[Gay] Gay News from Around the Gay World That is Gay

Started by Martinus, June 19, 2009, 04:33:36 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

garbon

"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."

I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Martinus

Do we need a lawyer news thread? Because it seems British lawyers are recently making international headlines - whether gay, muslim or whatnot. :P

Caliga

Quote from: Martinus on January 26, 2015, 03:03:01 PM
Do we need a lawyer news thread? Because it seems British lawyers are recently making international headlines - whether gay, muslim or whatnot. :P
Sure, go ahead and start one.  Fair warning: every other post will be "Lawyers fucking suck". :)
0 Ed Anger Disapproval Points

Eddie Teach

To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

viper37

California to legalize gay shootings

Now that I got everyone's attention... :P

Quote
California Tries to Block Proposal That Would Legalize Shooting Gay People

In 2016 Californians may be able to vote to legalize the killing of gay people by "bullets to the head" or "any other convenient method," if State Attorney General Kamala Harris's effort to block the ballot initiative is unsuccessful. Harris is tasked with providing an official title and summary for voter-proposed initiatives, but on Wednesday she asked the Sacramento County Superior Court to relieve her of that duty regarding the "Sodomite Suppression Act." "In this case, we are talking about a proposal that literally is calling for violence. It's calling for vigilantism," Harris told the Sacramento Bee. "I, frankly, do not want to be in the position of giving any legitimacy to those words."

Huntington Beach attorney Matthew McLaughlin was able to file the measure for a fee of just $200 last month. It's unclear if his proposal was sincere or just a particularly odious bit of trolling, but all that's come of it are calls to amend California's ballot initiative process and have McLaughlin disbarred.

Still, if the court doesn't intervene, McLaughlin will have 180 days to collect more than 365,000 signatures to put the measure on the ballot. While one would think it goes without saying, the L.A. Times notes that it's "considered an incredible long-shot to pass even if it ended up on a ballot." So rest assured that California probably isn't going to legalize killing gay people.


I applaud California for its initiatives in direct democracy, but I think it's a bit silly that you can just propose anything you want.  I can understand forbidding gay marriage, most gays would probably be against swearing fidelity until death to them part ;) , but when you're advocating murder, outside the legal process, of random people that fits your criteria of evilness, I think it's silly that the State Attorney has to resort to tribunals to fix this sillyness.  Clearly, some clearer rules would need to be established as to what constitute a legitimate proposal.
I don't do meditation.  I drink alcohol to relax, like normal people.

If Microsoft Excel decided to stop working overnight, the world would practically end.

Jaron

Well, to be fair anyone can propose anything but he still needs the signatures before its something that'll be voted on. The best kind of Democracy is the kind where the iron will of the people stands firm against this type of lunacy and says in one loud and clear voice "NO, THANK YOU!"
Winner of THE grumbler point.

DGuller

Does the ballot initiate define who the gay people are?  I imagine they won't be easily identifiable, especially not after that measure passes.

Eddie Teach

Quote from: Jaron on March 29, 2015, 11:15:24 PM
Well, to be fair anyone can propose anything but he still needs the signatures before its something that'll be voted on.

And lots of people will sign without reading.
To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

Jaron

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 29, 2015, 11:42:13 PM
Quote from: Jaron on March 29, 2015, 11:15:24 PM
Well, to be fair anyone can propose anything but he still needs the signatures before its something that'll be voted on.

And lots of people will sign without reading.

HARDLY.
Winner of THE grumbler point.

garbon

Quote from: viper37 on March 29, 2015, 11:12:46 PM
I can understand forbidding gay marriage, most gays would probably be against swearing fidelity until death to them part ;)

While you put a winky eye on it, I'm not sure why gays would be anymore expected to hold up to their vows than heterosexuals. ;)
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."

I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Martinus

I think direct democracy, especially the ability of the people to put things on a ballot, is an abomination and perversion of a democratic process.

garbon

Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2015, 04:59:59 AM
I think direct democracy, especially the ability of the people to put things on a ballot, is an abomination and perversion of a democratic process.

Cool story, bro.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."

I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Valmy

He is not wrong...at least about California ballot initiatives leading to abominable results.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

crazy canuck

We are experiencing direct democracy in action here as well.  First we voted down a very sensible policy which combined federal and Provincial sales taxes into one combined tax at the till which would have reduced a lot of needless administrative costs for business, increased revenue for both governments and eliminated the possibility of paying tax on tax.  The reason we did that?  Because it was introduced by an unpopular government and the public needed to vent regardless of the facts.  Now we are about to vote down a proposal which would have provided much needed funding to improve our transit infrastructure.  The reason?  Everyone seems to agree the funding is necessary but it will mean a tax increase and the transit authority that has proposed the levy is unpopular.


IMO direct democracy initiatives where people can vote down spending initiatives that they perceive will not directly benefit or because they don't like something not directly related to proposal is a terrible way to go about creating tax policy.

Martinus

To me, democracy is a process of appointing / selecting the people's "employees" entrusted with the task of governance.

Just as I don't want my doctor to ask me which drug he should use to treat my disease, or my car mechanic to ask me what tool he should use to fix my car, I don't want my government to ask me what policy should be introduced - I am paying them to take the decision (and the responsibility) for me.