The Sodimite Supression Act won't be on the ballot. (bill, eat)

[Unsettomati]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

The bill is deplorable and should be on the ballot if the correct amount of signatures are gathered.

No, it would be nothing less than idiotic to allow referenda on laws that, if passed, would be in violation of half of the Bill of Rights.

Funny how the hand-wringers who are oh so upset at not getting to vote on whether or not to execute gays somehow overlook that. If Harris had quashed a referendum to ban all firearm ownership with death, you'd be singing a different tune.

- - - - -


- - - - -


- - - - -


- - - - -


Yes, you would.

[cb73]

Ok, I'm posting for the last time on this.

1. Any nutjob can turn in a request for a ballot initiative. They're all accepted (with the filing fee) with no expectation that they will ever get on the ballot.

2. After the initiative is "filed" (and they're all filed if you pay the fee) then you are allowed a certain amount of time to collect valid, verifiable signatures on your petition to ask that your initiative be put on the ballot.

To change a statute, you need 365,880 valid signatures.
To change the California constitution (which seems like this would) you need 585,407 valid signatures.

Until you get all those signatures and they are verified as valid by the Secretary of State's office, and you do it before the deadline, your initiative is nothing but a $250 donation to the State. There are a LOT of initiatives filed every year--some are legit and end up on the ballot. Most are crazy and are never heard from again.

Unless you have witnessed petition gatherers outside some store or going door to door collecting signatures for this, (which didn't happen--the news would have been all over it) then this one falls with all the rest of the nutjob ones. Go to the SOS website some time and read all the initiative filings--besides the crazy ones, we have marijuana legalization, abortion restrictions and lots of increased taxes that fail to get enough signatures every year. Even the "splitting California into 6 states" that was talked about here--they couldn't get enough valid signatures.

Why this one was picked out for nationwide media coverage is unknown--but since Harris ended up the hero "saving" California from this initiative I can make a guess.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by Unsettomati

No, it would be nothing less than idiotic to allow referenda on laws that, if passed, would be in violation of half of the Bill of Rights.

Funny how the hand-wringers who are oh so upset at not getting to vote on whether or not to execute gays somehow overlook that. If Harris had quashed a referendum to ban all firearm ownership with death, you'd be singing a different tune.

- - - - -


- - - - -


- - - - -


- - - - -


Yes, you would.

No I wouldn't. Legal process is important. A politicians controlling what they think are acceptable bills from ever reaching he ballot for direct vote is very totalitarian. The place to over turn this would be in court after it has both collected the signatures and then received the majority of votes.

It is important to separate political opinion from correct and lawful process.

[EdJS]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

No I wouldn't. Legal process is important. A politicians controlling what they think are acceptable bills from ever reaching he ballot for direct vote is very totalitarian. The place to over turn this would be in court after it has both collected the signatures and then received the majority of votes.

It is important to separate political opinion from correct and lawful process.

I disagree. If an initiative is obviously unconstitutional, why waste everybody's time?

[cb73]

Originally Posted by EdJS

I disagree. If an initiative is obviously unconstitutional, why waste everybody's time?

But the question is who wasted your time. The fee was paid and it probably took someone at SOS 20 minutes to key it into their database, so the State made a profit on the $250 fee.

At that point, it was dead until/if proper petition signatures were submitted to the State.

The time was wasted by whoever thought it would be a "hot" news story to spread this far and wide, causing complaints to the SOS and anyone else they could think of--and causing the SOS to "end" it by going to court.

So who really did waste the people's time on this?

There's another initiative right now, making eating shellfish in California a felony punishable by a prison term of 6 years. Apparently the anti-shellfish-haters haven't heard about it yet--will we waste time on another nonsense initiative?

[2sleepy]

If this petition had been accepted it would have given the nut job author an opportunity to advertise his petition on the media for months, if you don't see a problem with that occurring then I can't explain it to you

[treedroppings]

Originally Posted by Snort

Do you know what you'd have if the sodomites ever decided to unite?

Gay marriage? So what?!

[Snort]

No.....something, something about a conga line.

[Dean Trails]

Originally Posted by incognitoe

Or Mentally unstable gay bashing Christians......

Ahh, intolerance much? I suppose tolerance only goes one way. Yep, that must be it.

[Drivingmenuts32]

I am really tired of people generalizing that all Christians are the same and that anyone against gay anything is a Christian hater and all that. We believe that all people are made in the image of God and above all that we love all people. Just because we think that homosexuality is a sin, does not mean we hate homosexuals. Just like we don't hate speeders or crab eaters,. or smokers, or tatoo wearers. Goodness, I wish people would get off this. So maybe we don't want gay marriage flaunted in our faces. So why does everyone think it's OK to legislate against polygamy and not gay marriage. That question is NEVER brought up. It hurts no but the consenting adults.

I don't think this bill was anything but a publicity stunt and doesn't do anyone any good.