A California lawyer says he wants to legalize the execution of gay people, and there may be nothing the state’s attorney general can do to stop the proposal from moving forward.

Matt McLaughlin, an attorney in Huntington Beach, California, filed paperwork to bring his proposal, which would sanction the killing of gay and lesbian residents on the basis of their sexuality, before voters in November 2016.

The initiative, named the “Sodomite Suppression Act”, is awaiting further review by the office of the state attorney general, Kamala Harris, who does not appear to have the authority to block it. However, the measure is unlikely to reach voters, as the California supreme court can intervene to prevent measures that violate the state constitution from reaching the ballot.

The so-called “shoot the gays” proposal would mandate “any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head, or by any other convenient method”. McLaughlin, a lawyer since 1998, declared in his proposal that it is “better that offenders should die rather than that all of us should be killed by God’s just wrath”.

The initiative would also make it a crime to support gay rights, punishable by a $1m fine, up to 10 years in prison and expulsion from the state. It would be illegal to distribute “sodomistic propaganda” to “any person under the age of majority”. Being a “sodomite” or distributing “sodomistic propaganda” would disqualify a resident from serving in public office or public employment and from enjoying any public benefit.

In February, McLaughlin paid the $200 filing fee to put the initiative on the November 2016 ballot.

Once a sponsor has paid the required fee, the attorney general is directed under California law to prepare a circulating title and 100-word summary of the initiative before sending it to the secretary of state’s office for the signature-gathering period. The proposal would then need to collect at least 356,000 valid signatures within 180 days to qualify for the ballot, which is no easy task. It’s at that point that the supreme court can step in and keep the measure from appearing on the 2016 ballot.

“The statute is clear: that the office has to prepare a summary provided the proponents have paid $200 and followed the right procedures,” attorney Robert Stern, who authored the state’s 1974 Political Reform Act, which imposed expenditure reports for ballot measure campaigns, told the San Francisco Chronicle. Stern told the paper he is unaware of an instance in which the attorney general refused to issue a title and summary.

Harris is scheduled to prepare the title and summary by 4 May 2015.

State senator Ricardo Lara condemned the measure. “I support freedom of speech, but calling for state-sanctioned execution of a protected class calls into question the proponent’s character and judgment,” said Lara, who is gay, in a statement.

Lara, along with members of the legislature’s LGBT caucus, filed a formal complaint with the state bar against McLaughlin on the grounds that attorneys are supposed to demonstrate “good moral character”.

This isn’t McLaughlin’s first controversial measure. In 2004, he tried to qualify an initiative in 2004 that would have added the King James Bible as a textbook in California public schools, the LA Times reported in 2004.

“Even if you don’t believe its teachings, you’ll agree that it includes rich usage of the English language,” the paper quoted McLaughlin saying at the time. He defended the proposal as “good literature” and said it was not an attempt to indoctrinate students.

sirlynchmob wrote:
I love how they label him a lawyer, and not a christian. Where are the moderate Christians to denounce this guy?

sirlynchmob wrote:
I love how they label him a lawyer, and not a christian. Where are the moderate Christians to denounce this guy?

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I'd suggest being eaten alive by a legion of wiener dogs, but I wouldn't want the dogs to get sick.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I'd suggest being eaten alive by a legion of wiener dogs, but I wouldn't want the dogs to get sick.

sirlynchmob wrote:
I love how they label him a lawyer, and not a christian. Where are the moderate Christians to denounce this guy?

sirlynchmob wrote:
I love how they label him a lawyer, and not a christian. Where are the moderate Christians to denounce this guy?

Any person, herein known as an "Intolerant Jackass," who brings forth a ballot measure that suggests the killing of gays and/or lesbians, whether this measure is called the Sodomite Suppression Act or is known by some other name, shall be required to attend sensitivity training for at least three (3) hours per month for twelve (12) consecutive months. In addition, the offender or "Intolerant Jackass" must donate $5000 to a pro-gay or pro-lesbian organization.

 Portugal Jones wrote:
Amusingly, in response, the 'Intolerant Jackass Act' is being submitted in accordance with all proper procedure to the Cali AG that states:

Any person, herein known as an "Intolerant Jackass," who brings forth a ballot measure that suggests the killing of gays and/or lesbians, whether this measure is called the Sodomite Suppression Act or is known by some other name, shall be required to attend sensitivity training for at least three (3) hours per month for twelve (12) consecutive months. In addition, the offender or "Intolerant Jackass" must donate $5000 to a pro-gay or pro-lesbian organization.

 Soladrin wrote:
Can we legalize shooting lawyers? I'm pretty sure that would make a lot more people happy.

 kronk wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
Can we legalize shooting lawyers? I'm pretty sure that would make a lot more people happy.

Like this?

 kronk wrote:

 Portugal Jones wrote:
Amusingly, in response, the 'Intolerant Jackass Act' is being submitted in accordance with all proper procedure to the Cali AG that states:

Any person, herein known as an "Intolerant Jackass," who brings forth a ballot measure that suggests the killing of gays and/or lesbians, whether this measure is called the Sodomite Suppression Act or is known by some other name, shall be required to attend sensitivity training for at least three (3) hours per month for twelve (12) consecutive months. In addition, the offender or "Intolerant Jackass" must donate $5000 to a pro-gay or pro-lesbian organization.

I like it.

Any person, herein known as an "Intolerant Jackass," who brings forth a ballot measure that suggests the killing of members of any group of people based on their religion, race, gender or sexual preferences or political views who have not been convicted of a capital crime shall be required to attend sensitivity training for at least three (3) hours per month for twelve (12) consecutive months. In addition, the offender or "Intolerant Jackass" will be fined $10,000.00 plus the amount tax payers paid to handle the issue .

 Portugal Jones wrote:
Amusingly, in response, the 'Intolerant Jackass Act' is being submitted in accordance with all proper procedure to the Cali AG that states:

Any person, herein known as an "Intolerant Jackass," who brings forth a ballot measure that suggests the killing of gays and/or lesbians, whether this measure is called the Sodomite Suppression Act or is known by some other name, shall be required to attend sensitivity training for at least three (3) hours per month for twelve (12) consecutive months. In addition, the offender or "Intolerant Jackass" must donate $5000 to a pro-gay or pro-lesbian organization.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Portugal Jones wrote:
Amusingly, in response, the 'Intolerant Jackass Act' is being submitted in accordance with all proper procedure to the Cali AG that states:

Any person, herein known as an "Intolerant Jackass," who brings forth a ballot measure that suggests the killing of gays and/or lesbians, whether this measure is called the Sodomite Suppression Act or is known by some other name, shall be required to attend sensitivity training for at least three (3) hours per month for twelve (12) consecutive months. In addition, the offender or "Intolerant Jackass" must donate $5000 to a pro-gay or pro-lesbian organization.

IMO, It should be worded to also apply to the 500,000+ christians voters who signed the proposition to get this to the ballot.

It's not just this one nutjob, it's clearly indicative of his religion.

 CptJake wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Portugal Jones wrote:
Amusingly, in response, the 'Intolerant Jackass Act' is being submitted in accordance with all proper procedure to the Cali AG that states:

Any person, herein known as an "Intolerant Jackass," who brings forth a ballot measure that suggests the killing of gays and/or lesbians, whether this measure is called the Sodomite Suppression Act or is known by some other name, shall be required to attend sensitivity training for at least three (3) hours per month for twelve (12) consecutive months. In addition, the offender or "Intolerant Jackass" must donate $5000 to a pro-gay or pro-lesbian organization.

IMO, It should be worded to also apply to the 500,000+ christians voters who signed the proposition to get this to the ballot.

It's not just this one nutjob, it's clearly indicative of his religion.

You hav a link to where this has gathered 500,000+ signatures from any voters, Christian or not?

The article in the opening post doesn't seem to mention that unless I'm missing something.

Generally, because of California's size and population, proponents of a ballot initiative or referendum need the money and the resources to first gather over 500,000 petition signatures

Once a sponsor has paid the required fee, the attorney general is directed under California law to prepare a circulating title and 100-word summary of the initiative before sending it to the secretary of state’s office for the signature-gathering period. The proposal would then need to collect at least 356,000 valid signatures within 180 days to qualify for the ballot, which is no easy task. It’s at that point that the supreme court can step in and keep the measure from appearing on the 2016 ballot.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Portugal Jones wrote:
Amusingly, in response, the 'Intolerant Jackass Act' is being submitted in accordance with all proper procedure to the Cali AG that states:

Any person, herein known as an "Intolerant Jackass," who brings forth a ballot measure that suggests the killing of gays and/or lesbians, whether this measure is called the Sodomite Suppression Act or is known by some other name, shall be required to attend sensitivity training for at least three (3) hours per month for twelve (12) consecutive months. In addition, the offender or "Intolerant Jackass" must donate $5000 to a pro-gay or pro-lesbian organization.

IMO, It should be worded to also apply to the 500,000+ christians voters who signed the proposition to get this to the ballot.

It's not just this one nutjob, it's clearly indicative of his religion.

 streamdragon wrote:
I think Capt. Jake's point is that this proposal hasn't reached that point just yet, which is supported by this passage in the article:

Once a sponsor has paid the required fee, the attorney general is directed under California law to prepare a circulating title and 100-word summary of the initiative before sending it to the secretary of state’s office for the signature-gathering period. The proposal would then need to collect at least 356,000 valid signatures within 180 days to qualify for the ballot, which is no easy task. It’s at that point that the supreme court can step in and keep the measure from appearing on the 2016 ballot.

 streamdragon wrote:
I think Capt. Jake's point is that this proposal hasn't reached that point just yet, which is supported by this passage in the article:

Once a sponsor has paid the required fee, the attorney general is directed under California law to prepare a circulating title and 100-word summary of the initiative before sending it to the secretary of state’s office for the signature-gathering period. The proposal would then need to collect at least 356,000 valid signatures within 180 days to qualify for the ballot, which is no easy task. It’s at that point that the supreme court can step in and keep the measure from appearing on the 2016 ballot.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Portugal Jones wrote:
Amusingly, in response, the 'Intolerant Jackass Act' is being submitted in accordance with all proper procedure to the Cali AG that states:

Any person, herein known as an "Intolerant Jackass," who brings forth a ballot measure that suggests the killing of gays and/or lesbians, whether this measure is called the Sodomite Suppression Act or is known by some other name, shall be required to attend sensitivity training for at least three (3) hours per month for twelve (12) consecutive months. In addition, the offender or "Intolerant Jackass" must donate $5000 to a pro-gay or pro-lesbian organization.

IMO, It should be worded to also apply to the 500,000+ christians voters who signed the proposition to get this to the ballot.

It's not just this one nutjob, it's clearly indicative of his religion.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I want it to go through then, when voting is done, we see what districts voted yes, than nuke from sub orbit.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
I think Capt. Jake's point is that this proposal hasn't reached that point just yet, which is supported by this passage in the article:

Once a sponsor has paid the required fee, the attorney general is directed under California law to prepare a circulating title and 100-word summary of the initiative before sending it to the secretary of state’s office for the signature-gathering period. The proposal would then need to collect at least 356,000 valid signatures within 180 days to qualify for the ballot, which is no easy task. It’s at that point that the supreme court can step in and keep the measure from appearing on the 2016 ballot.

The scarey part is he's going to get signatures.


http://fox40.com/2015/03/19/sacramento-reacts-to-proposed-sodomite-suppression-act/
So far about 4,000 people have signed on and she says the CA Bar Association is aware of the situation.

 Frazzled wrote:


You seem fixated on this. Its like me saying that because one Jew eats some bacon, its clearly indicative of their religion, despite being expressly against it.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


You seem fixated on this. Its like me saying that because one Jew eats some bacon, its clearly indicative of their religion, despite being expressly against it.

It depends. Are we talking Reform Jews?

 CptJake wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
I think Capt. Jake's point is that this proposal hasn't reached that point just yet, which is supported by this passage in the article:

Once a sponsor has paid the required fee, the attorney general is directed under California law to prepare a circulating title and 100-word summary of the initiative before sending it to the secretary of state’s office for the signature-gathering period. The proposal would then need to collect at least 356,000 valid signatures within 180 days to qualify for the ballot, which is no easy task. It’s at that point that the supreme court can step in and keep the measure from appearing on the 2016 ballot.

The scarey part is he's going to get signatures.


http://fox40.com/2015/03/19/sacramento-reacts-to-proposed-sodomite-suppression-act/
So far about 4,000 people have signed on and she says the CA Bar Association is aware of the situation.

You are aware those 4k people signed a petition to get the crap bag disbarred, not to support the proposition, right?

 Frazzled wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


You seem fixated on this. Its like me saying that because one Jew eats some bacon, its clearly indicative of their religion, despite being expressly against it.

It depends. Are we talking Reform Jews?

Sorry I can't think anymore. My mind is focused on the glory of bacon.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
I think Capt. Jake's point is that this proposal hasn't reached that point just yet, which is supported by this passage in the article:

Once a sponsor has paid the required fee, the attorney general is directed under California law to prepare a circulating title and 100-word summary of the initiative before sending it to the secretary of state’s office for the signature-gathering period. The proposal would then need to collect at least 356,000 valid signatures within 180 days to qualify for the ballot, which is no easy task. It’s at that point that the supreme court can step in and keep the measure from appearing on the 2016 ballot.

The scarey part is he's going to get signatures.


http://fox40.com/2015/03/19/sacramento-reacts-to-proposed-sodomite-suppression-act/
So far about 4,000 people have signed on and she says the CA Bar Association is aware of the situation.

The proposal would then need to collect at least 356,000 valid signatures within 180 days to qualify for the ballot, which is no easy task. It’s at that point that the supreme court can step in and keep the measure from appearing on the 2016 ballot.

 Frazzled wrote:
You seem fixated on this. Its like me saying that because one Jew eats some bacon, its clearly indicative of their religion, despite being expressly against it.

 Scrabb wrote:
Two pages, two blunders in your blind belief that all Christians are as bad as you've imagined sirlinchmob.


Of course, that one Christian would do such a thing is a blemish against all Christians.

That people are getting butthurt about Sirly's comment gives me a bit of an erection honestly, because if I were a Muslim it's probably how I'd feel when I see conservative Christians advocate painting my 1+ billion strong religion as a terrorist organization because of the actions of a relative few.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You seem fixated on this. Its like me saying that because one Jew eats some bacon, its clearly indicative of their religion, despite being expressly against it.

 Scrabb wrote:
Two pages, two blunders in your blind belief that all Christians are as bad as you've imagined sirlinchmob.


Of course, that one Christian would do such a thing is a blemish against all Christians.

He's satirizing the insane claims conservative Dakka members made in the ISIS thread- that the international Muslim community tacitly supports ISIS because of the lack of international condemnation of ISIS' actions.

That people are getting butthurt about Sirly's comment gives me a bit of an erection honestly, because if I were a Muslim it's probably how I'd feel when I see conservative Christians advocate painting my 1+ billion strong religion as a terrorist organization because of the actions of a relative few.

 CptJake wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
I think Capt. Jake's point is that this proposal hasn't reached that point just yet, which is supported by this passage in the article:

Once a sponsor has paid the required fee, the attorney general is directed under California law to prepare a circulating title and 100-word summary of the initiative before sending it to the secretary of state’s office for the signature-gathering period. The proposal would then need to collect at least 356,000 valid signatures within 180 days to qualify for the ballot, which is no easy task. It’s at that point that the supreme court can step in and keep the measure from appearing on the 2016 ballot.

The scarey part is he's going to get signatures.


http://fox40.com/2015/03/19/sacramento-reacts-to-proposed-sodomite-suppression-act/
So far about 4,000 people have signed on and she says the CA Bar Association is aware of the situation.

You are aware those 4k people signed a petition to get the crap bag disbarred, not to support the proposition, right?

sirlynchmob wrote:

Seeing as how prop 8 got enough signatures, then actually got voted on and passed, I bet this guy can get the signatures he needs to get it on the ballot.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I'm offering bacon and boobs to whoever join my petition (this should get Fraz and Kronk, if there was ever any doubt).

 Frazzled wrote:
US$100 or CD$100?

I'll hold the money.

 CptJake wrote:
Bull gak. He even tried posting a links to prove his numbers, both his claim of 500k signatures and then to 4k who 'signed!'. And he was wrong about what they signed.

 Frazzled wrote:
Really thats what gets you going?

 djones520 wrote:

I lol'd.

This thing will go no where. Anyone who thinks it will, is only fooling themselves.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Outlawing lesbian porn is a crime punishable by death.

 Jihadin wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Outlawing lesbian porn is the worst crime that could be committed against the human race.

WHOA WHOA WHOA HOLD THE HECK UP!!!!!!
Little to far there buddy

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Outlawing lesbian porn is the worst crime that could be committed against the human race.

sirlynchmob wrote:
I love how they label him a lawyer, and not a christian. Where are the moderate Christians to denounce this guy?

 cincydooley wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I love how they label him a lawyer, and not a christian. Where are the moderate Christians to denounce this guy?

All over the place.

We do appreciate your trolling, however.

 Hordini wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I love how they label him a lawyer, and not a christian. Where are the moderate Christians to denounce this guy?

All over the place.

We do appreciate your trolling, however.

I don't understand. Where are the moderate trolls denouncing this guy?

 Squidmanlolz wrote:

I might understand, where are the liberal trolls denouncing the moderate trolls denouncing the radical trolls?

 d-usa wrote:
#ModerateChristiansAgainstHate #Slactivisn

Consider him denounced.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You seem fixated on this. Its like me saying that because one Jew eats some bacon, its clearly indicative of their religion, despite being expressly against it.

 Scrabb wrote:
Two pages, two blunders in your blind belief that all Christians are as bad as you've imagined sirlinchmob.


Of course, that one Christian would do such a thing is a blemish against all Christians.

He's satirizing the insane claims conservative Dakka members made in the ISIS thread- that the international Muslim community tacitly supports ISIS because of the lack of international condemnation of ISIS' actions.

That people are getting butthurt about Sirly's comment gives me a bit of an erection honestly, because if I were a Muslim it's probably how I'd feel when I see conservative Christians advocate painting my 1+ billion strong religion as a terrorist organization because of the actions of a relative few.

 d-usa wrote:
Actually, the question was answered by the moderate Christians in this thread condeming the jackass.

But when will the moderate chips denounce the chip on your shoulder?

 d-usa wrote:
Actually, the question was answered by the moderate Christians in this thread condeming the jackass.

But when will the moderate chips denounce the chip on your shoulder?

 Steve steveson wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Actually, the question was answered by the moderate Christians in this thread condeming the jackass.

But when will the moderate chips denounce the chip on your shoulder?

Can I just say, I denounce everything. Even the stuff that contradicts other stuff. In fact especially that stuff.

Except lesbian porn, bacon and whiskey.

So, until pork wielding lesbian porn stars launch acts of terror from a distillery assume that someone has denounced it.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Neither of those posts has to do with the opening remark that I'm referring too.

 d-usa wrote:
Actually, the question was answered by the moderate Christians in this thread condeming the jackass.

But when will the moderate chips denounce the chip on your shoulder?

PhantomViper wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/23/california-lawyer-shoot-the-gays-proposal-2016-ballot

A California lawyer says he wants to legalize the execution of gay people, and there may be nothing the state’s attorney general can do to stop the proposal from moving forward.

Matt McLaughlin, an attorney in Huntington Beach, California, filed paperwork to bring his proposal, which would sanction the killing of gay and lesbian residents on the basis of their sexuality, before voters in November 2016.

The initiative, named the “Sodomite Suppression Act”, is awaiting further review by the office of the state attorney general, Kamala Harris, who does not appear to have the authority to block it. However, the measure is unlikely to reach voters, as the California supreme court can intervene to prevent measures that violate the state constitution from reaching the ballot.

The so-called “shoot the gays” proposal would mandate “any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head, or by any other convenient method”. McLaughlin, a lawyer since 1998, declared in his proposal that it is “better that offenders should die rather than that all of us should be killed by God’s just wrath”.

The initiative would also make it a crime to support gay rights, punishable by a $1m fine, up to 10 years in prison and expulsion from the state. It would be illegal to distribute “sodomistic propaganda” to “any person under the age of majority”. Being a “sodomite” or distributing “sodomistic propaganda” would disqualify a resident from serving in public office or public employment and from enjoying any public benefit.

In February, McLaughlin paid the $200 filing fee to put the initiative on the November 2016 ballot.

Once a sponsor has paid the required fee, the attorney general is directed under California law to prepare a circulating title and 100-word summary of the initiative before sending it to the secretary of state’s office for the signature-gathering period. The proposal would then need to collect at least 356,000 valid signatures within 180 days to qualify for the ballot, which is no easy task. It’s at that point that the supreme court can step in and keep the measure from appearing on the 2016 ballot.

“The statute is clear: that the office has to prepare a summary provided the proponents have paid $200 and followed the right procedures,” attorney Robert Stern, who authored the state’s 1974 Political Reform Act, which imposed expenditure reports for ballot measure campaigns, told the San Francisco Chronicle. Stern told the paper he is unaware of an instance in which the attorney general refused to issue a title and summary.

Harris is scheduled to prepare the title and summary by 4 May 2015.

State senator Ricardo Lara condemned the measure. “I support freedom of speech, but calling for state-sanctioned execution of a protected class calls into question the proponent’s character and judgment,” said Lara, who is gay, in a statement.

Lara, along with members of the legislature’s LGBT caucus, filed a formal complaint with the state bar against McLaughlin on the grounds that attorneys are supposed to demonstrate “good moral character”.

This isn’t McLaughlin’s first controversial measure. In 2004, he tried to qualify an initiative in 2004 that would have added the King James Bible as a textbook in California public schools, the LA Times reported in 2004.

“Even if you don’t believe its teachings, you’ll agree that it includes rich usage of the English language,” the paper quoted McLaughlin saying at the time. He defended the proposal as “good literature” and said it was not an attempt to indoctrinate students.

So... this is a thing...

 CptJake wrote:
So, you up for the $100 dollar bet?

 DarkLink wrote:
Take it from someone who's lived their whole life in California, it's a pretty awesome place in general. It's also very silly to be criticizing California of all places within the US of hating gays.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
Take it from someone who's lived their whole life in California, it's a pretty awesome place in general. It's also very silly to be criticizing California of all places within the US of hating gays.

well cali did pass prop 8, And fought for years to keep it going. So it's also not as welcoming of them either. coastally, accepting. Inland, not so much.

 streamdragon wrote:
This dude needs to go the way of Jack Thompson: have his license to practice law revoked

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I think they might be vat grown...

sirlynchmob wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Actually, the question was answered by the moderate Christians in this thread condeming the jackass.

But when will the moderate chips denounce the chip on your shoulder?

so 10ish out of 2.18 billion, so close to 0, we'll call it 0.

No chips involved, based on what I've seen of american culture and news, you judge religions by their extreme members. Islam is judged based on what makes up less than 1% of them, so I judge christians based on their extremists. I'd guess around 1/2 of them are against equal rights for the lgbt community, this guy proposing this bill seems right up their ally and a christian thing to do. Because we already know from other christians that god hates gays. I say 1/2 because of the number of states that were able to get constitutional amendments with enough votes to deny them the right to marry. thankfully the states have a good legal system to do the right thing.

But if you guys would like to actually do more than post here, You have til the 28th for your comments to be heard by the California Attorney General's Office.

https://oag.ca.gov/node/add/initiative-comment/48523

But I hope it gets to the petition stage, those numbers would be Awesome to have to draw interesting comparisons with

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
It's surprising that we got this out of CA instead of TX.

 Frazzled wrote:

Comments are irrelevant. You know nothing about how things work do you?
Here's whats relevant.
1) The Californian court striking it before it starts (likely)
2) people signing the petition (unlikely plus violence may ensue)
3) people voting it down in a record breaking 99 to 1 %.

Please go back to your anti Christian screed. We haven't had a good anti religion bashing thread in...hours.

California is one of 21 states where citizens can petition to have laws put on the ballot through the gathering of voter signatures. Under California's initiative process, state officials do not have authority to refuse to administer initiatives they find objectionable, the California Supreme Court has ruled.

You're saying the comments posted here have any relevance what so ever?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
It's what I like to call 'idiot statistics".

 Frazzled wrote:

You're saying the comments posted here have any relevance what so ever?

No I am saying you don't know what you're talking about. Comments to the attorney general aren't relevant. The law is the law. They have to formulate it as a ballot measure if it meets the requirements of such (correct number of signatures etc) and the court doesn't pre-emptively kill it. Hashtggat dot whatever is irrelevant to well just about anything on planet earth.

And yes your posts read like a hater. Following your logic all atheists should be pre-emptively killed lest they form dictatorships and kill off 1/4 of the population like Pol Pot did.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
That's ridiculous. I plan to kill 1/3 of the population when I rise to power. Only one fourth, what kind of lame dictator do you think I would be?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
That's ridiculous. I plan to kill 1/3 of the population when I rise to power. Only one fourth, what kind of lame dictator do you think I would be?

aim high?

so we have one who wants to kill gays, and you, wanting to kill atheists. Product of your religion? Don't like the group, kill them, does seem to be a common theme. If you don't like the company you keep, why are you in their club?

 Frazzled wrote:

so we have one who wants to kill gays, and you, wanting to kill atheists. Product of your religion? Don't like the group, kill them, does seem to be a common theme. If you don't like the company you keep, why are you in their club?

You are using one person to slander an entire group, in this case the plurality of the globe. Using the same measure all atheists are slandered because one killed hundreds of thousands of people. All gays have to be slandered because of Jeffrey Dahmer. All women have to be slandered because of Lizzy Bordon. All Muslims have to be slandered because of Bin Laden. Al of Oklahoma has to be slandered because its flat. Wait thats accurate.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

so we have one who wants to kill gays, and you, wanting to kill atheists. Product of your religion? Don't like the group, kill them, does seem to be a common theme. If you don't like the company you keep, why are you in their club?

You are using one person to slander an entire group, in this case the plurality of the globe. Using the same measure all atheists are slandered because one killed hundreds of thousands of people. All gays have to be slandered because of Jeffrey Dahmer. All women have to be slandered because of Lizzy Bordon. All Muslims have to be slandered because of Bin Laden. Al of Oklahoma has to be slandered because its flat. Wait thats accurate.

Funny I've seen all of those quotes from Christians. You can't have a discussion about atheists without pol pot being brought up and christians trying to push hitler into the atheist camp. SO as I see christians often doing what you just did and they freely slander all atheists because of one man, I feel free to show them the same courtesy. And it is quite entertaining to see you guys get upset from it.

sirlynchmob wrote:

You can't have a discussion about atheists without pol pot being brought up and christians trying to push hitler into the atheist camp.

 Steve steveson wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

You can't have a discussion about atheists without pol pot being brought up and christians trying to push hitler into the atheist camp.

You mean when they use those examples when some people say "All religion is bad. Look at all the people they kill" to show that just the same has been done in the name of anti religion. I have never seen anyone say "Pol Pot killed people so all atheists are evil".

Why do you have this huge chip on your shoulder? You seem to be trying to insult people for some reason. I really don't understand where this anger is coming from.

 Steve steveson wrote:
Why do you have this huge chip on your shoulder? You seem to be trying to insult people for some reason. I really don't understand where this anger is coming from.

 Steve steveson wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

You can't have a discussion about atheists without pol pot being brought up and christians trying to push hitler into the atheist camp.

You mean when they use those examples when some people say "All religion is bad. Look at all the people they kill" to show that just the same has been done in the name of anti religion. I have never seen anyone say "Pol Pot killed people so all atheists are evil".

Why do you have this huge chip on your shoulder? You seem to be trying to insult people for some reason. I really don't understand where this anger is coming from.

This guy is a product of his christian upbringing. He's not some lone guy, he's the result of his religion and what seems to be a 10 year campaign to reduce the LGBT community into second class citizens

sirlynchmob wrote:

There is no chip, nor anger involved in what I am posting. People are just projecting their feelings onto me probably because they know I'm right and that upsets them. Because they know if this reaches the petition stage it will look really bad on their religion. So they're praying the courts can stop this guy.

This guy is a product of his christian upbringing. He's not some lone guy, he's the result of his religion and what seems to be a 10 year campaign to reduce the LGBT community into second class citizens. But instead of addressing their religion it's easier to paint me as a bad guy for pointing it out. Look at indiana and how they were able to pass their segregation bill into law. Christians have campaigned against every moral issue they've faced, and they should be mocked for it. if you don't like being mocked for it, maybe you should join a more tolerant group.

Of course there are christians on both sides of the issue, but look at which one is currently winning at the polls. look how it often comes down to the judges to settle these complex moral issues by being the more moral people.

 CptJake wrote:


So then you surely are confident enough to bet $100, right?

 whembly wrote:
manding which Christian sect I'm in, I'll just say that I'm a "Christian from the Church of What's Happening Now".

Here's the key point I want to make: Christians, and their various denominations, generally don't "judge" folks outside of their Church. The scriptures, instead, tasked the followers to "Spread the Gospels". That's pretty much should be the "extent" between Christians and non-Christians.

So... that dude wanting to push laws to have the gays killed? Is an donkey-cave, erroneously using his religion, to push his own hated agenda.

 Stonebeard wrote:
Right, "time out" for a second. For the sake of clarification, and my sanity, can someone please tell me when "Christianity" reformed into a singular, homogenous entity? I don't seem recall getting that memo from the apparent hive-mind we all share.

I'll have to ask my lesbian reverend next time I see her. She'll probably know.

Edit: Edit: That was rude. Naughty me.

 Bullockist wrote:
If you split up Islam into it's various sects then I'm sure it would be comparable to Christian sects in popularity. There are a many great Islamic sects, even one that has had a prophet after Mohammed

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Stonebeard wrote:
Right, "time out" for a second. For the sake of clarification, and my sanity, can someone please tell me when "Christianity" reformed into a singular, homogenous entity? I don't seem recall getting that memo from the apparent hive-mind we all share.

I'll have to ask my lesbian reverend next time I see her. She'll probably know.

Edit: Edit: That was rude. Naughty me.

You've never heard the claim that christianity is the most popular religion on the planet.

If you split up christianity into its denominations, the roman catholics with the most people come in after well behind atheists So they like to count all the denominations to present a big tent and seem more numerous than their individual parts. Which can help sway politicians, and influence policies.

It would go islam, atheists, hinduism, chinese traditional, buddhism, then the denominations would start showing up with the other ethnic religions. Most would be so low in the rankings they wouldn't be worth mentioning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations

sirlynchmob wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


So then you surely are confident enough to bet $100, right?

I asked you earlier to pm me the details.

sirlynchmob wrote:
@capt, you used two words that forces me to decline your bet. Frazz & paypall, No thanks. Paypal has taken enough money from me through their transaction fees that I won't use them anymore. I doubt I'd get my original 100 back when I cashed out let alone 200.