By John Mack Freeman
This week, California Attorney General Kamala Harris stated that she would ask the California Supreme Court to relieve her of the duty of having to write a summary and title for a citizen-proposed initiative that would call for vigilante executions of homosexuals. Harris is in the process of beginning her campaign for retiring Senator Barbara Boxer’s Senate seat. And numerous voices throughout the GLBT community have condemned this bill for its flagrant hatefulness.
And I appreciate Attorney General Harris’s support, but…
As pointed out in this New York Times piece, “California law gives no discretion to the attorney general in handling these kind of initiatives.” And it’s not like writing the summary puts it on the ballot. The proposer, Matthew McLaughlin, would have to get 365,880 signatures of registered voters in 180 days (realistically more like a million to counteract any challenges). That would be an enormous undertaking that would cost quite a large amount of money. If, by some inconceivable chance, Mr. McLaughlin were to get the signatures, I cannot see a world where a majority of Californians would vote to allow for vigilante murder by the citizenry. And even if they did, the law is blatantly unconstitutional and would be struck down by the federal courts before it ever went into effect.
What I find more concerning than this initiative is the idea of the rules changing just because a group or a person doesn’t like something. I’m obviously opposed to this “Sodomite Suppression Act,” but I’m also opposed to Harris not doing her job. If a person gets elected to a state office, there are responsibilities that go with that. Some of them are, granted, distasteful. But that’s the role of that office.
Indiana and other religious freedom laws have been in the news a lot this week. And while Harris’s move has obviously come from a place of support of the GLBT community (and maybe a bit of political self-interest), I can’t help but see a light parallel. Namely: that the rules change based on who a person has to do business with. When restaurant owners in Indiana hate gay people, they can deny them business. Because Attorney General Harris finds Mr. McLaughlin and his initiative distasteful and loathsome, that office is seeking to deny him access to the initiative process. And while the analogy falls apart when taken too far, one of the prices of free speech and an engaged citizenry is that sometimes the crackpots come out to play.
Like I said before, I appreciate Attorney General Harris’s support. And what do I know? I haven’t lived in California for years, so maybe there is some safe haven in the law that absolutely gives her the right to make this move. But this initiative is never going to be law, so there’s no need to change the rules to try to protect the GLBT community when we have adequate protection already.
This is an opinion piece that reflect the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the GLBTRT, its membership, GLBT News, or its contributors.
