Ballot Initiatives

'Kill All Gays' Law Proposed in California—Crazy or Trolling?

Lawyer prepares initiative; state may have to let him collect signatures.


"Stop them before they kiss again!"

What exactly to make of the proposed "Sodomite Suppression Act"? This ballot initiative wasn't introduced in some African country, the Middle East, or in Russia, but right here in California, home of many, many sodomites. A lawyer by the name of Matt McLaughlin wants to change the Golden State's penal code to make homosexual behavior a capital crime (pdf):

Seeing that it is better that offenders should die rather than that all of us should be killed by God's just wrath against us for the folly of tolerating wickedness in our midst, the People of California wisely command, in the fear of God, that 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.

If the state refuses to enforce this law, it says the general public is "empowered and deputized to execute all the provisions hereunder extra-judicially, immune from any charge and indemnified by the state from any and all liability." It's so bonkers and evil that it almost comes full circle to be utterly hilarious, like Marvin the Martian threatening to destroy Earth. Mind you, the location is what makes it funny. Legislation like this would be exceedingly dangerous elsewhere in the world. But in California, even if this guy actually starts collecting signatures (that will make for some interesting encounters in parking lots) and it ends up on the ballot, the initiative could never be implemented, as it is blatantly unconstitutional.

California's ballot initiative system, though, does not appear to be able to stop him from moving forward with his proposal and signature-gathering, even knowing full well it will never be implemented. From the Sacramento Bee:

[T]he measure is likely to proceed to the signature-gathering stage. At the moment, its fate rests with state Attorney General Kamala Harris, who is charged with writing a title and summary for the proposal. Legal experts say she has little choice but to let the process continue and that McLaughlin is unlikely to face professional repercussions.

Over the years, the $200 price tag for submitting an initiative has enabled California political activists to draft and submit thousands of orphan causes: eliminating divorce, requiring public schools to offer Christmas caroling, making criminals of those who lie during political campaigns.

Carol Dahmen, a media consultant in Sacramento who started the petition to disbar McLaughlin, argues that this one is different. Along with disbarment, Dahmen wants to draw attention to reforming the system, calling McLaughlin the "poster boy of what is still wrong with the initiative process."

"It's an interesting discussion about free speech, and I get that," Dahmen said. "But this is a lawyer, and he's advocating for murder."

The issue is who should make the call that a ballot initiative is illegal. As an elected official embroiled in state politics, letting the attorney general make that choice could create serious problems in less clear-cut situations. As it stands, Harris has been criticized (and sued) for writing slanted summaries of ballot initiatives that affected the possibility of their passage. It may have to be up to a judge to make the call, if needed.

It has also drawn attention to how easy it is to file a ballot initiative in California compared to how much it costs the state to manage them. It costs $200 to file an initiative but an estimated $8,000 to deal with those early administrative costs, which should be a red flag about how expensive our government is, but is instead being pushed as a reason to increase the fee to file. This would disincentivize frivolous filings, but would also make it harder for smaller, less-connected groups (but not for bigger special interest groups, obviously). Attempts to raise the filing fee in the past were vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

In the meantime, activists are trying to get McLaughlin disbarred. Whether McLaughlin is actually going to try to get this initiative passed is unclear (the Sacramento Bee could not reach him and his voice mail is full). People do file ballot initiatives in California and then never actually attempt to gather signatures to get them on the ballot.

Promise me you'll avenge me if it passes and the mob shows up on my doorstep.

NEXT: The Democrats Have a New Warren/De Blasio, and He's Awful (UPDATED)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Check your calendar, guys. April 1st is still 12 days in the future.

    1. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing

  2. I’d like to see it on the ballot. Not because I want it to pass. I think it’s horrible, and the person even thinking of this should be kicked in the testicles repeatedly.

    No, I want to see this on the ballot to see how many “progressive” African-Americans would vote for it, just like with Proposition 8 back in ’08.

    1. Because assassinating gay people is just the same as recognizing same-sex unions but refusing to call them “marriages”?

      1. Or does it mean that black people are inherently murderous?

      2. It’s not at all. But hey it’d be worth it so see if a nonzero percentage of voters pull for this. Of course it would turn the ballot into hatespeech and an infinitude of triggers.

        1. I will assume that you can always get a 5% vote for anything – I doubt it will go much higher than that.

      3. And this, people is a textbook example of butt-hurt socon fanaticism. People are talking about a law to legalize genocide (or whatever) against gay people and Eddie has to whine about how someone, somewhere was forced to bake a cake.

        1. I understood him to mean that this guy (if he’s for real) doesn’t represent most people who think homosexuality is immoral.

        2. That’s not at all what he said, Tonio. He’s saying people who are against gay marriage would overwhelmingly reject this kind of law. You’re reading something into it that’s not there.

          1. “He’s saying people who are against gay marriage would overwhelmingly reject this kind of law.”


        3. Is it socons? I don’t see much about McLaughin’s views in the article. I find it likely that it is someone trolling the initiative process in order to get that changed and would therefore likely be a Dem (as they are in ful control of the legislature and executive and hate intiative capability of making an end run around them).

          1. I was referring to Eddie.

        1. *smooches*

    2. I know what you are saying, but who says blacks are progressive? They are just solidly Democratic as voters. Like union members, who are also not terribly progressive in general, but know who butters their bread.

  3. I don’t think he’s going to get the signatures to get it on the ballot. This is about as worrisome as your average YouTube comment.

  4. I propose a ballot initiative making everyone in California gay. Or at least try-sexual.

    1. I would love these to appear on the same ballot.

      1. The Final Solution to the California problem!

    2. I propose a ballot initiative to end California suffrage.

      1. I propose a ballot initiative to end California suffrage.


      2. I propose a ballot initiative to end Californians’ suffering at the hands of one party rule.

  5. “It’s an interesting discussion about free speech, and I get that,” Dahmen said. “But this is a lawyer, and he’s advocating for murder.”

    I don’t think he gets the free speech part.

    And it wouldn’t technically be murder if the law passes, now would it?

    1. Yes it would.

      The positive law can’t overrule “the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” by which murder (yes, including murder of gays) is illegal.

      1. Got it Eddie.

        Genocide is bad. But denying equal protection under the law is hunky-dory.

        Some rights are are okay, but just not the same ones straight folks get.

        1. There you go again, assuming your conclusion as a premise.

            1. Yes, that is proof you become a spittle-flecked rage monster incapable of rational argument when your sacred cows are gored.

              1. Yeah, admission requires an in-depth argument.

                He’s a pig, by his own admission.

                1. “He’s a pig, by his own admission.”

                  Just call me Officer Eddie!

        2. Again, if you want a date, just ask him, champ. The stalking is creepy as fuck.

        3. Huh? When he says that gays should be given the same right not be put to death that straights enjoy, this is denying them “the same [rights] straight folks get”?

          1. No, he freely admits to wanting government to restrict gays because he believes them inferior.

            Eddie…last night:

            Oh, and I wouldn’t have the government giving out certificates to same-sex couples implicitly attesting that such couples are equivalent in all respects to opposite-sex couples.

      2. Where are the laws of nature written down, and which of these is the nature god to whom you refer?

        1. The only reason it’s wrong to kill someone, rob their house and fuck their corpse is because gubmint says so


          1. That’s the only reason you’ll end up in prison for doing so. Why it’s wrong is a more difficult question, with “because it feels wrong” being as good an explanation as most. Just don’t tell me “because Xochiquetzal says so.” That’s big government on a cosmic scale.

  6. I didn’t realize Mr. Shackford was gay.

    Do I need to hand over my Cis-Card? Because I generally like his articles and agree with his points and, as we’ve been told, the written word is powerful enough to physically affect readers.

    Hmm. I suppose I’ll lose several Privileges and become a Protected Class, so that’s a positive.

    This is just like playing Munchkin.

    On a serious note: Another good article.

    1. What I said about Eddie, above. Only with more bile, spleen and contempt.

      1. Oh, shit, bypassed the “on a serious note” part. Sorry.

        I tend to go a bit off when people talk about doing genocide on my people.

        1. Worry not, Tonio.

          I know how you take these issues very personally because I’ve read your comments before.

          If you had not caught the “serious note” part and thus not apologized I probably would have responded with something akin to “Tonio, haven’t you read enough of my posts to have the sense that, although I can be a sarcastic jerk, I’m not much of a bigot?”

          By the way, I liked the economy of your original response.

          1. Standard format here is reply first comprehend later. You can’t fault a guy for following the rules.

            Well, you can…

            1. Oh, that’s right. It’s on Form Twenty-Seven B stroke Six in the User Guide.

              Where would we be if we didn’t stick to the correct procedures?

          2. Thanks for being so gracious, Charles.

            I’ve recently come to realize that other people here have a much better ability to remember the characteristics of individual posters here than do I. I’m fairly certain where long-time regulars like Sug, Epi, Fist, Warty, RC and of course Eddie are coming from, but for most of the rest of you I have to constantly ask myself “is he being sarcastic, or is he for real?”

            Thanks also for the compliment.

            1. I need to return to my habit of using “/sarc” since not everyone “knows” my nature and I’m relatively new here.

              1. No, it’s me, really. Several times recently I’ve been told here, by people I trust to be honest, that “everyone knows so-and-so posts from such-and-such a position,” and I was clueless about that. Except for the truly obvious cases like Eddie and his Catholicism, I’m really clueless about most of you.

                That sarc tag might help the noobs out, though.

    2. You didn’t? He’s like the official Reason gay dude. And also a generally good writer/reporter.

      1. I really didn’t, Zeb. Not that I care. Its articles like his that keep me returning to Reason.

        Okay, that and some of the comments.

        Okay, and Lobster Girl too.

      2. Does he have some kind of official Reason Gay Dude business cards? Does he do weddings and bar mitzvahs?

  7. Wonkette says a Calif. ballot initiative needs 365,880 signatures.

    I doubt this loony will reach the 100-signature mark.

    1. I dunno. That may get my signature if only for the lulz.

    2. I’d sign it. California deserves stuff like this.

      EPIC trolling. McLaughlin is my new hero.

  8. Over the years, the $200 price tag for submitting an initiative has enabled California political activists to draft and submit thousands of orphan causes

    Libertarians everywhere are listening with rapt attention.

  9. King James justice is a hard cock to swallow.

  10. Westboro Baptist Churching is probably a decently profitable scam. You can’t really blame a guy for trying to fleece some marks.

    1. Very profitable. They’re all lawyers for a reason.

      1. Surely their little scam has all but exhausted its revenue generating potential.

  11. Alt Alt Text: “You have made me VERY angry!”

    *shoots death ray at teh gaiz*

  12. No, he’s not trolling.

    He just wants to get people to sign his ‘murder the gay’ petition and then publish that list of names for the edification of the humor-friendly and open-minded Internet.

  13. I wonder if proposing this ballot initiative counts as a credible threat of violence.

  14. Bob Hope left California about the same time the state decriminalized sodomy. He joked he was glad he left before they made it mandatory.

  15. My first reaction: This has to be agent provocateur.

    Second take, when the Republicans are so depleted that they’ve completely lost the support of the average voter, all you have left is the radicals–abandon all hope.

    The Republican National Committee might consider decertifying the California GOP and make a deal with the LP in California to be their new GOP.

      1. Well, he’s got at least three votes.

  16. Obviously a major issue that requires an opinion from Scott Walker and Rand Paul.

      1. We need to add Robot Millennials.

        I hear that they can send people back in time to save passengers and crew from dying in airplane crashes.

          1. +1 Kris Kristofferson

            +1 Cheryl Ladd

            1. I’m impressed with you both – I wasn’t confident anyone would know what I was typing about.

              “It is not the end. It is not the beginning of the end. It is the end of the beginning.”

  17. The logistics have me a bit confused. What type of proof would one need? Would they have to show that they brought the accused to the attention of authorities before taking the individual option? How do you avoid making it a blanket excuse to off somebody? How will the public get the firearms required to exercise the individual option in California? Why does this have me writing like the Judge?

  18. But remember, people, there is no actual animus towards gay people, outside of Westboro. And anyone who claims there is is just a paranoid victim-monger.

    1. Given that there’s a very good chance this guy isn’t being serious and there are approximately 15 people in the state of California who would support this initiative, I think it is paranoid to think there are very many people who actually want to kill gays.

      1. ” I think it is paranoid politically opportunistic to think exaggerate the number of there are very many people who actually want to kill gays.”

        Did you know 1 in 4 women are raped in college? True fact. Its a thing

      2. Shh, Tonio is on a roll.

      3. “I think it is paranoid to think there are very many people who actually want to kill gays.”

        And when you do find them, they make everyone know how psycho they are by pushing gay people off tall buildings in backwards societies where they can get away with it. They don’t calmly and orderly start petitions in a place where no one agrees with them. That behavior screams troll.

    2. I think you are being a paranoid victim-monger. This isn’t a serious proposition. As others have noted, it is either a tool to play “gotcha” for the petition signees, or more likely a push to get the referendum system in California to be disbanded.

      1. I agree it’s got to be trolling. Just to be on the safe side, I think I’ll stay out of California, though….

      2. Except that 400 years ago sodomy was punishable by death in some of the colonies which later became the original 13 states. Except that they are still executing people for sodomy in Saudi Arabia and Iran. Etc.

        Think what you want, EDG. But unless you are a member of a people who have been subject to genocide* you honestly don’t have a clue. And that membership does give one a certain sort of perspective which some might call paranoia. You see this all the time with blacks and jews, and while I am deeply skeptical of their claims, I also understand where they are coming from.

        *Probably not the best word but I’m sticking with this until something better comes along or they definitively determine whether teh gay is genetic, gestational or a choice.

        1. I probably shouldn’t have called you a paranoid victim monger. I get what you mean. But I don’t think this initiative is serious, and as a straight male Californian, I can tell you there is no popular movement to kill gays.

          You do have a point about Saudi Arabia and Iran, etc. As a Jew, I wouldn’t go to either of those countries.

          I think genocide is an acceptable descriptor.

          1. Semi-apology semi-accepted.

            There is no significant, overt movement in 2015 USA to kill the gays. But I don’t want to ignore things like this and then wake up one day with skinheads standing over me, baseball bats at the ready.

            1. Maybe you should stop suing bakers and chapels, and stop trying to shut down companies, stop getting folk fired for not liking you.
              Antipathy is OK, but the Gaystapo is fanning the flames into full-on hatred. It’s called sowing the wind.

        2. Except that 400 years ago sodomy was punishable by death in some of the colonies which later became the original 13 states.

          Tonio, come on. This is the equivalent of telling black people that ‘they want to put you back in chains’. It absolutely is paranoia. Watch as this goes nowhere.

          Now, in terms of actual societies that are continuing these practices and show no willingness to stop, you have a point. But the civilized world isn’t going to suddenly decay back four hundred years, and pretending that it’s all just underlying is indeed paranoid.

          But unless you are a member of a people who have been subject to genocide you honestly don’t have a clue.

          I’ve got a fair bit of Metis background on my mom’s side and regularly deal with reservation folks. Surprisingly we’re not spending all our time terrified the white man is going to show up with more blankets.

          Wait, did I just basically say check your privilege? I need to go lie down…

    3. Of course there is some animus. But very few Americans actually think gays should be killed or imprisoned. Now in parts of the Muslim world, Africa and the Caribbean…

  19. “be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method.”

    I think he gives himself away as a prog in disguise in this last part.
    Gunning someone in the head = “convenient”

  20. Again, in the comments cesspools on any article linked by Drudge, you will find numerous calls to murder all gays or all blacks, and who can say how many people believe it but won’t say it. It’s like watching a fascist movement take shape before your eyes, only with probably more Hoverounds than is historically typical. I’m not saying it’s a serious problem, but you can see the logic develop over time in a positive feedback process. Notice how individual Republican politicians go from fire-breathing rightwingers to RINOs over an term or two? If being radical is good, then being more radical is better.

    1. …only with probably more Hoverounds than is historically typical.

      You made me laugh. Dammit, Tony now I hate you just a little less. 🙂

    2. “Notice how individual Republican politicians go from fire-breathing rightwingers to RINOs over an term or two? If being radical is good, then being more radical is better.”

      This is one of the MANY problems with the standard Right-Versus-Left political spectrum paradigm. The idea that killing gays would be radical anything other than radical evil would not occur to people were it not for this stupid artificial line that winds up in high school civics text books for some reason.

    3. People love to be assholes on the internet.

  21. I can’t believe nobody else had gotten to it yet, but:

    You know who else stirred up popular support for the state mass murder of a subset of people?

      1. You mean back when she was the plaintiff in Roe v Wade, or later when she became an Operation Rescue person?

    1. Shakespeare?

    2. Every state leader ever?

    3. Harry Truman?

    4. Norma Leah McCorvey?

    5. FDR?

      Oh, that was just internment.

      1. You know what other US President had just an internment?

    6. Abraham Lincoln?

      1. *looks in mirror, narrows gaze*

    7. Margaret Sanger?

  22. The Bible’s very clear what the “Christian” method for dealing with homosexuals is supposed to be. Given the numerous evangelicals claiming the bible to be the infallible and unalterable and of God, there’s likely a far larger pool of people who would be in favor of killing homosexuals than most Socons would admit.

    They do want to kill all gays; they just say they don’t because they don’t think they can get away with openly saying what they believe.

    1. Mark 12:31?


      1. Leviticus 20:13

        If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

        1. The “also” implies death for bisexuals but not homosexuals.

          1. Since the Evangelical party line is that they are merely “choosing” to be gay, wouldn’t they all be bisexuals?

            1. I was once an Evangelical and once thought that myself. But the wording (at least in English, I do not know Hebrew) seems to be clear. Only kill men who have sex with both. Interestingly enough, lesbianism and female bisexuality seems to be cool with the God of the Bible.

              1. Proof that God is a dude.

        2. Yes, and during that time period child sacrifice was very common among pagans. So pagans still want to sacrifice children, they just say they don’t because they don’t think they can get away with openly saying what they believe.


          1. Pagans don’t have a book calling for child sacrifice that they claim, to this day, to be the perfect an unalterable word of God.

            If, say, Huckabee or Santorum is willing to publically and clearly denounce the passages in the Bible that call for executing homosexuals: that those passages are wrong, were always wrong, and all people have a moral duty to defy those commands, then I’ll believe they don’t want to kill homosexuals.

            Instead I suspect you’d get a giant cloud of BS from them that dances around the issue without ever directly condemning the passages. Because they don’t actually think those passages are wrong.

            1. “If, say, Huckabee or Santorum is willing to publically and clearly denounce the passages in the Bible that call for executing homosexuals: that those passages are wrong, were always wrong, and all people have a moral duty to defy those commands, then I’ll believe they don’t want to kill homosexuals.”

              Or maybe they don’t need to say that because Christians do not go around killing gay people . Good grief you are dense.

            2. No, they just have the oral tradition of actual paganism demanding human sacrifices to please Wotan/whomever.

            3. Pagans don’t have a book calling for child sacrifice

              Actually, they have several.

              that they claim, to this day, to be the perfect an unalterable word of God.

              But they have nothing like this. Their gods are interactive. What’s the point of a god that has you following things thousands of years out of date?

        3. And anyone who isn’t brain dead realizes the terms of the new covenant supersede the terms of the old.

          1. How do you square that idea with this:

            Matthew 5:17

            New International Version
            “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

            1. How do you square that idea with this

              That the entire work of fiction is loaded with inconsistencies?

              What better to base a religion on? That way you can control the lives of others however you choose and never be wrong.

            2. The rest of that verse is

              “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished”

              He is referring to the prophetic function of the Old Testament law. It doesn’t mean that specific laws would be in tact forever.

              1. If that’s what Jesus meant, why didn’t he say that?

                It meant exactly what it says. Evangelicals just pretend it doesn’t when talking to non-Evangelicals because again, they don’t think they can get away with publically airing their actual beliefs:

                The motte-and-bailey doctrine

                1. I don’t think you know how crazy you sound. FYI, talking about how you know what a group of people secretly believes but never admits to is always going to sound crazy, no matter how solid you think the proof is, if the proof isn’t what they profess to believe.

              2. Well, heaven and earth haven’t disappeared yet, so I guess that means the old law still stands. And Paul never said anything about all the Old Testament laws getting canceled out.

                1. We are getting into definitions here. The law was not the way we define it in this country. It was a covenant between God and his people which was broken and restored through intermittent sacrifices (sheep, goats, etc.), until Jesus paid the ultimate sacrifice. When they say the law is fulfilled, they’re referring to the covenant, not the specific decrees for the Ancient Hebrew community. Those decrees still may reflect underlying morality, but they’re not meant to continue to future governments because those governments do not represent the same relationship.

                  1. decrees still may reflect underlying morality, but they’re not meant to continue to future governments

                    Ah, so homosexuals DESERVE to be murdered, you’re just restraining yourself from giving all the homosexuals the killing they’re begging for.

                    1. I’d correct you, but you must be so miserable worrying about all of the secret mean thoughts that you “know” everyone has, that I almost feel sorry for you.

                    2. I was going to right all the new covenant fulfilling the old stuff until I noticed lap83 was on it.

                      As for Stormy’s paranoia about Christians not saying what they really feel in public, I’ve attended services at an evangelical church a few times before (I was a ringer on their softball team, so I felt obliged to drop by a few times). They absolutely mean what they say about the new covenant fulfilling the old. Precisely why they don’t have the archaic restrictions on tattoos or pork like Jews.

                    3. You’re way off base Stormy. You don’t understand what lap83 is writing, at all.

          2. And anyone who isn’t brain dead realizes the terms of the new covenant supersede the terms of the old.

            Then why are the fundies always on about the old testament. Sorry, you’re either dishonest or ignorant.

            1. Maybe because they’re dishonest or ignorant Tonio.

        4. Just to be clear, I am not a Christian. However, it is my understanding that God sent Jesus Christ to be his final message to Man. So, stuff like Leviticus which is Old Testament although part of the Bible does not apply after JC came to town. Christ’s teaching is about tolerance, and love, and redemption through belief in Christ. JC is cool with the homos, so modern Christians should be too. But yes, there are plenty of examples of modern Christians who are homophobes and that is unfortunate. Because JC and God only care about you and your salvation through belief in Christ.

          1. Yeah, I think that is prety much how it works. Though there are definitely sects of Christianity who are into the Old Testament stuff pretty heavily.

          2. Evangelicals only use the Old Testament when it fits the narrative.

            1. No kidding, thou shalt not kill is waaay too restrictive.

              1. To be fair, I think the original Hebrew was Thou shall not murder. But the point stands. How many of these people who supposedly believe in the OT law eat pork, work on Saturday,wear blue fringe on their clothes, or follow Levitican law regarding skin disease or handling corpses?

          3. Then why is the OT always included at the front of their holy text? If this is what Christians believe, then isn’t the OT heretical fiction? What a bummer to be born before Yahweh decided to do takesy backsy.

            1. I’ve always thought the OT stayed because it contains the creation story. The concept of “original sin”. A handy history of the Isrealites. A good collection of proverbs and psalms. And for the various prophecies which validate JC as the Son of God. But yeah, you also get some bullshit about homosexuals, and laying with animals, and don’t eat shellfish, and other stupid shit.

              1. They should have gone through and used the strike function on the stuff bullshit that no longer applies.

              2. Christianity, like other religions, is a Jenga tower. If one belief is called into question, the whole thing comes tumbling down.

                This is why fundies fight evolution so much. If you can prove the creation never happened, then there is no original sin, no fall, and no need for a savior.

                The only way you can get out of it is by saying that it’s a metaphor, but then what else is also a metaphor? The resurrection?

                Islam has a similar problem. It teaches quite clearly that Muslims have a duty to fight and convert or subjugate non Muslims. There is very little room for other interpretations because the Qur’an repeats often that its words are clear and final.

              3. A handy history of the Isrealites.

                Well, except its historicity is a mess. But again, religious text that’s the product of dozens of authors, can’t expect top tier history.

          4. Matthew 5:17-18

            “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

            1. Yeah you obviously have no clue what that means.

          5. Christ was cool with sinnets but not with sin. Modrtn secularists believe that you cannot be cool with sinners unless you are celebratory of their sin.

            1. There you go.

              “You don’t like my drinking? Why do you hate me!”

              1. As opposed to:

                I don’t approve of your victimless lifestyle, so you don’t get equal protection under the law.

          6. Not to mention that there’s plenty of argument about the inconsistencies between the Old and New Testaments. For example, catharism in the Middle Ages basically went full Gnostic and tried to explain them away by having the Old Testament being a product of an ‘evil God’ while the New is a product of the ‘good God’.

          7. “With fundy Christians, they still want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to condemn and restrict gay people but without having to punish them according to the Bible.”

            Not by the standards of the Enlightened Classes. Consider the infamous hatemongering passage in Matthew 19:4-5:

            “And he answered and said to them, Have you not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a *man* leave *father and mother,* and shall join to his *wife:* and they two shall be one flesh?” [emphasis added]

            Can you see how heteronormative and intolerant and hateful Jesus was being, with his talk of mothers and fathers, husbands and wives?

            1. Oops, I was trying to respond to the remark, “JC is cool with the homos.”

              1. Eddie, this is the sort of conversation that you’d do better to sit out.

        5. So it take it those Christians also want to kill disobedient children based on other quotes from Leviticus? Clearly Christians are secretly planning to murder their children. Or perhaps Christians pick and choose what they follow from the Bible and any claim of it being the ‘unaltered word of God’ (from both Christians or people such as yourself trying to claim that this is what Christians believe) is absurd.

          1. Rick Santorum is openly in favor of criminalizing homosexuality. By his own admission, he thinks society’s response to homosexuals should be to smash down their doors in the middle of the night, beat them into submission, and drag them off to be locked in a cage.

            Is it really that much of a stretch to suggest he might also want to kill them, but just thinks he can’t afford to say that publically?

            1. It’s certainly a stretch when it requires you, Stormy Dragon, to magically know what they’re secretly thinking. It’s entirely possible to criticize the actual positions of individuals rather than make up more radical positions that they obviously must hold.

            2. Rick Santorum is openly in favor of criminalizing homosexuality. By his own admission, he thinks society’s response to homosexuals should be to smash down their doors in the middle of the night, beat them into submission, and drag them off to be locked in a cage.

              While I’m no fan of Santorum, this is very much a citation needed passage.

              1. Excerpt from Santorum interview

                AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?

                SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who’s homosexual. If that’s their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it’s not the person, it’s the person’s actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.

                1. AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

                  SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold ? Griswold was the contraceptive case ? and abortion. And now we’re just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you ? this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it’s my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that’s antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it’s polygamy, whether it’s adultery, where it’s sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

                  1. Yes.
                    I especially liked the part where he said “Go forth and kill the homos”.
                    No wait, he never actually said that.

    2. From wiki:

      In the Epistle to the Romans 1:26-27 (English Majority Text Version, EMTV), Paul writes

      ” For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.….._Testament

    3. Absolutely. And the Koran tells Muslims to smite the necks of unbelievers, so we should assume that they all want to cut our heads off.

  23. Sound fair.


    1. God not talk like caveman, caveman talk like God. Who think made caveman?


    2. You’re not the boss of me.

  24. OT = Ireland experiences almost-total Solar Eclipse

    – No one bothers to mention it to anyone else, assuming that they’d just blacked-out again.

  25. When a religious doctrine becomes too inconvenient, believers are in a bind. The honest thing to do would be to admit that someone made a mistake, but what usually happens is that the come up with a crazy explanation as to why the words do not mean what they say.

    The Mormon church went through this in 1979 when the prophet received a message from god that it was OK for black men to receive the priesthood. Same deal with the polygamy ban in 1890.

    With fundy Christians, they still want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to condemn and restrict gay people but without having to punish them according to the Bible.

    And the very idea that a perfect god has to keep revising his commands seems absurd to me.

    I’m nonreligious and believers have told me they think I nuts. I wish they could see my side of it.

    1. The problem is that religious belief is like a sweater. If you let people pull one string out of the bible, pretty soon the whole thing unravels.

      I actually was Christian until college, and the thing that killed my belief was, ironically, joining a Campus Crusade for Christ bible study. Once I sat down and started reading all the crazy bits that had kind of been skipped over, it was obvious the Bible couldn’t all be right.

      And once you start asking yourself, “well if that’s not right, what else in this book isn’t right?” And once that happens, eventual loss of faith is pretty much inevitable.

      1. Holy Synchronicity, Batman!

      2. +1 Weezer song

    2. “With fundy Christians, they still want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to condemn and restrict gay people but without having to punish them according to the Bible.”

      That would depend on your definition of “condemn and restrict,” which to some people is just a polemical term for “not granting all the political demands of the gay activists.”

      And yes, that includes opposition to public-accomodations laws. If a libertarian steps up publicly to condemn such laws, chances are the activists will scream “HATRED!!!”

      In fact, public-accomodations laws are *more popular* that SSM, as evidenced by events in Utah. Many people who don’t want the government to recognize SSM see public-accomodation laws as a moderate compromise. So it will be hard for libertarians to deal with the charge that they’re such OMG HATERS that they refuse even to give gay people “access” to the only mechanic for miles when their car breaks down in the desert.

      As to mainstream Christians, like mainstream Jews they don’t demand enforcement of the Biblical penalties against sodomy, disrespecting parents, etc. Most Jews make proof impossible, so that the levitical injunctions are basically a “holiness code” outside the reach of human tribunals. Many Christians say Christ fulfilled the law, such that the temporal punishments prescribed in the Old Testament become spiritual punishments to be doled out by the Church.

      1. That would depend on your definition of “condemn and restrict,”

        There is a significant number of Christians who still openly support criminalizing homosexual sodomy. How is that for a definition of “condemn and restrict”?

        1. Yes, that would fit the definition.

          But let’s get real – that’s not what the current debate is about. The current debate is about SSM recognition. And cakes.

          1. But don’t you understand? Unless you compel people to bake cakes, it’s just a few small steps to pushing gays headfirst off the tops of minarets.

      2. I think businesses should be able to refuse service for any reason. I’ve taken a lot of heat elsewhere for defending that view.

        There is this really weird idea that prejudice is so heinous that it justifies nearly any effort to stamp it out.

        1. I would presume that a lot of libertarians are in your position, if they express their views on public accomodations.

          Since public accomodation laws, under our topsy-turvy politics, are considered moderate in comparison to govt-recognized SSM, then libertarians who oppose public accomodation while protesting their support for govt recognition of SSM are in a tough spot. They’ll be accused of straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

          Or they’ll just get called names.

        2. I’m fine with that, provided there’s not a law requiring me to make use of the business. e.g. You can’t pass a law that I’m not allowed to buy birth control pills unless I buy them from a licensed pharmacist and then let the pharmacist refuse to sell me the pills on religious grounds.

          1. Agreed. It’s a good thing pharmacists tend not to be Christian Scientists otherwise no medicine for anybody.

            1. Because there’s a limited number of pharmacist slots, and if Christian Scientists fill them all up, no one else can become a pharmacist.

    3. See, the Mormons can still have revelations because they have a central hierarchy. Catholics can do this, too. Protestants not so much. Also, they’d be suspicious that the person having the revelation was trying to set themselves up as a prophet or pope. I suspect that Islam has this problem, too.

      BTW, liked your Jenga comment above.

  26. Note to self. Avenge Shackford if attacked and killed by crazy California law/mob.

  27. Well, does the first amendment protect grossly offensive speech, or does it not?

  28. Basically, as a lawyer proposing a law he said “I think folk should go forth and kill sodomites”.
    That is incitement to murder, and a homo is within his rights to kill him, in self defense.

    The only people who can get away with speech that is essentially incitement to murder should be stand-up comics, and then only while on the job doing their routine.


    1. Try Sanka.
      Hell, try Prozac, FFS.

      1. ^ That! Or just unlock the Caps key every few days…

  30. I find it hilarious that it uses the PC word “gender” instead of “sex”.

  31. I was thinking like a lot here were, I just would like to see it to see how many voted in favor. It would be interesting.

  32. Ah, right… Ripped From The Headlines… Of The Onion, I presume?!
    So glad I left CA over 9 years ago!

  33. Big Deal – anyone can “lookup” an attorney on the Cal-Bar website.
    […] What is
    REALLY important here is NOT the attorney himself – it’s the idea of
    submitting a nonsense initiative that could never pass muster as law.
    It’s a waste of time for all of us. I wish to STOP this. Help me stop
    this. I am full-up in doing a federal lawsuit and need a few people to
    assist me in filing for an order by the Superior Court Judge here to the
    Cal AG to reject the proposal as it could never be “law” in
    California. Do you have some time to work with me on this project. I
    need to move quickly. Such an action can be typed up in just a few
    hours, preceded by maybe up to a day of research and review on the fine points (and a trip to Staples to copy it), a few more hours to go file it (I am forma pauperis, so NO filing fees)
    and then a day or two to get it served. This would include a
    preliminary injunction pending the work by the AG under initiative rules. Please help me. I want to stop this idiocy. E-mail me at if you can help me with the details. Thank

  34. I have read a lot of the comments below and everyone is focusing ON THE ATTORNEY (or religion) wanting to complain (submit complaints) about him to the bar and expressing all kinds of wrath about his mental stability. ALL OF THAT IS IRRELEVANT. The only important thing is the simply stop the process right away – it’s a waste of time – it can never become law (even with a million signatures – remember the appeal courts overturned previous passed initiatives.) Help me get a mandate/injunction from the local Superior Court Judge and a waiting period. See my comment below and let’s stop bickering and talking nonsense ourselves/wasting time. Help me get the below proposed action prepared, filed and served (I am in forma pauperis, so no fee). Come on – e mail me and help.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.