California Ballot Proposal to Legalize Killing Gays Hard to Stop

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by bradl, Mar 20, 2015.

  1. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #1
    Could this fall under the spectrum of hate speech? I just finished reading the majority opinion of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), where in writing for the majority, SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia wrote:

    Because of this, SCOTUS embraced the idea that hate speech is protected speech, unless it leads to imminent hate violence. That was also upheld in Snyder v. Phelps (of Westboro fame).

    Anyway, enter this proposal, via California's initiative process, allowing anyone with the money and enough signatures, to go directly to the ballot, shutting out the legislative process altogether.. in which the state's Attorney General can do nothing about.

    http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article15394181.html

    So in short, if the AG decides to stop this, it opens the AG up to scrutiny if he/she were to refuse to allow something that was legal, or not issue one altogether and immediately asserting that it is illegal, when the test case hasn't been tried. The other option is for the AG to do absolutely nothing, in which this could go to the next stage (signature gathering).

    This could get real ugly if it does hit the ballot box next election.

    BL.
     
  2. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #2
    If God existed this guy would have been hit by a bus a long time ago.
     
  3. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #3
    So is he the first to get a bullet? sounds like a closet case to me they are the worst haters. I think it would be hard to find people to gather signatures.
     
  4. jrswizzle macrumors 603

    jrswizzle

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2012
    Location:
    McKinney, TX
    #4
    Why do we continue giving these nutjobs a voice?
     
  5. bradl thread starter macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #5
    Problem is, even if we do nothing about it, his proposal still makes it to the ballot, and there is nothing we can do about it until the story gets out prior to that happening.

    So we're screwed at the ballot box if we do nothing, and give him a voice if we do something.. Which of the two evils would you prefer?

    BL.
     
  6. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #6
    another christian ISIS member. I doubt his business will suffer as I am sure he attracts like minded clients.
     
  7. jrswizzle macrumors 603

    jrswizzle

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2012
    Location:
    McKinney, TX
    #7
    I think you overestimate how many people out there think this way....
     
  8. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #8
    sadly you may be wrong he is christian and he hates gays the rest can and often is ignored. we see that in politics all of the time.
     
  9. jrswizzle macrumors 603

    jrswizzle

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2012
    Location:
    McKinney, TX
    #9
    No, you simply let it die where it will without the required number of signatures.

    Apologies if I missed it, what would happen if it GETS all the signatures? Then it would be something that could immediately be voted down....

    So then its over.

    ----------

    As a Christian myself, I find it highly offensive that you make such a general statement as to lump all Christians in with this man.....

    Despite what he says he is/what religion he purports to follow, his public actions would seem to suggest he is no Christian. All anyone has to do is look at the life of Jesus to know what this man is proposing flies in the face of all that Jesus taught.
     
  10. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #10
    ... What?!
    This proposal is crazy nonsense. What difference does it make if it makes it to the ballot?
     
  11. bradl thread starter macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #11
    that's the problem. If it makes it through to that stage, he and his supporters canvas the state, getting the signatures they need. It would be up to the person signing to make the determination on if they sign or not. this does not mean that McLaughlin has to be honest about his ballot initiative. He or the people working for him could reword how they approach people with the petition, get their signature, and off they go. Enough of those, and it immediately makes the ballot for the next election.

    It immediately goes on the next ballot. then comes the advertising (if any), then the fear/paranoia that comes with that. In essence, we could have another battle like Prop. 8, except that people's lives would be at stake if it passed.

    The issue is that protected speech, no matter how vile and disgusting it is, has made it through a state's ballot initiative process, where someone could immediately propose hatred like this and actually have a decent chance for it to become law, without any recourse until it becomes law, and the judicial system can look at it. But that is only AFTER it becomes law, and goes immediately into effect.

    That's a BIG problem.

    BL.
     
  12. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #12
    A law like that would conflict with various other laws.
    It's crazy nonsense and it's not a problem.
     
  13. 556fmjoe macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2014
    #13
    It's not "hard to stop". It won't get enough votes to pass and will be stopped. That's how the process works, and if we start censoring proposals based on content, there is no logical end to it.
     
  14. jrswizzle macrumors 603

    jrswizzle

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2012
    Location:
    McKinney, TX
    #14
    Exactly. I find it hard to equate Prop 8 to this....

    One denies right to marriage. Another proposes mass murder.

    I'm as cynical as anyone about the overall competence of the American voter to make an informed decision, but I don't think this has a snowball's chance in hell of being voted into law....or even becoming a "fight".

    Folks here may want to equate those who believe in "protecting marriage" with a nutjob like this, but these are two VERY different things here...
     
  15. bradl thread starter macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #15
    the bold is the problem, plus being able to game the system to even be able to get this on the ballot. It cost McLaughlin less than an iPad mini to do this.

    And when it comes to the competency of the voter, people thought that that Prop. 8 would easily be shut down by the voters... and look at what happened.

    I'm not arguing about the merits of each proposal; I'm arguing about the competency of the voter and the tactics used to even consider this. That should tell you that there is a major problem with any state's initiative system, if they have one, that hate speech against a protected class is protected speech, even if that speech proposed on the ballot, unless imminent danger is perceived.

    Something like this proposal, which the proponent (a lawyer himself) should never be introduced, let alone taken through the process, should never have been made to begin with, and it's the initiative process that allowed it. This should put a voter-intiative process that ANY state has under scrutiny.

    BL.
     
  16. jrswizzle macrumors 603

    jrswizzle

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2012
    Location:
    McKinney, TX
    #16
    Ha, I just got through being railed on in another thread by some feisty intellectual when I shared my viewpoint that mandatory voting would be a disaster because many people don't know their hooha from a hole in the ground....

    In this case though, I think enough people would know murdering gays is bad.....

    Again, try not to equate this with prop 8. Withholding marriage is FAR from condoning mass murder.
     
  17. 556fmjoe macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2014
    #17
    Prop 8 did not allow the slaughter of human beings. It is utterly ludicrous and totally intellectually dishonest to compare the two proposals. The only reason anyone would even attempt to do so is if they want their political opponents silenced, which is exactly the problem with any kind of censorship on these proposals.
     
  18. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #18
    From the OP's article:
    From a SF Chronicle post on this:
    No way this ever makes it to a ballot vote.
     
  19. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #19
    this would only if you if you hated gays or were really conservative. The ones that support the crazy of the far right wing.
     
  20. APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #20
    I'm definitely not keen on lumping Christians together. You're all individuals with your own interpretations and personal beliefs.

    HOWEVER, at the same time, I would argue that NO Christian follows every word of the New Testament. For instance, I don't think the majority of Western Christians today pay any attention to passages like this:

    “Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.” 1 Timothy 2:11-15
     
  21. APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #21
    Man, imagine if that one had passed. :D
     
  22. Renzatic, Mar 20, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2015

    Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #22
    There are some surprisingly popular subsects of evangelicalism that are all about divine submissiveness and popping out babies like there's no tomorrow.

    Edit: I just reread this, and came to realize that if there were no tomorrow, it'd be entirely pointless to pop out a bunch of babies. Sorry for the bad analogy, folks.
     
  23. ActionableMango macrumors 604

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #23
    How is this hard to stop? It will be quite easy to stop. The AG doesn't have to do anything. The lack of signatures will automatically stop it. If by some strange reason this measure gets enough signatures, CA voters will stop it.

    There is no conceivable way that Californians will vote this into law, but even if that happens, it will immediately be found unconstitutional and tossed in the trash bin.
     
  24. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #24
    Exactly. It more a rude move than a direct threat.

    Though it'll be good for political statistical analysis, showing us exactly what percentage of the population of California are reprehensible dirtbags.
     
  25. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #25
    How long would that process take? A couple of minutes? Days? Weeks?
     

Share This Page