 Martin argued in rebuttal that because of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in "Lawrence v. Texas" (finding that state's sodomy law unconstitutional), Virginia's anti-fornication law was also unconstitutional for the reasons cited in Lawrence.Martin argued, therefore, she could, in fact, sue Ziherl for damages.Lower courts decided that because the Commonwealth's Attorney doesn't prosecute fornication cases and no one had been prosecuted for fornication anywhere in Virginia in over 100 years, Martin had no risk of prosecution and thus lacked standing to challenge the statute.