Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
A bill introduced in Russia's lower house will impose a five year prison sentence for anyone convicted of homosexuality.Gay sex was illegal under the Soviets but was decriminalized in 1993 when Communism fell.
The legislation, introduced Monday by Deputy Nikolay Kuryanovich would bring back the old law, and make it a crime for gays to congregate - a provision that would bar gay pride parades or meetings.
How far Kuryanovich's bill will advance is unknown. As an Independent he does not have a party backing him but the measure has widespread support from former Communists and parties allied to the Russian Orthodox Church.(source)
I find it interesting that both the communists and the Church agree on this issue. The Russian Orthodox Church was all but banned under communist rule in the Soviet Union, where the state was officially atheist. Yet they both agree on this issue. And how will the creationists react, since they argue that both communism and the acceptance of homosexuality are consequences of "Darwinism", yet the former communist states around the world almost all banned homosexuality during their reign.
Comments
Well, everybody has to hate some group and since gays are one of the very few remaining groups that it is still ok to hate, you get people who on almost every other issue disagree, all agree to hate me. So communist, facist, all three arbrahamic religions (Judism, Christianity, and Muslim), and professional sports figures all agree I should not have my civil rights that everyone else has, because to give those rights to me will make me special somehow.
Posted by: Tulle | February 16, 2007 9:55 AM
Wait a minute...
Homosexuality is a consequence of "Darwinism", yet "Darwinism" (in the creationist nutball argument) asserts that you must breed for the species to survive so homosexuality, which doesn't involve breeding, goes against all Darwinist logic?
Then there's the whole "Darwinism" asserts that you must breed to survive, yet the only ones that keep encouraging people to have tons of children by 19th century standards are the conservative christians, where-as the Darwinists are those that are actively practicing birth control and population control?
They really just don't get it, do they?
Posted by: Joe Shelby | February 16, 2007 10:04 AM
Completely off topic, but...
Is there a reason to break a post like this in two? When I click the Read More link and there's just one more paragraph, couldn't that all just go on the main page?
Posted by: Will | February 16, 2007 10:39 AM
Tulle wrote,
But it seems as if everyone belongs to one of these groups that it is "still ok to hate." The folks behind the blasphemy challenge claim it is still ok to hate atheists. Many Christians say it is ok to hate Christians. I'm betting Moslems feel likewise. This "is still OK to hate" claim has lost any effect that it once had. By the way, Tim Hardaway is being excoriated, not beatified, so if that is to whom you are referring when you mention professional sports figures, I submit it is a counter example to your claim.
Posted by: David Heddle | February 16, 2007 11:20 AM
David Heddle -
But it seems as if everyone belongs to one of these groups that it is "still ok to hate."
Yes, but none of the other groups listed, have nearly the legal challenges to their lifestyles. They are not having laws made against them (excepting the repression of all religions in China and a few other exceptions). It is also far more acceptable, in far more circles, to bash gays, than any other group of people.
As a Christian, I have very little to fear, anywhere in the U.S. or most of the world. I can honestly and openly admit it nearly anywhere, without putting my life in danger. Atheists might find a less receptive welcome, in more places than myself, but there are few places they would be in physical danger for expressing their lack of religion. Same with Muslims.
Gays on the other hand, are far more limited in places they can go safely, open about their sexuality. They have to fear beatings and worse, here in the U.S. Here in the U.S., everyone belonging to any of the other groups you mentioned, have legal protections in place, to prevent discrimination. In many places, they have the protection of "hate" crime laws. Queers have very few places, respectively, that provide such security.
I don't think I need to list all the rights they don't have. I'm certain that everyone here is well aware.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 16, 2007 12:04 PM
The difference, mr heddle, is reality.
In America, only a tiny percentage hates Christians. But a much greater percentage hates Muslims, atheists and homosexuals.
The only difference is that Christians are in such an ubermajority that they complain the loudest.
Posted by: doctorgoo | February 16, 2007 12:09 PM
DuWayne,
You make a case with which I don't disagree. But it is not to the point of my comment. I'm arguing that the phrase "it is still ok to hate" is meaningless if not simply wrong. It is not supposed to mean that same thing as "there is oppression against." Nor does it follow that the group facing the most oppression is automatically "ok to hate." The expression is supposed to imply that the majority of people at least tacitly approve of the oppression. Gays may face the most opression of any group in the US, but I don't think it's true that it is "ok to hate them." Or atheists. Or Christians.
Posted by: David Heddle | February 16, 2007 12:15 PM
So Russia will join the enlightened circle of nations that include Nigeria, and Zimbabwe. Forget evidence of evolution-- we have real evidence of devolution right here!
Posted by: SharonB | February 16, 2007 12:16 PM
It sounds like it's just one nutcase politician pushing this bill. I don't think it reflects on the entirety of Russia. If the bill passes, well, then that's another story.
Posted by: Brandon | February 16, 2007 1:20 PM
David Heddle said "I'm arguing that the phrase "it is still ok to hate" is meaningless if not simply wrong...The expression is supposed to imply that the majority of people at least tacitly approve of the oppression. Gays may face the most opression of any group in the US, but I don't think it's true that it is "ok to hate them."
You're out to lunch here David. If it isn't a majority approving of gay oppression its damn close to it. In most of the states that had anti-gay marriage amendments on the ballot a large majority showed their desire to oppress gays. For many more people than with any other group its okay to hate gays. For every high profile person that excoriated Tim Hardaway for his anti-gay comments there are thousands, if not millions who silently or otherwise agree with him.
Posted by: Randi Schimnosky | February 16, 2007 4:11 PM
Randi,
I think you are still confusing most oppressed which I won't dispute with ok to hate which something quite different. A majority might hate gays, but that doesn't make it "ok to hate them." Just like if a majority smoked, it wouldn't change the fact that it is no longer "ok" to smoke. It has to be a question about attitudes as written in law, and what laws are ignored with a wink and a nod, and what is being taught as acceptable in the schools, etc. Otherwise, it is just a synonym for "most oppressed group."
My personal gut instinct is that Moslems have a stronger case of being the group it is "still ok to hate."
Posted by: David Heddle | February 16, 2007 5:08 PM
I suppose that depends on what you mean by "OK" in this context. I think that when a legislative majority believes that it's OK to write laws for the explicit purpose of denying you rights, they're not far from the "OK to hate you" mark, even if that majority wrings its hands and talks a great game about loving everybody equally.
You have a point in that hate speech against gays is generally frowned upon, but a large fraction of the people who would shame you for saying rude things about gay people seem not to have any problem with anti-sodomy laws and the like. Personally, I measure a society's tolerance for gays based on its actions toward them--not based on whether that society is too polite or cowardly to admit its disdain for them.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | February 16, 2007 5:36 PM
Actually I am not surprised homosexuality was illegal in the USSR. The soveits were keen on regulating leisure activity of all types - in Soviet Russia you recreated when, where and how the government said. Actual enjoyment was a lesser concern.
Plus I can easily see them attacking homosexuality as bourgeoisie decadence. Good workers should be using their non-working time to make new workers for the state.
Posted by: James | February 17, 2007 4:43 AM
we are to love each other as our selfs BUT that does not mean we have to agree with the other person and we also know that GOD said no man should lay with a another man it says if he can not controll his self let him get a wife of his own .the gay have to pay for there choosing the same as the murder or us when we use the word hate . we can not have hate in our hearts and inter heaven so just let them be dirty as they are and you my friend turn your face dont look and dont let that kind of stuff spoil your peace may GOD bless all of us and help us to keep our peace .
Posted by: someone who cares | February 17, 2007 12:14 PM