The GOP and Reparative Therapy: Why the Tea Party in Texas Just Opened a New Can of Worms for 2016

by Nomad

Thanks to a Supreme Court's decision, the idea of Reparative or Conversion therapy- attempting to convert gay people, including young adults, to happy heterosexuals, has been dealt a devastating blow. That's not a surprise.

The medical community has largely rejected the pseudo-science and warned of its psychological hazards.

So why did the Texas GOP 2014 platform come out strongly in support of it?

When No Comment is a Relief
So is this how far the Supreme Court has sunk?

A recent headline in ThinkProgress proclaims  the Supreme Court's decision not to rule on a controversial case involving a gay rights issue as a victory- a good thing. That says a lot about how much public trust remains with the High Court when the best news of the day comes when the Supreme Court stops making decisions. 

In this case, we can all breath a sigh of relief that the Court refused to intervene in the case, challenging California’s ban on ex-gay therapy for minors. That leaves the ban in place. And some conservatives were naturally peeved.

The case stems from a conservative challenge by the Pacific Justice Institute and ex-gay group NARTH and the Liberty Counsel to a California law banning such therapy. The lower courts had dismissed the conservative groups' claim that- wait for this- a ban violated the free speech of therapists.
As the article notes:

California was the first state to pass a law protecting minors from being subjected to therapies that attempt to de-gay their sexual orientations in 2012. Conservative groups promptly sued on behalf of ex-gay therapists who felt the ban infringed on their freedom of speech with clients. After two conflicting lower court rulings, the Ninth Circuit ruled last summer that the ban is constitutional. The conservative groups appealed to the Supreme Court, but its decision not to hear it means that the cases are over and the ban remains in place.

 For example, here is an excerpt from an article on the California law

It bans a form of medical treatment for minors; it does nothing to prevent licensed therapists from discussing the pros and cons of SOCE [sexual orientation change efforts ] with their patients....

 Treatment is not a form of free speech, the court decided and, therefore, deserves no protection.  

Because SB 1172 regulates only treatment, while leaving mental health providers free to discuss and recommend, or recommend against, SOCE, we conclude that any effect it may have on free speech interests is merely incidental.

What a relief: No therapist's free speech was injured in the making of that ruling. 

Dead Woman Walking: The Remarkable Resurrection of Margaret Dickson

by Nomad

The remarkable story of Margaret Dickson illustrates how church and state often worked hand in hand to create untold suffering for women, especially when it came to reproductive issues. Fortunately for all us, we live in a much more enlightened age.

Infanticide in the Age of Reason

When it comes to matters sexual or reproductive, women have throughout history, usually been society's victims. Such is the case of one Scottish peasant named Margaret Dickson.

In order to tell properly her following horrific story, we have to explore the historical background a little.

Before the Age of Reason really got a foothold, one notorious social problem was infanticide- the murder of a child within a year of birth. This type of crime was, as one historian put it, "woefully common." As a crime, it has long been considered the most contrary to human nature since the love of a helpless baby would, on the surface, appear to be ingrained in our maternal instincts and our universal sense of self-preservative.

What kind of pressure could induce any woman to commit such a heinous crime?

Yale history professor Keith Wrightson  sheds a bit of light on the subject:

While it was certainly not a generally tolerated practice, infanticide would appear to have had a considerable currency in the disposal of a minority of unwanted, predominately illegitimate children.

It was unsurprisingly both a capital crime by the state and an unpardonable sin by the Church. And yet, many historians theorize that it was a fairly common practice at that time.

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.)

FaceBook Fans Outraged by Dinosaur Hunter Steven Spielberg Safari Photo

by Nomad

Most people have heard that some fundamental Christians in the US have a few pretty crazy ideas about creation and evolution. 

Two years ago, evangelist Pat Robertson made headlines by throwing cold water on the long-standing notion that the Earth was only 6,000 years. His followers must have been gasping in sheer disbelief when he announced:

(T)here was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don’t try and cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That’s not the Bible.”
“If you fight science, you’re going to lose your children, and I believe in telling it the way it was.”

The end of that quote suggests that Robertson might actually remember "the way it was."

In battle of science and ignorance- religiously inspired or not- it seems as though, the dark side might have already won. If you need any more evidence than Fox News programming, then take this story by Ella Alexander, writing for the Irish Independent. 

According to an article, a Facebook member, Jay Branscomb, thought it would be a hoot to attach an absurd caption to a photo one of his Jurassic Park films. 

It was, in fact, a sly comment on Facebook decision to delete photos from a cheerleader who had posted safari shots of animals that she had killed, including a leopard and a lion.

The photo in question (right) shows Spielberg posed beside a dinosaur model- a mechanical Triceratops, to be exact.

Clever prankster Branscomb wrote:

“Disgraceful photo of recreational hunter happily posing next to a Triceratops he just slaughtered. Please share so the world can name and shame this despicable man.”

Branscomb was amazed, amused and appalled by the reaction from some of his followers.

Theodore Roosevelt Reveals the Ugly Truth Behind Ted Cruz's Federal Land Sell-off Bill

by Nomad

Here's a quote by the I found from over a hundred years ago. Our 26th President has something he has been waiting patiently to tell us about tricks of the Tea Party Republicans and their conservative principles.

If there is one person who can expose the corruption of today's Republican party, it is yesteryear's Republican, Theodore Roosevelt.

Here is a 1913 snippet from his autobiography, regarding legislation protecting government- owned lands from the exploitation by the robber barons of his age.

It is better for the government to help a poor man to make a living for his family than to help a rich man to make a living for his company. This principle was too sound to be fought openly. It is the kind of principle to which politicians delight to pay unctuous homage in words. But we translated the words into deeds; and when they found that this was the case, many rich men... were stirred to hostility, and they used the congressmen they controlled to assault us- getting most aid from certain demagogues, who were equally glad improperly to denounce rich men in public and improperly to serve them in public. 

Theodore Roosevelt, An Autobiography. The Natural Resources of the Nation  

The same old tricks are being used all over again and by all appearances, half the nation has been bamboozled by the same political charlatans and puppets of special interests.
Case in point?
Senator Ted Cruz's underhanded legislative fiddling this week.