The Sodomite Suppression Act.

Castiel · 24 Mar 2015 at 14:05

Another 'only in America' story really, but one which might be worthy of a debate on free speech and associated morality and rights...

Essentially, a Californian Lawyer is attempting to put forward a ballot initiative that would propose a series of measures to suppress homosexuality...these include "shooting gays in the head"...

Now this is actually currently under review by the Attorney Generals Office, but even then it would need to get over 350k votes in petition to proceed further...the question is, whether the AG should throw this out before it gets to the petition stage, something that is protected under California's direct democracy laws? Now it doesn't mean such a law would pass, even if a majority voted for it, but it's about the nature of the petition and whether freedom of speech and the right to petition over-rules the subject matter of a petition.

Some say that this shouldn't be allowed to proceed, others say it's an infringement of freedoms if you suppress it.

What say GD?

(I'm still thinking about it.)

http://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0008 (Sodomy)_0.pdf?

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...hoot-the-gays-proposal-2016-ballot?CMP=twt_gu

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...-harris-california-capital-punishment-sodomy/

pooley · 24 Mar 2015 at 14:08

Any 'law' that infringes on the rights of others should not be, simple..

Castiel · 24 Mar 2015 at 14:13

pooley said:
Any 'law' that infringes on the rights of others should not be, simple..

That's the problem here though...if you refuse the bill access you infringe on people's rights, if you don't, you potentially infringe on people's rights...remember the bill itself is a nonsense, even if everyone in California voted for it, the Judiciary are not going to act on it, and they don't have to either...the point is really whether the bill should be stopped due to it's content or whether the rights apply equally to everyone...(with regard to petitioning)

Terminal_Boy · 24 Mar 2015 at 14:14

Interesting from the point of view as to whether either the State or Federal authorities can suppress the petition due to any measures proposed by it would obviously being illegal.

pooley · 24 Mar 2015 at 14:15

ill put it another way, no harm injury or loss to another then ok, if it goes against that principle then no.

Castiel · 24 Mar 2015 at 14:19

Terminal_Boy said:
Interesting from the point of view as to whether either the State or Federal authorities can suppress the petition due to any measures proposed by it would obviously being illegal.

The petition is looking to change the law, however as California found that capital punishment was unconstitutional, that would mean the petition would fail...really it's unlikely to get the 5% of the electorate to continue past the petition stage anyway.

Castiel · 24 Mar 2015 at 14:20

pooley said:
ill put it another way, no harm injury or loss to another then ok, if it goes against that principle then no.

So the petition is ok and should proceed, as long as it doesn't get enacted.

pooley · 24 Mar 2015 at 14:22

Castiel said:
So the petition is ok and should proceed, as long as it doesn't get enacted.

As long a hair on anybodies head is not harmed than who cares, yes..

Castiel · 24 Mar 2015 at 14:23

pooley said:
As long a hair on anybodies head is not harmed than who cares, yes..

That seems to be what many think, although LGBT rights groups are saying that just the suggestion that this is being considered is offensive and harmful...

Gilly · 24 Mar 2015 at 14:24

I think it should be quashed and damn the rights of those that wish to oppress others.

Glaucus · 24 Mar 2015 at 14:27

Gilly said:
I think it should be quashed and damn the rights of those that wish to oppress others.

Exactly, don't see the debate here or the worthy thread.
It can't be enacted, therefor it's pointless.

And what freedoms are you imposing, as there are no freedoms. People can't just do what they have.
It's not even liberal freedom of speech as it goes far passed just people speaking.

Is removing my right to kill, imposing on my freedom.

balky12 · 24 Mar 2015 at 14:28

I'd let it run its course.

Then round up all who signed it and bugger them.

dirtychinchilla · 24 Mar 2015 at 14:30

That first link is absolutely disgusting. I want to use the word "should" but I know that isn't right...this shouldn't be allowed to go ahead. Those proposing it are despicable human beings. What they think their God wants, and what their God truly would want, are completely different things. Another perversion of religion by those who seek to use for their own ends.

phonemonkey · 24 Mar 2015 at 14:32

I'd suggest that by allowing the petition to fail on its own sends a stronger message about what the wider society thinks than just stifling it.

You don't solve a problem like homophobia by pretending it doesn't exist.

Skidder · 24 Mar 2015 at 14:32

Matt McLaughlin (author of this potential law) went to see a psychiatrist to see if he had any latent homosexual tendencies.

"Lay on the couch while I analyse you," he said.

"Great," said Matt, dropping his trousers and sticking his bottom in the air.

I think this gentleman doth protest too much.

Castiel · 24 Mar 2015 at 14:33

Glaucus said:
Exactly, don't see the debate here or the worthy thread.
It can't be enacted, therefor it's pointless.

So you don't think that freedom of speech and equal access to democratic rights is worthy of debate?

It isn't entirely certain it couldn't be enacted, at least in part, it unlikely but that isn't really the point of the debate....the point is whether a persons access to petition should be based on whether the subject may or may not cause offence or ask for changes in the law that the State may not want....this petition is obviously a nonsense, but if a precedent is set in rejecting it before it's petition then that opens up a position where any petition could be potentially suppressed and thereby restricting equal access to the right to petition.

I think that is a worthy subject to make a thread about.

Dj_Jestar · 24 Mar 2015 at 14:33

Democracy hat on:

If enough people want it, then it should be.

Liberal hat on:

Anything that does or would oppress others should be damned... but does this extend to custodial sentencing as that "oppresses" convicts?

Conservative hat on:

Why change?!

<something I can't think of a snappy descriptive name of> hat on:

Lets see where this goes with the existing system before worrying too much.

Dis86 · 24 Mar 2015 at 14:34

balky12 said:
I'd let it run its course.

Then round up all who signed it and bugger them.

Lol. Not sure I'd support that but still somewhat apt!

Glaucus · 24 Mar 2015 at 14:36

Castiel said:
So you don't think that freedom of speech and equal access to democratic rights is worthy of debate?

I.

It is in no way freedom of speech. as it isn't speech,

It's also not equal democratic rights either. As it's protected by constitution, it is impossible to inact.

So neither of those points stand at all. Nor should those points be allowed in such a debate to camouflage such repulsive opinions.

FortuitousFluke · 24 Mar 2015 at 14:36

Given the kind of debate this could lead to, I think the government probably have a moral obligation to quash it under the guise of protecting their subjects, in this case homosexuals.

If they choose not to throw it out at this stage, and instead let the petition continue until, or unless, it reaches the signature threshold then I think their opposition probably needs to be vocal at all points. Something along the lines of "We are allowing this to happen because of freedom of speech, but that doesn't make these views any less abhorrent." a clear an unwavering statement that allowing the petition to stand does not constitute support or even acceptance.

It's a really sticky issue with no real black and white answer.

Would it be feasible to launch a counter petition after the fact calling for all involved in the petition to have their names changed to "Spanky McBumlove?".