California "death penalty for sodomy" proposal could appear on ballot.

[Roderick_Femm]

So maybe you’ve heardthat some lawyer has filed for the right to gather signatures for this ballot initiative that calls for the death penalty for anyone who

@Matt McLaughlin

touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification.

Now everyone is amazed that there is apparently no legal basis for denying him the right to gather signatures (if he can, if he can find anyone to try).

So this is just too silly and stupid for the Pit. Maybe I’ll petition for the right to gather signatures for my law: Terminal noogies for anyone over the age of 21 who has never touched someone of the same sex for sexual gratification. Who’s with me?

[lel]

If it got on the ballot, I’d love to see how widely this measure would fail.

[Suburban_Plankton]

We were just discussing this earlier this evening. I think that if this does make the ballot, we should all vote for it, to ensure that it passes.

The first appeal will then be filed about 30 seconds after the ballots are counted, the law will be stayed pending appeal, and the courts will find it unconstitutional.

[kaylasdad99]

Doesn’t Lawrence v Texas preemptively invalidate any state’s putative so called anti-sodomy laws? Just on that basis, I think I would be okay with this getting on the ballot. There’d be no need to spend money campaigning against it, and it would be a free method of identifying homophobic derps, if any were derpish enough to campaign for it.

[Master_Wang-Ka]

Stupid permeates all.

Crazy does not; while all humans manage occasional stupid, most of us pull back from the brink when it comes to crazy. Nevertheless, there are crazy people.

Some people manage both.

[Napier]

I’m all for the terminal noogies thing. In fact I might even go along with skipping the petition and just starting pulling people from their cars.

So, ah, these petitions - do they become public information? Could we get it and produce a book called Homophobic Derps of the State of California? Maybe one of those Amazon deals where they print it to order? I know none of this stuff was really aimed at being useful, but maybe we do have an opportunity here.

[Uhib_D_Jaj]

Death penalty huh? Is it death by roo roo?

[Smapti]

@kaylasdad99

Doesn’t Lawrence v Texas preemptively invalidate any state’s putative so called anti-sodomy laws?

Ah, but you see, he already thought of that, which is why the text of the proposition states that it can’t be overturned.

This law is effective immediately and shall not be rendered ineffective nor invalidated by any court, state or federal, until heard by a quorum of the Supreme Court of California consisting only of judges who are neither sodomites nor subject to disqualification hereunder.

Flawless, right?

[SpoilerVirgin]

@Napier

I’m all for the terminal noogies thing. In fact I might even go along with skipping the petition and just starting pulling people from their cars.

So, ah, these petitions - do they become public information? Could we get it and produce a book called Homophobic Derps of the State of California? Maybe one of those Amazon deals where they print it to order? I know none of this stuff was really aimed at being useful, but maybe we do have an opportunity here.

The National Organzation for Marriage tried to sue to prevent the list of donors to the Proposition 8 [banning same-sex marriage in California] campaign from being public. SCOTUS ruled against them.

I have posted previously about the ridiculous California initiative laws and how they need to go; this is just one more example. Maybe at least it will have the effect of making California reconsider its initiative process.

[Twoflower]

To get from “could appear on ballot” to “will appear on ballot” will require another half million irrational homophobes to sign petitions. Somehow, I’m not real concerned that it will happen.

[Monty]

I thought the lawyer was doing this as a kind of protest against how easy it is to make stupid changes to California’s constitution and laws via voter propositions. Am I wrong on that?

[Little_Nemo]

@Twoflower

To get from “could appear on ballot” to “will appear on ballot” will require another half million irrational homophobes to sign petitions. Somehow, I’m not real concerned that it will happen.

I agree. This is a pretty remote definition of “could”.

[GrumpyBunny]

Maybe I’m a linguistic strict constructionist, but to my ears, they have a very odd definition of sodomy in California.

[Roderick_Femm]

@Monty

I thought the lawyer was doing this as a kind of protest against how easy it is to make stupid changes to California’s constitution and laws via voter propositions. Am I wrong on that?

I have not seen any reference to that in any of the stories that I have read. What I have gathered so far is that the effort is genuine. There is also a move afoot to disbar him as unfit to practice law.

[BigT]

@Uhib_D_Jaj

Death penalty huh? Is it death by roo roo?

Is that the same sex version of snoo snoo?

[Princhester]

Would that definition cover any young guy who shakes hands with the father of a girl he’s taking out on a hot date?

[mbh]

@Smapti

Ah, but you see, he already thought of that, which is why the text of the proposition states that it can’t be overturned.

This law is effective immediately and shall not be rendered ineffective nor invalidated by any court, state or federal, until heard by a quorum of the Supreme Court of California consisting only of judges who are neither sodomites nor subject to disqualification hereunder.{emphasis added–mbh}

But catamites can still judge, right?

[kaylasdad99]

@Smapti

Ah, but you see, he already thought of that, which is why the text of the proposition states that it can’t be overturned.

Flawless, right?

I think there’s a different set of magic words he needs to include for the text to override the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@SpoilerVirgin

I have posted previously about the ridiculous California initiative laws and how they need to go; this is just one more example. Maybe at least it will have the effect of making California reconsider its initiative process.

I kinda hope it passes for this very reason. But even then it wouldn’t be seen as a failure of the initiative process. After all, how can the people be wrong? Instead, it will be seen as a group of people gaming the system for a negative result that won’t stand anyway. Anything but an indictment of a system that passed such brilliant ideas as Prop 13.

[Alley_Dweller]

@Airman_Doors_USAF

I kinda hope it passes for this very reason. But even then it wouldn’t be seen as a failure of the initiative process. After all, how can the people be wrong? Instead, it will be seen as a group of people gaming the system for a negative result that won’t stand anyway. Anything but an indictment of a system that passed such brilliant ideas as Prop 13.

And let’s not forget Prop 65. I wonder if anyone in California history has refused to enter a building or buy a product because there was a Prop 65 warning on the door or shelf.