Is Putin's Majoritarian Democracy the Alt-Right's Fast Track to Fascism in America?

by Nomad

In the hands of a corrupt leader, majoritarian democracy can be a very dangerous thing. Russian president Putin is all the proof the world needs. 

A Dangerous Idea in the Wrong Hands

Most Americans take a positive view of democracy. Everybody wants to live in a democracy. Yet, it might surprise a lot of people to learn that, in its purest form, the democratic idea can actually be a dangerous thing.
The term, majoritarian democracy, for example, refers to a democratic form of government based upon majority rule of a society's citizens.
Pedro Schwartz, a professor in the Department of Economics at the University San Pablo in Madrid, explains:

Many modern constitutions proclaim that sovereignty is ultimately vested on the people. In that case, the power of the people must also be divided if liberty is to endure. Democracy can therefore not be defined as the rule by majority vote. Neither does it imply that the vote of the majority is "an authoritative expression of what is right".

Strictly speaking, majoritarian democracy is defined as the concept that anything more than a 51 percent share of the popular vote entitles the election winner to rule without interference.
For far right-wing parties, who claim this to be no-nonsense democracy, it has proved to be an extremely useful concept to justify their agenda.

Michigan Laws and the Less-Discussed Sins of Sodom

by Nomad

Despite a host of serious problems in the state, the minds of the Republicans in the Michigan Senate were focused on passing a dubious anti-sodomy law. But what is the truth behind the Biblical story of Sodom? Who are the real Sodomites?

Michigan and SB219

With so many things going wrong in that state, you'd think Michigan legislators would have their hands full. You'd think they would have no problem finding serious issues to tackle. 

However, you'd be wildly incorrect.  

Last week, legislators decided that it was much more concerned with the sex practices of its citizens than with those boring issues. The state Senate passed SB 219 that, as one critic says, "effectively reaffirms the state's unconstitutional law making sodomy a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison."
If the person is already a sex offender, violations are punishable by life in prison. 

Michigan is one of more than a dozen states that still have sodomy bans on the books, despite the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas declaring them unconstitutional.

The Court's decision in the Texas case ruled that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the 14th Amendment. As Wikipedia explains: 

Lawrence invalidated similar laws throughout the United States that criminalized sodomy between consenting adults acting in private, whatever the sex of the participants.

Nobody told the Michigan legislators, it seems.  

While most people see this as primarily directed at gay couples, the laws criminalizing oral and anal sex can apply to both same-sex or different-sex couples. 

   

This law was deceptively attached to laws protecting animals from abuse. It should be mentioned that one progressive blog, Eclectablog, claims that this isn't an anti-sodomy law at all but a law designed to "prohibit convicted animal abusers from adopting another animal for five years." In that case, it is merely a badly-written law. Here's the sentence that has raised objections:

A person who commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal IS guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for. not more than 15 years

The rather old-fashioned phrase, "the abominable and detestable crime against nature" in this context would certainly be a sexual crime presumably with an animal. In short, the crime of bestiality.

However, lawmakers inexplicably added the phrase "either with mankind or animal" which then changes the meaning to unnatural sexual acts, the classic definition of sodomy. If the state had repealed its old sodomy laws, it would be much easier to dismiss this as just a poorly-written law.

Since 2014, the Republicans in Michigan have held a strong majority in the State House and Senate. They can do whatever they want without much opposition.
Pandering to the Christian Right has now, critics say, devolved into enforcing baby-making sexual practices at a state level. Strictly speaking, every other form of sex could be considered "unnatural." (Even sex using contraceptive is technically unnatural.)

But if sodomy is the thing that really captures the imagination of the Michigan Republicans, then perhaps they should delve a little deeper in the story of the Sodomites and why, according to the Bible, God decided to destroy them.  

The Intrinsic Good: Why All Conservatives Should Be Rallying Around Same-Sex Marriage

by Nomad

You would probably never consider the Supreme Court decision against same-same marriage bans to be a great victory for the conservatives. And yet, that's exactly what it was. They just refuse to admit it.

The Friends of the Court

The term, AMICI CURIAE, in Latin means the "friends of the court." These are respected citizens who offer fact-based evidence  as well as reasoned advice to the Supreme Court judges. This assistance is unquestionably a great asset to the justices.when they are tasked with difficult rulings. 

Such consultants are also failsafe against making judicial blunders. In theory, the more input from varied sources is given, the more balanced and well-thought out that decision will be.  

The group is normally made up "social and political conservatives, moderates, and libertarians from diverse backgrounds."

One look at the list of participants would reveal the truth about Senator Ted Cruz's ridiculous charge that the “tragic” Supreme Court decisions were a case of "judicial activism." In the case of the same sex marriage ban ruling, the group came from all walks of life.   

Many have served as elected or appointed officeholders in various Presidential administrations, as governors, mayors, and other officeholders in States and cities across the Nation, as members of Congress, as ambassadors, as military officers, as officials in political campaigns and political parties, and as advocates and activists for various political and social causes.

To claim this group of around 280 men and women from such varied political and social backgrounds could have an activist agenda is preposterous in the extreme.

When the SCOTUS was reviewing the constitutionality of state-level same sex marriage bans, the Amici dutifully reviewed as much information as it could find on the legality of same sex bans. Around 55 court cases were referenced and 19 authoritative texts were also consulted before they reached their conclusions.

The counsels, in addition, reviewed the constitutional and statutory provision with care. Due to the importance of the case and the ramifications of the decision, the amicus brief not a hastily drawn-up brief.

Conscience and Scripture: How the Abolition of Slavery and the Fight for Marriage Equality are Inseparable 2/2

by Nomad

In the second part of this series, we take a look at how the Presbyterian Assembly's recent decision to recognize marriage equality is entirely in keeping with its history on other progressive issues.
And whether it was slavery, segregation or mixed marriage, the opposition was always ready to use Scripture to justify their prejudices.

In the earlier post on this subject, we looked at the recent break between National Black Church Initiative (NBCI) and the Presbyterian Church over the subject of same-sex marriage. The decision to allow ceremonies to be conducted- as per the conscience of each church- created a backlash, involving approximately 15.7 million African Americans belonging to 34,000 churches. 

Rev. Anthony Evans. President of NBCI claimed that the Presbyterian Assembly had strayed from the Word of God, that is, the Holy book which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

The History of Going Beyond Scripture

The history of the denomination reveals a centuries old pattern of free thinking. Presbyterianism was especially influenced by the French theologian John Calvin,
Two quotes by Calvin seem especially relevant.

Is it faith to understand nothing, and merely submit your convictions implicitly to the Church?

Clearly he believed that faith was more than submission without understanding.  He argued against relying solely on Scripture to resolve spiritual issues- or still worse, relying on the interpretations of church leaders. Faith shouldn't be a hand-me-down.

Another influence on Presbyterian doctrine was  a Scottish reformer, John Knox. He too objected to the absolute submission to Scripture and he had his reasons. 

The testimony of scripture is so plain that to add anything were superfluous, were it not that the world is almost now come to that blindness, that whatsoever pleases not the princes and the multitude, the same is rejected as doctrine newly forged, and is condemned for heresy.

How Christian Right's Defense of Family Helps Hide Russia's Biggest Problems

by Nomad

The same political evangelicals who have wasted taxpayer's money in the US are taking the Christian Right's homophobic defense of family show to Russia.

And there's a good reason why Putin and the Russian government supports the extreme conservative propaganda.

Back in February, Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council (FRC), a far right Christian political organization, declared that the American Economy was doomed. It was only a matter of time.

The cause for the meltdown?  America's acceptance of gay rights, naturally.

Perkins' American Apocalypse 

In case you don't know, the Family Research Council- a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) charity- lobbies in Washington against all things homosexual in the name of supporting family values. "Homosexual conduct is," according to the FRC, "harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed." 

Perkins' argument that acceptance of gay equality can actually cause the economy to tank is a new one. It works like this: Gay rights, Perkins predicts, will weaken the nation to such a point that Russia and China will feel emboldened to drop the dollar as an international currency standard. American money will be worthless.
Thereafter every time you open your purse or wallet all you will hear is a flushing sound.

Why are Singapore Authorities Afraid of Same-Sex Penguins?

by Nomad

So, what has Singapore got against gay penguins? Why has this tiny Asian city-state decided to collect and destroy all copies of a children's book? 

This week, both the BBC reported on a small (and rather pathetic) news story about one Asian nation's censorship of gay themes in children's books. According to the source:

Singapore authorities have withdrawn from libraries two children's books featuring same-sex couples, sparking controversy amid a debate on gay rights in the conservative city-state.

The two books in question were "And Tango Makes Three" - a story based on true events about two male penguins at New York's Central Park. The other is entitled "The White Swan Express" which merely mentions- though it does not feature- a lesbian couple seeking to adopt a child.

The two books were removed earlier this week after a library user wrote into the National Library Board expressing concern about the books' content.

The library board said in a statement that it takes "a pro-family and cautious approach in identifying titles for our young visitors", and plans to pulp the books despite vocal opposition.

It shouldn't come as any big shock. Singapore has for some time been known as a place where interference and restrictions in the lives of its citizens is all too routine. Over the years, the authorities in the tiny Southeast Asian city- state have felt no qualms about encroaching on its citizens' civil liberties.

In fact, although gay and civil rights groups have recently sought to overturn the laws with two constitutional challenges. homosexuality is still illegal in Singapore. As a concession (of sorts), the Singaporean government stated that, while it will retain the law to reflect mainstream society's stand on the issue, the anti-gay laws will not be actively enforced. 

(Of course, there is always a critical difference between mere tolerance and actual acceptance. The fact that the laws are still on the books and still could be used is seen by some as an unspoken threat.)

Liberty, Marriage Equality and Your Silent Sanction

by Nomad

When it comes to politics, your silence means your approval. 

I saw this intelligently-written article about equality and the values that hold this nation together. I thought it was worth sharing. 

While Ayn Rand is probably not a person I would normally quote, in this context, her words are spot-on. The idea that "Silence means sanction" can also be applied on a larger scale. By not voting in elections, liberals and moderates are giving a stamp of approval for every thing wrong with Congress. Whether they know it or not, they send the message that mixing religion and government is okay, that healthcare is only for those who can afford it, that pushing the country back to the time before the Civil Rights Act is fine and the treating women as second-class citizens is a great idea. 

Marriage Equality, the Ex-Marine and Ayn Rand (via Pride & Equality Post)

Ex-marine Roger Huffstetler discovered two friends were gay. One was a bunkmate from Afghanistan; the other a childhood friend. He started to wonder what kind of friend he was and went to them. Both assured him he had never said or done anything that…

---

Eurovision's Conchita: The Face that Launched a Thousand Russian Rants

  by Nomad

Austria's entry in the Eurovision Song Contest has created quite a controversy. In fact one Russian politician has called for a boycott and for the singer to be banned from this year's program. What does this really say about Russia today?

Eurovision Song Contest

Most Americans have probably never heard of the Eurovision song contest. It's kind of a shame. Then again, most Americans probably wouldn't appreciate the fun of it. 

That aspect of the long running song contest is a little hard to describe. Not a lot of people take it very seriously- as a contest of real talent. Practically every year, the best performer is passed over for something a little more trite, or silly or bland. It can be so cheesy that it borders - and often goes beyond the borders- on farce. 

Nevertheless, Eurovision pretends to take itself very seriously. And it is certainly entertaining. Since it began in 1956, the basic formula has been the same. Each member country (including for some peculiar reason, Israel and Turkey.) submits a song to be performed on live television and radio and then casts votes for the other countries' songs to determine the most popular song in the competition.

The elaborate voting process nearly always falls along predictable political lines, with nations throwing their votes to their national pals, instead of the best performance.
Cyprus votes for Greece but Greece never votes for Turkey. Germany- with it large Turkish population- generally votes for Turkey. Macedonia never votes for Greece and so on and so on.
Talent isn't really much of a factor in the voting process. 

For that reason, the results provide a good argument about what's wrong with the idea of European Union. 

In spite of that, it's fun to watch.. in a weird sort of way.

Even before the contest kicks off this month, one candidate has already caused a stir. You only have to look at the photo above to understand why.

Gender-bending singer from Austria, Tom Neuwirth, (stage name: Conchita Wurst) could never be accused of taking himself too seriously. In one interview, he revealed that his look was only a way of getting attention. (Implying perhaps- in a rather covert way - that talent alone won't do it at the Eurovision contest.) 

His over-the-top get-up is what Kim Kardashian would look like after two weeks on a testosterone skin patch.

Lebanon Suddenly Became More Gay-Friendly than 14 US states

by Nomad

Despite its myriad problems, (such as marketplace suicide bombings, factional divisions and refugees), the Middle-Eastern nation of Lebanon appears to be more progressive when it comes to equality rights for its gay minority than, say, Texas or Oklahoma.

According to Victoria Kim writing for PolicyMic:

LGBT rights activists in Lebanon are celebrating a historic ruling that reversed the criminalization of gay sex in Lebanon.

The recent case was highlighted a quarterly magazine called Legal Agenda, published by an NGO of the same name.

Judge Naji El Dahdah, of Jdeide Court, Beirut, threw out the case, in which the Lebanese state accused a transgender woman of having a same-sex relationship with a man, on January 28. The verdict relied on a December 2009 ruling by Judge Mounir Suleiman that consensual homosexual relations were not "against nature" and could therefore not be prosecuted under article 534 of Lebanon's penal code, which prohibits sexual relations that are "contradicting the laws of nature," and makes them punishable by up to a year in prison. "Man is part of nature and is one of its elements, so it cannot be said that any one of his practices or any one of his behaviors goes against nature, even if it is criminal behavior, because it is nature's ruling," Suleiman said.

This latest development comes after what some saw as last years' crackdown of a very discreet underground gay scene.

Compare that to the states in the US that  still have anti-sodomy laws on their books. Despite a 2003 Supreme Court decision  to invalidate an earlier ruling in the case of Lawrence v. Texas, fourteen states have yet to abolish the laws. The Supreme Court ruled that this private sexual conduct is protected by the liberty rights implicit in the due process clause of the United States Constitution. 

And yet, Alabama,  Florida, Idaho,  Kansas,  Louisiana,  Michigan,  Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Virginia all have retained the unconstitutional laws. While these states have no way to enforce the laws, they have also not been repealed at a state level. Although obsolete, the laws have been used have been used to stop gay Americans from adopting and fostering children and gaining custody of their own kids.

Oklahoma Federal Judge Delivers Yet Another Blow against Same-Sex Marriage Bans

by Nomad

Across the nation, state-by-state same-sex marriage bans are being overturned by federal justices. Yesterday it was Oklahoma's turn. The governor of that state has invested a lot of political capital in attempting to stop marriage equality for gay Oklahoma couples. Has Conservative governor Mary Fallin's crusade finally come to the end? 

In what campaigners for marriage equality will see as a victory a federal judge ruled on Tuesday that an Oklahoma law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples violates the U.S. Constitution. The judge ruled that Oklahoma’s constitutional amendment violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment has been the basis for most civil rights legislation since it provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (This is, incidentally, the basis for corporate personhood.)

Oklahoma now joins California, Connecticut, Iowa Massachusetts), New Jersey, Utah and New Mexico where courts have ruled against same-sex marriage bans. A further 8 states have voted for recognition by legislative action and 3 more by popular vote.

By any measure, it has been a political disaster for conservatives. 

And a costly one for political groups. Millions of dollars have been spent by conservative Christian organizations like The Arlington Group to pass same-sex marriage bans in 13 states. Today there are 17 states that legally recognize same-sex marriages and that number will undoubtedly continue to rise.

Oklahoma Governor Fallin: Flailing and Failing 

This will come as a blow to many conservatives in the state who have politicized the issue. For example, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin had taken an active role in the matter since taking office. As if Oklahoma has absolutely nothing else to worry about.

In November, in order to stop same-sex couples from receiving benefits, she ordered the Oklahoma National Guard to stop processing benefits for all service members regardless of whether they are same-sex or opposite-sex. She told reporters that the reason for this was purely legislative. 

VAWA: A Closer Look at Five Republicans who Said No

by Nomad

Let's take a closer look at five Republicans who voted against the renewal of a bill which gives legal protections to women who are victims of violence.  

After the vote on the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), the prospect of taking control of the Senate just became a little more remote. 

As The Daily Caller noted, many of the Republicans who have considered or who have announced plans to run for the Senate decided to vote against the bill. 

That legislation provides 

"$1.6 billion toward investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women, imposes automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allows civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave unprosecuted. The Act also establishes the Office on Violence Against Women within the Department of Justice."

The bill covered many important topics such as human trafficking, domestic violence (including during pregnancy) sexual slavery, forced abortion, sexual violence, marital rape and many other crimes that tend to target women. Any no vote would logically require some kind of explanation to the public. 

In this post I would like to shine a spotlight on five Congressmen and women who have dreams  of a revered Senate seat but who also decided to deny women suitable protections against violence.

How Gay Couples Are Destroying The Institution of Marriage

A Nemesis in Washington: How The Evangelists in Reagan’s Administration Undermined the War on AIDS 1/2

by Nomad

Ronald Reagan's legacy has taken a lot of criticism over the years about his lame response to the AIDS crisis. How much of that criticism is based on fact and how much on perception? Reagan himself might not have been the real problem, but the company he kept most certainly had an impact on his way of dealing with the emerging epidemic.

Association and Contact

On July 5, 1981, less than six months after Ronald Reagan took office, an article appeared in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). The newsletter is a weekly report distributed by the CDC written by University of California-Los Angeles Dr. Michael Gottlieb and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Dr. Wayne Shandera. In it, an article detailed the unusual cases of a new type of pneumonia which specifically seemed to target gay males. 

According to the report, the cases suggested “some association between some aspect of a homosexual lifestyle or disease acquired through sexual contact.” The article was to mark the first public announcement of the disease which became known as AIDS and later HIV infection.

The Santorums and the Bully's Defense: Rick and Karen Play the Victim Card

by Nomad

Victimhood and the Messiah-Complex

I saw this interesting video clip at The Raw Story. Here’s the background information to the clip. At  a question-and-answer event in South Carolina for mothers, “Moms Matter 2012″ Rick and Karen Santorum alleged that the gay community has been attempting to vilify her husband by portraying him as a gay-hating religious bigot.

Nothing could be further from the truth, Karen Santorum declared to the friendly audience. She took the microphone to defend her husband who meanwhile wore his best victim expression.

“As Rick’s wife, I have known him and loved him for 23 years,” she said. “I think it’s very sad what the gay activists have done out there. They vilify him. It is so wrong. He loves them. What he has simply said is marriage shouldn’t happen.”

It’s all very confused in Karen Santorum’s mind, it seems. She somehow managed to twist things around a great deal. Very conveniently.