Grand Theater in California (Shocked?) "Sodomite Suppression Act"

[Syriusly]

I already published my remarks on another thread. I don't want to have anything to do with somebody who wants to kill their fellow Americans because they don't like them. Whatever his point may be, it was lost in making a serious proposal to enact a law to put people to death for lifestyles he disagrees with.

A "serious proposal"? Really?

Sheesh "St Mike"...

This thread BTW isn't about whether it is right or wrong to encourage the general public to shoot people as they see fit. Obviously. It is a thread about the ruse of pretending this proposed statute is a "serious proposal".

Obviously it is not. Which is very disturbing indeed.

Even more disturbing is California's AG Kamala Harris "playing along" throwing her hands up in the air in professed impotence when all she and the legislature would have to do is say the proposed intiative is about two things 1. Amending the death penalty (which it does not state in its title, therefore it cannot be submitted for a vote) and banning distribution of homosexual propaganda in schools.

It's a stroke of genius by the theater troupe in CA. At once they pluck the heartstrings and tie the issue to a reasonable cause "to keep pro-homosexual propaganda away from kids in school" (...like Kevin Jennings' fisting and anal sex promotion a few years back) and at the same time to an utterly violent and vile cause "to kill homosexuals at will". So this ruse was crafted to tie reasonable people with reasonable objections to inappropriate promotion of homosexuality to impressionable youth (see youth and current HIV/AIDS statistics) to violent people who would kill gays by shooting them to death....

That's why in the OP I posted the quote from the West Coast news station that said "even SOME" anti gay marriage people were speaking out about this law.

Really? A tiny fraction of all the people opposed to gay marriage are the only ones who aren't simultaneously contemplating shooting gays to death?

This type of hyperbole was exactly the type of hyperbole used in Ferguson MO to ramp up racial (and therefore civil ) unrest.

If you aren't convinced of the deeply disturbed and insidious nature of this cult and their bought/threatened sychophants in high places by now, you never will be.

It became a serious proposal when it was submitted as an initiative to be passed into law. Someone might think that's a joke, but I don't. When somebody makes a legal move to attempt to make lawful the shooting of other Americans by the government, or failing at that, by private citizens, that person is an evil POS and should, like Haman, be subject to the genocide he proposed for others. It isn't the least bit funny and it's serious to me.

Unfortunately due to the initiative process here in California, it is unlikely that this initiative proposal can be prevented from going forward- though it should die a quick death when attempting to gather signatures- but maybe not- there are lots of areas of California where unfortunately the hysterical anti-gay propaganda that this guy apparently has swallowed whole is quite popular. Wouldn't surprise me if he is able to get 20,000 or more signatures.

But none of this is really what's bugging me. I am very much angered by anyone proposing that we start killing people we don't like, no matter who they are. I hope you believe me when I say that while I disagree with your choice of lifestyle, I hope that you live a long and happy and are never subject to legal sanction for how you live your private life. To me this is no joke because when people start legal proceedings to enact a law to kill a class of citizens, we've gone WAY above just talk, we've taken the first step in making it a reality. The fact that this guy was trying to garner sympathy for gays will be lost against the backdrop of the precedent he's setting.

And nobody else on this thread who's responded seems to recognize the danger I'm seeing.

I have seen too many posters here on these boards suggest killing people that they do not like- liberals- blacks- homosexuals- and I am sure some have proposed killing conservatives too. I agree- it is always going too far to suggest that those you do not like- or do not agree with- should be killed. It happens too frequently here on these boards.

That you believe that this guy is trying to 'garner sympathy for gays'- despite the absolute lack of evidence to support that assertion- well that just speaks to your own bias.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I already published my remarks on another thread. I don't want to have anything to do with somebody who wants to kill their fellow Americans because they don't like them. Whatever his point may be, it was lost in making a serious proposal to enact a law to put people to death for lifestyles he disagrees with.

A "serious proposal"? Really?

Sheesh "St Mike"...

This thread BTW isn't about whether it is right or wrong to encourage the general public to shoot people as they see fit. Obviously. It is a thread about the ruse of pretending this proposed statute is a "serious proposal".

Obviously it is not. Which is very disturbing indeed.

Even more disturbing is California's AG Kamala Harris "playing along" throwing her hands up in the air in professed impotence when all she and the legislature would have to do is say the proposed intiative is about two things 1. Amending the death penalty (which it does not state in its title, therefore it cannot be submitted for a vote) and banning distribution of homosexual propaganda in schools.

It's a stroke of genius by the theater troupe in CA. At once they pluck the heartstrings and tie the issue to a reasonable cause "to keep pro-homosexual propaganda away from kids in school" (...like Kevin Jennings' fisting and anal sex promotion a few years back) and at the same time to an utterly violent and vile cause "to kill homosexuals at will". So this ruse was crafted to tie reasonable people with reasonable objections to inappropriate promotion of homosexuality to impressionable youth (see youth and current HIV/AIDS statistics) to violent people who would kill gays by shooting them to death....

That's why in the OP I posted the quote from the West Coast news station that said "even SOME" anti gay marriage people were speaking out about this law.

Really? A tiny fraction of all the people opposed to gay marriage are the only ones who aren't simultaneously contemplating shooting gays to death?

This type of hyperbole was exactly the type of hyperbole used in Ferguson MO to ramp up racial (and therefore civil ) unrest.

If you aren't convinced of the deeply disturbed and insidious nature of this cult and their bought/threatened sychophants in high places by now, you never will be.

It became a serious proposal when it was submitted as an initiative to be passed into law. Someone might think that's a joke, but I don't. When somebody makes a legal move to attempt to make lawful the shooting of other Americans by the government, or failing at that, by private citizens, that person is an evil POS and should, like Haman, be subject to the genocide he proposed for others. It isn't the least bit funny and it's serious to me.

Unfortunately due to the initiative process here in California, it is unlikely that this initiative proposal can be prevented from going forward- though it should die a quick death when attempting to gather signatures- but maybe not- there are lots of areas of California where unfortunately the hysterical anti-gay propaganda that this guy apparently has swallowed whole is quite popular. Wouldn't surprise me if he is able to get 20,000 or more signatures.

I have a couple of thoughts and I'm not trying to be adversarial, but I think you're mistaken in thinking that this lawyer was one of us. Albeit very misguided, he's doing this for your side..

Well I disagree- the difference between the position of Silhouette and Keys is not that very different from this guy- Keys insists to this day that consensual sodomy should be illegal. Your position I will grant you is more nuanced, but it is a matter of degrees.

This guy is as much a kook as Silhouette and Keys- he is just getting more publicity.

I see a huge difference between wanting to make sodomy illegal and wanting to execute gay people. But even so, the opinion that sodomy should still be prosecuted is a minority opinion even among conservatives. Most of us simply don't care what you do in your own bedroom. Ask as many conservatives as you like and you'll see this is true.

Now Silhouette has a different issue going where he thinks I'm playing a role, that I'm pitching anti gay rhetoric for the same reason as this lawyer, to garner sympathy for gays. He's mentally disturbed in a way that it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see him throw his weight behind any proposition that gays be terminated; a rare and special kind of evil. While most conservatives like me are sick of the whole debate consuming American politics, he seems to have a hard on for gays (no pun intended) that approaches antagonistic levels and is indicative of hidden, unresolved psychological issues.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I already published my remarks on another thread. I don't want to have anything to do with somebody who wants to kill their fellow Americans because they don't like them. Whatever his point may be, it was lost in making a serious proposal to enact a law to put people to death for lifestyles he disagrees with.

A "serious proposal"? Really?

Sheesh "St Mike"...

This thread BTW isn't about whether it is right or wrong to encourage the general public to shoot people as they see fit. Obviously. It is a thread about the ruse of pretending this proposed statute is a "serious proposal".

Obviously it is not. Which is very disturbing indeed.

Even more disturbing is California's AG Kamala Harris "playing along" throwing her hands up in the air in professed impotence when all she and the legislature would have to do is say the proposed intiative is about two things 1. Amending the death penalty (which it does not state in its title, therefore it cannot be submitted for a vote) and banning distribution of homosexual propaganda in schools.

It's a stroke of genius by the theater troupe in CA. At once they pluck the heartstrings and tie the issue to a reasonable cause "to keep pro-homosexual propaganda away from kids in school" (...like Kevin Jennings' fisting and anal sex promotion a few years back) and at the same time to an utterly violent and vile cause "to kill homosexuals at will". So this ruse was crafted to tie reasonable people with reasonable objections to inappropriate promotion of homosexuality to impressionable youth (see youth and current HIV/AIDS statistics) to violent people who would kill gays by shooting them to death....

That's why in the OP I posted the quote from the West Coast news station that said "even SOME" anti gay marriage people were speaking out about this law.

Really? A tiny fraction of all the people opposed to gay marriage are the only ones who aren't simultaneously contemplating shooting gays to death?

This type of hyperbole was exactly the type of hyperbole used in Ferguson MO to ramp up racial (and therefore civil ) unrest.

If you aren't convinced of the deeply disturbed and insidious nature of this cult and their bought/threatened sychophants in high places by now, you never will be.

It became a serious proposal when it was submitted as an initiative to be passed into law. Someone might think that's a joke, but I don't. When somebody makes a legal move to attempt to make lawful the shooting of other Americans by the government, or failing at that, by private citizens, that person is an evil POS and should, like Haman, be subject to the genocide he proposed for others. It isn't the least bit funny and it's serious to me.

Unfortunately due to the initiative process here in California, it is unlikely that this initiative proposal can be prevented from going forward- though it should die a quick death when attempting to gather signatures- but maybe not- there are lots of areas of California where unfortunately the hysterical anti-gay propaganda that this guy apparently has swallowed whole is quite popular. Wouldn't surprise me if he is able to get 20,000 or more signatures.

But none of this is really what's bugging me. I am very much angered by anyone proposing that we start killing people we don't like, no matter who they are. I hope you believe me when I say that while I disagree with your choice of lifestyle, I hope that you live a long and happy and are never subject to legal sanction for how you live your private life. To me this is no joke because when people start legal proceedings to enact a law to kill a class of citizens, we've gone WAY above just talk, we've taken the first step in making it a reality. The fact that this guy was trying to garner sympathy for gays will be lost against the backdrop of the precedent he's setting.

And nobody else on this thread who's responded seems to recognize the danger I'm seeing.

I have seen too many posters here on these boards suggest killing people that they do not like- liberals- blacks- homosexuals- and I am sure some have proposed killing conservatives too. I agree- it is always going too far to suggest that those you do not like- or do not agree with- should be killed. It happens too frequently here on these boards.

That you believe that this guy is trying to 'garner sympathy for gays'- despite the absolute lack of evidence to support that assertion- well that just speaks to your own bias.

Each of us is demonstrating a bias, considering the utter lack of evidence either way. And I'm not talking about just talk of killing groups of people, which I find very troubling in itself, I'm talking about somebody actually attempting to get the legislative ball rolling to make it a reality. I don't support capital punishment even for heinous murderers, much less people just living their lives in diverse ways. I wish that California would amend it's initiative process to prevent anyone from using it to call for the death of other human beings, but it's so sacrosanct for Californians, I doubt they'll enact any restrictions on it whatsoever, even those that might prevent such an event in the future.

 

[Silhouette]

I have seen too many posters here on these boards suggest killing people that they do not like- liberals- blacks- homosexuals- and I am sure some have proposed killing conservatives too. I agree- it is always going too far to suggest that those you do not like- or do not agree with- should be killed. It happens too frequently here on these boards.

That you believe that this guy is trying to 'garner sympathy for gays'- despite the absolute lack of evidence to support that assertion- well that just speaks to your own bias.

Internet blowhards (and role players pretending to be haters to milk sympathy...) are a little different from a proposed law that encourages the general public to shoot and kill gays. This is a ruse and you know it is. Are you honestly trying to say that the AG of California is suddenly hand-tied to do anything about a law proposed to shoot and kill citizens within her state because of deviant sexual behaviors?

 

[Syriusly]

I have seen too many posters here on these boards suggest killing people that they do not like- liberals- blacks- homosexuals- and I am sure some have proposed killing conservatives too. I agree- it is always going too far to suggest that those you do not like- or do not agree with- should be killed. It happens too frequently here on these boards.

That you believe that this guy is trying to 'garner sympathy for gays'- despite the absolute lack of evidence to support that assertion- well that just speaks to your own bias.

Internet blowhards (and role players pretending to be haters to milk sympathy...) are a little different from a proposed law that encourages the general public to shoot and kill gays. This is a ruse and you know it is. Are you honestly trying to say that the AG of California is suddenly hand-tied to do anything about a law proposed to shoot and kill citizens within her state because of deviant sexual behaviors?

I am honestly saying that according to California State law it is unlikely that AG Harris can do anything to prevent this proposed sexually deviant initiative from being circulated.

And of course- that you are delusional and see gay conspiracies everywhere.

 

[Syriusly]

A "serious proposal"? Really?

Sheesh "St Mike"...

This thread BTW isn't about whether it is right or wrong to encourage the general public to shoot people as they see fit. Obviously. It is a thread about the ruse of pretending this proposed statute is a "serious proposal".

Obviously it is not. Which is very disturbing indeed.

Even more disturbing is California's AG Kamala Harris "playing along" throwing her hands up in the air in professed impotence when all she and the legislature would have to do is say the proposed intiative is about two things 1. Amending the death penalty (which it does not state in its title, therefore it cannot be submitted for a vote) and banning distribution of homosexual propaganda in schools.

It's a stroke of genius by the theater troupe in CA. At once they pluck the heartstrings and tie the issue to a reasonable cause "to keep pro-homosexual propaganda away from kids in school" (...like Kevin Jennings' fisting and anal sex promotion a few years back) and at the same time to an utterly violent and vile cause "to kill homosexuals at will". So this ruse was crafted to tie reasonable people with reasonable objections to inappropriate promotion of homosexuality to impressionable youth (see youth and current HIV/AIDS statistics) to violent people who would kill gays by shooting them to death....

That's why in the OP I posted the quote from the West Coast news station that said "even SOME" anti gay marriage people were speaking out about this law.

Really? A tiny fraction of all the people opposed to gay marriage are the only ones who aren't simultaneously contemplating shooting gays to death?

This type of hyperbole was exactly the type of hyperbole used in Ferguson MO to ramp up racial (and therefore civil ) unrest.

If you aren't convinced of the deeply disturbed and insidious nature of this cult and their bought/threatened sychophants in high places by now, you never will be.

It became a serious proposal when it was submitted as an initiative to be passed into law. Someone might think that's a joke, but I don't. When somebody makes a legal move to attempt to make lawful the shooting of other Americans by the government, or failing at that, by private citizens, that person is an evil POS and should, like Haman, be subject to the genocide he proposed for others. It isn't the least bit funny and it's serious to me.

Unfortunately due to the initiative process here in California, it is unlikely that this initiative proposal can be prevented from going forward- though it should die a quick death when attempting to gather signatures- but maybe not- there are lots of areas of California where unfortunately the hysterical anti-gay propaganda that this guy apparently has swallowed whole is quite popular. Wouldn't surprise me if he is able to get 20,000 or more signatures.

But none of this is really what's bugging me. I am very much angered by anyone proposing that we start killing people we don't like, no matter who they are. I hope you believe me when I say that while I disagree with your choice of lifestyle, I hope that you live a long and happy and are never subject to legal sanction for how you live your private life. To me this is no joke because when people start legal proceedings to enact a law to kill a class of citizens, we've gone WAY above just talk, we've taken the first step in making it a reality. The fact that this guy was trying to garner sympathy for gays will be lost against the backdrop of the precedent he's setting.

And nobody else on this thread who's responded seems to recognize the danger I'm seeing.

I have seen too many posters here on these boards suggest killing people that they do not like- liberals- blacks- homosexuals- and I am sure some have proposed killing conservatives too. I agree- it is always going too far to suggest that those you do not like- or do not agree with- should be killed. It happens too frequently here on these boards.

That you believe that this guy is trying to 'garner sympathy for gays'- despite the absolute lack of evidence to support that assertion- well that just speaks to your own bias.

Each of us is demonstrating a bias, considering the utter lack of evidence either way. And I'm not talking about just talk of killing groups of people, which I find very troubling in itself, I'm talking about somebody actually attempting to get the legislative ball rolling to make it a reality. I don't support capital punishment even for heinous murderers, much less people just living their lives in diverse ways. I wish that California would amend it's initiative process to prevent anyone from using it to call for the death of other human beings, but it's so sacrosanct for Californians, I doubt they'll enact any restrictions on it whatsoever, even those that might prevent such an event in the future.

Agreed- we each have our bias. I am not even certain how we could amend the initiative process to prevent what would be considered legal killing- it is legally no different than an initiative calling for the death penalty.

I agree the very proposal is heinous, and I agree that it is unlikely that it will lead to any change in the initiative process.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I have seen too many posters here on these boards suggest killing people that they do not like- liberals- blacks- homosexuals- and I am sure some have proposed killing conservatives too. I agree- it is always going too far to suggest that those you do not like- or do not agree with- should be killed. It happens too frequently here on these boards.

That you believe that this guy is trying to 'garner sympathy for gays'- despite the absolute lack of evidence to support that assertion- well that just speaks to your own bias.

Internet blowhards (and role players pretending to be haters to milk sympathy...) are a little different from a proposed law that encourages the general public to shoot and kill gays. This is a ruse and you know it is. Are you honestly trying to say that the AG of California is suddenly hand-tied to do anything about a law proposed to shoot and kill citizens within her state because of deviant sexual behaviors?

Ah yes, the gay movement is conspiring to insert secret agents into internet forum discussions to turn sympathy toward gays by making anti gays seem more bigoted.

You are truly a horse's ass.

 

[Syriusly]

I have seen too many posters here on these boards suggest killing people that they do not like- liberals- blacks- homosexuals- and I am sure some have proposed killing conservatives too. I agree- it is always going too far to suggest that those you do not like- or do not agree with- should be killed. It happens too frequently here on these boards.

That you believe that this guy is trying to 'garner sympathy for gays'- despite the absolute lack of evidence to support that assertion- well that just speaks to your own bias.

Internet blowhards (and role players pretending to be haters to milk sympathy...) are a little different from a proposed law that encourages the general public to shoot and kill gays. This is a ruse and you know it is. Are you honestly trying to say that the AG of California is suddenly hand-tied to do anything about a law proposed to shoot and kill citizens within her state because of deviant sexual behaviors?

Ah yes, the gay movement is conspiring to insert secret agents into internet forum discussions to turn sympathy toward gays by making anti gays seem more bigoted.

You are truly a horse's ass.

She is delusional.

 

[Silhouette]

She is delusional.

The facts speak for themselves. AG Kamala Harris of CA suddenly professes impotence on a statute that the legislature there could quickly dismiss for no other reason than having a misleading title (forbidden in statute law or proposed initiatives). It seeks to amend the death penalty. That is not in the title of the proposed initiative, so it fails immediately. Kamala Harris knows this and pretends she doesn't. That's more than absurd. It's devious.

 

[Silhouette]

Well St. Mike, why else would Kamala Harris, knowing that because the title of the proposed statute must include its intent (to revise the death penalty) and it is invalid therefore, profess to not be able to do anything about it? She's participating in the ruse for political advantage for her pet cause: rule of California with a rainbow-iron fist. I suspect if you trace her campaign finance money backwards, you'll find the rainbow-alliance behind it.

 

[Silhouette]

I see a huge difference between wanting to make sodomy illegal and wanting to execute gay people. But even so, the opinion that sodomy should still be prosecuted is a minority opinion even among conservatives. Most of us simply don't care what you do in your own bedroom. Ask as many conservatives as you like and you'll see this is true.
Now Silhouette has a different issue going where he thinks I'm playing a role, that I'm pitching anti gay rhetoric for the same reason as this lawyer, to garner sympathy for gays. He's mentally disturbed in a way that it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see him throw his weight behind any proposition that gays be terminated; a rare and special kind of evil. While most conservatives like me are sick of the whole debate consuming American politics, he seems to have a hard on for gays (no pun intended) that approaches antagonistic levels and is indicative of hidden, unresolved psychological issues.

Perhaps you are new to the place and arent' familiar with why I campaign so hard about this particular issue...

...Because a good family friend died of AIDS..

Your buddies have read why I've thrown myself behind this. My friend was molested as a boy, became "gay" (mentally injured sexually by habituation), went on a self-destructive rampage of unprotected promiscuous gay sex, predictably came down with HIV and then died years later of AIDS. But not before he went out and continued to have tons of unprotected sex with other guys to complete his vendetta against "those that did this to him".
And his is unfortunately not an isolated case within the gay male community:

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

So, as it happens, the worst killers of gays are some within their own ranks. It's a completely hidden phenomenon that I've been out to expose for years, the entire etiology of where "gay" comes from, what it does and where its going. Mental illness can be passed on socially as it turns out:

Mayo Clinic 2007
"One of the most obvious examples of an environmental factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child. This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”or “abused-abusers phenomena.”5,23,24,46......
why the “abused abusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,in which the abused child is trying to gain a new identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place." http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

For further reading on socially-transmitted psycho-sexual disorders: Conditioning and Sexual Behavior; A Review
James G. Pfaus,
1 Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec, H3G 1M8 Canada
Received August 9, 2000, accepted March 1, 2001
http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf

 

[Silhouette]

At least Matt McLaughlin didn't propose that AIDS-terrorists be allowed to infect multiple anonymous sex partners as the form of death to gays...

 

[Silhouette]

Each of us is demonstrating a bias, considering the utter lack of evidence either way. And I'm not talking about just talk of killing groups of people, which I find very troubling in itself, I'm talking about somebody actually attempting to get the legislative ball rolling to make it a reality. I don't support capital punishment even for heinous murderers, much less people just living their lives in diverse ways. I wish that California would amend it's initiative process to prevent anyone from using it to call for the death of other human beings, but it's so sacrosanct for Californians, I doubt they'll enact any restrictions on it whatsoever, even those that might prevent such an event in the future.

But why aren't you talking about how the AG of California, Kamala Harris, isn't using this Constitutional provision to disqualify the statute by pressuring the legislature there (and why aren't they being proactive either?) to trash it because its about more than one thing and one of those things isn't clearly stated in the title (revision of the death penalty)???

THAT is what this thread is about:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_2
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL
SEC. 8. (a) The initiative is the power of the electors to propose
statutes and amendments to the Constitution and to adopt or reject
them.
(b) An initiative measure may be proposed by presenting to the
Secretary of State a petition that sets forth the text of the
proposed statute or amendment to the Constitution and is certified to
have been signed by electors equal in number to 5 percent in the
case of a statute, and 8 percent in the case of an amendment to the
Constitution, of the votes for all candidates for Governor at the
last gubernatorial election.
(c) The Secretary of State shall then submit the measure at the
next general election held at least 131 days after it qualifies or at
any special statewide election held prior to that general election.
The Governor may call a special statewide election for the measure.
(d) An initiative measure embracing more than one subject may not
be submitted to the electors or have any effect.

Matt McLaughlin's initative is about 1. Curbing pro-homosexuality propaganda to minors in school and 2. Amending the death penalty. That's more than one subject so it is immediately disqualified.

 

[Syriusly]

Each of us is demonstrating a bias, considering the utter lack of evidence either way. And I'm not talking about just talk of killing groups of people, which I find very troubling in itself, I'm talking about somebody actually attempting to get the legislative ball rolling to make it a reality. I don't support capital punishment even for heinous murderers, much less people just living their lives in diverse ways. I wish that California would amend it's initiative process to prevent anyone from using it to call for the death of other human beings, but it's so sacrosanct for Californians, I doubt they'll enact any restrictions on it whatsoever, even those that might prevent such an event in the future.

But why aren't you talking about how the AG of California, Kamala Harris, isn't using this Constitutional provision to disqualify the statute by pressuring the legislature there (and why aren't they being proactive either?) to trash it because its about more than one thing and one of those things isn't clearly stated in the title (revision of the death penalty)???

THAT is what this thread is about:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_2
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL
SEC. 8. (a) The initiative is the power of the electors to propose
statutes and amendments to the Constitution and to adopt or reject
them.
(b) An initiative measure may be proposed by presenting to the
Secretary of State a petition that sets forth the text of the
proposed statute or amendment to the Constitution and is certified to
have been signed by electors equal in number to 5 percent in the
case of a statute, and 8 percent in the case of an amendment to the
Constitution, of the votes for all candidates for Governor at the
last gubernatorial election.
(c) The Secretary of State shall then submit the measure at the
next general election held at least 131 days after it qualifies or at
any special statewide election held prior to that general election.
The Governor may call a special statewide election for the measure.
(d) An initiative measure embracing more than one subject may not
be submitted to the electors or have any effect.

Matt McLaughlin's initative is about 1. Curbing pro-homosexuality propaganda to minors in school and 2. Amending the death penalty. That's more than one subject so it is immediately disqualified.

Go ask her- or better yet- actually read some of the articles that discuss the issue.

Lots of information is out there.

 

[Syriusly]

At least Matt McLaughlin didn't propose that AIDS-terrorists be allowed to infect multiple anonymous sex partners as the form of death to gays...

And at least Matt McLaughlin didn't propose that Christians that sacrifice infants to Jesus be allowed to infect multiple anonymous sex partners as a form of death to Christians.

 

[Syriusly]

I see a huge difference between wanting to make sodomy illegal and wanting to execute gay people. But even so, the opinion that sodomy should still be prosecuted is a minority opinion even among conservatives. Most of us simply don't care what you do in your own bedroom. Ask as many conservatives as you like and you'll see this is true.
Now Silhouette has a different issue going where he thinks I'm playing a role, that I'm pitching anti gay rhetoric for the same reason as this lawyer, to garner sympathy for gays. He's mentally disturbed in a way that it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see him throw his weight behind any proposition that gays be terminated; a rare and special kind of evil. While most conservatives like me are sick of the whole debate consuming American politics, he seems to have a hard on for gays (no pun intended) that approaches antagonistic levels and is indicative of hidden, unresolved psychological issues.

...Because a good family friend died of AIDS..

Your buddies have read why I've thrown myself behind this. My friend was molested as a boy, became "gay" (mentally injured sexually by habituation), went on a self-destructive rampage of unprotected promiscuous gay sex, predictably came down with HIV and then died years later of AIDS. But not before he went out and continued to have tons of unprotected sex with other guys to complete his vendetta against "those that did this to him".
And his is unfortunately not an isolated case within the gay male community:f

Silhouette has trotted out this story, and built on it for years now.

The last version I remember he saying is that he was such a 'good friend' that he never told her about being molested, never told her that he was promiscuous, never told her that he was having any vendetta.

No- supposedly this 'good family friend' told his brother- who supposedly told Silhouette- who claims to be upset not because her 'good family friend' ended up being a supposed serial killer- but for some bizarre reason blames homosexuals for his supposed crime spree.

What is the truth?

Who knows- we know Silhouette plays fast and furious with the facts- so this story is doubtful.

We do know that most children who are molested do not go on to become serial killers. And usually the friends of those who are molested don't end up attacking all homosexuals because some child molester sexually assaulted a boy or a girl.

 

[Silhouette]

Silhouette has trotted out this story, and built on it for years now.

The last version I remember he saying is that he was such a 'good friend' that he never told her about being molested, never told her that he was promiscuous, never told her that he was having any vendetta...

His brother told my brother after he had died. His sordid tale was not something even close friends shared with each other. It was a source of shame for his family.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I see a huge difference between wanting to make sodomy illegal and wanting to execute gay people. But even so, the opinion that sodomy should still be prosecuted is a minority opinion even among conservatives. Most of us simply don't care what you do in your own bedroom. Ask as many conservatives as you like and you'll see this is true.
Now Silhouette has a different issue going where he thinks I'm playing a role, that I'm pitching anti gay rhetoric for the same reason as this lawyer, to garner sympathy for gays. He's mentally disturbed in a way that it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see him throw his weight behind any proposition that gays be terminated; a rare and special kind of evil. While most conservatives like me are sick of the whole debate consuming American politics, he seems to have a hard on for gays (no pun intended) that approaches antagonistic levels and is indicative of hidden, unresolved psychological issues.

...Because a good family friend died of AIDS..

Your buddies have read why I've thrown myself behind this. My friend was molested as a boy, became "gay" (mentally injured sexually by habituation), went on a self-destructive rampage of unprotected promiscuous gay sex, predictably came down with HIV and then died years later of AIDS. But not before he went out and continued to have tons of unprotected sex with other guys to complete his vendetta against "those that did this to him".
And his is unfortunately not an isolated case within the gay male community:f

Silhouette has trotted out this story, and built on it for years now.

The last version I remember he saying is that he was such a 'good friend' that he never told her about being molested, never told her that he was promiscuous, never told her that he was having any vendetta.

No- supposedly this 'good family friend' told his brother- who supposedly told Silhouette- who claims to be upset not because her 'good family friend' ended up being a supposed serial killer- but for some bizarre reason blames homosexuals for his supposed crime spree.

What is the truth?

Who knows- we know Silhouette plays fast and furious with the facts- so this story is doubtful.

We do know that most children who are molested do not go on to become serial killers. And usually the friends of those who are molested don't end up attacking all homosexuals because some child molester sexually assaulted a boy or a girl.

You're throwing rocks in a glass house. Keep in mind when that you've made claims about your family and personal life too, just like I have. You want to say she's lying? That's one bomb you can't throw far enough to escape the fallout.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Well St. Mike, why else would Kamala Harris, knowing that because the title of the proposed statute must include its intent (to revise the death penalty) and it is invalid therefore, profess to not be able to do anything about it? She's participating in the ruse for political advantage for her pet cause: rule of California with a rainbow-iron fist. I suspect if you trace her campaign finance money backwards, you'll find the rainbow-alliance behind it.

Haven't you been paying attention? That's what I've argued all along. I know this lawyer is plugging for the fag militia.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I see a huge difference between wanting to make sodomy illegal and wanting to execute gay people. But even so, the opinion that sodomy should still be prosecuted is a minority opinion even among conservatives. Most of us simply don't care what you do in your own bedroom. Ask as many conservatives as you like and you'll see this is true.
Now Silhouette has a different issue going where he thinks I'm playing a role, that I'm pitching anti gay rhetoric for the same reason as this lawyer, to garner sympathy for gays. He's mentally disturbed in a way that it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see him throw his weight behind any proposition that gays be terminated; a rare and special kind of evil. While most conservatives like me are sick of the whole debate consuming American politics, he seems to have a hard on for gays (no pun intended) that approaches antagonistic levels and is indicative of hidden, unresolved psychological issues.

Perhaps you are new to the place and arent' familiar with why I campaign so hard about this particular issue...

...Because a good family friend died of AIDS..

Your buddies have read why I've thrown myself behind this. My friend was molested as a boy, became "gay" (mentally injured sexually by habituation), went on a self-destructive rampage of unprotected promiscuous gay sex, predictably came down with HIV and then died years later of AIDS. But not before he went out and continued to have tons of unprotected sex with other guys to complete his vendetta against "those that did this to him".
And his is unfortunately not an isolated case within the gay male community:

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

So, as it happens, the worst killers of gays are some within their own ranks. It's a completely hidden phenomenon that I've been out to expose for years, the entire etiology of where "gay" comes from, what it does and where its going. Mental illness can be passed on socially as it turns out:

Mayo Clinic 2007
"One of the most obvious examples of an environmental factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child. This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”or “abused-abusers phenomena.”5,23,24,46......
why the “abused abusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,in which the abused child is trying to gain a new identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place." http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

For further reading on socially-transmitted psycho-sexual disorders: Conditioning and Sexual Behavior; A Review
James G. Pfaus,
1 Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec, H3G 1M8 Canada
Received August 9, 2000, accepted March 1, 2001
http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf

Now you're confusing me. I wouldn't have a friend like that. The gay women who are friends of mine are the most conscientious people you could ever come across. It's a funny thing because they don't like belligerent faggots any more than I do. And yes, they call those assholes faggots because that's what they are. These two women restore my faith that gay people can be decent folks, not like the vermin seen on this site.