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?
Squeeky
Free speech also comes with the responsibility to own the crap you spew…
LOL Annie…
Imagine the force with:
The gathering gays and their Power Purses…
Showing Mike Pence who’s daddy now!
What a crock of crap! Not only do we have to listen to the incessant silly a$$ gay nonsense, now we are to gladly accept being denied our right to not participate in the goofiness. Or, we will be called homophobes. Wow, talk about the Gaystapo!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
And George Takei is in on the boycott of Indiana, too…
Oh boy this is going to shape up well… Power of the purse.
https://www.facebook.com/georgehtakei/posts/1212142508815200
And good for AG Kamala Harris!
Max, good for The Christian Church! Yes indeed, let the boycotts begin.
California attorney general moves to stop proposed ballot measure that advocates killing gays
http://www.startribune.com/nation/297572981.html
And… in Texas the House Committee on State Affairs is gathering right now to discuss outlawing same sex marriage preemptively specifically stating that the State is not bound to follow the US Supreme Court’s anticipated ruling concerning gay marriage Nation wide.
http://tlchouse.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=9&event_id=1146
happypappies,
Nothing personal. I see you handling Ken and my rhetorical questions about Faith wasn’t pointed AT you, I just used my response to help weigh the pro-con issue in a Faith manner. And… I’m not perfect, either. Rather human, if you ask me…
You asked “What about people who want the Israel… etc.”
What about them? Wishing ill will upon others is bad… I think I’ve written that before here. It invites bad karma and shows an absence of genuine concern for others. Again, IMO.
happypappies,
Nothing personal. I see you handling Ken and my rhetorical questions about Faith wasn’t pointed AT you, I just used my response to help weigh the pro-con issue in a Faith manner. And… I’m not perfect, either. Rather human, if you ask me…
You asked “What about people who want the Israel… etc.”
What about them? Wishing ill will upon others is bad… I think I’ve written that before here. It invites bad karma and shows an absence of genuine concern for others. Again, IMO.
Right Max so where are we at here – we are supposed to love our enemies right? I imagine that is what Jesus meant when he said that was not to despise people who despise you. After all, well, I would just be repeating myself, but it is Lent and that is all I think about now. I am very active in my very Threatened Church Did you know? My Church is Threatened Because Huffpo printed up an article about LGBT being between 2 people
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/17/pcusa-lgbt-book-of-order_n_6885966.html
http://www.kfvs12.com/story/28605286/4-heartland-presbyterian-churches-get-threat
That one on the lower left is my beautiful little chuch ;(
@ Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
“I think somebody did an expose movie about Monsanto called “The Bad Seed”, IIRC??? Or maybe that was about the spice people, McCormack??? Sometimes all this stuff runs together.”
I didn’t see the movie, but when I heard about it, I assumed it was about the spermatazoan that won out in the race to Momma Obama’s waitin’ egg.
Or was it Lady Barbara’s? I constantly get those guys mixed up because of their personalities and foreign policies.
As somebody put it, “It’s not a real good thing that we’re enduring W.’s third and fourth terms.”
“Czar Barack
“The candidate who criticized Bush-Cheney became the president who continued their legacy
“Steve Chapman | January 5, 2012
“Back in 2007, when Barack Obama was running for president, a mildly surprising bit of news emerged: He and Dick Cheney were eighth cousins. Today, though, it appears that report was wrong. Judging from Obama’s record in office, the two are practically brothers.
“As a candidate, Obama criticized the last administration for holding Americans as enemy combatants without trial. He faulted it for wiretapping citizens without a warrant. He rejected the Republican claim that the president has the ‘inherent power’ to go to war without congressional consent. He depicted George W. Bush and his vice president as a menace to constitutional limits and personal freedom.
“But look at him now. Last week, Obama signed a bill letting him detain U.S. citizens in military custody without convicting them of anything — not for a month or a year, but potentially forever.
“Obama pledges he will never use that power to hold an American. But Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said the bill originally applied only to non-citizens. Citizens were included, he said, at the request of the White House. Even if Obama doesn’t plan to use the power, it will be sitting on the shelf for Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum [or Billary].
“Those who voted for Obama in 2008 expected something different. ‘The detention of American citizens, without access to counsel, fair procedure, or pursuant to judicial authorization, as enemy combatants is unconstitutional,’ he told The Boston Globe.
“His reversal brings to mind not only Cheney but another Republican. ‘Obama has eclipsed Nixon in the establishment of an imperial presidency,’ George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley told me. And Turley voted for Obama.
“There is plenty of evidence for that conclusion. Last year, Obama ordered a drone strike in Yemen to kill radical Muslim Anwar al-Awlaki — a U.S. citizen. The administration claimed it had the legal authority to obliterate him, as well as evidence that Awlaki was engaged in active hostilities. But you’ll have to take Obama’s word, because he refused to make all this information public.
“The targeted killing was justified by a secret legal memo that, The New York Times reported, ‘provided the justification for acting despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the international laws of war.’
“And the evidence that Awlaki was plotting terrorist attacks, not merely spouting anti-American propaganda? Sorry, also secret. It’s possible to make a case that he posed a clear threat to American lives and that the missile was the only feasible way to avert it. But Obama, the vaunted champion of openness, saw no need to bother.
“In some ways, though, the president has been perfectly transparent. Note his transparent disregard for both the Constitution and federal law in launching a military attack against Libya.
“The Constitution explicitly places the power to authorize war with Congress, not the president. But Obama refused to ask Congress to grant its approval beforehand — something even George W. Bush did as he prepared to invade Iraq.
“Obama also defied the War Powers Resolution, which requires the president to get congressional authorization within 60 days or withdraw. His preposterous position was that the law didn’t apply because we were not engaged in “hostilities.”
“All this was particularly novel coming from someone who, as a candidate, suggested that emperors are for other countries. ‘The president,’ he insisted, ‘does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.’
“Libya, however, had neither attacked us nor posed any discernible threat. President Obama exercised a presidential power that Candidate Obama said he doesn’t have. [For some of the consequences of that particular war-hoggy fiasco, see http://rt.com/op-edge/240941-rt-libya-syria-mainstream/%5D
“The candidate also denounced the Bush-Cheney administration for unauthorized surveillance of Americans in the United States. But when an Islamic charity sued after being illegally wiretapped in 2004, Obama’s Justice Department took the side of the wiretappers.
“It argued in court that the lawsuit should be dismissed because it involved state secrets and refused to turn over evidence that the presiding judge demanded. He ruled that the wiretaps violated federal law and accused the administration of advocating ‘unfettered executive branch discretion’ that invites ‘governmental abuse and overreaching.’
“The judge is only one of those who have vigorously faulted Obama’s handling of executive power and civil liberties. If the president needs to hear a more sympathetic view, he might call Dick Cheney.
http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/05/czar-barack
No wonder I have trouble keeping them straight. From now on, whenever I refer to the POTUS, I’m just going to go with “President Obamabush,” with apologies to President Cheney.
Let the boycott’s begin… continues in Indiana.
Ministry leaders send letter to governor
http://disciples.org/general/ministry-leaders-send-letter-to-governor/
@ Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
“@Ken Rogers
“I read the Frontiers link, and many of the comments terein. (sic) one. Nearly all of the Frontiers points were rebutted here, IMHO:
http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/myths
OTOH, if you are right, I suspect that the truth will eventually win out.”
I’m sure it will, but I don’t like thinking about the number of people who may be gravely harmed in the interim.
Here’s something that considerations of space didn’t permit my sharing in previous posts about our good government-industry people at the CDC:
“There is no such thing as ‘AIDS.’
“The so-called Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome or ‘AIDS’ is not a coherent, single disease entity. It has neither symptoms nor diagnostic criteria of its own. Other diseases, such as mumps, measles, polio, chicken pox, rabies, gonorrhea, malaria, salmonella, the common cold, or bubonic plague, can readily be described and diagnosed.
“Not ‘AIDS,’ which is defined entirely in terms of other, old diseases, in conjunction with dubious test results and even more dubious assumptions. Although people are undeniably sick, ‘AIDS’ itself does not really exist; it is a phony construct.
“The AIDS surveillance definition of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has changed several times, and it contains its own contradictions. Nevertheless, the core definition of ‘AIDS’ can be expressed by the following formula (for which I am indebted to Peter Duesberg):
“INDICATOR DISEASE + HIV = AIDS
In conjunction with HIV [more accurately, with a positive HIV test result], an ‘AIDS-indicator disease’ becomes ‘AIDS.’
“In the absence of HIV [more accurately, in the absence of a positive HIV test result], the ‘AIDS-indicator disease is called by its old name.
“INDICATOR DISEASE – HIV = INDICATOR DISEASE
Let’s try a couple of examples:
TB + HIV = AIDS
TB – HIV = TB
“DEMENTIA + HIV = AIDS
DEMENTIA – HIV = CRAZY
“At last count there are 29 (sic) ‘AIDS-indicator diseases,’ not one of which is new. All of them have [clearly established] causes other than HIV.
1. Bacterial infections, multiple or recurrent (applies only to children)
2. Candidiasis of bronchi, trachea, or lungs
3. Candidiasis of esophagus (either a “definitive diagnosis” or a “presumptive diagnosis”)
4. Coccidioidomycosis, disseminated or extrapulmonary
5. Cryptococcosis, extrapulmonary
6. Cryptococcosis, chronic intestinal
7. Cytomegalovirus disease other than retinitis
8. Cytomegalovirus retinitis (either a “definitive diagnosis” or a “presumptive diagnosis”)
9. Herpes simplex, with esophagitis, pneumonia, or chronic mucocutaneous ulcers
10. Histoplasmosis, disseminated or extrapulmonary
11. Isosporiasis, chronic intestinal
12. Kaposi’s sarcoma (either a “definitive diagnosis” or a “presumptive diagnosis”)
13. Lymphoid interstitial pneumonia and/or pulmonary lymphoid hyperplasia (either a “definitive diagnosis” or a “presumptive diagnosis”)
14. Lymphoma, Burkitt’s (or equivalent term)
15. Lymphoma, immunoblastic (or equivalent term)
16. Lymphoma, primary in brain
17. Mycobacterium avium or M. kansasii, disseminated or extrapulmonary (either a “definitive diagnosis” or a “presumptive diagnosis”)
18. M. tuberculosis, disseminated or extrapulmonary (either a “definitive diagnosis” or a “presumptive diagnosis”)
19. Mycobacterial diseases, other disseminated or extrapulmonary (either a “definitive diagnosis” or a “presumptive diagnosis”)
20. Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (either a “definitive diagnosis” or a “presumptive diagnosis”)
21. Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy
22. Salmonella septicemia, recurrent
23. Toxoplasmosis of brain (either a “definitive diagnosis” or a “presumptive diagnosis”)
“On 8 December 1992 a letter was mailed by the CDC to State Health Officers, informing them: ‘On January 1, 1993, an expanded surveillance definition for AIDS will be effective.’ The following AIDS-indicator conditions were added to the list:
24. A CD4+ T-lymphocyte count <200 cells/microliter (or a CD4+ percent <14)
25. Pulmonary tuberculosis
26. Recurrent pneumonia (within a 12-month period)
27. Invasive cervical cancer
"The AIDS-indicator diseases are extremely heterogeneous. Many of the diseases are caused by funguses: for example, candidiasis
coccidioidomycosis, cryptto-coccosis, histoplasmosis, and pneumocystis carinii.
"Others are caused by bacteria, like salmonella. Others, by mycobacteria, like tuberculosis. Still others, by viruses, like cytomegalovirus or herpes. And still others, like the various cancers and neoplasms, including lymphoma and Kaposi's sarcoma, have no established etiology. And still others, like dementia or wasting, are poorly defined and can have many different causes. Both components of the AIDS-defining formula are absurd.
"The AIDS-indicator disease part is absurd because the diseases have nothing in common. Although the central idea of 'AIDS' is immune deficiency, some of the AIDS-indicator diseases-like the cancers, wasting, and dementia-have nothing whatever to do with immune deficiency.
"The HIV part of the formula is also absurd, because it is almost always based on invalidated and unreliable antibody tests; because it is sometimes based on 'presumptive' diagnoses (in other words, on guesses); and above all, because HIV is not pathogenic.
"Since the very definition of 'AIDS' is absurd, it necessarily follows: 'There is no such thing as 'AIDS.' "
http://www.duesberg.com/media/jlrisk-2.html
It's not absurd from an "anti-AIDS" drug and HIV testing marketing standpoint, though, is it?
@ Paul C. Schulte
“Ken – been rethinking my study and decided to take the the Michael Mann approach. I will start by saying that Republicans cause cancer, then get funding from the usual suspects. However, when I publish, I will change Republican to Democrat and then hide the date as proprietary. Immediately, I will proclaim the science is settled.”
In that case, you’ll probably want to apply directly to the pharmaceutical industry for funding, as that’s the kind of study that’s right up their back alley.
Ken – I am think George Soros and his many subcontractors would be happy to fund me.
I think somebody did an expose movie about Monsanto called “The Bad Seed”, IIRC??? Or maybe that was about the spice people, McCormack??? Sometimes all this stuff runs together.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeks I remember that movie
Some of the posters could be a poster child for that movie no pun intended lolololol ; D
@ Karen S
“I’m quite passionately opposed to Monsanto, and could really get the discussion off the rails, so I will contain myself. 🙂
In my response to this, I meant to write,”There are corporations, evil corporations, and then there’s Monsanto, whose CEO and Board of Directors apparently take their marching orders straight from Belial.”
I don’t want to overstate the case. 🙂
@Karen S
Re: Monsanto. . .I found this article today on Naked Capitalism. A blurb, and then the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/25/opinion/stop-making-us-guinea-pigs.html
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
And just say no to GMOs and Monsanto! They drive small farmers who save seed out of business when their wind pollinated crops get cross contaminated. The GMO crops need more and more pesticides and herbicides every year, and the Next Gen are pesticides that are incorporated into the cells of the plant, and therefor cannot be washed off. And it is abhorrent to me to produce a wind pollinated GMO plant. It literally cannot be contained and farmers have no right to choose NOT to grow it if they farm anywhere in the area.
Pesticides and herbicides are not healthy for us, the environment, and pollinators. In fact, neonicotinoids are implicated as a possible cause of Colony Collapse Disorder.
I’m quite passionately opposed to Monsanto, and could really get the discussion off the rails, so I will contain myself. 🙂
@ Karen S
“I’m quite passionately opposed to Monsanto, and could really get the discussion off the rails, so I will contain myself. :)”
There are corporations, evil corporations, and then there’s Monsanto, whose CEO and Board of Directors take their marching orders straight from Belial.
OK, let me sum up because I’m short on time:
The best remedy for bad speech is good speech. It does not sound like this lunatic did anything illegal, just reprehensible. And he has received quite a backlash. I assume his clients will vote with their feet, one way or another, and I cannot imagine he will have much of a pool left since he filed this murderous resolution that he either did for a publicity stunt or was seriously ill.
And the problem with making filing a resolution expensive is that it prevents people from filing them in the future, separating them from government. And the price does not in any way reflect the “fairness” of the resolution; it just weeds out those without means. And that only penalizes people based on socioeconomic status.
And the HIV/AIDS epidemic is tragic and affects society as a whole on many levels. I hope they stem the tide. The best defense is monogamy, second to safe sex and staying away from promiscuity, regardless of sexual orientation. I worked on an AIDS study many years ago, and cried every time I read the case histories. At the time, the anti-retroviral cocktail would delay onset of AIDS, but when it did come, the patient would crash much faster than before. So the patient got more time, but the end came faster. The method I studied is obsolete now. What is especially heartbreaking are all the children born with HIV in Africa, where safe sex and education have not caught on.
In most cases, this is a preventable disease, accompanied by regret and heartbreak.
I would say his view violate the founding principals of this nation, as well as being unconstitutional. A lawyer who does so blatantly attempts something this unconstitutional should be disbarred.
Jude – I think you need to back up each sentence of your comment. He is following the law of the state. He still has to get the signatures.
@ davidm2575
“Although McLaughlin’s actions seem extreme to our cultural standards of free unbridled sex, unchecked, the path we are going will lead to the suppression of free speech like we see happening in the U.K.”
Say, what? If *what* goes “unchecked,” free unbridled sex or talking about it?
Your post’s a teaser and a poser.
Ken Rogers wrote: “Say, what? If *what* goes “unchecked,” free unbridled sex or talking about it?”
I was talking about the path we are on going unchecked.
When we mandate that there exists no such thing as sexual immorality, then whenever somebody tries to argue that there is such a thing as sexual immorality, and especially if they argue that gays regularly cross that line, then such speech is likely to be made illegal. It is not in their best interest to allow speech that exposes the truth. For lies to persist, speech must be censored.
@ davidm2575
“I was talking about the path we are on going unchecked.
“When we mandate that there exists no such thing as sexual immorality, then whenever somebody tries to argue that there is such a thing as sexual immorality, and especially if they argue that gays regularly cross that line, then such speech is likely to be made illegal. It is not in their best interest to allow speech that exposes the truth. For lies to persist, speech must be censored.”
If “we” have “mandated” that there’s “no such thing as sexual immorality,” then who’s going to make illegal, speech critical of sexual immorality?
In the McLaughlin affair, have you heard or read about anyone’s calling for a new interpretation of the 1st Amendment?
Is it only gay sexual license that poses this risk to freedom of speech, or does heterosexual license, as well?
It was the latter, especially the DFH after all, who started the whole “Make Love, Not War” and “If It Moves, Fondle It” thing.