California Attorney General Asks For Permission To Throw Out 'Shoot The Gays'

[C&TL2745 (imported)]

A friend of mine in California called this morning and, among other things, pointed me to this news item. This is the most bizarre piece of misguided idiocy I've ever seen, and it's probably going to be declared unconstitutional before it goes anywhere, but since so many of our friends here are gay, I thought it would be appropriate to make folks on EA aware of it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/2 ... 42648.html

California Attorney General Asks For Permission To Throw Out 'Shoot The Gays' Initiative

"California Attorney General Kamala Harris is asking for permission to toss out the now-notorious Sodomite Suppression Act, an outrageous ballot proposition that calls for the execution of gays with "bullets to the head" as well as 10 years in prison and permanent expulsion from California for anyone who advocates gay rights to minors."

The complete article is online at the link above.

Let's hope this initiative dies a quick death.

Sandi

[Paolo]

Why would you have to have 10 years in prison, if you already have a bullet to the head? Necrophilia, anyone?

[fhunter]

Why would you have to have 10 years in prison, if you already have a bullet to the head? Necrophilia, anyone?

I think the author thinks about himself. "10 bullets to the head, brain is undamaged."

PS. California needs another bill (no, I am not suggesting banning the church/organized religion or lawyers, though it is really tempting). I think that the bill fining those who send unconstitutional law initiatives to compensate for their cost of handling.

[C&TL2745 (imported)]

Why would you have to have 10 years in prison, if you already have a bullet to the head? Necrophilia, anyone?

I think the article is poorly worded. If I read it right, the bullet in the head is for being gay, and the 10 years in prison is for advocating gay rights to minors. But, yeah, reimbursing taxpayers for introducing such idiocy has a certain appeal.

Sandi

[JesusA (imported)]

Remember this is California! This is a state where they don't know how many times the state constitution has been amended. For many years no one kept track of parts of the constitution that were removed by further amendment. There have been hundreds of amendments and a copy of the state constitution is a medium size book.

To place an initiative on the state ballot to create a new law or to amend the state constitution requires submitting the proposed language of the initiative and a set fee of $200 to the office of the state attorney general. That's the current status of this strange initiative on gays. Before appearing on the ballot, however, the proposer of the initiative also has to submit petitions bearing signatures from registered voters equal to 5% of the number who voted in the most recent election for governor. That process hasn't started yet and is not likely to even come close to gaining the 5% threshold if signature gathering even begins. The $200 fee has just gained lots of publicity....

[Losethem (imported)]

We didn't think Prop 8 would get on the ballot either. What chills me about this one is if they get the signatures and it passes. You'll have people out murdering folks like myself because they think it's legal. That's how the crazies work.

[nvrgag44 (imported)]

We didn't think Prop 8 would get on the ballot either. What chills me about this one is if they get the signatures and it passes. You'll have people out murdering folks like myself because they think it's legal. That's how the crazies work.

CA has more than it's share. Look no further than the freaks populating the entertainment industry.

[Losethem (imported)]

While there may be that, none of those folks are advocating my death just for being me. That's the problem with your statement.

If anything good comes from this, it will be making the initiative process in California a LOT more difficult. It's simply too easy now, and this thing is showing that flaw. PS, please do not put your own emphasis (IE bolding my quote above) on my words. It makes it appear I was more emphatic than I was. I stand by my statement the guy proposing this initiative is crazy. Who the hell thinks it's right to advocate murdering innocent people?

--LT

[nvrgag44 (imported)]

My intention was to point out that "That's how the crazies work" was the sentence I was referring to. But I see how readers could miss the fact that I added the emphasis, not you. My apologies. In the future I will point out that the emphasis was added by me on any quotes I respond to. Now that I think of it, the correct way is always to note (emphasis added).