The Intolerant Jackass Act - An Antidote to Legalizing Hate Crimes?

Are you an intolerant jackass? You are if you try to put an initiative on the California ballot that mandates killing gays. And there's a guy, an attorney no less in Southern California who has just such an initiative in the works. Yes, attorney Matt McLaughlin seems serious about his "Shoot the gays" initiative. He even ponied up the $200 to the Secretary of State's office to get the process started.

"The Sodomite Suppression Act" would punish any person who her commits the "the abominable crime against nature known as buggery" or even "who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification" by death "by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method." Anyone who distributes literature sympathetic to gays to a minor gets off a little easier with a fine  a fine of $1 million "and/or imprisoned up to 10 years, and/or expelled from the boundaries of the state of California for up to life."

Enter activist Charlotte Laws with her own initiative, the "Intolerant Jackass Act."  This
only semi-tongue in cheek would counter McLaughlin's mean spirit hate filled ballot measure by providing that anyone submitting such a measure would have to attend at least three hours a month of sensitivity training for a year and contribute $5,000 to a pro-gay or pro-lesbian organization.

The low $200 filing fee means any yahoo with a pencil and the ability to spell his own name can submit any kind of a wack-a-doodle language to be put on the California ballot providing they get the requisite number of signatures.

California Attorney General Kamela Harris has already taken the unprecedented step of petitioning the court to keep the "Shoot the Gays" provision off the ballot, even if it gets the required signatures, saying in an  interview with the Guardian: "This proposal not only threatens public safety, it is patently unconstitutional, utterly reprehensible, and has no place in a civil society,” 

Although unspoken, the specter is not unthinkable, that some deranged indivividuals, who sign the petition, may think they have now joined a vigilante mob that gives them carte blanche to execute gay people on the spot. Weirder things have happened.

You are what you look like - NOT

This blog post appeared http://www.progresswomen.com/2013/04/10/a-womans-appearance-is-not-a-measure-of-her-credibility-get-it/ and I'm sure they won't mind if we print it here. 

A Woman’s Appearance is NOT a Measure of Her Credibility – Get it?

April 10, 2013 , by State Rep. Stacey Newman THANKS TO MSPRESENTATION FOR THIS.  AND YES, IT DOES HURT US WOMEN WHEN WE RUN FOR OFFICE.  JUST TALK ABOUT OUR QUALIFICATIONS AND OUR EXPERTISE, OK?  AND…OH YES, WHAT WE’RE WEARING IS NOT IMPORTANT EITHER.

courtesy of triblocal.com

In the wake of President Barack Obama apologizing to California Attorney General Kamala Harris for complimenting her on her good looks comes this blockbuster finding from a new study: when it comes to a female candidate, any media coverage about her appearance–even positive–hurts her with voters.By Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun Times

That’s a key conclusion of the poll for the Women’s Media Center and She Should Run, to be released Monday in Chicago at the Council on Foundations annual conference at the Hilton Chicago, 720 S. Michigan.

The survey’s release is timely because Obama’s remark about Harris is the latest in the long-running struggle of women seeking public office, not to have their looks influence how people assess their credibility.

Obama apologized Friday for saying, during a Thursday fund-raiser for the Democratic National Committee near San Francisco  that Harris is “brilliant,” “dedicated” and “tough.”  What Obama said after that is what got him in trouble: “She also happens to be, by far, the best-looking attorney general.”

The “Name It. Change It” survey, conducted by Celinda Lake of Lake Research and Robert Carpenter of Chesapeake Beach Consulting found that when any media coverage focuses on a female contender’s appearance–positive, negative, or neutral–”it made voters less likely to vote for her.”
Lake said, “Women candidates pay a real price when they are covered in a way that focuses on their appearance. “Even what we thought was benign coverage about how a woman dresses has a negative impact on her vote and whether voters perceive her as in touch, likeable, confident, effective, and qualified.  And, in close races, sexist coverage on top of the attacks that every candidate faces can make the difference between winning and losing.”

Harris through her spokesman shrugged off the Obama comment, an option an incumbent and Obama loyalist–not in an election battle–can easily take.

“When a woman candidate’s looks become part of the election story, she loses ground,” said Julie Burton, President of the Women’s Media Center.

The on-line survey was conducted March 3-7 of 1,500 likely voters, with an oversample of women between the ages of 18-35.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2013/04/blockbuster_female_candidates_.html