California

Calif. AG Asks Courts to Block Crazy 'Kill All Gays' Initiative

Harris seeks permission not to prepare it for signature-gathering.

|

Kamala Harris
Calif. AG Office

Last week Reason made note of an absurd, violent ballot initiative proposed by a lawyer in California that would mandate the death penalty for all gay people (and authorize citizens to carry out the sentence should the state refuse). He paid his $200 and submitted his initiative to the attorney general's office to have a title and summary prepared so he could begin collecting signatures, if he so wanted to. That such a ballot initiative could not ever be implemented into law did not seem to figure into the process at this point.

But today, Attorney General Kamala Harris asked the courts for authorization to refuse to prepare the initiative as the law requires. Via the Sacramento Bee and a prepared statement from Harris:

"As Attorney General of California, it is my sworn duty to uphold the California and United States Constitutions and to protect the rights of all Californians. This proposal not only threatens public safety, it is patently unconstitutional, utterly reprehensible, and has no place in a civil society," Harris, a candidate for the U.S. Senate, said in her first public statement about the proposal.

"Today, I am filing an action for declaratory relief with the court seeking judicial authorization for relief from the duty to prepare and issue the title and summary for the "Sodomite Suppression Act." If the Court does not grant this relief, my office will be forced to issue a title and summary for a proposal that seeks to legalize discrimination and vigilantism."

And, um, murder? That's a strange way to describe what the initiative does. Well, I suppose technically it wouldn't be murder since the ballot initiative would declare that it's not murder, but there's no reason that Harris has to play that semantic game.

NEXT: Hugh Hewitt: "Any Republicans who vote against higher defense spending should be fired"

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Is she so distrustful of CA voters that she’s afraid it’ll pass? Prolly not. Prolly just jumping in front of the parade, getting PR.
    She learned from Willy Brown and Newsom; don’t get between either of them and a camera!

  2. Numero uno: “I suppose technically it wouldn’t be murder since the ballot initiative would declare that it’s not murder”

    How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg?

    FOUR!

    Numero two-o: Since when do we exclude propositions from the ballot, or bills from the legislative agenda, just because they’d be unconstitutional? Are you trying to make the lawmaking process less fun for everyone?

    Numero three-o: Attorney General Harris is probably the whitest Kamala in the U.S.

    1. She looks a lot like a certain actress, but I can’t think of who it is. Help!

      1. Hollywood or porn?

        1. I think TV. Cop show maybe?

          1. She looks just like Obama Girl

            1. In any case, I would.

              1. Ugh, but then I’d have to talk to her…

              2. Would too

              1. Granted, I’m not the best-placed person to answer that. There is shockingly
                little that I find both “female” and “unattractive”.

                1. No, I would, I meant she sorta looks like Obama Girl…who I definitely would.

                2. Do you want someone here to accept that challenge?

          2. My first thought when you asked was S. Epatha Merkerson (the long running lieutenant on Law and Order) which would match up with your cop show thing. Obviously a younger version/her daughter or something.

      2. Not an actress but maybe you’re thinking of Ann Curry?

        https://www.pinterest.com/pin/17310779790214766/

        1. nope

        1. Close but that’s not who I was thinking of. Just looked at her wikipedia page. I must say I’m impressed that she’s the first Asian-American AND the first African-American AG in California. That’s what I call multi-tasking!

    2. “Attorney General Harris is probably the whitest Kamala in the U.S.”

      She’s certainly no Ugandan Giant

      1. He’s probably an accountant from Peoria.

  3. Democracy: it’s great but only with our permission

  4. I imagine this attorney as Bender, sliding up to an attorney fem-bot and saying, “Hey, Baby. Wanna kill all gays?”

  5. She’s doing this for the political cover of a court ordering her to title and summarize the initiative. She has no choice but to do so under a case from 1946, Warner v. Kenny, where the AG argued that he didn’t have to certify an initiative because he thought that initiative was contrary to the California Constitution. As the California Supreme Court put it:

    “The attorney general in his return challenges the good faith of petitioners in demanding a title and summary for the proposed measure and contends that he has the right to exercise a discretion in determining the validity of the proposed enactment before preparing a title and summary therefor. We think it is clear that the duties of the attorney general in this respect are purely ministerial. No showing has been made to justify his refusal to prepare a title and summary for the proposed measure, and since it is in proper form and was submitted to him in accordance with the constitutional and statutory requirements as to procedure, petitioners are entitled to have furnished to them a title and summary therefor.”

    What will end up happening is that it won’t get the necessary signatures. But if somehow, gods forbid, it does, *then* someone can sue to have it stricken from the ballot, which it obviously would be. It’s just that right now isn’t the time or place where that’s allowed to happen. Only courts can keep it off the ballot, not the AG.

    1. She’s doing this for the political cover of a court ordering her to title and summarize the initiative.
      .
      I think you’re exactly right. If she had any principles she might point out that the citizen’s initiative is as close to pure democracy as it gets, and this is what democracy looks like. You might think the AG doesn’t have to allow this guy to throw his suggestion out there just because he’s batshit insane, the guy throwing the suggestion out there probably doesn’t think he’s batshit insane. You wanna give everybody the right to say their piece? Then you gotta let everybody say their piece. Not just the ones with the “right” opinions. Harris has the opportunity to do the “I may not agree with what you say but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it” thing, but that would take more principles than I suspect she is familiar with.

  6. Did we ever find out if the guy who’s proposing this ballot initiative is trolling or severely retarded?

    My money’s on trolling. There’s no way anyone that stupid could fill out the paperwork on his own.

    1. Doesn’t the Phelps family essentially live off of their crazy provocation and just-sane-enough lawyering? Still probably trolling but they’re out there

    2. Yeah, I’m curious to what this guys end game is as well. Not bi-curious though NTTAWWT.

  7. . . . but there’s no reason that Harris has to play that semantic game.

    Oh no, she *has* to play that semantic game. A good bit of state power is predicated on the idea that when the state kills someone, its not murder.

    I doubt this is something they’re doing consciously, but they certainly don’t want to open that can of worms.

    1. Well said, sir.

  8. TRUST DEMOCRACY.

  9. OT Breaking: Saudi Arabia begins airstrikes in Yemen likely in preparation for likely ground assault.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics…..s-29902643

    This is excellent. This is how it should be. Other countries not relying on America to get the job done.

    1. “This is excellent. This is how it should be.”

      Not really, but whatever floats your boat.

      If anything its just an expansion of the existing sunni-shia/Saudi-Iranian proxy war, only the saudis are actually “doing it themselves”, which isn’t necessarily anything to get excited about.

      The fact that they *are* doing it themselves means US diplomacy with Iran is completely fucked

      *(and probably has been from the start, if we don’t have any fucking pull with the Saudis to come along… and given we don’t have either the Saudis or Israelis playing to our tune, it seems questionable what the point is anyway. whose “peace” are we securing?)

      1. Leave Cytotoxic alone. He apparently thinks it’s ‘excellent’ when two regional powers run proxy wars in a third country, thus tearing it apart and drowning it in sectarian violence.

        1. Well Ed did think it was good that Egypt was bombing Libya, as supposed to the US, because apparently it’s not interventionism when the US isn’t doing it.

          1. Look, the point is shit can get blown up all over the world without me having to pay for it.

          2. https://reason.com/archives/201…..p-a-genoci

            Yet with ISIL hunting down minorities in Iraq and the Iraqi government powerless to do anything to stop them, the question of whether the U.S. ought to intervene to protect those civilians from ISIL and a situation U.S. policy helped create is a harder one to answer. President Obama’s decision to order limited air strikes in this situation may not be the wrong call.

            So much for non-interventionism.

          3. https://reason.com/blog/2014/08…..uce-conduc

            In that vein, Egypt, along with the United Arab Emirates, also recently conducted air strikes against radical Islamist militants making gains in Libya. That country has been sliding into instability since the West’s hit-and-run intervention in 2011 that helped an assortment of rebels overthrow the government of Col. Qaddafi, leaving that government’s massive weapons stockpiles for the taking of all kinds of miltiants, from Nigeria to Syria. Despite the Obama administration’s contribution to this chaos, the U.S. government appeared to lament Egypt’s “intervention” in Libya as an “escalation” of the turmoil, according to USA Today. Yet Egypt is far more staked in a stable Libya than the U.S. is, and their willingness to step up there too is more evidence that U.S. non-intervention can spur regional powers to take more responsibilities and not, as interventionists argue, create more chaos. In fact, that’s what interventions tend to do.

            1. I confronted Ed Krayewski over this here:

              https://reason.com/blog/2014/09…..nt_4742289

              Some of his comments:

              I don’t think thinking about libertarians as a monolith is helpful, in foreign policy or anywhere else. What you described is one type of libertarian foreign policy.

              What does anyone propose to do about ISIS? I haven’t seen anything that looks like a solid plan to deal with ISIS from any part of the political spectrum. Certainly I believe leaders in capitals closer to where ISIS is are a lot more incentivized and motivated to come up with a plan that could work than, say, at the White House. Having the whole world rely on the US for stability is not good for the world, the US, or stability.

              1. He insisted that this comment by myself was a “caricature of “libertarian foreign policy””

                I like the part about “hit and run intervention” since isn’t the libertarian foreign policy that the US should remove its troops everywhere and intervene nowhere and leave those countries to their fate even if the US intervention made things worse? Like Iraq?

        2. It excellent that two terror-sponsoring regional powers might start tearing chunks out of each other.

          1. Cytotoxic|3.25.15 @ 10:33PM|#
            “It excellent that two terror-sponsoring regional powers might start tearing chunks out of each other.”
            So you’ll be there next week?

            1. My chances of being there next week are similar to your chances of recovering from senility and making a comment worth reading: 0.

              1. Cytotoxic|3.25.15 @ 11:35PM|#
                “My chances of being there next week are similar to your chances of recovering from senility and making a comment worth reading: 0.”

                Since I don’t suffer from senility, that means nothing, but your chances of being there are equal to your chances of being other than a fucking idiot?
                Yep, assholes keep hoping others fight their battles!
                Oh, and, fuckface; I’m glad I once again pawnd you! Sevo wins again!

        3. Can’t wait til Saudi Arabia and Iran get into a nuke arms race. What could possibly go wrong?

      2. US-Iran diplomacy is and always has been a farce. To quote the only good Godzilla movie ever made, “Let them fight”.

        1. Cytotoxic|3.25.15 @ 10:34PM|#
          US-Iran diplomacy is and always has been a farce”

          Almost as stupid as your posts!

          1. There is nothing as stupid as the Canadian chicken hawk pushing for the US to involve itself in every country he doesn’t think is free. The fact that he keeps using “we” in his stupid posts makes it even funnier. I haven’t seen him volunteer to emigrate to the US and join the military yet.

            Cytotoxic is like peak derp. He can never achieve peak stupid although he tries.

    2. Go Houthis ! Kill the Saudi scum !

  10. Well, in most goddamn states if your house isn’t the most fucking perfect shade of tan in the HOA you can be fined or imprisoned violently if you resist said color scheme…. Jesus fucking Buddha with a Mohammed -shaped siliconio penis… what the FUCK has this evolution wrought where horrible blueprints of all sorts of shitty humans exist wherein their old white dumb asses always come a knocking like meningitis of the fucking face.

    And liberationists wonder ceaselessly why the fuck we can’t gamble, get trippy on pure LSD, and fucking buy dicks and vaginas to fuck?

    1. Admit it, you bought the “Cialis” and “Viagra” on Sukhumvit (say soi 20?), didn’t you?

  11. Well, joke’s on Harris as sharia, that is the unchanging word of Allah through his Prophet, isn’t something that’s up for a vote. Masha’Allah!

  12. Behold the predictive abilities of Matt Welch!


    You should never take a politician at his word. But you should listen to what he campaigns on day after day, especially if he goes on to win big. Amid Obama’s host of illiberal campaign ideas?”fair” trade, centralized energy policy, New Deal?style infrastructure projects, more federal dollars into the sinkhole of public schools?the Democratic candidate also spiced his daily stump speech with a firm-sounding nod to fiscal responsibility. Coupled with a sorry budget situation that’s certain to get worse as a result of massive income tax losses from Wall Street, this commitment to fiscal sobriety may strangle many of Obama’s more expensive fantasies in the crib and crack open the door for ending or privatizing any number of inefficient federal programs.

    How many other libertarians were that dumb?

    1. So when will libertarian give up the notion that the Democrats really don’t believe in anything they spout and will become libertarians when they run out of money? Obama hasn’t and no Democrats are opposing. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton aren’t opposing this either. I mean it’s not like the stuff libertarians are nostalgic for was because Ted Kennedy and Newt Gingrich scuttled the worst things they planned.

    2. December 2008, there were still a lot of people who thought Obama might actually be far more of a ‘centrist’, triangulating, clinton-esque politician.

      naive? yes. willfully ignorant? not really. at the time it would have made some sense that the economic downturn might force a more rational fiscal outlook. Hindsight is 20/20 etc.

      1. ‘centrist’, triangulating, clinton-esque politician

        You are forgetting the whole bit about Hillary joining Obama’s cabinet and Bill giving his nomination speech at the 2012 convention.

        1. willfully ignorant? not really

          Um Yes? Remember Hillarycare? Remember how much libertarians didn’t like Clinton while he was in office? And his “triangulations” where due to the Republican Congress And in 2008 Congress was in the control of Reid and Pelosi?

        2. “You are forgetting the whole bit about Hillary joining Obama’s cabinet “

          not really. how does the Sec State influence domestic fiscal policy?

          “Bill giving his nomination speech at the 2012 convention.”

          Matt’s comment was in December 2008. Dont see the point.

          “Remember Hillarycare? Remember how much libertarians didn’t like Clinton while he was in office? And his “triangulations” where due to the Republican Congress And in 2008 Congress was in the control of Reid and Pelosi?”

          Again – i don’t see what your point is.

          The idea that Obama might be “fiscally restrained by economic reality” in December 2008 – the point you highlighted in your excerpt – was entirely speculation that at the time. Wrong? very. that’s the nature of speculation. But in December 2008 there was little evidence suggesting that Obama was the Progressive monstrosity that he’s turned out to be. There wasn’t even the outline of an ACA type policy.

          If the comment were made just 6 months later, after Obama’s “stimulus” package was revealed to be one giant handout to state governments and their associated unionized employees, there would be no dispute.

          1. not really. how does the Sec State influence domestic fiscal policy?


            Matt’s comment was in December 2008. Dont see the point.

            If Obama is not Clintonesque then how comes the Clintons support him?

            Again – i don’t see what your point is.

            Ignoring the fact that Clinton’s “fiscal responsibility” was due to unique circumstances that did not exist in 2008. Mainly no Republican Congress and no post-Cold War boom. The sole reason he wasn’t a Progressive monstrosity was because healthcare reform failed, not due to any sort of ideological opposition to Progressivism.

            But in December 2008 there was little evidence suggesting that Obama was the Progressive monstrosity that he’s turned out to be.

            He vowed to implement healthcare reform, among other things, like Clinton.

            1. You’re overblowing the clinton comparison, but whatever. I wasn’t saying they were identical.

              Everyone running for president vowed one form of “healthcare reform” or another. And even so, there was no clarity on legislative priority during a major economic downturn

              Again, nothing in 2008 was a known-element that makes Matt’s statement the insanity you seem to pretend it is.

              1. Again, nothing in 2008 was a known-element that makes Matt’s statement the insanity you seem to pretend it is.

                Um thinking that poor finances will cause a politician (and a Progressive, natch) to become libertarian is pretty insane?

                1. As I said before = naive. wishful thinking.

                  in fact, his own follow up statement said =

                  “This may sound like wishful thinking, but is it any more unrealistic than the expectation that a Republican administration will push for markets and limited government?… the outgoing Bush administration has increased the size of the federal government by just about every meaningful metric, to an extent not seen in several decades…. voters who have known only the Clinton and Bush presidencies have little reason to believe that Republicans are preferable to Democrats on limiting government and keeping budgets halfway sane”

                  He also quotes obama extensively to provide some context for his point =

                  e.g.
                  ” “We’re not going to be able to go back to our profligate ways,” Obama said in the final debate. “We need to eliminate a whole host of programs that don’t work. I want to go through the federal budget line by line, page by page.””

                  Again – only a few months later the stimulus bill (ARRA) was finally given a proper dissection, and it was clear he wasn’t going to trim fuck-all out of anyone’s budget, since it was itself mostly composed of life-support for government programs.

                  In context, I don’t think matt’s speculation that “cuts may happen” was especially crazy, no.

  13. I’m sure this has been discussed eleswhere but I’d like to congratulate Hit & Run for coming in at #32 in Newsmax’s Top 50 Conservative Blogs for 2015

    Way to go Nick and Matt! Keep cranking out those conservative blog posts.

    1. Newsmax’s bracket had the DMV winning it all.

    2. To help you understand the modern world, SIV, consider this:

      I’m in an argument with a progressive. The progressive says, “Blacks aren’t smart enough to do X on their own, not without white help.”

      I respond, “I disagree with that, I think they are!”

      In the above scenario, I’m the racist.

      1. Oh, I understand the modern world all too well.

    3. It is odd company….. but to be fair = their list seems to have an extremely wide definition of “conservative”. Some are more properly politically TEAM RED, others are just more generically economics-oriented, a la Cafe Hayek, which is equally critical of republican and democratic policy.

      1. I approve of the wide definition of conservative. I don’t really understand the overwhelming urge of libertarians to define themselves as apart from the American political spectrum. Conservatives sent and returned Ron Paul to Congress. Conservatives voted for Goldwater in ’64. Leftists/liberals/progs all recognize libertarians as epitomizing the most-hated component of “conservatism”. I’d rather convince somewhat like-minded folks that libertarianism IS conservatism rather than pulling a lever or touching a screen for whoever the establishment tells them is more electable.

        1. “I don’t really understand the overwhelming urge of libertarians to define themselves as apart from the American political spectrum. ‘

          meh. I think a lot of people define themselves by what they think they “aren’t” rather than what they’re “similar to”. I’ve noted that most of the most-liberal people who post/troll here like PB, Tony, Bo, etc seem to all be from “the south” more or less. And they just can *(@#&$#@ stand “conservatives” or think of libertarianism even being philosophically associated with it (they can’t untangle shit like Ralph Reed from the Goldwater, if you see my point).

          Whereas I’m from @#*($& NYC. ‘Conservative’ is comparatively hip and iconoclastic. 🙂

          I also think a lot of people just suffer from a lack of perspective. Few people really appreciate that the religious right, SoCon aspect of “Conservatism” was actually sort of a fairly recent phenomenon (within our lifetimes). I got my own appreciation for the term from Edmund Burke.

          1. *can’t stand…

          2. The original Puritans were not the conservatives of 16th and 17th Century England. And didn’t the Bible Belt used to be rabid Democrats of the non-Bourbon variety?

        2. I’d rather convince somewhat like-minded folks that libertarianism IS conservatism…

          Yes and no. I’d say libertarianism is one of the two options you arrive at when a conservative decides they really mean what they’re saying. The alternative is weird, European-style authoritarian rightism.

          But, yeah, in contrast to proggies, there is a fundamental element of the conservative belief system that at least pays homage to libertarian principles. Actually, the funny part is, the more you look at the history of American conservatism, the more sense libertarianism as conservatism winds up making.

          1. There can be no such thing as ‘authoritarian rightism’ as a primary tenet of ‘rightism’ is individual rights.

            Conservatives are slightly-more-statist libertarians (sometimes a bit more than ‘slightly’).

    4. Way to go Nick and Matt! Keep cranking out those conservative blog posts.

      See? See?!? I was RIGHT! /Bo

    5. The fact that they also put Cato and Cafe Hayek in there as ‘conservative’ blogs is particularly funny.

      Cafe Hayek is actually named after a man who wrote an article called ‘Why I Am Not a Conservative.’

      Also, their 50th spot is filled by the total fucking moron Pat Dollard who called Andy Levy a gay libertarian for criticizing the Ferguson government.

      No, Andy’s not gay, he’s just a 50-year-old confirmed bachelor with an apartment full of cats and Shepard Smith on speed dial.

      1. Man, Pat Dollard really has a weird obsession with shitting on libertarians:

        Leftist/Libertarian Anti-War Hero Bowe Bergdahl Charged With Desertion, Faces Life In Prison

        That’s weird. I don’t remember seeing much Bergdahl love around here.

        1. That’s the same site, and possibly the same author, that hilariously misread an ENB post as “anti-gun” if you recall.

          1. Maybe I’m wrong but I think ENB would happily crank out anti-gun diatribes for $50 more a week

            1. It’s not her main beat but she has written about gun control in the past.

              1. Before she came to Reason?

  14. Is this whole thing a false flag operation being put on by Code Pink?

  15. Just to be clear, Kamala Harris will be replacing Barbara Boxer as one of the two California state’s senators come 2016. Boxer has already set her seat aside and announced the Ms Harris will be filing it. This might confuse people of all political persuasions who do not live in California. But what is done is done.

    1. So when will the libertarians fill the vacuum caused the collapse of the GOP in California, New England, Chicago, DC, Seattle, etc?

      1. It’ll probably happen after you stop being a tiresome cunt.

        1. Shorter Cytotoxic: Clap Your Hands If You Believe!!!

        2. Cytotoxic|3.25.15 @ 11:37PM|#
          “It’ll probably happen after you stop being a tiresome cunt.”

          Maybe you could stop being a fucking asshole?

      2. You are confused, as I have said of those who do not live here. There is the CA globalist party and no other. You can either vote for them or not vote. The GOP is long gone, it won’t waste its money here.

  16. Campus protest at UNC Chapel Hill. One of the buildings on campus is named for a guy who compiled the state’s colonial records. Oh, and also, Col. William Saunders took the 5th a hundred times when Congress questioned him about his alleged Ku Klux Klan activities in 1871. (Prompting Congressmen to say, “what’s the matter, Col. Saunders – chicken?”). The words “I decline to answer” are inscribed on his tombstone. I’m not making this stuff up (well, I made up the chicken joke).

    And there’s a statue of a Confederate soldier at UNC, too, and it is distinctly missing a plaque putting the Civil War in context.

    Student activists demand that the Board of Trustees so something about these things.

    “Dylan Su-Chun Mott, another student, said the campaign is about more than renaming a building. “This movement is about the future of this university,” he said. “It is about facing the violent, racial history of UNC-Chapel Hill, of the state of North Carolina and of the United States. This is about power. This is about a struggle over who belongs at this university and who gets to make decisions about what happens here.””

    http://www.newsobserver.com/ne…..19318.html

    About Col. Saunders:

    http://www.ncmarkers.com/Marke…..kerId=E-40

    1. But let’s get to the good part. They want Saunders Hall named after the African-American author Zora Neale Hurston.

      A few years from now, when one of the more literate students discovers a 1955 letter to the editor by Ms. Hurston, they’ll protest to take *her* name off the building,too. The letter is about the *Brown* decision against school segregation:

      “…How much satisfaction can I get from a court order for somebody to associate with me who does not wish me near them?…

      “It is most astonishing that this should be tried just when the nation is exerting itself to shake off the evils of Communist penetration. It is to be recalled that Moscow, being made aware of this folk belief, made it the main plank in their campaign to win the American Negro from the 1920s on. It was the come-on stuff. Join the party and get yourself a white wife or husband….Seeing how flat that program fell, it is astonishing that it would be so soon revived. Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows….

      “In the ruling on segregation, the unsuspecting nation might have witnessed a trial-balloon. A relatively safe one, since it is sectional and on a matter not likely to arouse other sections of the nation to support of the South. If it goes off fairly well, a precedent has been established. Govt by fiat can replace the constitution.”

      http://ow.ly/KOqyJ

        1. Thank you for sharing that.

    2. Showed they be demanded that the university be shutdown for being founded by slaveowners?

      1. Damn, I can’t spell.

        Shouldn’t they be demanding that the university be shutdown for being founded by slaveowners?

        1. And the Carolinas are named for a Catholic Monarch who raised taxes without parliamentary input and warred against Socons…oh wait.

    3. I see nothing here about his wonderful fried chicken

      1. oh i see it now

        “”what’s the matter, Col. Saunders – chicken?”

        This must be where he got the idea.

  17. I demand that New York and all entities named after it be renamed for being named after a slave-trading Catholic Warmongering Aristocrat who tried to overthrow his own government. Classist, Racist, Imperialist, Homophobic, Militarist and Treasonous.

  18. Delaware should be renamed for being named after a aristocrat militarist traitor who supported genocide against the Irish and Indians. Does Joe Biden have no Shame?

  19. And yet, if the petition were to kill unborn babies (if somehow there was a gay gene and it was detectable*), then it would probably be acceptable. Because selective abortion is apparently okay….

    * Apparently there are twins where one is gay and the other isn’t, so I’m not sure it exists…

    1. Because selective abortion is apparently okay….

      False equivalence. Gays and straights have equal rights .. as does a pregant women and a fetal child.

      1) On what authority do you reject the equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights of the woman?
      2) The unaleinable righrs to Life and Liberty are precisely equal, by definition.
      3) If a fetus gains rights at conception … so did the woman.

      Does government have any power to deny or restrict your liberty, if it would save a child’s life 1,000 miles away? If so, when and where was such power delegated?

      1. Corpse-fucking a dead thread, I see.

        1. Corpse-fucking a dead thread, I see

          You’re still reading. (snicker)
          You thugs never have anything but a trashy mouth and insults.
          I saw that in my youth. The KKK.

  20. Well, I suppose technically it wouldn’t be murder since the ballot initiative would declare that it’s not murder, but there’s no reason that Harris has to play that semantic game.

    Posssible the most dumbass comment of the week.

    1) Umm, does Shackford know what vigilantes do?
    2) Shackford says “Last week Reason made note of ..” about HIS article, which doesn’t calll it murder either!.
    3) Shackford argued AGAINST the Attorney General taking action (!!!) who just made an ass out of him, for having no clue about what “Reason” made note of.

    1. Way to show your ass by corpse-fucking a dead thread.

      1. Way to show your ass by corpse-fucking a dead thread.

        You’re still reading it (snicker)
        And too cowardly to deal with it.
        WTF indeed.

  21. This is just a CYA thing by Harris so she can’t be slammed with hit pieces alleging she is in favor of this initiative.

    I would prefer she just did her job and then argue the nuances — that she’s against the initiative, but she had no choice but to submit it to the voters — but that’s a lot of backbone to expect of a politician.

  22. Suppose this did pass a referendum, it would be a living breathing reductio ad absurdum demonstration of the absurdity of democracy.

    1. Free Society, if it’s defeated,would that prove the virtue of democracy?
      Are ALL your values determined by a popular vote?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.