California Attorney Facing Bar Complaint Over Proposed Measure To Allow For The Execution Of Gays And Lesbians

California flagAttorney 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.

RicardoLaraState 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?

364 thoughts on “California Attorney Facing Bar Complaint Over Proposed Measure To Allow For The Execution Of Gays And Lesbians”

  1. TWO STATES are now boycotting Indiana…

    Statement from Gov. Jay Inslee on Indiana’s new “Religious Freedom” Law
    March 30, 2015
    Gov. Inslee imposed an administration-wide ban on travel to Indiana in response to Indiana’s new “religious freedom” law.

    “I find Indiana’s new law disturbing, particularly at a time when more and more states and people in America are embracing civil rights for everyone. Washington will join other states and cities in opposing this law and I will impose an administration-wide ban on state funded travel to Indiana.

    “Indiana’s law appears to legalize private discrimination. Washington state fought against this very thing in a case Attorney General Bob Ferguson brought against a florist.

    “We in Washington stand for equality. I applaud those companies and organizations that have spoken out against the law and said they would not locate or expand operations in Indiana. I want to invite all those organizations, and anyone interested in a state that promotes equality and opportunity, to come visit Washington. We are open for business, and open to all people.”

    Jaime Smith
    Governor Inslee’s Communications Office

  2. Paul C
    Your antagonism toward LGBT is noted.

    Perhaps your wife will let you use your Ezbake oven to make that cake?

  3. Paul C.
    The link you provided is one about commerce. Again I ask, what religion is being persecuted by the State? The State isn’t saying you can’t preach disrespect toward your gay brother, Jesus said that much, the State is saying that if you “CHOSE” to do BUSINESS, you must respect Law.

    1. Max-1 – the court ruled the Commerce clause was stronger than the Religion clause. You are smarter than to play these games, Max. I think the Court over reached on the Commerce Clause during the Civil Rights era.

  4. Paul C.
    Please define commerce…
    Now, is religion and the practice of said religion when done in the privacy of a church or temple, an act of commerce?

    1. Max-1 – by the number of retweets, I would say that WILCO cancelling is not a great loss to either the state or WILCO.

  5. Paul C.
    “but I do believe that people have a right to practice their religion without oppression.”
    = = =
    Point to one case where a person’s religion is being punished by the State…

      1. Paul C Schulte

        Speaking as an existential Christian and realizing that truths can be paradoxical one must realize that love is what Christ preached. He was very hard on the men when it came to Adultery and told them parables about ripping their eyes out and cutting their hands off if they even thought a Lewd thought about another married woman. He spoke at length about loving the Lord thy God and Knowing the Truth and the Truth would Set you Free and he also spoke of the tenant of how one is supposed to be “In Christ” John 15 4″Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. Or to put it another way and arrogant people do hate this – “I AM THE LIVING GOD, The Vine, and you are the branches; whoever abides with me and I in him, this one brings forth much fruit, because without me, you can do nothing.”

        So, if one allows themselves to abide in Jesus or the advocate (Holy Spirit) They realize that there is much freedom and truth in these words. You can go to the Advocate with any problem and it’s okay, he can take it. You don’t have to agree with every word in the Bible as you are supposed to discern it anyway. Jesus always said “Let those who have the ears to hear it hear” What do you suppose that meant? Did you even think about it?

        Another thing he spoke of was the eunuchs but that’s just castrati and lowered sexual drive.

        I don’t know for sure but I do know people get married for a variety of reasons besides having Children and this is not the first update done from the Old Testament. It does involve love and loving your neighbors and you are disrespecting and discriminating against your neighbors in a very Unchristian and Unloving way if you cling to this “against my religion bs”
        Did you even read the article?

        Phillips admitted he had turned away other same-sex couples as a matter of policy. The CCRD’s decision noted evidence in the record that Phillips had expressed willingness to take a cake order for the “marriage” of two dogs, but not for the commitment ceremony of two women, and that he would not make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding celebration “just as he would not be willing to make a pedophile cake.”

        noun: paedophile; plural noun: paedophiles; noun: pedophile; plural noun: pedophiles

        a person who is sexually attracted to children

        Absolutely Pathetic. Yes. This person is a loving non Balkanizing Christian and is not discriminating and is definitely having his religious rights trampled on. I love it. 😉 😉

        1. happypappies – I know I am pretty much out of the loop but do they make cakes for pedophiles? Is this a common thing?

          1. Paul C Schulte

            As an Existentialist in general I find that statement the kind that brings humanity back into the cave days. Don’t think I have forgotten our earlier arguments about the fluidity of the DSM and your probable thinking that we are into the gray area of moral relativities, but this is not so

            October 31, 2013
            Statement of the American Psychological Association Regarding Pedophilia and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)

            A news release sent Oct. 30 on behalf of the American Family Association mischaracterized the position of the American Psychological Association with respect to pedophilia. The American Psychological Association does not classify mental disorders or publish the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, as the release incorrectly stated.

            The American Psychological Association maintains that pedophilia is a mental disorder; that sex between adults and children is always wrong; and that acting on pedophilic impulses is and should be a criminal act. The American Psychological Association has worked for many years to prevent child sexual abuse and will continue to do so.

            The American Psychological Association, in Washington, D.C., is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States. APA’s membership includes more than 134,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 54 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 60 state, territorial and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance the creation, communication and application of psychological knowledge to benefit society and improve people’s lives.

  6. Paul C.
    2015… it’s friggin 2015.
    Stop living in the past.

    The ultimate question I have is:
    Why do Conservatives believe that their God defines our Nation’s Laws and go as far as inserting legislation protecting such beliefs, yet, when others seek to be free from such derived religiously based laws that allow overt discrimination, we’re told to shut up.

    I’m finding myself mow saying:
    IF you want a government that bases it’s laws on religion first and individual Liberty second, Iran and Saudi Arabia will provide that for you.

    1. Max-1 – if you follow my comments closely, and some seem to, you would realize that I am agnostic, but I do believe that people have a right to practice their religion without oppression. You will also realize that although I do not like the laws of some of the countries in the Middle East, it is their country so they get to have their laws.

  7. Ingannie
    This is all just a mere preview of what these Fundamentalists and Dominionists would try to legislate if they were to gain yet more power.
    = = =
    Here’e the tell… they call it “smaller government”.

  8. Paul C.

    The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

    bolding mine.

  9. Paul C. Schulte
    Max-1 – you are aware that at least two states had established state religions when the country began?
    = = =
    I gave you Jefferson, above.

    Adding to your ill logic, one could argue the legitimacy behind slavery, then…

    1. Max-1 – you seem to forget that until after the Civil War the Constitution did not concern the states for the Establishment Clause.

      BTW. slavery was legal in some states until the end of the Civil War, even in some Northern states.


    To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

    The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
    Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
    I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
    Th Jefferson
    Jan. 1. 1802.

  11. Well, Max-1’s obsession with hypothetical wedding cakes that will never see the light of day makes me wax poetic;

    For Batter or Worse
    A Short Poem by Squeeky Fromm

    Oh, sighs for thee, poor wedding cake
    That never was to see the bake!
    Alas for the thee, thy nuptial bliss
    Was spoil’ed by a same sex kiss!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  12. This is all just a mere preview of what these Fundamentalists and Dominionists would try to legislate if they were to gain yet more power.

  13. Sorry Paul C.
    Establishment clause…

    Can your religion be in my Government?

    1. Max-1 – you are aware that at least two states had established state religions when the country began? You are misreading the Establishment Clause.

  14. Gov. Pat McCrory blasts sales tax, religious freedom bills

    And the governor said another Republican bill designed to protect religious freedom “makes no sense.”

    “What is the problem they’re trying to solve?” McCrory said during a radio interview. “I haven’t seen it at this point in time.”

    One can hope that should such a bill arrive at his desk that he veto such bill.

Comments are closed.