Gay Apartheid
 

It’s about time the gay rights threads on the LoT came out of the closet ... er, out of the Parking Lot.

Not even the Daily Grind will do because I’m sick of our human rights and our love lives and everything about our gayness being considered a political issue just because it deals with dreaded homosexuality that some people on earth can’t deal with.

(And yeah, because I don’t want Nehpythys unable to participate in the conversation).
　
I think we’ve come far beyond Prop 8 and its aftermath. In light of the disappointing tenure of President Fierce Advocate, it’s become clear to me we are living in a state of Gay Apartheid and we must bring that to an end - because no one’s going to do it for us.
　
This article by David Mixer expresses it more eloquently than I ever could. It’s brief, and to the point, so please check it out if you’ve got the time and inclination.
　
But yeah, we might as well call it what it is: Gay Apartheid in America. It’s intolerable.
　
　
　
I guess I picked the wrong month to quit sniffing glue .... er, I mean, gay activism.

Ya'll need to stop asking for equality and get the fvck out there and take it.

Good article and I agree. When?

When will the promises be fulfilled? When will people who are willing to die for their country be able to serve proudly while also living their life, not a lie?

No one has ever told me how gay marriage can harm MY marriage. Straights have destroyed the sanctity of marriage for so long-who are we to say who can and can not engage in the same legal niceties of marriage and even divorce? While I feel churches have the right to choose if they will provide the ceremony- the state should not block the decision of two adults to join their lives in any legal way they see fit.

No, gay marriage is not going to lead to people marrying their dogs.

DADT-outdated and based on fear and ignorance.
DOMA- defending my marriage from....what exactly?

It's not about gay activism for me so much as HUMAN activism...it's what's right. What if we lived in a world where being straight was the minority- what would *I* be doing right now.

Oh yeah- the same damn thing as my gay friends!

Nephy... Love to ya, girl

Rage on

Wow that was an excellent article. I agree with him 100%. One of the comments below the article took it one step farther and said:

"You had me until "When?"

Really? How much more obvious to the Democrats need to make it? The answer is "never."

They are, of course, far too polite to actually SAY that, but if they meant to do something, they would have at some point in the past few decades."

The fact that President Fierce Advocate thinks the gay community can be bought for a few cocktails is insulting. He obviously can get away with it on some level because we really, REALLY want to believe. Hasn't gotten us that far in a while, eh?

Honestly, Ellen and Will & Grace did more for gay rights than the Democratic Party.

As he says in the article, Apartheid is a strong word. I visited South Africa in 1992 and I can tell you, Apartheid there was still vibrating in the air, even though it had already been tossed out. The hatred and mistrust was palpable, and unlike anything I'd ever experienced.

I feel like I have to mull this one a bit....but I'm surprised at how much sense this concept already makes to me.

Perhaps because we have a hair-trigger reaction to equate the word Aparthied with South African Apartheid.

But nowadays, there's also Palestinian Apartheid, and kids growing up today will associate the word with that one rather than the South African predecessor they did not live through.


It's a word. I think it applies perfectly. But, yes, it comes in different varieties ... and this one is indeed different than the famous South African brand.

Well, it is an Afrikans word, specifically appropriated to apply to the situation in South Africa, so people can't really be blamed for that knee jerk reaction.

Wow, I never knew that. What was the term for it before that?

Segregation, slavery, racism, etc. The word in Afrikans simply meant "separateness". The two main pieces of legislation that created the institution of Apartheid were the Group Areas Act and the Separate Amenities Act. I imagine use of the term grew out of wording used in those and until very recently was used to describe the particularly institutionalized system of racism in South Africa.

Exactly. It doesn't just mean that people treat each other unfairly. It means that the institutions are designed to keep people out, or separated. Hiring a white person instead of a black person due to one's own bias - not Apartheid. Hiring a white person because it's illegal for blacks to be employed in that line of work - Apartheid. The concept of Separate But Equal is totally Apartheid.

By saying "Apartheid", you're specifically calling out all the legalities that specifically restrict gays. And yes, the parallel works.....again, still mulling this....

Very interesting. I think it was Jimmy Carter who started using the phrase in regards to the Palestinian situation, where I also happen to think it applies. I had no idea it was so connected with South Africa because it STARTED there.



I was watching Frost/Nixon the other night ... and the director remarked in the commentary that Nixon's likely most lasting legacy is that every political scandal since his rouintely has the additive "gate" to the name.

I suppose this will be similar with South Africa's contribution to phraseology. Apartheid is too perfect a description for, well, apartheid.

Welcome to apartheidgate

Yes, I suppose much like Germany is still mostly associated with genocidal atrocities that happened over 60 years ago (and somewhat also to some freaky-deaky porn), So South Africa will probably conjure up images of Apartheid for generations to come. And apartheid conjure up images of South Africa.

I'm pretty insulted by the recent remarks of the nation's top military officer, Joint Chief of Staff Ad. Mike Mullen about Don't Ask Don't Tell:

Oh really? So faggot military personnel are not part of "our" people? I guess not, since their faggotry means they are to be booted out.

And, yeah, natch, that means no concern need be given to the families of gay servicemembers.


Feh.


Colin Powell's remarks that the policy should be "reviewed," not repealed, are - in a way - even more disturbing ... considering the comparatively paltry level of public support for racially integrating the armed services he rose to the top of as a black man, at the time when Harry Truman ordered that done vs. the level of support for allowing gay people to serve openly now, mid-2009.


Double Feh.

It tickles me that, as of today, legally-performed gay marriages will be recognized in Washington, D.C., under the noses of President Fierce Advocate and the lame-tard Congress.

Yeah it is both sad and ironic that President FA had nothing to do with that one. But he's fightin'! Invisibly! With cocktails!

BTW Mr. President, perhaps we should segregate the Armed Forces until 100% of America thinks that it should be integrated. Oh wait, maybe we shouldn't think about that double standard when we're so intoxicated with admiration.

Something new every day!

Today the attorney general of Massachusetts files suit againt the United States government for denying federal marriage benefits via DOMA to the 16,000 legally married same-sex couples in that state.

Read all about it. (Boston Herald story.)


Huzzah. :snap:

Nope, Fed law does NOT trump Fed Constitution. Or, if it conflicts with other Fed law that it does not actually repeal, then the judiciary decides the matter.

Well yay for the great state of Massachussetts!

Hello, California???

Pffft California is near the bottom of the socially liberal heap these days.

Why do all the liberal places in the world have that horrible Winter thing?

So you can get all snuggy warm with your boi-toy, silly.

On Rachel Maddow’s show last night, Representative Alcee Hastings (D, FL) claims the White House pressured him to drop an amendment which would have prevented funding for Don’t Ask Don’t Tell investigations.

What’s President Fierce Advocate up to?
　
　
The Service Members Legal Defense Network’s Communications Director responds:

Looks like it's time for a beer, that's what I says, says me.

I'm confused. DADT investigations are bad - right? So - not funding those would be good then - right? And an amendment to stop funding those would also be good then - right?

Yet that doesn't seem to be the case from your comments. So - I'm missing something important or not reading that correctly then?

The White House pressuring the Representative to drop the good amendment is bad.

You got it right, Betty.

For years, decades in fact, Republicans have been using the power of de-funding to defeat elements of passed legislation they could not defeat with votes.

The Dems don't try this nearly as much (but maybe because they didn't have as much opportunity).

In any event, though it's a back-channel way of stopping DADT, Obama once again looks hypocritical (in a way) for having his administration put pressure on to short circuit this method. Of course, this may not exactly be the "act of Congress" Obama was looking for, but it IS an act of Congress and he should get on board (imo)


Of course, I admit this is sort of in line with him refusing to simply order a stop to the investigations and firings, which he has the power to do. He said he would not, and wants an act of Congress. I suppose he meant an actual law repealing DADT, but he's responsible for his choice of words. :p

Coach: Don’t Tell Anyone I Said "Faggot"
 

from The AdvocateWell guess what coach, they told! And it ain't just us faggots who are pissed.

TowleRoad has the video of his apology.

Caveat: I read a transcript of his apology and did not watch the video.

But ... if his apology was carefully crafted to seem sincere, I think he succeeded. Because it was one of the rare apologies that did not creep with lawyertalk and seemed, to me, to actually come from the thoughts of the man offering the apology.

In this day and age, I give points for that.


I also say, "That's So Gay" pretty often ... so faggot dance is not really going to get me up in arms.

As punishment they have to go back to being the Rainbow Warriors. I'm still annoyed they changed it.

I wrote a couple of letters and made a couple of calls.

Responses below. The font inconsistency from the president's office is true (I reproduced it here - LoT didn't have the same font) and made me laugh a little.

Another:

I agree that it was a well crafted apology and that he is probably sincere.

But I'm left with the nagging question: why did he say that in the first place? three times!

Yeah, 3 times is a little bizarre for a faux-pas.

All I can say is thank goodness I represent no one but myself and no one goes around youtubing what I say.

Coach McMackin suspended for 30 days without pay. He will volunteer to coach the team in the meantime. His pay will go to gay causes.

Source

Can we submit Grant Proposals? I'm thinking the iSm Needs a Man Now Fund is a worthy gay cause!!

Wouldn't it be funny if he were a Mormon?

(emphasis mine)
This worries me when I hear it. After hearing how rights groups basically trade "public forgiveness" for suitably high donations to their causes, it smells a little like blackmail, or at least buying indulgences.

If you suck, apologize, correct the behavior. The donations thing is an expensive throwaway, and while it's nice that gay rights organizations will get some money, I don't feel it was come by "honestly" and, personally, the donation doesn't change my opinion half as much as the apologies and behavior corrections do. I really don't like that this donation thing is becoming part of the "standard package of forgiveness" in the public eye.

I'm with you there. It's downright creepy ... in that it sorta creeped up as the public apology standard.

I don't know how we'll get out of it now. As soon as someone doesn't pay one of these honorariums, they'll get flack for it.

Perhaps not 100% germane to this post, but I didn't know if this was worthy of its own thread.

from Pam's House Blend

Sounds like a typical right-winger to me!

Sounds like a typical ignorant moron to me.

Same thing.

Aren't they one in the same?



ETA: JW beat me to it. :)

Nope. You have ignorant morons all over the political spectrum.

That's not what either of us was implying. Saying that all rabid right-wingers are ignorant morons is not the same thing as saying all ignorant morons are rabid right-wingers.



I'll forgive your temporary ignorance. ;)

I've been to Laramie, Wyoming many times. Why Matthew Shepard didn't go to school some place more sympatico troubles me.

I've spent time in jail in Laramie, Wyoming. It's so homophobic there, I didn't even get raped! What the hell??

Condolences and now please tell the story?

I'm going to don my blue Mystique skin for a second and say: Because he shouldn't have to.

Or maybe he couldn't.

The problem was not Mr. Shepard. The problem is the astounding hatred of gays in our country. Yes, things might have been easier for him if he moved to Castro Street...

Yeah, I think a story is in order at this point.

Nope. Not in the mood to recount that horrible episode in my life. Suffice it to say that when Laramie became infamous a few years later for a particular reason, I was none too surprised.

GC, I know what it is to be the first one over the hill. It eats you up. It gives you perma-anger. I was the first woman in 25 years in my dept. at the Univ. of WI to make tenure and the first woman not married to another faculty member in that department to ever get tenure. When we finally meet in person, I'll let you look at the scars from the knife wounds in my back.

Sure, it's great to educate people and to break barriers. In the Best of All Possible Worlds, it wouldn't cause depression or alienation or, in Matthew's case, murder. Every bleeping day he got figurative knife wounds and for what? College shouldn't be like that.

I'm sorry, GC. What you say is theoretically true. In practice, it just isn't worth it. Not when there are so many alternatives to the U of Wyoming.

In Laramie, you do figure you'll get killed. It's a very rough place in a very rough state.

Should Matthew Shepard have figured that? Yeah, just as I figure that women can't walk safely alone at night. Doesn't make it right or the victim's fault but it's reality.

But telling people that the only way to survive is to leave leaves me cold too. Because after awhile you'll run out of places to run to. I understand why people stay put in places that don't want them. Who's to say that they shouldn't be there?

But, but... they all have guns! I thought that automatically made it crime free. ;)

Sounds like a typical JWBear post to me!

Saying that all right-wingers are ignorant morons is called prejudice.

I'm not a fan of the right-wing. And I can't say I agree with much of anything that the conservatives are saying these days. But I've had enough of broad brushes, no matter who's doing the tarring and who's getting feathered.

You do realize that when you guys say this stuff it hurts your credibility during actual debates, right? Or rather, you've already said this stuff enough times that you no longer have any credibility during debates, right?

Just checking.

Please read more carefully. I did not say all right-wingers are ignorant morons, I said all RABID right-wingers are ignorant morons. And I stand by that statement.


It's as prejudiced as saying all black people have dark skin.

Not all black people have dark skin.

Gun advocates do not suggest having guns eliminates crime. We point to studies that show crime reduction in areas that allow concealed weapons to be carried.

While I agree with your comparison 100%, there will always be the few anal-retentive hysterical Left-wingers who will point to persons of African descent who have light skin either due to miscegenation or albinism and say you're a racist for making such a horrible generalization! :rolleyes:

Uh, you may need to read what you write more carefully. You did not say that all RABID right-wingers are ignorant. You said that typical right-wingers are ignorant.

The documentary evidence. JWBear posted:

BarTopDancer responded:

You (and JWBear) followed-up with:

So you said that all typical right-wingers are (or sound like anyway) typical ignorant morons. Perhaps, you consider rabid right-wingers to be typical of right-wingers but that is still equivalent saying that right-wingers are ignorant morons.

As for your newer contention that it is only all rabid right-wingers who are ignorant morons, I'd need to know how you're using rabid. Though anger and vitriol are not, to my thinking, equivalent to ignorance.

Ya beat me to it.
:)

When people say "all ____ are _____", it sometimes bugs me.

door opened ...


And, i have it on good authority, not all white people have white penises.

No, Alex, you are incorrect.

I pithily implied agreement with the "typical" statement, but then went on to write (say) my own, separate statement - a clarification which specifically and purposefully included the modifier RABID because that's the point I meant to make.

My "same thing" reply was a bit of snarkiness in response to an obvious* opening for humor, not a statement by me. Sheesh.




* so obvious, I was not the only person to make the same joke.

Remember a while back when we had a discussion about how you were making a joke so often that people began to assume it was the truth of your position?

The "joke" that right wingers are generally idiotic or evil is made so often around here I don't really care if anyone pretends an individual instance of it is meant as a joke. I have hardly any doubt that it is widely considered to be essentially true.

Well, for a person who is averse to smilies, I respectfully suggest you improve your abilities for recognizing humor without them.


And it's one thing to make that assumption about me when I make a joke over and over.

This was, to my knowledge, the first time I made such a joke about rabid right-wingers, and on top of that ... I don't make any secret of the fact that I hold rabid right-wingers in the highest disregard ... so what's to make any "assumption" about?


Yes, I will say it again RABID right wingers are morons. Not typical right-wingers (whatever that means).

Oh, I have no real difficulty recognizing when you think you're being funny. A smiley wouldn't have helped what you wrote.

So, would you define "rabid right-winger" so we do know who here you may consider an ignorant moron?

Yes, rabid, as used by me, means frothing at the mouth. If what comes out of their mouth is or resembles mad-dog froth, that's what I mean by rabid.


As for the other picayune problems expressed about me .... really? You've got a problem with, or must find exceptions to "All black people have dark skin?" Really?

I was just using the most generic example I could muster that related to the subject of prejudice. Sheesh. Do you have a problem with "All stars are bright," or is that one ok to avoid your freakishly sensitive generality-avoidance systems?


That's SHEESH with a capital S and H and E and a second E and another capital S and a 2nd capital H. SHEESH!

Agreed.

So...either your statement applies to basically no one (because basically no one literally froths at the mouth unless they have some sort of medical problem) or it applies to whomever you deem to be "rabid", which sounds rather subjective to me.

If I say "all jerks are jerks" it's not too hard to say that makes sense. If I say "everyone who agree that gay people are evil are ignorant morons" I am giving an exact frame of reference. If I say "all people that say right-wing things to degree x are ignorant morons" leaves x vague and definitely qualifies as a broad-brush, all-or-nothing, us-against-them, hatred and prejudice filled statement.

Whether or not you know any right-wingers (and you DO) painting any group as this or that undermines you. It bears repeating.

I'd like to clarify that I'm not speaking just to iSm, but to JW and anyone else who wants to post hatred-filled bias (and yes, there are plenty among us, including myself, who needs reminding often).

This, I truly believe: There is no solution to our problems, to our divided country, and to the basic ongoing epic struggles humans have faced for all of our existence that involves demonizing the opposition.

You are hurting your reputation, you are hurting your own cause, and you are hurting humankind.

You may call it hyperbole. I do not. Solutions do not begin at the top. They begin at the bottom, in every day conversation, in the small things we repeat to ourselves and to each other.

VCPM.

I know a number of very nice conservatives. Some of them live in my neighborhood. They run small businesses. They teach their children the golden rule. We get along fine. However, every once in a while, in every day conversation, these people will open their mouths and say things that come from a very dark and bad place. It passes, and we go on.

The problem is that when the opinion pollsters come knocking, the dark places answer the door. Talk radio caters to the dark places, and the dark places do the voting. So, for shorthand purposes of discussion, I have no trouble with ISM's generalization, even if it does not portray all self-identifying conservatives with nuanced thoroughness worthy of George Eliot.

That said, I want to cast my vote against some of the gaudier displays of humility and the paralyzing egalitarianism that seem to have infected the political discussions here lately.

Dear Cadaverous Pallour:

Welcome to the LoT. We are NOT solving humanity's problems here; we are just shooting the sh!t. Relax. If I were a member of the United Nations or so much as a representative of your local bakery, I would not make the same comments.

However, here on the LoT, I feel free ... and I hope you do as well ... to express oneself in a non-politically correct fashion that suits a current mood and outlook and opinion.


With that said, I respect what you wrote and I admire its wisdom and inner truth. But I feel such admonitions are inapplicable to this particular venue ... which I remind you most gently ... is the LoT.


Sincerely,

:iSm:

How am I demonizing by pointing out uncomfortable truths?

I use the term "right-wing" in the same manner that conservatives like to use the word "liberal"; that is, the extreme fringe of that end of the political spectrum. In my opinion, no one here on LoT is what I would refer to as right-wing. Nor do I believe that the majority of conservatives are right-wing, or hold the same insane paranoid views. But by pointing out that the lunatic fringe on the even right exists, I get pilloried. Nice.

Frankly, in my opinion you're doing the same thing as scaeagles does/did - posting stories and links that are meant to outrage/panic people from extremist websites. They're just the other extremists and since we're a liberal leaning board it's supposed to be more acceptable.

Extremists are extremists.

I feel really bad about scaeagles feeling turned away. I was following that thread, and really didn't see much out of the common LoT vernacular of occasional excess.

I don't follow every link, but I'm not sure how to compare liberal excesses and conservative excesses as anything but apples and oranges. For one thing, even during the reign of Bush, I didn't see much advocation of violence against him or other members of his government. I also didn't see any sky-is-falling stories about what MIGHT happen, but rather condemnation with solid and thoughtful evidence of what HAS happened. Some of that may have included predictions of further consequences based on what HAS happened, but those predictions were usually thoughtful and based on solid evidence of historical fact.


I'm sure there's some prejudice of mine creeping into that assessment, but that's how I see it.

And, as to your "Lets all get along" stance... Bullshyt. I will not stand by silently and let these people spew their hatred and bile. Decent people need to stand up and say "no! Enough!".

Then you're part of the problem too.

Have fun with your extremist war against extremists.

The articles I linked to are hardly "extremist", and any thinking person should be outraged at what is going on. Another false equivalency.

Extreme?! You have got to be kidding lady! So, calling out the right-wing lunacy is "extreme" in your book? Should we all have just shut up and sat on our hands when Prop 8 passed? According to you, speaking out and protesting were "extreme". Should civil rights never have been passed in this country? Protesting the treatment of blacks and other minorities.. was that "extreme" too? Perhaps we shouldn't have fought that "extreme" civil war. Or become independant from Britain. Talk about "extreme"!

You can sit idly by and do nothing while the lies are repeated over and over. Cover your eyes when the violence erupt. Fine, go right ahead; it's your right. But please do not attact those of us who are standing up for what's right.

Okay, we're done.

Talk issues and news, or I start closing threads.

Call out lunacy. Post about specific stupidity. Work to fight against ignorance.

I'm with you.

But when you say "all blanks are blank", you have lost me, and most other people too.

As for "this is the LoT", this is why I care, and why I'm still talking to you and others. We were both there, Steve, when we helped design the LoT. It's my baby as much as it is yours and I care about what goes on here.

Many times when I go head to head with someone who disagrees with me, I get PMs from sympathetic souls who say "just put them on ignore". I do not use ignore. The reason being, I would rather call people on their ugly sh.t than let it continue on the LoT.

This is exactly what I'm saying. When you (yes you, friends of mine) post hatred and bile, I will stand up and say no, enough.

I'm sorry guys, but you can call me "PC" all you want, but when I see crap like this, I'm going to mention it. I have gotten enough mojo for my posts to know that I'm not alone in this, either, even if others aren't able to join the fray publicly. This is what advocacy is all about.

And again - I know I am guilty of this as well, and I hope that someone else would have the courage to call me out for it.

Sorry, didn't see this before I posted. You won't hear more from me on this here, Mr. Admin. :)

Well, obviously I'm not going to be allowed to defend myself, or speak out against what I see as wrong. So, goodbye everyone.

Where's the name-calling? Where's the personal attacks? I don't see it. Even from JW, who's probably been the most vociferous.


In any case, CP, I respect your opinion greatly. So I'm trying to find the fine line between free expression of our true thoughts & feelings -and- having the LoT be a peaceful place to co-exist with, at least by evening, a group hug and kumbaya.


I don't think we need get all over each other. BTD, JW, me, CP, scaeagles, Wendybeth, et al. -- the personalities and opinions are known pretty well, and I'd hope we can just appreciate when one or more of us gets riled up and doesn't say things in the perfect way. Sure, offer counter-advice and opinion, chiding and admonition. But I don't think we need put the weight of the world on them for speaking their mind on a message board on the internet.


Another fine line was brought up by JW, and I think quite rightly. Yes, extremism is bad ... but what about when it's called for? I don't think ANYTHING on the LoT can be as extreme as, say, the Montgomery Bus Boycott. But was that too extreme or not? And if not, can ANYTHING said on the LoT be 'extreme?

BTD, did you mean simply too extreme for polite conversation? I don't see how to keep political conversation polite. I think the best we can hope for is to keep it civil ... and believe me, as far as the internet goes, even the worst excesses of the LoT are civil.

Did I say there was name calling? Did I say there were perosnal attacks?

This circular discussion has taken over every political thread here it's ugly. I don't particularly care if you all managed to toe the namecalling line or not. It's gotten no where and is silly and petty. If y'all want to squabble about which side's got the better extremists, take it elsewhere please and keep things here on topic.

And because I'm a man of my word....thread closed.