions involving adults preying on minors.

      This is not the way gay rights advocates should want to increase rights.

      • Prosecutors should know better than to use constitutionally invalid statutes to charge alleged criminals. Why use 18.2-361, rendered unconstitutional by Lawrence, when 18.2-370 or 18.2-63 are available? Or 18.2-67.5?

  • The left sees this as an opportunity to paint Cuccinelli again as a right wing zealot who just wants to keep homosexuals down. The actions taken by the AG’s office in this matter have nothing to do with ideology, and it is disingenuous for those on the left to suggest it does.

    The AG’s office is required to defend state level criminal prosecutions on appeal and habeas corpus petitions.

    Lawrence v. Texas bans prohibitions of acts between consenting adults. The Virginia law can still be used to ban acts between adults and minors. The fourth circuit should not have struck down the law in total pursuant to a facial challenge. The AG’s office is doing its job in defending the law and the conviction of the defendant.

    The law will be struck down as applied to consenting adults, it is just a matter of time.

    Maybe Lowell needs to ask Mark Herring and Justin Fairfax, if they support the repeal of anti-sodomy laws as applied to adults and minors. If they answer no, are elected, and keep to their word, they will end up taking the exact same position as the current AG.

  • BrianKirwin

    Explains why the lefts wants the Boy Scouts to accept gay scoutmasters.

    • Girl Scouts already have lesbian scoutmistresses.. So many that former girlscouts formed American Heritage Girls. We pulled our daughter out of Girl Scouts for this and other degrading trends we noticed..

      • MD Russ

        Stereotype much, Turbo? That characterization is as tired as the myth of women basketball coaches, women tennis players, and women softball leagues. I really thought that you were better than that.

        I once heard an NCO when I was in the Army posit that “90% of the females in my Signal Brigade are lesbians.” All of us in hearing range laughed and one remarked, “that only means that 90% of the females in your brigade would never date you.”

    • DJRippert

      Really? Should heterosexual fathers be banned from coaching their daughters’ basketball teams?

  • Deege

    This Virginia sodomy law could have been rewritten to exclude consenting adults long ago, and in fact such a proposed bill was in the Virginia Senate in 2004 (once year after Lawrence vs. Texas) (read it here: http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?041+ful+SB477S1) but Ken Cuccinelli opposed this change (read the vote here: http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?041+vot+S03V0137+SB0477) because the truth is he does think the law should include sodomy prohibitions for consenting adults. He said it as recently as 2009. His own chickens are coming home to roost.

    • Deege
    • Even if the law was changed, some other convict whose crime was committed before the change, against a minor, could still come along and turn the old law on its head. This would open the floodgates for numerous other habeas petitions under the old law.

      Someone still would need to fight for the old law in order to maintain the convictions of other predators.

      Liberal bloggers and their MSM counterparts appear unconcerned about maintaining the convictions of adults who preyed on teenagers. The anti-sodomy law has not been used in recent history to round up consenting adults.

  • Pingback: Is the Push to Normalize Homosexual Relationships Leading to State-Sanctioned Incest and Pedophilia? | CatholicVote.org()

  • Great post.

  • Rich

    Oh come on. Democrats – half the country – are pro pedophilia? Aren’t you just doing to them what you’re accusing them of doing to us?

    • Truth

      We need to fight fire with fire. The DPVA loves pedophiles!

    • The Democratic leadership is not “half the country.” And do you dispute the facts?

  • This “Suck it, Lowell Feld” type of reply has a lot of problems. Let’s be real, pedophilia as a “protected” class will never happen. It’s also disingenuous to use a crying 5-year old as representative of this court case. The victim was a 17-year old girl.

    Love ’em or hate ’em, the ACLU just got another legal position of theirs validated.

  • This was completely predictable, and inevitable. You give them too much credit, Shaun.

  • MD Russ

    Democrats believe receiving oral sex from a female teenager 30 years younger than the man is okay? I am shocked; has Bill Clinton been briefed on this? I guess that it all depends on what your definition of “is” is.

    Actually, the prosecutors screwed up by using the sodomy statute, particularly after the SCOTUS ruling in Lawrence. Since the age of sexual consent in Virginia is 18, they should have charged the accused with soliciting sex with a minor and left the sodomy off table. Over-charging gets more prosecutors in trouble than than agressive defense lawyers ever could.

    BTW, the normal definition of pedophilia is sexual attraction or interest in prepubescent children. Grown men who are attracted to teenage girls who have reached puberty are referred to by the clinical term, “creep.” Take a lesson from the prosecutors, Shaun, and don’t over-charge.

  • DJRippert

    So much hyperbole, so little time.

    Let’s go back through the facts.

    1. A 47 year old man solicited oral sex from a 17 year old girl. The man could have been charged with solicitation. He could have been charged with something like attempted statutory rape. He could have been charged with attempted sodomy, I guess.

    2. For whatever reason the prosecutors attempted to use the anti-sodomy statute. At that point the case stopped being about a disgraceful 47 man and became a question about the legality of Virginia’s anti-sodomy statute. Nobody has called Virginia’s solicitation or statutory rape statutes into question.

    3. The court ruled that the man couldn’t be guilty of violating the anti-sodomy statute because that statute is unconstitutional. The court never questioned the constitutionality of statutes regarding solicitation or statutory rape.

    4. Ken Cuccinelli, presumably acting as Attorney General rather than candidate for governor, asked the court to reconsider the ruling on the anti-sodomy statute. His legal philosophy on this is hard for me to understand. He seems to be conflating statutory rape and sodomy. The anti-sodomy statute holds sodomy illegal regardless of age. That has been found unconstitutional. Cuccinelli feels it should be constitutional when applied to underage children. I would agree, but that’s not how the statute is written.

    5. Liberals claim Cuccinelli is trying to keep Virginia’s anti-sodomy statute on the books. I doubt it. He’s trying to keep a creep in jail after a botched prosecution. That’s what attorneys general do. Unfortunately, he’s in a bind. He can’t agree that the law is unconstitutional or his attempt to save a botched prosecution fails. He could however say that he doesn’t support the law but he is obligated to enforce the law until it is removed. That would be the smart move for him unless he really thinks the law should stay on the books.

    6. Conservatives want to paint criticism of Cuccinelli’s action as being pro pedophilia. Not only is that absurd but it warrants an apology from Sean Kenney to Lowell Feld in my opinion. Liberals want to know whether candidate Ken Cuccinelli supports the removal for Virginia’s anti-sodomy law for consenting adults. That’s a “yes” or a “no” question.

    This whole fiasco continues to illustrate Cuccinelli’s very poor decision to remain in office as attorney general while he runs for governor. That decision is helping his opponent each and every day.

    • MD Russ

      Very well written, DJ, except for one thing–no one owes Lowell Feld an apology. With all the bombastic and outright fabrications that he has published over the past few years on Smurf Virginia and Praising Kaine, he is the worst of the biased bloggers. He has no integrity, no shame, and no sense of responsibility. The only blogger who comes even close to approaching his Pavlovian devotion to blind liberalism is his butt-buddy Miles Grant.

      Other than that, he’s a swell guy.

      • DJRippert

        First, he’s a blogger not a politician. Second, he has never defended pedophilia and all of you know that. It is an inaccurate, needlessly personal attack on a man who is a candidate for nothing. If he did the same thing to one the contributors on this blog I’d say the same thing.

        • MD Russ


          Please see my definition of pedophilia in my other comment. I am trying to defend your position. It is an over-reach to accuse the DPVA of defending pedophilia because some creep wanted oral sex from a teenager. On the other hand, a famous Democrat was defended by his party for essentially the same behavior.

          Lowell Feld, on the other hand, while not a candidate for public office, is a fierce advocate for all things liberal. And his advocacy is not bounded by the truth or the facts. He shamelessly misrepresents conservative viewpoints, very similarly to what you are accusing BD of doing now.

      • It was bad enough to stupidly mock his website’s names, but you just became a complete asshat by using the word “butt-buddy”.

        • MD Russ


          Let me put this as politely as I can. Bite me.

  • Pingback: The Jeffersoniad | Virginia Democrats Come Out Strong Against Law Targeting Pedophiles()

  • Well, now that the ‘Party of Plunder” has progressively corrupted our language it is a small step to become the “Party of Pedophilia” I wonder how hard ‘Common Core’ will get before God’s mercy no longer holds back the result of natural laws’ consequence?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.