Virginia

Everything Fun Is Illegal in Virginia

Dirty books, foreplay, gambling, lewdness and more

|

Only one or two centuries late, Virginia lawmakers have decided it is none of their business if unmarried couples share a roof. So the legislators are now working diligently to repeal the state's law against "lewd and lascivious cohabitation." Huzzahs all 'round for that.

But do not unclutch thy bodice yet. Virginia law is riddled with antiquated provisions meant to govern the "morals and decency" of the fair people of the commonwealth. And while the law against shacking up apparently never gets enforced, others do.

Just for starters: While it might soon be legal to live in sin, that doesn't mean you can, by gad sir, fornicate. Fornication remains forbidden under the Code of Virginia, Section 18.2-344. So keep your hands and whatnot to yourself. Especially the whatnots.

And don't even think of doing other stuff. Virginia's "crimes against Nature" statute—Section 18.2-361—still prohibits oral sex. Even between married straight couples. Moreover, state lawmakers seem particularly opposed to that practice—because in Virginia, it's a felony. Efforts to repeal that provision or even to reduce oral sex to a misdemeanor have failed repeatedly.

Also: Don't try to open a "bawdy place," which the code defines as any place "used for lewdness, assignation or prostitution." (Assignation?)

If you happen to be, say, a cab driver, you had better be careful whom you're driving where. Virginia law prohibits you to drive anybody to any place (bawdy or otherwise) if you think that person might be going for "illicit sexual intercourse."

But the law doesn't end there. If you happen to be a person who happens to know things—such as, oh, the location of bawdy houses or other loci for the commission of illicit woo-hoo—and you happen to impart such information to a fellow who is just passing through, then you are breaking the law. Virginia forbids divulging "any information or direction to any person with intent to enable such person to commit an act of prostitution."

Also, you're not allowed to let anybody have sex in your car. Says so in black and white, right there in §18.2-349.

Then there's adultery. Adultery is a violation of God's commandments. But whether your affair should be the state's affair as well is another question altogether. Virginia lawmakers think it should be—adultery here is a Class 4 misdemeanor. Nine years ago the town attorney in Luray was convicted of adultery and had to perform 20 hours of community service to expiate his sins.

Obscenity is technically illegal in Virginia, too. That means no dirty movies, dramas, plays or photographs. Or at least it might mean that, depending on what the meaning of "dirty" is. The law prohibits material whose "dominant" theme appeals to a "shameful or morbid" interest in sex and does so in a manner "substantially" exceeding "customary limits of candor." The modifiers leave a lot of wiggle room—though maybe that depends on what kind of wiggling we're talking about.

Advertising or promoting obscene works or performances is against the law, too. As are dirty books: In Virginia, "any citizen … may institute" judicial review of any book. If a court thinks the book is obscene, then "the court may issue a temporary restraining order against the sale or distribution" of the book. So anyone who wants to ban "Fifty Shades of Grey" has legal recourse to try.

All of this might leave you tempted to let fly a few guttural Anglo-Saxonisms. Don't—at least not on the street. Section 18.2-388 makes profane cursing in public a Class 4 misdemeanor.

But nobody enforces these laws, right? Wanna bet? Don't do that, either: Great chunks of prose in the Code of Virginia are given over to regulating how and when people can wager. Gambling—in a manner not approved of by the state, such as by purchasing state lottery tickets—qualifies as a Class 3 misdemeanor. "Abetting" gambling also is illegal. You're allowed to play games of chance in the privacy of your own home. Bingo, duck races, raffles and the like are allowed under exhaustively spelled-out conditions.

Some may think these Victorian proscriptions serve some purpose, such as supporting the institution of marriage. If so, then they don't seem to be working: Virginia has one of the higher divorce rates in the nation. That matches a trend nationwide. Conservative Southern states tend to have higher divorce rates than those godless liberal enclaves in the Northeast.

Anyway. It has taken Virginia 136 years to reconsider the lascivious-cohabitation law. At this rate, lawmakers should be able to drag the commonwealth into the 21st century sometime around the 27th.

NEXT: Congress Considers "Aaron's Law" To Reduce Abusive Hacker Prosecutions

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Kids these days don't know what they're missing out on since cars (and trucks) went to bucket seats instead of bench seats.

    [shake cane.]

    1. That's what back seats and crew cabs -- or, hell, truck beds, most of the year -- are for.

    2. I think that up to this year you could get an impala with front bench seat as an option.

    3. When I was in high school, I inherited my parents 1974 Plymouth Valiant. It was awesome for getting down with the ladies. Then, my brother rolled it a couple of times into a cornfield. He was, remarkably, unscathed. But the Valiant was a goner.

    4. I had sex in a 1979 MG Midget with the top up. Sex with a woman. A normal-sized human woman.

      I miss being limber.

      1. Used the shift knob to deliver "the shocker", eh?

        1. It was close. But her car had nice bench seats, so we never fooled with the MG again.

          I hope whoever bought her car had the interior steam cleaned. Under a blacklight I bet it would have looked like a mobile abattoir.

      2. I miss having the need to be limber.

    5. uptil I looked at the check which was of $4584, I be certain that my brothers friend woz like they say actualy bringing home money part time from there pretty old laptop.. there moms best frend haz done this for only about 10 months and resantly took care of the dept on there home and bourt a great new Acura. I went here, http://xurl.es/jlfwz

  2. I don't blame Virginia. Reagan was a known menace to female virtue and had to be stopped by any means necessary.

    1. Hmmmm...gives new meaning to the phrase "There you go again"....

      1. Look at him mauling that poor Virginian in that picture. Sad, really.

  3. I thought the statutes against public profanity were declared unconstitutional in the michigan cussing canoer case.

    1. And here in louisiana a decade ago it was deemed unconstitutional to prevent people from saying "Fuck you" to the cops. In a state district court no less. Go figure.

  4. It's those damn high-capacity assault zipper flys that allow men to conduct mass-impregnation. We need to have a sensible conversation about the future of penis control in this country. Toggles and buttons would be much more effective and give a good Samaritan time to interfere in a senseless act of fornication. Seriously, who *needs* access to a penis in under a second?

    1. Toggles and buttons are no impediment. Ask any sailor who has worn the old dress blues about their effectiveness.

    2. Anyone who's had three beers.

      1. Or two, even.

  5. I'm missing the part where Virginia is somehow worse than other states. That seems to be the implication, so why not compare her unenlightened laws to the advanced and forward-looking laws of states like, say New York?

    "adultery here is a Class 4 misdemeanor. Nine years ago the town attorney in Luray was convicted of adultery and had to perform 20 hours of community service to expiate his sins."

    This refers to John R. Bushey, Jr.:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....4Sep4.html

    So you're saying that this person, a public servant, chose a woman out of all the world to be his wife, vowed to be faithful to her to the exclusion of all others, claimed tax and other government benefits based on this marriage, and then cheated on his wife with some other woman? (The Wash Post articles says "consensual," but I doubt his wife consented). And for this, he's guilty of a misdemeanor? It's just like the Taliban!

    And the Wash Post cites the Kinsey "studies," with their well-known academic rigor, to back up its adultery-legalizing arguments!

    And the Post article adds that "23 other states" besides Virginia have laws against adultery. But let's by all means single out Virginia, because they're icky and Confederate and stuff.

    1. While Hensley was divorced, Bushey was married and therefore subject to a criminal adultery charge, a misdemeanor.

      Yeah, but she still committed fornication. The DA is a born loser; could have prosecuted her as well.

      1. She helped a man cheat on his wife. Of course she ought to have been prosecuted.

        Assume she'd stepped on the Bushey's *lawn* without their permission. That would be a criminal trespass (assume the property was posted). But if you were Mrs. Bushey, would you rather this woman stepped on your lawn or did the nasty with your husband?

        I love the analysis which regards stepping on someone's lawn as a crime, while stealing their spouse is a punch line which it would be horrible to criminalize, even as a misdemeanor.

        1. I love the analysis which regards stepping on someone's lawn as a crime, while stealing their spouse is a punch line which it would be horrible to criminalize, even as a misdemeanor.

          If you're going to use that line of argument, then you're defining marriage as a form of chattel slavery, and hence forbidden by the 13th Amendment.

          1. I'm sorry, but I am not aware of plantation slaves going through a voluntary ceremony in which they pledge to work on the master's cotton fields for life.

            1. Not everyone who gets married makes those promises or has a ceremony. You can just sign the paper and have a JP put the stamp on it and register it.
              And you can't voluntarily become a slave either. You don't own your spouse. And if they violate your marriage contract, the recourse is divorce.

              1. I think you missed the point - the key point is the *mutual consent,* not the specifics of a ceremony (JP versus church service).

                Consulting the history of slavery, we find the *mutual consent* element to be missing. For the importance of this distinction, consult any reputable work of libertarian philosophy.

              2. Or a suit against the "homewrecker" for tortuous interference in a contract.

                1. Or a suit against the "homewrecker" for tortuous interference in a contract.

                  You do not have a right to a faithful spouse.

            2. I'm sorry, but I am not aware of plantation slaves ...

              I didn't say anything about plantation slaves. There are other forms of slavery besides the common archetype.

              ... going through a voluntary ceremony ....

              It doesn't matter if you consent to it or not, you cannot be entered into an agreement that carries the trappings of slavery. Indentured servitude is also forbidden by the 13th Amendment.

              1. "I didn't say anything about plantation slaves."

                I was calling your bluff. The force of your analogy depends on linking marriage to plantation slavery. Once you acknowledge that you're operating on a broader definition of slavery, then the emotional force of your comparison is weakened.

                The emotional impact of images of plantation slavery was necessary for the shock value of your comparison. Now that you're abandoning that emotional advantage and entering into your own idiosyncratic definition of slavery, your argument loses much of its punch.

                1. You established the analogy, I only made it explicit. There is no "shock value": I said "a form of chattel slavery" and made no reference to specific examples. The emotional impact is irrelevant, the point is still correct.

                  1. Oh, please, once you acknowledge that it's not like anyone's common-sense version of slavery, and that you're using your own idiosyncratic definitions, then your Sharptonesque accusations break down.

                    1. You have no desire to debate, only to be superior.

                    2. So...no rebuttal?

                    3. You made no substantive claim germane to the matter at hand which merits rebuttal.

                    4. "Oh, please, once you acknowledge that it's not like anyone's common-sense version of slavery, and that you're using your own idiosyncratic definitions, then your Sharptonesque accusations break down."

                    5. Is a spouse property?

                      If not, then your lawn analogy is worthless.

                      If so, then marriage is indeed a form of slavery.

                      Either way, you're an idiot.

                    6. I know you are, but what am I?

                    7. You repeated your statement verbatim without bothering to highlight or elaborate on anything, thus insinuating I am illiterate and could not read it the first time. Once again, I have only made explicit that which you sheltered behind subtlety and innuendo.

        2. Your are joking right? At worst, adultery is violating a contract, which should not be criminal.

          1. That argument might fly, if it wasn't for the movement to abolish "heart balm" actions (private actions for violation of the marriage contract). If these folks had their way, adultery wouldn't be either a criminal or a civil infraction. So the "this should be a violation of contract issue" isn't very relevant to the modern political divides.

            And there is somewhat of a difference between some poor guy who runs out of money and can't pay his rent, thus violating his contract, and someone who voluntarily cheats on his or her spouse. The element of criminal intent seems to me to be stronger in the case of adultery.

            1. That's just stupid. There is no criminal intent in either case.

              1. That's not exactly the conventional interpretation. Conventionally, criminal intent in adultery cases means you know you're having sexual relations with someone who isn't your spouse, knowing that your actual spouse is still alive (and not divorced, in jurisdictions which recognize divorce).

                Civil contract disputes can be won by simply showing that the other party breached the contract, without having to prove fraudulent intent.

                And if you regard adultery as a civil matter, does that mean you support suits for alienation of affection and criminal conversation against the homewrecker?

                1. No, that's all based on stupid, outdated ideas about marriage where one spouse owns the other.

                  1. Repeatedly uttering the word "stupid" is not a substitute for proper reasoning.

                    I can always call your arguments "stupid," and we'd be even.

                    1. The idea that one person can own another is stupid. If you disagree, then you are stupid.

                    2. Yes, if you think that enforcing a promise monogamy, voluntarily entered into, is the equivalent of owing the person who made that promise, then you are a fucking moron.

                    3. Yes, if you think that enforcing a promise monogamy, voluntarily entered into, is the equivalent of owing the person who made that promise, then you are a fucking moron.

                      Name the right being protected by making adultery a crime.

                    4. Do "contract rights" ring a bell?

                    5. Or perhaps you are opposed in principle to criminal sanctions for adultery, and would prefer that the wronged spouse be able to file actions for criminal conversation and alienation of affection?

                      In which case, I suppose you disagree with those states which abolished those particular causes of action in the name of modernism and enlightenment?

                    6. Or perhaps you are opposed in principle to criminal sanctions for adultery, and would prefer that the wronged spouse be able to file actions for criminal conversation and alienation of affection?

                      If the terms of the marriage contract stipulate exclusivity of affections and intimate conversation, and it can be shown that those terms were breached by one of the parties, then yes the violator may be sued for the penalty stipulated in the contract.

                    7. You have three basic rights: to your life, to your liberty, and to your property. A contract is a legal fiction in which you abrogate some of your rights for the sake of establishing some rules in your association with another party. However, in our legal system, the only rights you may willingly surrender in a contract are your property rights. Imprisonment, as an abrogation of your liberty, hence cannot be used as a term of a contract, even voluntarily.

                      Even if you could surrender your liberty in a contract, would that not mean that your spouse would imprison you? By what mechanism did an unrelated third party become enjoined to imprison you for breaching a contract?

                    8. I get the impression that you're oool with alienation of affection and criminal conversation suits - if I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me.

                    9. I get the impression that you're oool with alienation of affection and criminal conversation suits - if I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me.

                      Do I support the right of person A, who has a contract with person B, to bring suit against person C, who was not a party to any contract involving either A or B? Is that a joke? Of course not.

                      You cannot enjoin a third party to comply with a contract without their permission.

                    10. Contracts are NOT fictions! The law does not and has not ever considered them such.

                    11. Contracts are NOT fictions! The law does not and has not ever considered them such.

                      Call it a misuse of terminology, then. A contract is an invention of the law, which itself is an invention of man, being the product of convention and shared principles rather than logical deduction from observable facts.

                    12. You forgot the 'and the pursuit of happiness' part.

        3. "..stealing their spouse..."

          That wicked woman made him do it huh? Poor man had no choice.

          1. She passed the boner test.

    2. How about the enforcement of contracts volutarily entered into? Adultery, no matter what else it may be, is a violation of the vast majority of marriage vows. If marriage is treated he same as other contracts, that violation should be punished, and the behavior of somebody who violates the contracts he enters into is very much the business of society.

      Which isn't to say that the law in Virginina ISN'T outdated and based on religious buttinskiism..

      1. Yes, but generally speaking one does not face criminal sanctions for a contract violation

      2. I think it is up to the other party to the contract whether or not the violator should be punished. And such violators are regularly punished, it's called divorce.

    3. Settle down, Eduard. Hinkle chose Virginia, because he lives in Virginia, and writes for the Richmond Times-Dispatch. It would be silly for him to write an article about wacky outdated laws in South Dakota, New York, or California.

      1. I didn't know Hinkle wrote for the Times-Diepatch, but he should at least have acknowledged (like the Wash Post reporter) that 23 other states have laws like Virginia's against adultery.

    4. So you're saying that this person, a public servant, chose a woman out of all the world to be his wife, vowed to be faithful to her to the exclusion of all others, claimed tax and other government benefits based on this marriage, and then cheated on his wife with some other woman?

      For if the state giveth to you, it can bindeth you.

      Seriously, this ought to be argument #1 against state involvement in the marriage business: that somehow because you are granted "benefits", your behavior can be regulated in ways that would otherwise be unacceptable.

      1. What tax benefits? Being married carries a sizable tax penalty.

        1. "Benefits" = special treatment by the state, even if it is not favorable in all cases. Hence the quotes.

          1. Maybe benefits like tax deductions so single, childless people subsidize your kids, schools, second homes, vacations, etc... Higher pay (housing allowance) and costs for health care benefits for military members, not to mention getting more slack for "family matters" (less work and more free time). There are more, but you probably catch my drift. Some might (I do)consider that discrimination, even if we changed to a flat income tax.

            1. Health insurance coverage of spouses is mandatory in many places as well. Immigration preference and testimonial privilege are also non-monetary benefits. The idea that the state should offer any benefit or impose any penalty based on one's relationship status is so absurd that if it didn't exist and you introduced the idea, people would laugh you out of the room.

      2. When one gets a marriage licence, one enters a contract with ones spouse and the State of X. Even if one divorces ones spouse, one remains "married" to the State. Also, the State controls anything arising out of that contract, like, for instance, children.

    5. Actually, I think MA wins the "stupidest laws on the book" contest.

      Some of the things still illegal there include:

      1) snoring without all doors and windows closed

      2) serving more than 3 sandwiches to anyone at a wake

      and...my favorite:

      2) no gorilla is allowed in the back seat of any car.

      No kidding. Virginia is, at most, a way distant 2nd.

      1. Then again... maybe New York should be the winner with this one:

        Citizens may not greet each other by "putting one's thumb to the nose and wiggling the fingers".

        And, no, I'm not making it up.

  6. assignation

    A. Barton, you should know these things intimately. A place of assignation is a temporary residence or dwelling used for sexual congress. In more modern parlance, a pay-by-the-hour hotel.

    We need to teach you how to live. And commit felonies in Virginia.

  7. I love how this particular law backfired in its intent spectacularly in my case. A male friend and I tried to get an apartment together in Norfolk to split the cost of living off base, but were denied due to the cohabitation law. The funny thing is if he and I had been roomies zero hanky-panky would have occurred between us because he was deeply, deeply gay (and in the military too lol). A month later he found a male roommate which the state of Virginia allowed and all sorts of illegal depravity ensued. NTTAWWT. and nobody asked me and I didn't tell.

  8. Makes those "Virginia Is For Lovers" bumper stickers seem ironic.

    1. Well, "Virginia Is For Married Lovers Who Do Only In The Missionary Position" just doesn't have the same catch...

      1. And can only be used on long bumpers.

      2. You missed the "for purposes pf procreation" clause

  9. Fornication remains forbidden under the Code of Virginia, Section 18.2-344.

    Not exactly. According to the Supreme Court of Virginia:

    Therefore, applying the reasoning of Lawrence as Martin asks us to do, leads us to conclude that Code ??18.2-344 is unconstitutional....

  10. Licking her ass and smoking marijuana is my contribution to the civil rights movement.

  11. Virginia forbids divulging "any information or direction to any person with intent to enable such person to commit an act of prostitution."

    It must really piss them off that they can't block Craigslist and Backpage.

  12. Virginia's actually a very good choice for this type of article, since its code contains all kinds of silly little laws like this. Partly, it's a result of most of the state being a sleepy southern backwater, but it's also a result of the state being so very old. Statutes have a way of getting enacted and then completely forgotten, and Va. has almost 400 years of that to deal with.

    1. "sleepy southern backwater"

      As opposed to the 23 states which had laws against adultery in 2004, the time of the Virginia adultery prosecution mentioned in the article?

      1. How many other states prosecuted anyone for adultery recently? I'm pretty sure there is still a law on the books prohibiting adultery where I live. But it has not been used for a long long time. There are lots of laws on the books which would be thrown out by courts if they were ever used. Legislators have little incentive to remove laws that most people don't know exist and are never enforced.

      2. It's not only sleepy southern backwaters that have laws like this, obviously. Hell, Virginia has far more liberal liquor laws than Pennsylvania or Connecticut.

        It's just that southern states always seem to have more of them still on the books, and are more likely to enforce them. Even if that enforcement ends up being mostly a personal vendetta.

        I think all statutes should have a sunset provision and have to be reintroduced and reauthorized periodically. That would help cull these laws that few people truly support anymore.

        1. A Fort Bragg general charged with having an illicit affair and engaging in wrongful sexual conduct deferred entering a plea in his first appearance at a Fort Bragg courthouse.

          Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair was in court for more than five hours Tuesday, the first pretrial hearing in the case against him.

          Sinclair faces 25 specifications of eight charges, including forcible sodomy, wrongful sexual conduct, indecent acts, attempting to violate a lawful order, maltreatment, conduct unbecoming an officer, adultery and communicating threats.

          The charges stem from allegations of inappropriate relationships with several women who were under Sinclair's command before or at the time of the alleged crimes.

          One of those women has accused Sinclair of forcing her to perform a sex act.

          Sinclair has admitted to an affair but maintained that the relationship with an Army captain who served as one of his aides was consensual. He faces prison if convicted.

          http://fayobserver.com/articles/2013/01/22/1232175

          1. This is under the UMCJ, which is a radically different beast than civilian law. That said, these military cases highlight some of the silly aspects of the UMCJ.

            1. Which is why I chose not to go into the reserves (it also applies to off-duty reservists), and luckily missed Iraq 1.

              1. Reservists are only subject to UCMJ while on duty (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/802).

            2. It sounds like a lot of those charges had to do with (alleged) forced sex acts and abuse of power, which is a perfectly legitimate thing to prosecute. But it seems our Eduard cannot understand the distinction from a libertarian perspective between forcing sex on someone (which obviously involves the initiation of force and the violation of one party's rights) and breaking one's marriage vows by engaging in a consensual sexual relationship with someone else (which involves no initiation of force and the violation of the terms of a legal agreement).

        2. There are no "liquor stores" in PA. There are "State Stores" for liquor and "beer distributors" for cases or kegs (both closed on Sundays), and supermarkets or convenience stores for food and cigarettes. How convenient. Here in Taiwan, I can walk across the street to the 7-11 and get anything I need 24-7. American smokes are about $2.00 a pack, so I buy them at the supermarket for about $1.50. People here are shocked to find out that you can't walk down the street with an open beer in America. You can have open containers in cars too, but can get nailed for DUI if you're over 0.20 BAC. A couple of years ago they reduced it from 0.25.

          1. Taiwan sounds like Florida in about 1978. 🙂

          2. can get nailed for DUI if you're over 0.20 BAC.

            I think at that point all of the mailboxes and road signs you're running over are probably sufficient to support the charge 😀

          3. Give Taiwan time to catch up to roaring contemporary morals and that can of beer on a public thoroughfare will costya.

            Strange, the cyclical nature of do-gooding social conditioning.

  13. More support for the idea that all laws should have sunset clauses in them.

  14. Section 18.2-361?still prohibits oral sex. Even between married straight couples. Moreover, state lawmakers seem particularly opposed to that practice?because in Virginia, it's a felony.

    Don't tell The Squeeze, fercryin out loud!

    1. How come kissing isn't considered oral sex?

      1. My understanding is that oral sex is when the two stands in opposing corners of the room & shout at each other:

        - Fuck you!
        - No, fuck you!

        1. Nah, that's verbal sex. Whole other can of worms. And if you transmit it over a phone line... well then you're in a real mess.

  15. "Some may think these Victorian proscriptions serve some purpose, such as supporting the institution of marriage. If so, then they don't seem to be working: Virginia has one of the higher divorce rates in the nation. That matches a trend nationwide. Conservative Southern states tend to have higher divorce rates than those godless liberal enclaves in the Northeast."

    I wonder if people who have to be threatened into behaving are more likely to misbehave?

    1. I bet you'd also find that the average age of marriage is lower in the south, and that there is a higher percentage of the overall population that is married.

      Cohabitation rather than marriage and marrying in your early 30s are good prescriptions to avoid divorce court.

      1. "I bet you'd also find that the average age of marriage is lower in the south, and that there is a higher percentage of the overall population that is married"

        But then you'd have to recalibrate your "the South has a higher marriage rate but still has a higher divorce rate" arguments.

        By simply shacking up without benefit of marriage, and then breaking up, a Northeasterner can avoid contributing to the "failed marriage" statistics, and help make the South look bad!

        1. By simply shacking up without benefit of marriage, and then breaking up, a Northeasterner can avoid contributing to the "failed marriage" statistics, and help make the South look bad!

          Less paranoid interpretation: Without the social pressure to marry, people who know they can't make the commitment to marriage don't get married.

          Of course, comparing state-to-state statistics doesn't make much sense anyway, thanks to Simpson's paradox.

  16. A. Barton Hinkleheimer-Schmidt
    That's my name, too
    Whenever we go out
    The people always shout
    There goes A. Barton Hinkleheimer-Schmidt
    LALALALALALALA

    Fucking newbs.

  17. One can say: "But whether your affair should be the state's affair as well is another question altogether."

    Or that "being illegal and being immoral are two different things."

    But please keep your influences away from my kids.

    1. "But please keep your influences away from my kids."

      Yes, society should design itself around your kids. Here's an idea; be a parent and remove your kids from influences you find discomfiting.

  18. uptil I looked at the paycheck of $4629, I didnt believe that my neighbours mother was like they say realie making money in their spare time from their computer.. there great aunt had bean doing this for only about seven months and just took care of the loans on there mini mansion and got themselves a Chevrolet. go to, http://www.buzz75.com

  19. my neighbor's aunt makes $79 hourly on the laptop. She has been out of a job for ten months but last month her income was $14767 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this web site http://www.FLY38.com

  20. Not true. You can legally own a machinegun in Virginia. In fact Virginia protects real freedoms like owning firearms. However our Founding Fathers did not pledge their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to protect cohabitation, fornication and sex outside of marriage. Nor did they fight to protect homosexual marriage. As they say about abortion, if you don't like it, don't have one. Same with Virginia, if you don't like it, don't go there. Another aspect of freedom or Founders liked. If you don't like your State's policies, move elsewhere. You can have your free sex in California, but you have to pay an 11% income tax for that freedom. And you can't own a decent firearm as well.

    It appears that libertarians are willing to trade a little freedom for their true obsession, sex.

    1. However our Founding Fathers did not pledge their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to protect cohabitation, fornication and sex outside of marriage.

      Tell that to Ben Franklin.

      Same with Virginia, if you don't like it, don't go there.

      "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

      14th Amendment to the United States Constitution

  21. Hilarious! Or am I subject to some law in Virginia that makes it illegal to criticize the law or praise someone else who does?

    I'd go f&^% myself. But it's probably a class A felony!

  22. my best friend's mother-in-law makes $61 every hour on the laptop. She has been fired from work for 9 months but last month her payment was $17107 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this web site http://xurl.es/tt3nh

  23. upto I saw the receipt which was of $4884, I did not believe ...that...my mother in law woz actualie making money part-time on their apple labtop.. there moms best frend has been doing this 4 less than twenty two months and just cleard the loans on there apartment and bourt a great new GMC. we looked here, http://xurl.es/tt3nh

  24. Nicest chat and chat Iraqi entertaining Adject all over the world
    http://www.iraaqna.com

  25. i've read and find good information from your articles this really answered my problem carry on it

  26. really enjoyed studying assisted me a lot i'm dealing with many of these issues as well

  27. great articles very energetic blog very nice post

  28. good articles great articles i actually love this website

  29. good luck your have good competence i've a link to my page

  30. you are a very smart person thoroughly enjoyed your gardens its very nice to read

  31. really great thanks a lot for the blog hi admin i love your blog

  32. regards for helping out i actually love this website truly amazing

  33. this article just what i was looking for i'm dealing with many of these issues as well i've read and find good information from your articles

  34. I don't blame Virginia. Reagan was a known menace to female virtue and had to be stopped by any means necessary.

  35. Nice discussion here, you are doing a great job. i was looking for this information. i found it on your page it's really amazing.

  36. I essentially need to express you I am new to blog and absolutely enjoyed this blog site.Education is knowledge to ask, to mature a starvation to learn the world and to clear the approaches to make the ideas all work out as expected.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.