Kansas governor passes law requiring ID to view acts of 'homosexuality' online, vetos 2 anti-LGBTQ+ bills
Kansas governor passes law requiring ID to view acts of 'homosexuality' online, vetos 2 anti-LGBTQ+ bills
Kansas will require state-issued ID to view "acts of homosexuality" beginning July 1, which is considered "harmful to minors" under state law.
You're viewing a single thread.
It's irritating how these articles always choose such misleading clickbait headlines.
-
First, a governor does not "pass laws". The legislature does that. Then the governor can veto, sign, or do neither--in which case it passes by default. Our (KS) governor is a Democrat and has vetoed so many anti-LGBTQ+ and abortion restriction bills I've lost count. Unfortunately, the supermajority republican legislature has managed to override a bunch of her vetoes.
-
The other bill, the "ID required to view porn" bill is making the rounds through most red states. It's not specifically about "acts of homosexuality"--that is one item in the list of what is considered "sexual content" in the bill. She did not sign that bill, but it will pass because she didn't veto it either. It'll be interesting to see (here and in the other states that passed this) what kind of "feedback" these legislators hear from their constituents who can no longer view their porn anonymously--or at all, if the sites stop operating in these states.
Well, as a nonsexual person, I've been pretty shocked to see that the allosexuals have been pretty much taking this porn ID stuff lying down.
It's interesting seeing "nonsexual" as opposed to "Asexual" or something like "Asexual Spectrum", followed by "allosexual".
No offense intended or anything, just making mention for visibility.
Eh, plenty of ace people will engage in sexual activity, often for the sake of a romantic partner.
I don't/haven't, so it seems easier to specify the one relevant label. You're right in reading between the lines that I am ace.
It's quite nice seeing other Ace people around, AroAce myself.
Also, that does make sense, I've just not really seen anyone use that term for it before now that I can recall.
There’s a term for it. I can only think of “pocket veto,” but that’s the opposite. It’s still allowing the bill to become law though
-