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

[garbon]

Beefy = scary?

[Martinus]

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

[Caliga]

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

Sure, go ahead and start one.  Fair warning: every other post will be "Lawyers fucking suck".

[Eddie Teach]

Beefy = scary?

They can shove Josq into his locker or give him a swirly.

[viper37]

California to legalize gay shootings

Now that I got everyone's attention...

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.

[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!"

[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]

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.

[Jaron]

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.

[garbon]

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.

[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]

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.

[Valmy]

He is not wrong...at least about California ballot initiatives leading to abominable results.

[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.