You stole my crackpot theory. I said something along those lines earlier.

Here's the thing, this primarily affects gays and are large segment of minorities. And if we know anything about liberals, they cater to these groups. So I don't think its crazy to assume that's part of the motivation. Why else is this even a priority?

However, I think its also worth noting California is trying to keep less people locked up. It sounds good on paper, but reducing the penalty of potentially runing someones life... it doesn't feel right.

I've seen Fargo!

WRONG! You SJW snowflake!

Fake news! Scientific hublababubub beta-male nonsense from the cuck libtards meant to test our faith in the Lord! 

Ron Paul 2012!

Let's add some spice

Now I didn't look into the specifics of this, but I can see why it's very simple to jump to conclusions. I'm not a law expert, but I don't think all misdemeanors are the same, and many still involve jail time. A felony, on the other hand, has a mandatory 2 year prison sentence, which is really extreme. So for people comparing it to a parking ticket or a speeding ticket, it's not the same thing.

There may also be a difference between "knowingly" exposing someone to HIV and "purposefully" doing it.

I would bet that the majority of these cases involve people who knowingly have HIV, but are afraid to tell their partner, so instead they use a condom, but learn the hard way that sometimes things don't work as planned.

Laws apply to everyone, and not everyone caught in this situation may deserve a 2 year minimum prison sentence.

Do I agree with this change? I have no fucking clue. It definitely seems like a bad idea at first glance, but the more I think about it, I can only imagine that this decision was made for a reason, and hopefully it was a good one.

Sure. So you prefer a Social progression example? Slavery. Used to be the norm, and it became shuned upon with progressivism.

Was it for the worse? Doesn't fit your agenda eh?

Really, don't care about your agenda on this progressivism you are trying to bring though.

This measure is a well intended change and while i think it's trying to jump too far in, it has a good intention and perhaps isn't the best idea. Yet, this by no means supports whatever nonsense you are trying to bring across.

Again, stop trying to claim trophies for progressivism that it didn't earn. Progressivism as an polititical ideology of today that's "progressive" in name only. It doesn't progress anything forward but rather everything in a circle to the point that often leaves things worse off like in this case.

This recent act of liberal lunancy is not well intended but rather a perfect example of how much thought goes into laws before democrats pass them. 

This isn't crazy. HIV really isn't the problem because most people are on meds or prep (if you are having risky raw sex). The problem is things like chlamydia, syphilis, and gonorrhea which run absolutely rampant. And they are on the rise this apps like Grinder and Tender. And there is no law tell you to say if you have those things.

If you are upset about the HIV thing, you really don't know what actually going on. Talk to a doctor before you get on here bashing California. Understand why it was a law in the first place before you speak about something you don't know.

What a backward ass state.

"California"

Now that's PROGRESSIVE.

Doesn't really help that I live here. Can't wait to get out of this shithole.