Attorney Matt McLaughlin, an attorney in Huntington Beach, California, is facing a call for disbarment after he filed for a statewide resolution that would legalize the execution of gay people and make it a crime to support gay rights in the state. Anyone can file such papers and, for just $200, force the attorney general to prepare a title and a summary for the proposed new law. The question is whether this despicable act can or should be used for a bar action as conduct that shows that he is not of “good moral character.”
The 2016 initiative, named the “Sodomite Suppression Act”, is awaiting further review by the office of the state attorney general, Kamala Harris, and would mandate “any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head, or by any other convenient method.” It would also make it a crime to support gay rights, punishable by a $1 million fine and up to 10 years in prison (as well as expulsion from the state). It would also make it illegal to distribute “sodomistic propaganda” to “any person under the age of majority”. Furthermore, being a “sodomite” or distributing “sodomistic propaganda” would disqualify a resident from serving in public office or public employment and from enjoying any public benefit. McLaughlin stated in his proposal that it is “better that offenders should die rather than that all of us should be killed by God’s just wrath”. Suffice it to say, McLaughlin has some serious issues as well as a serious need for psychoanalysis.
However, what he did was the exercise of a legal action with the political system. There is an ironic twist to the notion of his claims of morality being used to establish that he is not of “good moral character.” We have faced this type of issue before. If an attorney does not engage in discriminatory or hateful treatment of clients or witnesses, should he be punished for his political or moral views? I tend to be leery of speech being the basis for criminal or bar sanctions because it is difficult to see where to draw the line. There are many attorneys who engage in political speech as individuals that is deemed insulting to different races or genders.
State senator Ricardo Lara and others have filed a formal complaint with the state bar. It is not clear if any proceeding would bring up past controversies with McLaughlin, including his 2004 proposed initiative to add the King James Bible as a textbook in California public schools. Once again, such efforts are taken in his capacity as a citizen within the political system.
What do you think?
“Sooo, if you are full of love, what are supposed to do???”
A: Stop hating and start forgiving yourself so you can make room for the love to fill the void hate occupies in our heart.
Advocating murder never comes from a loving place, Squeeky. Never does…
“You can read this to see how tolerance of gays is a bad thing… ” edit link to a Reichwing news site.
Shorter Squeeky: Kill the gays. Like Hitler did. Purity of the sex is the security of our future. Sieg Heil!
davidm
Please read what I wrote to Happypappies RE: sin no more</a href). Of those present before Jesus, who admitted to being sinners before him by their act of dropping the rocks once confronted about their sinful natures?
So, why is she the "whore" again? And calling her as the "whore" all the while failing to recognize that it was the men who were the sinners amongst them all, what should these men be called? More so, failing to highlight THEIR sinfulness by addressing the woman as a "whore" is rather… Dark Ages.
Remember, she's labeled a "whore" while the men get to just walk away.
And whom amongst them all (the woman, the men, and Jesus) admitted that they were the sinners? yet somehow, the woman in the picture is supposed to be, by far, much MUCH more sinful?
Max-1 wrote: “I always read the “Go, sin no more” as a command to the men.”
This is not a possible interpretation because 1) the text specifically says he said it to the woman, and 2) nobody except the woman and Jesus were there. Everybody else left, so he could not be commanding any men not to sin anymore.
Max-1 wrote: “Only a few women are featured in a few texts by name.”
That’s not really true either. You are reading this through the eyes of modern feminism. It is true that like in all societies, men tend to rise to be leaders of society, the Bible mentions a lot of women. In the Hebrew Scriptures when a later prophet highlights the great prophets leading Israel out of Egypt, it mentions that God sent Moses, Aaron, and Miriam (Micah 6:4). In the Scriptures written after Christ, there are many women mentioned, including women evangelist and apostles. The person who first preached the gospel of Christ’s resurrection was a woman name Mary Magdalene. Other women mentioned by name include another Mary, and Joanna, and a woman named Salome. Later we read of Tabitha by name, and another woman named Lydia. Other women mentioned include Phebe, Priscilla, Mary, Junias, Julia, and others.
Max-1 wrote: “yet somehow, the woman in the picture is supposed to be, by far, much MUCH more sinful?”
I don’t see it that way.
@happypappies
What would Jesus do if a tobacco company executive was being strung up by some people who had gotten lung cancer??? My GUESS is he would stop the lynching, but I doubt he would encourage the executive to go forth and sell more cigarettes. Because just like gays and HIV, about 20% of smokers get lung cancer.
There is still a big realistic difference between heterosexual sexual naughtiness and gay male sexual goings on. The simple truth is, that gay male sexual activity is grossly physically dangerous to the participants, and the only way someone would encourage it is if they really didn’t care a whit about the guys doing it.
Ask yourself what some here would say if Uganda passed a law which penalized people caught selling of cigarettes with death by stoning. As Americans, we would all think the penalty is harsh. But, I bet there would also be a widespread calculation of how many lives were going to be saved by the new law. Because none of us are afraid to discuss the dangers of cigarette smoking.
But, when Uganda or some other country does the same thing with gays, either killing them or locking them up, nobody does the math and tries to figure how many lives would be saved. Why??? Because the gay lobby shuts up valid criticisms and most people are too chicken to risk saying anything.
I ain’t.
You can read this to see how tolerance of gays is a bad thing, and tends to kill big bunches of them. It’s a great read:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117691/aids-hit-united-states-harder-other-developed-countries-why
Sooo, if you are full of love, what are supposed to do???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky
I think since they found it was from anal and unprotected sex, much like syphilis was in the Middle Ages, that we can control that, as well as the fact of dirty needles. We have also found that lymphatic cancer, which was the root cause of the HIV virus, might be cured by the virus itself and they are experimenting with that now.
In just a few days in a well-equipped laboratory, scientists can now cut, copy and paste cancer-contributing DNA into HIV, harvest the virus and infect immortal cell lines, creating an unlimited reservoir of cells which have only a single DNA change compared to non HIV-infected cells. Scientists can then see exactly what the specific piece of abnormal DNA does to the cells, for example how it changes the resilience of the cells to a new chemotherapy drug.
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/how-notorious-hiv-being-hijacked-tackle-cancer
happypappies
lastly, I agree about the series of administrations. Bad to the bone! Our Government is so lost unto itself and the People are so damned deaf, dumb and blinded by party loyalty, they’d vote against their best interests every time. Want change in the political landscape? As I say, start voting third party and force the GOP/DEM party to sweat out their political future. Heck, It’s never more war when (insert which ever political party is in office) does it. Extremely measurable at this stage in American politics. Did you know we’re on our way into the Ukraine, next week? http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll131.xml
Yep, my once very staunch anti-war Representative from Seattle, McDermott voted for war. I called his office on Monday after the vote was cast and asked why… they didn’t even know about the vote, OR the bill. I asked for a response. Still waiting.
Max-1
You cannot serve God and Mammon
Matthew 19
4″Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
dinners = s/b sinners
happiepappies
I always read the “Go, sin no more” as a command to the men.
Remember, Jesus asked of the men, who is without sin. None were. So, why would Jesus not direct the men to sin no more, yet reserve it for only the woman? Jesus never asked of her if she is sinful enough to be deserving of stoning. He acted in her defense. IMO the author(s), in the frame of time these stories were written, women served a secondary role to men’s desires and only were featured in the Bible rarely. Only a few women are featured in a few texts by name. Women, as chattel… ergo, the author(s) directing the Lord’s rebuke toward the woman and not the men… the dinners who aren’t worthy of stoning a woman.
And the woman… why wasn’t she another man’s responsibility? Why was she left to fend for her own? And when in male dominant culture that oppress a woman’s ability to be whole by crafting religious laws and customs that keep the woman chained to a man… chattel. She may have been someone’s property, literally and was pimped out for all we know. YET, no rebuke to the men for their sins, other than, “drop that rock”? I’ll call it Byzantine/Dark Ages Misogynistic attitudes that linger in modern day religious texts.
happypappies wrote: “What was Jesus writing in the sand when he told the Adulteress to go and sin no more.”
(which one of you were with her?)
answer: They all have been.
microck drop!waiting for davidm to cite scripture citing Jesus discussing gays…
happtpappies
You saw my comment. I walk a thin line here and I am not popular for it.
= = =
We all walk thin lines here… I get beat up all the time, too. There are a few of us that do. Then, I treat my brother back how he treated me? Well, I’m human and my impulse to react back does get the better of me A-LOT!!!
(12 Hail Mary’s/24 Our Fathers worth)
happypappies
I wrote: And somehow the Christians have take. A fancy to doing Caesar’s bidding rather God’s instead.
Should be: And somehow the Christians have taken a fancy to doing Caesar’s bidding rather God’s instead.
🙂
@DavidM and happypappies
You said, “Most people do not care to really look at and study the matter. It is all about what feels good and looks good.”
Absolutely true. The mere act of asking questions gets you labeled homophobic. This is one of the things I find most insane about the national rush to embrace gayness. Mention that gays may have some choice in the matter and here comes The Gay Flying Squad. Yet, nobody stops to question what happened to de Blasio’s wife, for example. She used to be a self-identified lesbian, and now here she is having sex with a man, marrying a man, and having a kid with him. Did she change her orientation? Was she never a lesbian. at all, and actually bi-sexual?
How about the legalities? In a suit, would she have “protected status” and “standing” when she was messing with a woman, and then lose it when she started screwing exclusively with a man??? What if she changed from lesbian to straight during the pendency of a legal action?
As far as what happypappies asked above about all the religions doing mutual denials of service, I think the issue would be helped by a little deconstruction. Darren had a good point about people in business wanting to make money, and overall, I think generalized non-discrimination laws for merchants is probably a good thing. But nobody seems to be refusing to sell a can of pork and beans to gays.
The problem only seems to arise when gays insist that deeply religious Christians participate in gay marriage arrangements, when many of those same Christians view marriage as a holy sacrament. Participating in gay marriage, for those persons, bears the same insult to their faith that the Black Mass, with its upside down cross, does to a regular Mass.
That makes that act directly impact the practice of religion in a way that selling a can of pork and beans. does not. I can see a law tailored to preventing two gays from forcing a Christian baker or photographer to serve them, while preventing those same Christians from refusing to sell them a hammer in a hardware store, or a pink lawn flamingo.
There is another specialized non-religious area which should permit refusal of service to gays. Suppose for example, that it is Foreskin Pride Day among the gays, and some dudes want to sit at the lunch counter with their little uncut weenies hanging out of their britches. Nope. Normal people should be able to chase those freaks out of the store. IMO.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky dear (lolol) 😉
The problem only seems to arise when gays insist that deeply religious Christians participate in gay marriage arrangements, when many of those same Christians view marriage as a holy sacrament. Participating in gay marriage, for those persons, bears the same insult to their faith that the Black Mass, with its upside down cross, does to a regular Mass.
Okkaaayyyyy Nothing like starting at a very early age of brainwashing the Fundamental Christian. And keeping it that way because Tammy Fae and Jim Bakker said it was wrong wrong wrong to be gay gay gay as they ran off with the money – yes – these churches are veeerrry deeply religious. And, they are rich!!! Our church is poor. Why is that??
They are buying their pride and prejudices that Jesus warned them about. Every night before I go to sleep, when I am allowed to sleep, I turn things over in my mind and pray. What was Jesus writing in the sand when he told the Adulteress to go and sin no more. What was he writing? Was it a new commandment? Maybe to stop throwing stones at our fellow sinning men? idk. He is the one who said to love each other. Not to refuse service.
Your argument does not hold water with what Jesus was about. Not at al.
happypappies wrote: “What was Jesus writing in the sand when he told the Adulteress to go and sin no more.”
Because you are a deaconess in your church, I offer a few religious thoughts.
We might not know what Jesus was writing, but we do know what he said. Jesus told her to go and sin no more. He told her to stop fornicating. He told her to stop behaving like a whore. He did not officiate a wedding ceremony for her and her illicit lover. He did not teach her to divorce her husband. In other teachings, he took a very hard line against divorce, a position that few in our culture could endure hearing; namely, that merely marrying a divorced woman is to commit the sin of adultery.
Do you seriously think Jesus would tell two gay men that he loves them and blesses their fornication? Or maybe Jesus would express his love for them in the same way he did to this whore. Maybe he would express love in the message that he preached everywhere, which was, “Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand.” Repent means to turn away from sin, not to turn toward sin. Gay marriage is turning toward sin, not away from it.
davidm2575
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11 “No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
Okay davidm2575, you truly are one of my favorite people on this blog because you never pretend you don’t understand what I am talking about. Perhaps the others truly don’t understand what I am speaking of, I don’t know.
Now, please, do me the favor of going back and rereading your comment and then rereading what Jesus said here and tell me where you got that answer?
Please respond because most people here will not respond to me and I would very much appreciate a response and I am being sincere.
happypappies wrote: “Now, please, do me the favor of going back and rereading your comment and then rereading what Jesus said here and tell me where you got that answer?”
My post was simply drawing attention to what I thought you might have overlooked. If you think Jesus accepts gay marriage and commands his followers to celebrate gays getting married, I think you are grossly mistaken. I was drawing attention to what Jesus was saying in that little phrase, “go and sin no more.” Was Jesus condoning adultery? No. Was he being accepting of adulterous behavior? No. Was he showing acceptance of fornication (which is what homosexuality is)? No. There is probably no other person in the Bible who took such a hard line on the purity and sanctity of marriage than Jesus. While some Jewish sects were justifying divorce if your wife burned her husband’s toast, Jesus was saying that unless there was already fornication involved, divorcing your wife was causing her to commit adultery. There is no logical possibility that Jesus accepts or encourages gay marriage. Jesus supported celibacy and the institution of marriage as between one woman and one man. It is notable that the Jews still practiced polygamy at the time that Jesus taught what came to be the traditional definition of monogamous marriage.
Davidm2575
There is no logical possibility that Jesus accepts or encourages gay marriage. Jesus supported celibacy and the institution of marriage as between one woman and one man. It is notable that the Jews still practiced polygamy at the time that Jesus taught what came to be the traditional definition of monogamous
We don’t know this for sure. You are looking at God as choosing the Jews as his Chosen. While my Church does this and we have this Black Book called the Holy Bible and I Discern Scripture from it day and night and I believe that God is ineffable, unknowable, and sovereign I do not believe that he chose the Jews over all other people and protected them and gave them manna and parted the Red Sea and Made it so Giant Races went extinct because they were bad and the Jews were a good chosen people.
I am an Existential Christian. I am extremely moral. The nect commentary is from Wikipedia because it is so concise that I prefer using it.
An existential reading of the Bible demands that the reader recognize that he is an existing subject, studying the words that God communicates to him personally. This is in contrast to looking at a collection of “truths” which are outside and unrelated to the reader.[6] Such a reader is not obligated to follow the commandments as if an external agent is forcing them upon him, but as though they are inside him and guiding him internally. This is the task Kierkegaard takes up when he asks: “Who has the more difficult task: the teacher who lectures on earnest things a meteor’s distance from everyday life, or the learner who should put it to use?”[7] Existentially speaking, the Bible doesn’t become an authority in a person’s life until they permit the Bible to be their personal authority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_existentialism
@ davidm2575
“Darren Smith wrote: ‘On a personal level. It doesn’t hurt to be decent to people and treat them well. What’s wrong with that?’
“You are looking at sexuality as being inherently neutral in regards (sic) to morality. For those with a deeper understanding of sexuality, the issue is like celebrating alcoholism with an alcoholic. Can you understand how some might see harm in doing that?”
Are you saying that all expressions of sexuality are like alcoholism, or just certain expressions of it?
Whether it’s all or just some, in what specific ways is sexual expression comparable to alcoholism?
Finally, what is it that you’re advocating to solve this “problem”?
Ken Rogers wrote: “Are you saying that all expressions of sexuality are like alcoholism, or just certain expressions of it?”
I’m not sure the word “expressions” is a good word choice, but no, of course not all sexuality is like alcoholism.
Ken Rogers wrote: “Whether it’s all or just some, in what specific ways is sexual expression comparable to alcoholism?”
Sex, like alcohol, can become an addiction. And just as alcoholics often have their favorite brands, sexual addicts often develop fetishes.
Ken Rogers wrote: “Finally, what is it that you’re advocating to solve this “problem”?”
Just as people should be free not to encourage alcoholism, people should be free not to celebrate sexual fetishes, especially homosexuality which is plagued with higher rates of promiscuity, higher rates of mental illness and drug addictions, higher rates of diseases, shorter mortality rates, etc.
Florists, bakers, and photographers should not be sued or charged with a crime because they do not want to lend their creative expression toward a gay wedding. People should be free to contract with whomever they want and to deny doing business with others if they object to their immorality.
The idea that same sex relations is equal to opposite sex relations is a blatant lie. The biology matching is completely different, the ways to have sex is different, and the outcome of sexual relations is different. All the science is supportive of the fact that they are not equal. Only the emotional political fad going on caused by the gay agenda has deceived people into thinking they are equal when they are not. Most people do not care to really look at and study the matter. It is all about what feels good and looks good.
From another perspective, as a small business owner I cannot see the advantage of turning away a good paying customer. In fact, from strictly a business perspective it is beneficial to enter into a new market segment.
The business in question could have worked hard to be helpful to this customer and learn from him/her characteristics of their product that are liked by this demographic. If they are satisfied with my business it can bring many others from that demographic and thier business might be one of the first to market.
On a personal level. It doesn’t hurt to be decent to people and treat them well. What’s wrong with that?
Darren Smith wrote: “On a personal level. It doesn’t hurt to be decent to people and treat them well. What’s wrong with that?”
You are looking at sexuality as being inherently neutral in regards to morality. For those with a deeper understanding of sexuality, the issue is like celebrating alcoholism with an alcoholic. Can you understand how some might see harm in doing that?
davidm – in your example I think it would be more like having a ginger ale with a drinking alcoholic.
@happypappies
Gays tend to cluster in certain cities and areas. That is one reason why HIV/AIDS hit so many of them so quickly.
Of 34,557 adults ages 18 and older, the survey reported, 1.6 percent said they were gay or lesbian. Some critics say the numbers are low, but they fall in the range of other surveys. In the new survey, however, only 0.7 percent of respondents described themselves as bisexual; other studies have reported higher numbers.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/21/how-many-americans-are-lesbian-gay-or-bisexual/?_r=0
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky
I don’t know what NY Times they pulled but I got totally different figures and I live in Cape Girardeau which is a Bible town and people are just starting to admit it to their families. I believe those figures will change.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/21/upshot/the-metro-areas-with-the-largest-and-smallest-gay-population.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1
Now, since we know that the problem with HIV is unprotected anal(Any unprotected) sex, and not only men do it, we can stop the problem at the root so to speak. The other problem is the dirty needles. These people are human beings. They have feelings. They are being discriminated against because of Jewish Biblical Law. There is a separation of Church and State here and we do not Balkanize religion. Not for any reason, ever.
We, as Christians, all need to work through this change. Other Churches do not have to marry the gay people in their church but to refuse them business after doing business for their romantic forays when they slept together and what not and then to throw it in their face that it was against her religion. Sorry, what she was really saying was it is unconstitutional for you to tell me that I have to serve these people when it’s against my religion. Well, Squeeky, who is it going to be next? The Muslims? The Jews? Seriously……… You cannot be inconsistent and pick an choose who you want to serve to as it is discrimination no matter how you cut and slice it.
Once these people start getting married, they are going to be willing to pay taxes like everyone else. They will be proud to.
Squeekers
Where are you from dear?
I was from St Louis in the North area and there was a very large gay population that had come out already in 1973. The entire Central West End is gay, It is known as the Central Rear End and always has been. People are proud to be gay there. Seriously.
@Darren
I disagree with your assessment that the LGBT community is large. The stats I have seen put them about 2% of the population over all. The number of strictly gay persons is much smaller than that 2%, due to the folks who have sex with members of either sex. This is one of the reasons why you see so few gay marriages.
Anyway, 2% of the population equates to about 6 million LGBT. Their numbers seem larger because so many of them are employed in the news and entertainment business where they exert an outside influence over public opinion.
Evangelical type Christians are about 35% of the population, or 90 to 100 million.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I believe one thing that is helpful to understand a legislative decision is that with most laws, there will be some that will be adversely affected and others that will benefit. Assuming that the legislation is passed with altruistic intent (a tall order in many ways lately) the greater good of the law should prevail.
With regard to the permitting the exclusion of a class of people to respect the belief of another we have to relate to this greater good.
In our example here the two sides are the LBGT community and these business owners objecting to providing service to this community on account of religious grounds.
If both sides have equal constitutional rights and equal statutory protections the legislature must defer to the greater common good.
The LBGT community is large. The religious objectors mentioned here are individual in scope. An entire community should not be subjugated by the beliefs of a very, very small group that does not wish to provide service in an equal manner.
I believe this will weigh some on any court’s decision.
Paul C.
Max-1 – the evidence for the incest of Lot and his daughter is pretty solid. The whole gay thing is a little harder to suss out.
= = =
Here, suss it out…
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sodomy