The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: anti gay bill
California Officials Powerless To Stop Proposed Anti-Gay Initiative

California Officials Powerless To Stop Proposed Anti-Gay Initiative

By Hailey Branson-Potts, Patrick McGreevy, and Emily Foxhall, Los Angeles Times (TNS)

Over the decades, California has chiseled out some of its most colorful laws at the ballot box.

There have been proposed initiatives seeking to allow public schoolchildren be able to sing Christmas carols, to require drug testing of state legislators, to outlaw divorce, and to divide California into six states.

But the proposed initiative submitted by a Huntington Beach attorney that would authorize the killing of gays and lesbians by “bullets to the head” — or “any other convenient method” — is testing the limits of the state’s normally liberal attitude on putting even the most extreme ideas on the ballot if enough signatures are collected.

The proposed initiative has been met by a firestorm of anger, yet there appears to be nothing that can stop it from being given a formal name and advancing to the signature-gathering process.

For a fee of $200, Matthew McLaughlin submitted what he called the Sodomite Suppression Act to the state attorney general’s office, which has little choice but to give it a ballot-worthy name, summarize its effects and set the clock running for gathering signatures.

“Mr. McLaughlin’s immoral proposal is just the latest — and most egregious — example of the need to further reform the initiative process,” Assemblyman Evan Low, D-Campbell, said.

Some of California’s most controversial laws have been given life through the initiative process, though some lived only briefly. A 1996 initiative legalized marijuana for medicinal use, a law that still stands. Two years earlier, voters approved the so-called Save Our State initiative, which denied a public education and other benefits to those in the country illegally — a law that was quickly declared to be illegal.

Two lawmakers said they were so revolted by McLaughlin’s submitted initiative that they have proposed a bill that would increase the fee for filing a ballot measure from $200 to $8,000.

“We live in California, the cradle of direct democracy, but we also need a threshold for reasonableness,” said Low, who co-authored the legislation with Assemblyman Richard Bloom, D-Santa Monica.

But to get on the ballot, McLaughlin and any supporters he has would have to collect more than 365,000 signatures in 180 days, a high bar even for well-financed efforts.

“In California, this has the same chance as a snowball’s chance in hell,” said Jaime Regalado, professor emeritus of political science at California State University, Los Angeles.

Kurt Oneto, a Sacramento attorney who specializes in the initiative process, said Attorney General Kamala Harris does not have the ability to turn down McLaughlin’s proposed ballot measure, regardless of how she might feel.

“The state gets serious initiatives that are submitted and we get silly ones, and every now and then we get ugly ones like this,” Oneto said. “I would submit this is probably the ugliest one I remember.”

McLaughlin’s proposal calls same-sex intimacy “a monstrous evil” and says it would be better for gay people to die than for Californians to “be killed by God’s just wrath against us for the folly of tolerating wickedness in our midst.”

It also would make the spreading of “sodomistic propaganda” punishable by a $1 million fine, 10 years in jail or deportation from the state. And it would ban gay people from holding public office.

If the proposal collected enough signatures, it would be placed on the November 2016 ballot. If voters were to approve it, the decision on whether to make it a law would ultimately rest with the courts, which have overturned measures approved by the voters, including Proposition 8, which barred same-sex marriages.

McLaughlin could not be located for comment. The address he lists with the state bar is a postal box at a Beach Boulevard strip mall, his phone goes straight to voicemail and no one came to the door at the downtown Huntington Beach address where he is registered to vote.

The state bar shows that McLaughlin’s law license is active and that he graduated from the University of California, Irvine and then George Mason University School of Law. A Huntington Beach attorney with the same name and identical academic background submitted an initiative more than a decade ago that would have allowed public school teachers in California to use the Bible as a textbook.

“Even if you don’t believe its teachings, you’ll agree that it includes rich usage of the English language,” McLaughlin told the Los Angeles Times in a 2004 interview, saying that the Bible helped him become an honor student at Costa Mesa High School.

Earlier this month, the California Legislature’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Caucus filed a formal complaint against McLaughlin with the State Bar of California, asking that he be investigated.

An online petition at change.org calling for McLaughlin to be disbarred had more than 17,000 signatures Monday.

Dave Garcia, director of policy for the Los Angeles LGBT Center, said that anybody who signs McLaughlin’s proposal and “calls for the murder of gay people” should expect that “their names are going to be made public.”

(c)2015 Los Angeles Times, Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC

Photo via Wikimedia Commons

Arizona Measure Shows Republican Aim To Keep Focus On Jobs, Economy

Arizona Measure Shows Republican Aim To Keep Focus On Jobs, Economy

By Cathleen Decker, Los Angeles Times

In its swiftness and brute force, Republican opposition to the Arizona measure that would have bolstered the right to deny services to gays sent one message to GOP Gov. Jan Brewer: Veto it.

And it sent another to everyone else in the Republican Party: Keep your eyes on the ball.

On the cusp of what the GOP hopes will be a November takeover of both houses of Congress, and the start of a 2016 presidential contest that it hopes will end with the White House in its embrace, party leaders appear to have shifted strategy: Instead of ignoring deviations from Republicans’ strong suit, they will try to quash them.

Social issues, particularly ones that draw the wrath of much of the public, are out, at least for the business wing of the party. Jobs, forever the focus of voters, are in.

“Most people agree that 2014 offers an outstanding opportunity to take back the Senate, but with that opportunity we’ve got to continue to focus the party message on things that are helpful,” said Dave Kochel, a veteran party strategist in Iowa. “There is a pretty strong consensus that this isn’t one of the things that we need to spend time and energy on.”

The demand for Republicans, he said, is “to focus on what people are focused on, which is jobs, health care, a lot of other issues that rise a lot higher in people’s minds than this.”

Such laser-like discipline has evaded Republicans of late. In the last week alone, one Senate candidate in Kansas came under fire for posting X-rays of shooting victims on his Facebook page. A Virginia state senator declared that pregnant women served as the “child’s host.” A Senate candidate from Texas gained attention for using slurs against Latinos and President Barack Obama.

Individually, those can be ascribed to bad candidates. Together, the drumbeat threatens the public image of a party that faces mid- and long-term struggles even as it finds itself in an advantageous position this year.

The party’s image problems are acute because the views of its leaders and most activist elements of its base run counter to the nation as a whole on a host of issues — particularly when it comes to younger voters whose positions are far more liberal. That makes it easier for Democrats to create their own negative image of Republicans, as they have by claiming that the party is engaged in a “war on women” and, most recently, in gibes against backers of the Arizona measure.

A New York Times/CBS News poll published Thursday demonstrated the long-term threat. On a host of issues that Democrats have pressed as they try to define Republicans, the GOP is wholly out of step with Americans overall.

Americans supported same-sex marriage by a 17-point margin, and backed stricter gun laws, legal use of marijuana and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. By a 2-1 margin, they favored an increase in the minimum wage. All are issues on which Republican leaders and party activists hold the opposite view.

But the poll also reinforced the view of Republican strategists that the path forward runs through rocky economic ground. Almost two-thirds of those surveyed said the country was on the wrong track, a traditional marker for views on the economy. Almost 6 in 10 disapproved of the way Obama has handled the economy. (Obama’s approval rating stood at 41 percent, his lowest in two years.)

That suggests a unity of thought on the economy that Republicans can use to their advantage in November and beyond. And that is a key reason for keeping their focus tightly drawn.

For that, Arizona served as a template. Both of the state’s senators — Republicans John McCain and Jeff Flake — came out against the measure, as did the party’s 2012 presidential nominee, Mitt Romney. Business leaders, many of them traditionally supportive of Republicans, also sought to elbow the measure aside.

In vetoing it, Brewer suggested that it ran counter to Arizona’s efforts to attract business and said that it “could result in unintended and negative consequences.” She did not say whether she meant to businesses or to Arizona’s reputation, though it certainly was to both.

That said, it is not clear whether this particular measure fully engaged the party’s cultural conservative wing, which no Republican with upward aspirations willingly offends. That party element provides much of the Republican fervor, especially in non-presidential years like this one.

Like Iowa’s Kochel, GOP strategist Reed Galen said the Arizona measure appeared to be a solution in search of a problem — and ended up giving the economic wing of the party a chance to flex its muscle.

“It showed … the moderate and social libertarian wing of the Republican Party finding its voice and saying we’re not just going to sit by while those measures [are passed that] provide a much harder environment for us to compete nationally,” the Orange County, Calif.-based Galen said. “It was a win for the — I’ll call it the fiscally conservative, socially respectful wing.”

Jon Matthies via Flickr

This Week In Crazy: ‘Bow The Knee To The God Of Gayness,’ And The Rest Of The Worst Of The Right

This Week In Crazy: ‘Bow The Knee To The God Of Gayness,’ And The Rest Of The Worst Of The Right

Welcome to “This Week In Crazy,” The National Memo’s weekly update on the wildest attacks, conspiracy theories, and other loony behavior from the increasingly unhinged right wing. Starting with number five

5. Chris Mapp

Chris Mapp

Screenshot: YouTube

One week after Texas Senate candidate Dwayne Stovall dropped one of the craziest campaign ads you’ll ever see, another challenger to Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) has exposed his wingnut bona fides.

In an editorial endorsing Senator Cornyn for re-election, the Dallas Morning News noted — in the understatement of the century — that “the other candidates are less informed, little known and generally offer extreme, vague or impractical ideas.”

“South Texas businessman Chris Mapp, 53, told this editorial board that ranchers should be allowed to shoot on sight anyone illegally crossing the border on to their land, referred to such people as ‘wetbacks,’ and called the president a ‘socialist son of a bitch,'” the editorial board wrote.

Mapp’s unique “shoot wetbacks on sight” immigration plan unsurprisingly caused controversy in Texas, forcing Mapp to explain himself. It did not go well; his defense to the San Antonio Express-News was that using the racial slur is as “normal as breathing air in South Texas.”

When Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) launched his insane campaign to depose “Liberal John Cornyn,” it seemed like a safe bet that he’d be the craziest candidate in the race. But this being Texas, perhaps we should have known better.

4. Louie Gohmert

Louie Gohmert2

Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Of course when it comes to crazy Texas politicians, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) is still the reigning champion.

Gohmert, predictably, was a big fan of the controversial anti-gay bill that passed through Arizona’s legislature before being vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer. But the rationale for Gohmert’s support was rather bizarre — even by his standards.

“These are religious beliefs and how have we gotten so far afield from the Constitution that we say, well if you’re not willing to embrace the liberal beliefs that we have then your religious beliefs are not protected?” Gohmert said during a Wednesday appearance on the Janet Mefferd show. “It doesn’t say that in the First Amendment, it avoids the establishment of a religion. Well some are establishing the religion of secularism and everybody else’s religion has just got to basically go to blazes.”

You may be stuck trying to figure out what the “religion of secularism” is, but Gohmert plowed right ahead, explaining how discriminating against gay people is the natural conclusion to the civil rights movement.

“Some of them are very shocked, they participated in the civil rights movement and then to turn around and have gay rights folks saying now ‘you can’t practice your religious beliefs…’ Wait a minute, wait a minute, we stood up for you and your beliefs and now you’re saying we can’t stand up for our beliefs because they conflict with you?” Gohmert exclaimed. “That’s not what freedom is about.”

In case this was somehow not clear already, don’t take history lessons from Louie Gohmert.

Audio of Gohmert’s comments is available atRight Wing Watch.

3. Bryan Fischer

It may not shock you to learn that America’s most paranoid homophobe, American Family Association mouthpiece Bryan Fischer, was also a big fan of the Arizona law.

On Monday, Fischer explained that the law would be a critical weapon in his never-ending fight against hypermasculine homosexual stormtrooopers.

“They are jack-booted homofascist thugs,” Fischer said of the law’s opponents, “who want to use the tyrannical and totalitarian power of the state to send men of faith to jail. That sounds far more like Nazi Germany than the United States of America.”

Two days later, Fischer offered a slightly more articulate version of Gohmert’s argument.

“Yeah, Jim Crow is back,” Fischer said of the law’s opponents, “but it’s because of the work of Big Gay and their allies, including the NFL.”

With regards to the NFL’s threat to move the Super Bowl from Arizona if the law passes, Fischer raged “What the NFL is saying to Arizona [is that] if you don’t bow the knee to the God of Gayness, you cannot sit at our lunch counter.”

If you’re cringing at Fischer’s awful lunch counter analogy, cut the guy some slack. After all, he loves black males!

2. Lawrence Lockman

Lockman
Image via Maine.gov

Last year, the right-wing Susan B. Anthony list began training Republicans to stop terrifying voters by sharing their theories on “legitimate rape” and abortion with the public.

Unfortunately, they came far too late to help Maine state representative Lawrence Lockman.

Lockman, a Tea Party-backed ally of Maine’s equally absurd Governor Paul LePage, has a long history of erratic behavior. A report from Bangor Daily News’ Mike Tipping, published Tuesday, reveals that Lockman has uttered a shocking number of offensive statements throughout his three decades in politics. But this statement from 1995 stands out as especially crazy:

If a woman has (the right to abortion), why shouldn’t a man be free to use his superior strength to force himself on a woman? At least the rapist’s pursuit of sexual freedom doesn’t (in most cases) result in anyone’s death.

You read that correctly: According to Lockman, if abortion is legal, then rape — excuse me, “pursuit of sexual freedom” — should be too. After all, it’s a victimless crime (unless someone dies.)

Even Todd Akin probably thinks that Lockman should have kept that one to himself.

The revelation of Lockman’s remarks has prompted loud calls for his resignation, and a half-hearted apology from the first-term legislator (“I have always been passionate about my beliefs, and years ago I said things that I regret,” he explained).

If Maine’s legislature does use its superior strength to force him out of office, Lockman shouldn’t fret; after all, the Virginia Republicans would probably welcome him with open arms.

1. Tea Party Nation

judson phillips

This week’s “winner” is Tea Party Nation president Judson Phillips, who somehow managed to one-up Gohmert and Fischer with an even more ridiculous response to Arizona’s S.B. 1062.

Writing on the Tea Party Nation website, Phillips laments that “the left and the homosexual lobby are both pushing slavery using the Orwellian concepts of ‘tolerance’ and ‘inclusiveness.'”

After slamming Governor Jan Brewer for giving in to the leftist gay slavemasters — “She has an honored place in the ranks of the French Republicans,” Phillips writes — the hate group leader gets to the meat of his crazy argument:

Should a devote [sic] baker be required to create a cake for a homosexual wedding that has a giant phallic symbol on it or should a baker be required to create pastries for a homosexual wedding in the shape of genitallia [sic]? Or should a photographer be required to photograph a homosexual wedding where the participants decide they want to be nude or engage in sexual behavior? Would they force a Jewish photographer to work a Klan or Nazi event? How about forcing a Muslim caterer to work a pork barbeque dinner?

That’s right: One day you’re being prevented from refusing service to LGBT customers, the next you’re being forced to bake penis pastries and photograph the ensuing orgy.

Clearly, Arizona’s anti-gay bill inspired an abundance of startlingly crazy responses. But with apologies to Gohmert, Fischer, and many, many others, Judson Phillips once again takes the (non-phallic) cake.

Check out previous editions of This Week In Crazy here. Think we missed something? Let us know in the comments!

Arizona Governor Brewer Vetoes Anti-Gay Bill

Arizona Governor Brewer Vetoes Anti-Gay Bill

By Cindy Carcamo, Los Angeles Times

TUCSON, Ariz. — In a victory hailed by gay rights advocates, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a bill Wednesday that would have bolstered a business owner’s right to refuse service to gays and others on the basis of religion.

The veto, delivered the same day a federal judge struck down a law against same-sex marriage in Texas, came amid an intense national outcry by the gay community, its supporters, business owners and Arizona political leaders.

“Senate Bill 1062 does not address a specific and present concern related to religious liberty in Arizona,” Brewer said in televised remarks from Phoenix. “I have not heard of one example in Arizona where a business owner’s religious liberty has been violated.”

She said she worried that the bill had “the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve.” Cheers from the bill’s opponents, who had gathered outside the Capitol, could be heard as Brewer finished her statement.

Critics had described the bill as anti-gay, unconstitutional and divisive — and potentially harmful to Arizona’s economy and reputation.

Brewer also said the bill’s wording was “too broad.” She echoed concerns from constitutional scholars who had said the law could affect not just gays but others. Would the bill allow, they asked, a merchant to deny service to someone of another religion? Could a merchant cite their religious beliefs and decline to serve an unwed mother?

Proponents of SB 1062 say the bill was misrepresented. They argued that it was not discriminatory but intended to protect religious freedom.

The Center for Arizona Policy, a conservative group that helped craft the bill, called Wednesday “a sad day.”

“SB 1062 passed the Legislature for one reason only: to guarantee that all Arizonans would be free to live and work according to their faith,” Cathi Herrod, the group’s president, said in a statement. “Opponents were desperate to distort this bill rather than debate the merits. Essentially, they succeeded in getting a veto of a bill that does not even exist.”

The bill, approved by the Republican-controlled Legislature last week, was met with immediate and widespread criticism, prompting three Republicans who voted for the measure to reverse course and join a chorus of people calling for a veto.

The Arizona House Republican Caucus released a statement after the veto, saying it respected Brewer’s decision, “especially in light of the concerns brought up over the past week.”

Some foes of the legislation threatened to boycott Arizona if the bill became law, much as some groups boycotted the state after the passage of a tough anti-illegal immigration law in 2010.

That possibility worried executives of some companies and business organizations who also urged Brewer to veto it. Among the companies rising in opposition were Apple, American Airlines, Marriott and Delta Air Lines. The Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee also came out against the bill, saying it would “deal a significant blow” to the state’s economy. Arizona is scheduled to host the 2015 Super Bowl.

Hours before Brewer’s veto message, the Hispanic National Bar Association announced that it would move its 40th annual convention, scheduled for 2015 in Phoenix, to some other location because of SB 1062.

Republican leaders also urged a veto. Among them were former presidential candidate Mitt Romney and Arizona’s U.S. senators, John McCain and Jeff Flake.

Technically, the bill would have expanded the definition of the free exercise of religion, allowing a faithful person to adhere to his or her beliefs in practice. It would have also expanded the definition of “person” to include any business, association and corporation.

Arizona’s bill was similar to proposals in other states, including ones that failed in Kansas and Idaho.

The legislation came on the heels of two cases in which state courts elsewhere sided with gay couples in wedding-related lawsuits.

In New Mexico, the state Supreme Court allowed a gay couple to sue a photographer who refused to photograph their commitment ceremony. In Colorado, a state judge ruled against a baker who had refused to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple.

Even though SB 1062 was vetoed, similar bills may be coming down the pipeline affecting the gay community, said state Rep. Demion Clinco, a Democrat from Tucson.

Clinco, who is the only openly gay representative in the House, said the failed legislation is part of a series of “preemptive bills” in anticipation of same-sex marriage possibly being allowed in Arizona.

The House may vote as early as this week on a bill that would expand the definition of minister to include various officials who may preside at weddings, such as judges and justices of the peace.

HB 2481 would allow them to refuse to officiate at same-sex marriages on “sincerely held religious beliefs.”

“I think it’s just part of this climate of attacks on the LGBTQ community,” Clinco said. “Ultimately it creates opportunities for discrimination under the guise of religion.”

Photo: Gage Skidmore via Flickr