- Bearing Drift - https://bearingdrift.com -

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

child-abuse-awareness-sitting-room-1024-56583 [1]

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 [2] (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 [3] 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: [4]


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 [5], too.

The following statement is from the Democratic Party of Virginia, referencing the Washington Blade story [6], “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 [7] 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 [3].

Outrageous… isn’t it?