Court: California Does Not Have to Process ‘Sodomite Suppression Act’ Proposal

A state judge in California has ruled that Attorney General Kamala Harris does not have to process a proposed referendum that would prescribe the death penalty for all homosexual sex. Matthew McLaughlin, an attorney, filed the ‘Sodomite Suppression Act’ several months ago and Harris refused to process it.

Saying a proposed ballot measure calling for the killing of gay people is “patently unconstitutional on its face,” a Sacramento County judge has ruled that the state attorney general can halt the proposal.

With the judge’s ruling, the so-called Sodomite Suppression Act will not move forward to the signature-gathering phase and cannot be placed on a future ballot. The proposal, submitted by Huntington Beach attorney Matthew McLaughlin, sought to authorize the murder of gays and lesbians by “bullets to the head” or “any other convenient method.”

“This proposed act is the product of bigotry, seeks to promote violence, is patently unconstitutional and has no place in a civil society,” Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris said in a statement Tuesday.

Harris is required by state law to give all proposed ballot measures a formal name and summary before they advance to the signature-gathering process. Earlier this year, Harris filed an action for declaratory relief with the Sacramento County Superior Court asking the court to let her essentially ignore McLaughlin’s proposal and stop it from advancing.

Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Raymond M. Cadei granted Harris’ request in a decision issued Monday.

Requiring Harris to advance McLaughlin’s proposal to the signature-gathering phase “would be inappropriate, waste public resources, generate unnecessary divisions among the public and tend to mislead the electorate,” Cadei wrote.

I’m not sure this is correct as a matter of law and I’m sure it will be appealed. I certainly agree that the proposed law is clearly unconstitutional, but a court has no jurisdiction to make that ruling before it’s actually passed (and it would never be passed, of course). Frankly, I’d rather let the guy do it and try to gather the necessary signatures, which he won’t be able to do. Let the bastard waste his own time.

"I think he's out on the rotunda with Mr.Bator."

Davis May Face Gay Man She ..."
"Yep. The religious Abbott right has been stalling things so far on the spurious grounds ..."

Swanson: God Will Punish Australia for ..."
"“The hypocrisy of Washington has no bounds. So many denouncing Roy Moore when they are ..."

The Vileness of Christian Right Support ..."
"The actual sin of Sodom :Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her ..."

Swanson: God Will Punish Australia for ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://www.gregory-gadow.net Gregory in Seattle

    Those were my concerns, too. Whether you like initiatives or not, they exist as a work-around method of enacting legislation when the government cannot or will not legislate. Giving the government prior restraint on initiatives is a very bad precedent.

  • Chiroptera

    …but a court has no jurisdiction to make that ruling before it’s actually passed….

    Maybe. But that’s a state court acting according to (in its interpretation) of state law and the state constitution. I’ve read that this is unprecedented in California, but it will be up to the state courts to decide this.

  • Alverant

    If he gets the signatures required, will the list be made public so everyone can know who thinks people should be murdered for being gay?

  • rory

    A counterargument, presented by Mark Joseph Stern at Slate within the past week or so (and I’m paraphrasing) is that there’s something inherently demeaning about treating this the same way you’d treat any other proposed legislation: that simply acting as though the lives and rights of gay people should be subject to public referendum is discriminatory and inappropriate. Stern’s proposed fix was some kind of up-front review for constitutionality prior to allowing the referendum the move forward. I believe he stated that this would require an amendment to the state constitutiton.

  • abb3w

    I’m not a lawyer, so I’m hardly sure this approach for ditching an initiative is legally correct. However, the potential cost of having to deal with a facially unconstitutional initiative would seem to have potential for granting the state standing to demand immediate consideration of the question; plus, it looks like this was done as a default judgement — meaning that since the idjit behind the initiative didn’t respond, he will have an uphill battle for appeal. (This also leaves me much less sure than Ed that this will be appealed.)

    Incidentally, the initiative is broad enough (impacting the courts, eligibility for public office, distributions of publications within the state, vigilante execution, et cetera) that seems also potentially rejectable on the grounds of “embracing more than one subject” (in violation of California constitutional limitation) — which might come up if an appeals court were to review the question and need come up with a better excuse for circular-filing this farce.

  • marcus

    Ed

    I certainly agree that the proposed law is clearly unconstitutional, but a court has no jurisdiction to make that ruling before it’s actually passed…

    Perhaps you have neglected the fact that the referendum called for summary murder of a distinct class of people. It is beyond simply unconstitutional, IMO it is illegal on it face.

    These types of actions do not deserve to see the light of day in my opinion, the very act of presenting and possibly have it go on the ballot is an act of bigotry and abuse.

    I don’t think it needed to go further than it did. If it was me I would have shit-canned that piece of excrement and let the asshole sue me to get to the next step (though I think Kamala Harris did the appropriate thing).

    It will be interesting to see what the court actually decides.

  • John Pieret

    Harris is required by state law to give all proposed ballot measures a formal name and summary before they advance to the signature-gathering process.

    It could have been fun to write that:

    “The Batshit Insane Ballot Proposal to Permit the Murder of Gay People”

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Sodomites are like kudzu. If we don’t suppress them, they’ll eventually take over the neighborhood, the city and the country. As it stands now, they’ve already expanded to the point that us Traditional Americans (and other Values Voters) can’t even buy a cake without it having some homo on it!

     

    Look, I’m not saying that we should kill them. I’m simply saying that it couldn’t hurt to try. Ignore that those two sentences are as conflicted as my own sexuality.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Whether you like initiatives or not, they exist as a work-around method of enacting legislation when the government cannot or will not legislate.

    They absolutely SUCK as a “work-around method,” and they should be scrapped altogether. This kill-the-gays bill is only the most recent and most odious example of poorly written initiatives becoming bad law, often in contradiction to other laws passed by initiative.

    The whole purpose of a legislative body is to have one group of people writing all the laws, with some degree of foresight and coordination, and with at least enough expertise to write laws so they work, and doing so from position where they are accountable to the people for the consequences of their actions. The initiative process undermines all of that, and it has too often been hijacked and manipulated by big-money interest groups, to pass pro-corporate laws in the guise of populist grass-roots initiatives.

  • dhall

    Evidently, the Ohio state government is going to try to figure out how to keep a legalization of pot initiative off the ballot. I don’t know if they’ll succeed or not. In both cases, as odious as the anti-gay initiative is, these are attempts to prevent people from having a say, and examples of elected officials forgetting that they’re supposed to represent people, not circumvent procedures. The state of California evidently doesn’t trust its people to overwhelmingly reject that proposal. Or, they simply want to prevent the state from becoming an object of ridicule. In Ohio, it’s evidently the usual conservative stance on that eeeevul weed.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    As for this particular bit of BS, yes, the AG had a duty not to allow a clearly unconstitutional proposal to go forward. It’s unconstitutional, therefore it’s null and void regardless of how many signatures or votes it gets in its favor.

  • flex

    My understanding from Mano’s blog was that McLaughlin didn’t even show up in court to defend his initiative. Which suggests a lack of commitment and probably influenced the judge.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    I don’t see why this would work. Previous sodomite suppessors didn’t. We had the spray version here, but dousing The Gays in foam just made them party harder.

  • Anna Elizabeth

    Hey Assholes. Just imagine, that the only thing that keeps me from looking like a “normal white chick” is my LGBT Pride jewelry. Just imagine that I suffer from PTSD.

    Is the thought of someone approaching me to sign a petition that calls for my death for my consensual activities with consenting adults of my sex still so funny? Is it *still* such a threat to your fundamental liberties that CA won’t process it?

    Fuck *all* of you funny, funny freethinking assholes, right in your funny fucking freethinking necks.

  • gridlore

    AG Harris filed an action for declaratory relief with the Sacramento County Superior Court. This is an action taken when it is patently obvious to any competent observers that the action considered is so far beyond any reasonable measure of the law that it should be dismissed out of hand.

    It’s perfectly legal, and not often granted. You see it mainly in kook cases like the guy who sued Ronald Reagan for stealing the idea of multiplication tables from him.

  • whheydt

    Nobody has heard anything from McLaughlin since he paid his filing fee ($200) and it landed in Harris’ lap.

    The historical reason why the AG can’t refuse to process a ballot proposition is to prevent the state from trying to control the initiative process (see dhall @ #10, above). It came in as populist measure to curb large business interests (railroads, primarily) manipulation of the state legislature. So,,,when faced with a proposal that is so far beyond the pale as this one, the AG’s only choice is to seek a court ruling that she doesn’t have to proceed. Note that doing this is unique in California, so the system *is* working.

    The response to this petition has been for the state legislature to work on raising the filing fee (to $8,000, which probably wouldn’t have stopped McLaughlin).

    Side note… Kamala Harris is the former DA for the City and County of San Francisco and is, following the retirement announcement, is running for the US Senate to replace Barbara Boxer. Unless someone truly spectacular shows up (hard to imagine…) I plan to vote for Harris to be a Senator. Harris is pretty good.

  • whheydt

    Re: Anna Elizaberth @ #14…

    I wouldn’t express it quite that way (but I certainly don’t object to your doing so), but even as a straight, while male I wouldn’t consider signing such a petition and might add a few pithy remarks about anyone with the sheer gall to ask.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Anna Elizabeth “Fuck *all* of you funny, funny freethinking assholes, right in your funny fucking freethinking necks.”

    You leave our necks out of this!

     

    gridlore “It’s perfectly legal, and not often granted. You see it mainly in kook cases like the guy who sued Ronald Reagan for stealing the idea of multiplication tables from him.”

    Plus he stole the idea of selling weapons to Iran then using the profits to fund rightwing guerillas in Central America from me. Luckily, he forgot about the whole thing. Everybody did.

  • http://artk.typepad.com ArtK

    I read someone’s hypothesis that the purpose of this initiative was to give Westboro-like assholes an excuse to stand around harassing people, Sorry, “collecting signatures.”

    @whheydt

    The ironic thing is that the California initiative process is now used by large business interests to make an end-run around the legislature. They’ve just moved their manipulation from a group that can be swayed by money to a group that can be swayed by emotion. I’ve taken to telling the people gathering signatures that unless they can tell me who’s paying for them (and not some front group like “Protect Our Children”), they get nothing from me. As of now, none has been able to answer my simple question.

    The emotional manipulation in how the signature petitions are presented is depressing. “Don’t you want to help the children?” is a typical one. Which means that it’s likely either anti-vax, more homeschool exemptions from oversight or privatization of the schools. Or some combination of these. We’ve had dueling initiatives to “reform insurance.” Funny thing, though, at least one was written by the insurance industry lobby. We all know how their reforms would end up helping consumers.

    @Anna Elizabeth

    WTF? What does this farce of an initiative have to do with freethinking? Why did this trigger your particular hate of freethinkers?

  • Synfandel

    @11 Raging Bee: “It’s unconstitutional, therefore it’s null and void regardless of how many signatures or votes it gets in its favor.”

    True, this proposal is plainly and obviously unconstitutional—and shockingly hateful. The problem—with sincere and heart-felt sympathy to Anna Elizabeth—is that it sets a precedent for future not-so-clear-cut questions about the constitutionality of other referendum proposals and opens the issue of who gets to decide their constitutionality and on what basis. The referendum process needs some legal fine-tuning to prevent this sort of outrage while protecting the direct democracy objective of the process.

    The attorney general represents the state; it arguably should not be within her purview to make that call entirely on her own. Perhaps the AG should have the authority, at her discretion, to suspend the 30-day review long enough to refer a referendum proposal to a legally competent council of advisors or to a designated judge for an assessment of its constitutionality, and to reject any proposal that is determined by the arm-length professional authority to be unconstitutional. That is, she should perhaps have the clear legal authority to do exactly what she has gone ahead and done in this case.

  • Hoosier X

    Where’s dukedog?

    I want to find out how the Democrats are the real homophobes.

  • marcus

    Anna Elizaberth @ #14 You’ll note that only one commenter was trying to be funny, you are welcome of course to despise his “jokes”. We all do, partly because of his bizarre and inappropriate sense of humor, but mostly because he funnier than all the rest of us combined.

    Rest assured that none of think this referendum, and this asshole’s desire to kill our LGBT brothers and sisters is “funny” by any stretch of the imagination. It doesn’t mean, however, that our response to it can’t be arch (or in MO’s case over-the top ridiculous).

  • Synfandel

    Yes, Anna Elizabeth lashed out at us rather broadly. Let’s try to show some sympathy. Matthew McLaughlin’s heinous proposal directly threatens to kill her and people like her. She implies that she has PTSD. It’s not surprising that such a horrendously malicious threat should trigger a very deep emotional response from her. Some of us, including Ed and I, have questioned whether the AG should have dismissed the proposal—or whether she had the legal authority to dismiss it, and some of us have, as we routinely do at DftCW, treated the topic in hand lightly and with humour. I speculate that it may have felt to Anna Elizabeth that we were defending the proposal and/or making light of what is for her an existential threat. I”m sure were not, but whether we were or were not doing so, I’m willing to give her angry outburst a pass and wish I could give her a hug.

  • marcus

    Yes Anna Elizabeth, we appreciate your contributions, even when you smack us!

    *hugs*

  • marcus

    Another point I would like to make;

    This “referendum” make as much (or less) sense as one seeking to make it legal to decapitate or otherwise euthanize anyone over fifty. If there was a proposal that advocated that type of action would you still think that Harris was possibly incorrect to quash this kind of murderous idiocy?

  • colnago80

    Re Anna Elizabeth @ #14

    I agree that there is nothing funny about this asshole’s proposed initiative and that Modus’ attempt at humor was, perhaps, inappropriate. However, most of the time his sarcastic approach to nonsense is on the money, much like Stephen Colbert.

  • raven

    “The Batshit Insane Ballot Proposal to Permit the Murder of Gay People”

    There are a lot of possibilities here.

    The Matthew McGloughlin Act to Enable Crimes Against Humanity.

    The Christian Sharia Act to Demonstrate Their Complete Moral Bankruptcy.

    The Family Research Council Hate Dream of Pointless Mass Murder Act.

    The Mormon/Catholic/Fundie Christian’s New Dark Age Death Camps Act.

    If this is what their religion is about, they should be proud to own the referendum.

  • sharonb

    Seems beyond unconstitutional to me. This is solicitation to engage in criminal behavior -murder. I am surprised it got as far as it did.

  • John Pieret

    “is that it sets a precedent for future not-so-clear-cut questions about the constitutionality of other referendum proposals”

    Actually, it sets a precedent that courts can decide matters of constitutinality … oh, wait … we already knew that!

  • Anna Elizabeth

    Yes, Assholes, I comprehend that Modus is doing over-the-top Rightwinger, but he’s also the asshole who told me on another thread that I should be greatful that 1 Xtain is behaving like a human being, and on the whole I’m really. *really* fucking tired of “Freethinking” SkepDick males, especially straight white makes, that are so full of fucking idiot advice about this shit.

    I think even a fucking worthless troll like Dukedog is worth more than all SkepDick males put together. You are all so smug, so full of useless tone-trolling advice, and you all pretty much mach me want to retch.

  • whheydt

    Re: sharonb @ #28….

    IT didn’t get anywhere. The requirement was to file papers with the AG’s office and pay the filing fee. The *immediate* response was to find a way to quash it. And that’s what Harris succeeded in doing.

    Re: ArtK @ #19…

    I agree that big business is the, current, worst abuser of the system, though that is followed closely by “single issue” groups with an axe to grind.

  • Michael Heath

    sharonb writes:

    Seems beyond unconstitutional to me. This is solicitation to engage in criminal behavior -murder.

    So it’s consistent with biblical morality. Sometimes we must act with grace and other times we must slaughter the innocent. Both are moral because the biblical god claims they’re moral as channeled by conservative Christians in the heat of each convenient moment. With no regard on when such assertions contradicts another moment.

    It reminds me of conservative Christians who claim their institutional hate, bigotry, and abuse of gay people can’t be bigotry because the Bible tells them to act the way they do. The Bible actually demands they act far worse; but liberals have enough political power to prohibit conservative Christian ids from controlling all public policy.

    As to the Constitution, this is the same constitution used to defend slavery while simultaneously claiming equal protection under the law (at least at the federal level from the moment of initial ratification).

  • sigurd jorsalfar

    The state of California evidently doesn’t trust its people to overwhelmingly reject that proposal.

    Why does the state need to waste its time trusting people to overwhelmingly reject a proposal that is patently unconstitutional on its face? Are you really able to look a gay person in the eye and say ‘sure it’s patently unconstitutional but you have to put up with the campaigning for this proposal because you have to trust people to vote overwhelmingly not to kill you’?

  • grumpyoldfart

    @ #30

    We know you don’t mean it.

  • John Pieret

    Anna Elizabeth:

    I know I may be made to regret this but …

    Modus’ clear objective is to make wingnuts look as bad as possible, which he succeeds at spectacularly. Your example is proof of that.

    I’m not quite sure what “tone-trolling” you are talking about but some people (wrong headily in this lawyer’s opinion) suggested that the initiative procedure should have gone forward because … reasons. In point of fact, the court was correct in my opinion to say, in effect, that expending taxpayer funds to do anything with this initiative is a gross injustice to all LGBT people.

    I apologize that anyone here. myself included, has caused you pain.

  • llewelly

    With great power, comes great responsibility.

    Just because someone is funny, does *not* mean it’s ok for them to joke about whatever they like. On the contrary, the better a comedian someone is, the more responsibility they have to avoid jokes which injure.

  • John Pieret

    llewelly:

    Just because someone is funny, does *not* mean it’s ok for them to joke about whatever they like.

    I can sort of agree with that (but don’t tell Mel Brooks!). But, especially on the internet, it isn’t always possible to tell who a joke might personally hurt. Modus is clearly among the good guys, despite any occasional misstep.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    colnago80 “I agree that…Modus’ attempt at humor was, perhaps, inappropriate.”

    “Perhaps inappropriate”? “Perhaps“?!!!

     

    Anna Elizabeth “Yes, Assholes, I comprehend that Modus is doing over-the-top Rightwinger…”

    Really? That doesn’t sound like me. Mostly I just compare people to East-Asian perennial climbing vines. One time I tried comparing someone to a ficus, but it just wasn’t the same.

     

    “…but he’s also the asshole who told me on another thread that I should be greatful that 1 Xtain is behaving like a human being…”

    Anna Elizabeth says

    June 10, 2015 at 11:26 am

    “This is nice and all, but I’m not ready to celebrate one Xtian behaving like a human being.”

     

    Modusoperandi says

    June 10, 2015 at 11:37 am

    “Anna Elizabeth, be more sunshine, less rain. It’s one less who is a dick.” (via Prominent Evangelical Preacher Endorses Marriage Equality)

    Reading that over again, it’s become clear to me that I owe you an apology. I’m History’s Worst Monster.

     

    “…and on the whole I’m really. *really* fucking tired of ‘Freethinking’ SkepDick males, especially straight white makes,”

    Really? What if we have this giant bowl of your favorite kind of ice cream right here that we couldn’t possibly finish all by ourselves, and we just happen to have an extra spoon?

     

    “that are so full of fucking idiot advice about this shit.”

    [Curtain parts, Annie walks on stage]

    Annie: “The sun will come out tomorrow! Bet your bottom dollar that tomorrow…there’ll be sun…”

    Anna Elizabeth [from audience]: “Booo! No, I won’t bet my bottom dollar! Booo! The sun will not come out tomorrow! Booo! How dare you say such a thing! Booo!”

    [Annie runs off stage, crying]

     

    Nice going, Anna Elizabeth! You made fictional-Annie-in-my-head cry!

  • Anna Elizabeth

    Obviously, the mistake I’ve made was forgetting to ask SkepDick asshole men if I’m allowed to have any feelings over being emotionally abused, harassed by religious people, and Y’know, receiving stares, threats, and slut-shaming for being myself.

    Fuck *all* of you. Thank you for the reminder that SkepDick men are just as much my enemy as any religious asshole, and for reminding me that religious assholes at least don’t pretend.

    Seriously, if the day comes when they regularly threaten straight white males, I am going to laugh so fucking hard.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    John Pieret “Modus’ clear objective is to make wingnuts look as bad as possible, which he succeeds at spectacularly.”

    “Spectacularly”? “Succeeds”?” That doesn’t sound like me at all.

     

    “Modus is clearly among the good guys, despite any occasional misstep.”

    “Misstep”? “Occasional”? Sheesh!

     

    llewelly “Just because someone is funny, does *not* mean it’s ok for them to joke about whatever they like. On the contrary, the better a comedian someone is, the more responsibility they have to avoid jokes which injure.”

    My first comment was punching in, at the speaker (the speaker being me, Conservative Christian, Patriot, Values Voter and Moron), not down, at the speakee (homosexuals).

    My second comment said, in essence, that The Gays love to party. Which they do. Even the ones that say they don’t, do. It’s like a Pride Parade that never ends. Hellish, really. After a while, they’re screaming over the music, begging someone, anyone, to stop the float, scrambling off the sides in desperation, only to get crushed by the wheels of the float behind it, but the floats won’t stop. They can’t. It’s a party.

  • Quantum Mechanic

    Well, this is a lovely little train-wreck, isn’t it?

  • John Pieret

    Spectacularly”? “Succeeds”?” That doesn’t sound like me at all.

    Except to us who get at least one laugh a day …

    “Misstep”? “Occasional”?

    Okay, I’m willing to negotiate hoe many missteps you make …

  • huxley

    In Montana, the State Supreme Court has engaged in “pre-election judicial review” of proposed legislative referenda and I believe citizen initiatives too. The practice is certainly questionable given I can’t imagine that a court would consider ruling on the constitutionality of a bill not yet submitted to an executive for signature, but there is at least precedent from a sister state (and perhaps elsewhere) for how this California court dealt with a facially-defective referendum proposal. See e.g.

    http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=mlr

  • leni

    Reading that over again, it’s become clear to me that I owe you an apology. I’m History’s Worst Monster.

    That was a cheap, hack shot and you know it. You know who that sounds like? An unironic Andrew “Dice” Clay. Bad.

    Normally I think you’re pretty hilarious, but dude, maybe step off. It’s not working right now and that doesn’t belong in anyone else’s lap but yours. Your joke, you move it along. Or not.

  • whheydt

    Re: huxley @ #43…

    Is the Montana court doing so on it’s own, or is it responding to a request from the executive branch to look at referenda?

    Bear in mind that in the California case, for all practical purposes, the AG looked at the petition and concluded that (a) it was unconstitutional on the face of it, and (b) she had no legal authority on her own to do anything other than process it. As a result, she *asked* a court to rule that it shouldn’t go any further. This strikes me as an excellent way to handle the situation. Not only does it stop such measures in their tracks, but it also permits those wanting the measure on the ballot to present a case that the process should go forward. Granted, in this case, the petition originator didn’t avail himself of the chance to fight the AGs request, but the opportunity was there. Whether or not he could (or would like to) appeal at this point will depend on court processes. However, this was a “due process” exercise.

  • leni

    PS I just want to add that normally I think you get it right. Everyone poops and everyone fucks up, it’s true.

    Also I won’t laugh if anyone murders you unless they say something legitimately funny :)

  • huxley

    Re: whheydt @ 45 . . .

    In the case at the heart of the law review article linked to, it was a group of citizens who filed for declaratory judgment. I believe, like you’ve suggested as was the situation for the CA AG, the MT AG was statutorily-prohibited from reviewing for substantive defects should the proposed referendum be approved in a popular vote. Based on what little I can gleam from the excerpt posted above, it sounds like the CA AG didn’t necessarily review for substantive defects, but rather like the citizen plaintiffs in the MT case, filed for a declaration that the proposal was constitutionally defective on its face. I agree with your position that this was an excellent means to address the situation, but it does pose the problem of empowering courts to review proposed referenda prior to any enactment with the related separation of powers issues. There is a strong argument for avoiding wasteful expenditure of resources for facially-flawed proposed laws, but I believe there is also a valid argument in preserving the right of citizens to at least voice their opinions. Again, I point to a scenario where a legislature has passed a constitutionally defective bill and a court steps in to strike it down before its been signed into law by an executive. For whatever it’s actually worth in the final judicial analysis, I believe there is a presumption of constitutionality for enacted laws which isn’t available in pre-election judicial review. This presumption of constitutionality can sometimes rescue an otherwise sound law allowing a court to read poor drafting in a more favorable light. Granted, depending on one’s view of a proposed law in question, this too presents a double-edged sword. Again, I agree with the outcome here in CA, but its the process that presents some concern for me.

  • John Pieret

    Anna Elizabeth:

    Obviously, the mistake I’ve made was forgetting to ask SkepDick asshole men if I’m allowed to have any feelings over being emotionally abused, harassed by religious people, and Y’know, receiving stares, threats, and slut-shaming for being myself.

    I’m really trying hard to see where anyone has denied your right to have feelings over being emotionally abused, and harassed by religious people. Other than Modus’ satire, which was intended to convey the opposite message, and some ignorant chatter about the California referendum procedure, I haven’t seen anyone who said your pain wasn’t justified. The notion that Egnore, no matter what our faults, is better than the people here is just wrong.

    Seriously, if the day comes when they regularly threaten straight white males, I am going to laugh so fucking hard.

    Not that all males here are straight or white, but do you think the Xians don’t threaten us white (more or less straight) males too? It isn’t a “contest” as to who is most threatened. We are all in this together. As Benjamin Franklin supposedly said “Yes, we must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately,”

    Can we asshole men be more sensitive? Certainly1 And thank you for reminding us to do so.

  • Anna Elizabeth

    Do you *really* think this is the only thread, or the only Blog, where I’ve had mansplaining, tone trolling, and the rest of this SkepDick circle-jerk?

    Seriously, you are all worthless, liabilities, assholes, and fools.

    Fucking worthless SkepDick men, may you all suffer and die alone, I sincerely hope you all do.

  • John Pieret

    Anna Elizabeth:

    I’m sorry, I and the people here can only be responsible for what is said here, not what’s said at other sites. Maybe if you spent more time here … but then again maybe not.

    I and, I dare to say, every regular here, wishes you well! And please feel free to come back … there are no hard feelings.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    leni “That was a cheap, hack shot and you know it.”

    Leni, if you knew me at all you’d know that I remain firmly in a state of non-self awareness. Aside from my devastating handsomeness, cutting wit, flowing mane of rich, lustrous hair, and a goodly high level of smartlines, my defining characteristic, indeed, the trait for which I am best known, is my total, blissful unawareness of me.

     

    “You know who that sounds like? An unironic Andrew “Dice” Clay. Bad.”

    You know I love you like a sister, but you make no sense. And I’m not just saying that to get in to a fight with someone with whom I generally agree, because I’m already scratched up from a fight with someone with whom I generally agree. It itches terribly. I have to wear oven mitts to stop myself from scratching. Have you ever tried typing with oven mitts on?

     

    “Normally I think you’re pretty hilarious…”

    Ah hah! So you admit you’ve got bad taste!

     

    “…but dude, maybe step off. It’s not working right now and that doesn’t belong in anyone else’s lap but yours. Your joke, you move it along. Or not.”

    I’m happy to step away from this. Frankly, this conflict with Anna Elizabeth is more than a little bizarre. And more than a little bizarre is a lot bizarre. There. I said it. It’s like that time Lucy seemed sad and angry and hurt, so I offered her a positive thought and also some of my ice cream, but she swatted it away and also burned down my house, which I think we can agree is, perhaps, to some small degree somewhat of an mild overreaction, particularly as I was in the house at the time. Still, I tried to make the best of it, by roasting marshmallows. And then she swatted those away, too. And then you came in and said I roasted marshmallows like an unironic Andrew Dice Clay. And that hurt. But do you know what hurt me the most? The fire.

  • sabrekgb
  • Lady Mondegreen

    Mental illness does not excuse assholism.

  • dingojack

    Isn’t it sensible to ask a court if a proposed change to the law* is – well you know — constitutional?

    Is saves on all those ‘black-robed tyrants’ later on.

    Dingo

    ———

    * especially one proposed by ordinary people, who may not be familiar with all the technical details of Constitutional Law

  • Anri

    Well, if there was any question as to Modus’ stand on “breaking kayfabe” vs. “mighty actually be hurting someone” spectrum, we’ve got our answer now.

    Thank goodness, too. If there’s anything organized skepticism needs now, it’s more smug ironic ‘humor’ and a hell of a lot less willingness to listen to someone who’s feeling marginalized. Fedoras all ’round! (Or at least among those still sufficiently unemotional to deserve such a prestigious badge!)

  • marcus

    @ ^ We all listened, many tried to help. Thank you for your smug and condescending judgement.

  • Synfandel

    …and some ignorant chatter about the California referendum procedure…

    “Chatter”? “Some”?

  • marcus

    dingo # 54 There must be some middle ground between opinions like Raging Bee’s absolute antipathy and dismissal of having any voter sponsored referendums at all and idiotic, abusive and bullshit proposals like the one being discussed.

    Personally I am tired at having to vote on the fucking “personhood” every goddamn year. Every cycle it is defeated by a margin of 80 % to 20% and every cycle it reappears, stupider than ever. Still I think medical and recreational cannabis legalization is an overall good thing and never would have happened if we had waited on the legislators.

    I think having a “crackpot” exclusion is a good thing, especially if the referendum in question supports crimes against humanity or continually appear and are defeated on the ballot.

  • dingojack

    Marcus – so that’s a (qualified) ‘yes it is sensible’ then?

    What would be the counter argument to allowing judicial review for constitutionality*?

    Dingo

    ——–

    * that is reviewing for errors in law, not errors in facts or intent…

  • Doug Little

    Modus,

    Frankly, this conflict with Anna Elizabeth is more than a little bizarre.

    I agree with that, I guess I don’t understand her hostility and I am having a hard time based on the track record of the comments here how we have maligned her, it’s obviously been brewing for quite some time but Dispatches has always stood up for equality for everybody.

  • marcus

    I would not use the word bizarre because (unless I was talking about MO) because that is a personal judgement.

    Anna Elizabeth made a reference to PTSD, if she suffers from that condition, it is possible, perhaps even likely, that any conversation along these lines could have been deeply disturbing for her. At any rate I think that she needs our understanding, not our judgement.

  • whheydt

    Re: marcus @ #58…

    One compromise would be to bar a measure on the same topic for some period of time, say, 5 years (to pick an arbitrary example). Even then, a “circuit breaker” option would be an idea. Perhaps if an “untimely” measure is put forth, it would have to either gather significantly more signatures than usual or both gather signatures and pass the state legislature (though for the later, I’d suggest that such a measure would need no more than a simple majority, and quite possibly less than that).

  • marcus

    @^ Good ideas I hadn’t thought of. Thanks.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @Anna Elizabeth

    Fucking worthless SkepDick men, may you all suffer and die alone, I sincerely hope you all do.

    Ok, now you crossed a line. I wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemies. I wouldn’t wish that even on Hitler. I have no desire to see anyone suffer needlessly. This is childish lashing out. Yes, this is a straight white male “denying” some of your feelings. I assert that your feelings of hatred and wishes to inflict needless suffering are not justifiable, and your gestures here are simply counter-productive, both for us and for yourself. Studies show that lashing out generally makes you angrier in the long-term. Lashing out is not a general good practice to improving your emotional well-being.

    I hope you get better, and I wish you the best.

  • Azkyroth, B*Cos[F(u)]==Y

    A counterargument, presented by Mark Joseph Stern at Slate within the past week or so (and I’m paraphrasing) is that there’s something inherently demeaning about treating this the same way you’d treat any other proposed legislation: that simply acting as though the lives and rights of gay people should be subject to public referendum is discriminatory and inappropriate.

    Yeah, but just like the fuckheads who insist we should all tolerate internet trolls threatening to rape and murder female commenters on the grounds of “free speech” and “open-minded honest inquiry” and “not being an echo chamber”, the people whinging about “bad precedents” here aren’t affected.

  • Anri

    marcus @ 56:

    We all listened, many tried to help. Thank you for your smug and condescending judgement.

    You are correct, and I apologize.

    My comments should have been limited to Modus, and not encompassed the other folks here, that was deeply unfair.

    Sorry ’bout that.