Tuesday’s passage of an anti Gay Marriage ordinance in Maine was unquestionably disappointing, but perhaps no more so than the shrill response from members of the same-sex marriage industry who have once again resorted to the new-found game of homo-hysteria.
Indeed, David Mixner — the de facto leader of the same-sex marriage movement (above) — has made it clear that he believes that the US is now entering an era of “Gay Apartheid” — YES! “Gay Apartheid”.
As anyone who’s studied contemporary South African history knows, Apartheid was a system of legal, physical, cultural, economic and social separation that was not voted in under referendum — but imposed via quasi-dictatorship from above. It was a policy of systematic exclusion, disenfranchisement and oppression that literally resulted in the deaths of those who violated it.
Clearly, the passage of the anti same sex-marriage proposition in Maine has nothing to do with Apartheid.
And yet Mixner — who goes on to describe the recent events in Maine as “ballot-box terrorism” — is not alone in resorting to Homo-Hysteria in order to rally his troops.
Fellow Gay leader Andrew Sullivan famously declared a few month on his Atlantic Monthly blog that “Fight Back. Act Up” in reference to Pres. Obama’s unwillingness to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act.
While the folks over at the blog Queerty have described the Maine passage as “voter approved rape”.
This extreme language is truly hysteria at best — downright falsehoods at worst.
We all know that in the US we are not living in an “Apartheid” state; that the amazingly clever “Act-Up. Fight Back” phrases applied when folks were literally dying from HIV, not in the case of marriage debates; and that any actual rape victim would be hard-pressed to see a similarity between her experience and a legal, official vote.
What I’m getting at here is that we’ve entered an age of homo-hysteria — in which self-appointed leaders see fit to speak for the “community” in hyperbole and jargon that may make for good headlines, but is patently devoid of fact.
More worrisome, by declaring the GLBT situation dire and extreme TODAY, it both negates actual recent achievements (such as a clutch of new gay mayors; repeal of a ban allowing HIV positive foreigners into the nation; the Matthew Shephard act) and leaves little room to galvanize our resources if/when (God forbid) the forces of evil truly descend upon us.
Homo Hysteria serves homo Hysterics; but benefit every-day Gay folk — eeeh, not so much.
I would just like to say, I observed your comments on the National Equality March website. I would like to respond to “what’s next a gay holocaust?”
If you’ve ever seen a pink triangle you should know the history behind that IS the Gays from The Holocaust! There were far more than just Jews hunted, persecuted, and systematically massacred in the holocaust. There were plenty of LGBT people killed during the holocaust, as well as handicapped persons, and gypsies. If you’re going to be high and mighty about history, you should know the history of which you preach.
I am not following you here.
I am well aware of the treatment of Gays, Jews, Gypsies, Communists and other minority groups in the Holocaust.
That’s my point. It would be very inappropriate for Mixner and co. to appropriate Holocaust references in the battle for same-sex marriage
much as it is unacceptable for them to use the term Apartheid.
Your lofty rhetoric can’t disguise your petty ignorance and homophobia. If you are gay, you are to be pitied. If you’re not gay, shut the fuck up.
thank you for sharing!
Why would one need pity for demanding more of the leaders purported to represent us?
Mixner needs to try harder
perhaps you should too
If you don’t think we’re dying because of the religious right and the politicians that are beholden to them, you’re fucking delusional. Whether it be the baseball bat of a basher or the suicide of a closeted teen, we’ve been dying forever, and these examples and gay marriage bans are NOT separate issues. It’s all about equality. They’re mobilizing their flock against us, and it’s obviously working. I’m embarrassed that Mr. Mixner’s views aren’t more widespread.
No one is denying the religious right is on a campaign to demonize GLBTs
but that is not my point here
Mixner chooses to use offensive and incorrect terminology.
Once again it must be made clear — there is no Gay Apartheid in the United States
Saying so is an offence to the democratic core of this nation
While I think most would agree that the severity and brutality of the South African apartheid was far worse than what the LGBT community suffers today, you seem to be laboring under the idea that the battle for equal marriage rights is an isolated event. It’s not. It’s part of a much larger battle for LGBT rights that has been waged since long before even the Nazi holocaust. This is not something new. It’s just that this group is finally finding a voice loud enough to be heard. The LGBT community has been beaten and murdered and has suffered political, legal, and economic discrimination for decades. Just because things may not be as bad today, doesn’t mean the larger view of the struggle of the LGBT community doesn’t fit the definition of apartheid.
Websters definition of apartheid:
1) An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites.
2) A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.
3) The condition of being separated from others; segregation.
Thank you for your dictionary definition.
But in the real-world of past/present South Africa, it does not hold water.
Mr. Mixner is wrong in his comparison.
And should be ashamed of this fact.
You don’t understand the message Mixner and others are sending… its no longer about marriage equality alone. The Apartheid remark refers to the all encompassing discrimination that the LGBT community has to endure. There are two sets of law in this country, one for heteros and another for LGBT folks. Dicotomized law is the definition of Apartheid. Stop bashing the real leaders who are finally standing up to complacency and start doing something productive with your voice. Your wishy-washy, blase quasi-acceptance of the status quo sickens me and most who have had it up to “here” with acceptance of this undeserved 2nd class citizenship. Stand up!
It is you who does not understand here.
Nor Mr. Mixner.
I am not debating whether homophobia or discrimination against GLBTs exists — this is taken as given.
What I am problematizing is the validity of Mr. Mixner using the term Gay Apartheid.
It is simply shrill and factually incorrect and reflects the fact that HE does not fully understand the message HE is trying to convey.
Really ? Substitute “United States” for Africa and “Gays” for non-whites – and apartheid sounds pretty close to what is happening here in the US to me.
Maybe you mean to say that the EXTREMES practiced in Africa are not practiced here in the US ( On a large scale…yet ).
Maybe you are saying that until it becomes official government policy to separate the gays in rights and economic resources – there is no apartheid…oh wait..I can’t receive my 30 year partner’s social security benefits bacause I’m gay…
..and wait, ENDA is being discussed…so until that’s finalized I could be dismissed from my job for being gay…economic discrimination…
I could ramble on – but in my book you are mistaken. Apartheid does exist.
I can’t seem to find where “apartheid” can only be used if those practicing apartheid meet a certain level of “badness”….
a·part·heid (ə-pärt’hīt’, -hāt’)
n.
1. An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites.
2. A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.
I state again
there is no gay apartheid in the united states
and we should be thankful for this fact
do not forget
apartheid was not just an economic policy
but at its core a policy based on the PHYSICAL separation of millions of blacks, colored and asians under the threat of arrest, prison, violence or death
this was the CORE of apartheid
it does not exist in the USA
You are taking the single most horrific example of apartheid in human history and saying that unless something is exactly the same in scale, it doesn’t meet the definition. If you look at the history of the LGBT struggle for equality, you will find the same principles at work. The LGBT community has endured horrific violence, extreme levels of dehumanization, and systematic discrimination legally, politically, and economically. If you don’t think so, see my link below.
You used wikipedia for your definition of apartheid (specifically the crimes in South Africa). How about you use the disambiguation page to under stand that there are many types of apartheid and Mixner’s is far closer than most others to what happened in Africa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid_(disambiguation)
Or if you have that short of a memory of the many violent acts against LGBT people, review this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_LGBT_people
Again I’ll say, I don’t think anyone, including Mixner, is saying the scale is the same as apartheid in Africa, but the principles are the same and it should sicken people the same!
there is no gay apartheid in the united states
the struggle for GLBT equality is a wholly different beast than the struggle to end apartheid
there is nothing to compare
and no need to strive for comparisons
In 1988 a Florida judge, trying a case concerning the beating to death of a gay man asked the prosecutor, “That’s a crime now, to beat up a homosexual?” The prosecutor responded, “Yes, sir. And it’s also a crime to kill them.” “Times have really changed,” the judge replied.
(Altschiller, Donald (2005), Hate Crimes: a reference handbook, ABC-CLIO, pp. 26–28)
You can’t simply appropriate a word because you want to. While no one would disagree that there are significant differences between LGBT discrimination and what happened in South Africa, they are both forms of apartheid.
I’m sorry that you feel you own this word and no one else has a right to use it, but that’s simply not true.
[...] you might also recall, we were far-less stoked to read recent missives fired off by Gay civil rights activist David Mixner in the wake of the very [...]
@transracial. You’re kind of a whack job. You do realize that just because you “state it again” doesn’t make it true. Read the posts here. You’re in the minority. Most agree with Mixner, because he’s correct. A dichotomy of laws, which we have here, straight on one side, LGBT on the other, does in fact fit the definition of Apartheid. Get over yourself and join the real fight. The fight for equality and an end to Gay Apartheid in America.
just because folks agree with mixner does not make him correct — it simply makes him popular
and i, for one, am not trying to win any popularity contests
remember: hitler, too was popular — popularly elected by Weimar germany
i am not “not” in the real fight. i am simply making it clear that rhetoric like mr mixner’s does not help any one — particularly not the folks he’s trying to serve
So if we could set aside the term apartheid for a moment –
Mixner holds that gays are treated differently under the law due to the attitude that there is some acceptable level of discrimination which only a hysterical person would object to.
Thanks for making his point.
By the way, hysteria is a historically sexist term and no longer used in psychology — hysteria was a supposed disease of women. So in this context it’s a bit questionable.
considering it shares the same root as “hyterectomy” — yes, hysteria has traditionally had sexist connotations
i am not debating mixner’s core conceit — just the way he chooses to express it
My problem with the fight for marriage equality is that it depends on legal recognition from a nation that is inherently corrupt, cruel, inegalitarian, imperial and inhumane: the United State of America. The American Empire must fall, and quickly. Queers should stop fighting to get legally recognized by an Empire that does so much cruelty to its own people and so much damage to the global Family. Legal recognition of marriage is for bourgeois Queers who want to become as bourgeois as the breeders they admire and imitate. Booshy queers often ignore the political-economic suffering worldwide that permits them to live booshy lives. The Marriage Equality movement is insufficiently egalitarian, just as the Civil Rights movement has been, culminating in the election of Obama (the minstrel showman of the corporate capitalist Empire). To achieve true Equality, Queers must work to destroy the American Empire, and with it all the different forms of political, economic, social and cultural supremacy. Trying with futility to pretend to be “Equal” in a grotesquely unequal society is a waste of time. When Martin Luther King moved beyond racial politics to economic politics, he recognized the limitations of identity politics (identity politics fools us into believing that “Equality” is based on bourgeois legality). Queers will find equality and freedom if we work to deconstruct the inherently inegalitarian Empire called america. This shouldn’t be that hard since the American Empire is living its last days anyway.
Mixner is using the wroing term yes, but where is your anger? See Langbehn, Janice a woman who though she had a valid medical power of atty was kept from her partner of 18 years — she died alone. The social worker in th Miami hospital explained it by saying “You’re in an anti-gay state”. The Fed Courts dismissed her suit against the hospital saying there was no law forbidding this.
I am a cancer survivor, and I feel there are states in my own country i cannot go too — because situtaitons like this. It’s not apartheid, but then what is it?! You have a responsibility to answer that, since you fault Mixner for being overzealous or inaccurate in his word choice.
To ignore situations like mine is to be irresponsible at best.
Did you seriously compare David Mixner to Hitler? That’s insane. Your “homo hysteria” term is incredibly offensive too — you could’ve simply used the word “hysteria” but you chose to denegrate gay people in the process. You lost any credibility with that.
You’re an ignorant poser and you’re propagating ignorance.
Educate yourself about where the comparison comes from:
http://www.law.fsu.edu/Journals/lawreview/frames/244/eskrtxt.html
So, you just compared David Mixner, a Jew, to Hitler and you’re going to correct him? You are a delusional scumbag.
Chris, I am a gay cancer survivor, also. There are many states I can’t work in because I can lose my job and my insurance on the whim of some homophobe like Mr. Transracial.
I have contacted Huffington Post asking that your hateful and bigoted article be removed. I sincerely hope they ban you from contributing to their website in the future.
“Homo-hysteria” is a hateful term. It combines a pejorative term for a gay person with a common negative gay stereotype.
It is the same as “sissy fag” or “coon-laziness” and you should be ashamed of yourself.
The term “apartheid” can be used to refer to any condition of being separated from others or segregation under any government.
The very fact that Mixner uses the unique term “gay apartheid” indicates that he recognizes that there is a distiction — obviously less in scope than Apartheid.
Using your logic, we can’t use the word genocide to refer to the one milion Tutsis killed in Rwanda because that number is not equal to the Jews killed in the Holocaust. Some people even call it the Rwandan Holocaust. I suppose you have a problem with that, too.
You get back to me when the Huff Post folk let you know.
You really don’t think “homo hysterics” is homophobic? You don’t think comparing a jewish person to Hitler is offensive? Your inability to decently answer any of these questions exposes you as a homophobe, and that’s fine. But don’t say you’re for equality — just say you want gay people to continue to have second calss status in our country. You can join the McCains. Palins, DeMints, Coburns, Gallaghers, and everyone else who would deny you rights at any turn possible as well.
Btw, you’ve been yanked off of “featured posts” at HuffPo. Looks like your homophobia doesn’t play there.
Several commentors have argued that gay-lesbian-bi-trans people were targeted under Apartheid, and that is has become part of our global history as a result.
Could you please comment on that point?
I am not up enough on my history to say argue either way, although I do see the valid points of both your point and those of the commentors rebutting you.
Apartheid was a system rooted around racial segregation
Gay folk were, most likely, victimized during the Apatheid regime.
But this was not its primary purpose — in any shape or form.
what your saying transracial is what everyone is saying when they say “how dare you compare your struggle to ours!” or “you can’t have that word marriage”, and that is don’t equate yourself with me because I’m superior to you. I read your homophobic, rant on Huffington Post and was appalled.
appalled is good
passion = power
keep it up!
There was nothing homo-phobic about my piece on the huff post
there was, however, quite a bit of truth in it
read it again — slowly, calmly and without your CANNED agenda
you’ll see……….