California Bill Removes Gay Marrige As Something To Be Addressed By Politicians

The California Assembly has just passed a bill aimed for culturally sensitive campaigning, adding a "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" clause to California's Code Of Fair Campaign Practices.

Geoffrey Kors, executive director of Equality California helped write the bill. Critics call the bill an effort to muzzle any politician who refuses to support the homosexual agenda, while Kors says, "This bill red flags candidates and campaign committees to think twice before using anti-gay rhetoric as a campaign tactic." He also said it would prompt candidates to be "thoughtful and culturally sensitive to the constituencies they hope to represent."

Unfortunately, I can't find a copy of this bill online, and the article from CNN doesn't explain what "anti-gay rhetoric" could entail. Saying gays shouldn't marry could be construed as anti-gay rhetoric, as can the adoption issue. Essensially, California just limited their candidates on political issues they can debate. While one candidate could come out and say they're for gay marriage, if the other candidate wasn't, they could either keep their mouth shut, or agree with the other candidate. This is not how elections are supposed to work.

The bill was passed on April 26th, and will be going to the California Senate now to be voted on.

Good find...

But the phrase "a day late and a dollar short" comes to mind...
Well...at least if you were in favor of the candidate who DIDN'T use disguised hate speech as a campaign platform...

Originally posted by Gazrok
Good find...

But the phrase "a day late and a dollar short" comes to mind...

Well...at least if you were in favor of the candidate who DIDN'T use disguised hate speech as a campaign platform...

We have another election coming up in about a year, and the campaigning will be beginning shortly. It may be too late for the presidential election, but the bill only applies to state level politics, including national representatives and senators. The presidential candidates would be above this, it sounds like. So it's right on time!

This is an abominable joke! What ever happened to free political speech, which is what the First Amendment was supposed to protect first and foremost? This proposed law is unconstitutional.

My concern with this is that the voting public might not get a clear picture of each candidate. What should a candidate do if, say, he supports gay unions but not gay marriage. How would he communicate this. If he can only say he supports unions, people may infer that he also supports marriage. Eh, weak example, but you get what I'm trying to say....

What about this example:

President David Duke

I would imagine the rule goes both ways, you can't say something and you can't quote someone saying something deemed offensive. So what if it never came out that David Duke was a grand wizard in the KKK during the primary way back when?

You could get a complete frothing at the mouth loon elected to office not because they tried to hide their opinions, but because they were not permitted to discuss them.

I'm confused. Does this apply only to those campaigning for positions in California? It wouldn't make much of a difference for those running for President because although they couldn't discuss gay marriage while in the state of California you can still find out what they said in other states.

As for the California campaigns, I DO want to know if a person is for or against gay marriage. Californian's voted years ago AGAINST gay marriage and if a politician is running I want to be sure that he respects the voice of the majority of Californians.

This is a dumb law. I'm going to make a picket sign right now and protest on my front lawn.

Jemison