How Denying Marriage Equality is a Form of Apartheid
Published April 14, 2009 @ 02:52PM PT
Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, mixed it up a bit a few months ago, when she compared global laws that criminalize homosexuality to be like the system of apartheid - relics of colonialism that target the LGBT population unjustly and violate international human rights.
Now the Apartheid comparison is back, from an unlikely character: Charlize Theron. The Academy Award-winning actress is taking Pillay a step further, suggesting that U.S. marriage laws that prevent same-sex couples from getting married are "like a form of Apartheid."
Is she right?
Here's Theron's take:
I don't like living in an elitist world, it bothers me. I don't want to be part of an elitist sexual preference. It bothers me, maybe it's because I come from a country where I lived under apartheid but this is a form of apartheid and I don't want to be a part of that.
It's not the reason I'm not getting married but it's maybe a part of it. My ability to get married is a piece of me that I wish I could give to somebody who it would mean so much to. We should all have the chance. It's just so caveman, I can't believe we're still talking about it.
"It's so caveman." I like that.
As someone who lived under South Africa's Apartheid system, Charlize Theron might have a leg to stand on here. Under South African apartheid, the government segregated services to black South Africans. Under U.S. marriage laws, the government refuses to recognize marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples, and in the 2010 U.S. census, won't even bother to count LGBT families or parents. In many states, LGBT people can't get into emergency rooms to be with their partner in times of health crisis, and cannot share health insurance or other benefits. And, of course, in many states LGBT people can still be fired from their jobs on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Sound like Apartheid? Damn right it does.
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
-
Archbishop Desmond Tutu on the Diabolical Use of Religion to Encourage Homophobia
-
Criminalization of Homosexuality and Eight Years in Prison
-
Charlize Theron Won't Get Married Until All Her Gay Friends Can, Too
Comments (28)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Michael is the Communications Director for the Human Rights Program at Harvard Law School, and previously was Communications Director for Pax Christi USA, a progressive Catholic human rights organization.
Featured Gay Rights Actions
-
-
Help Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act!
12171 People
-
Help Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act!
-
With still so much intolerance left in the United States towards the LGBT community, the denial of LGBT rigts is Apartheid. There's no justification for oppression towards LGBT people from the government because that oppression is contrary to the ever evolving concept of civil rights. In addition, the fact that LGBT people may be fired from their job is a shame and is why every state must implement anti-discrimination protection for LGBT people.
Posted by Edwin Bonilla on 04/14/2009 @ 03:40PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
And only under Federal Law....any serviceman or woman from any state, can be fired from their job based on Sexual Orientation or identity. They also are sent out to die for us daily, and what do we give them??
Posted by Lee Dorsey on 04/14/2009 @ 07:23PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The vast majority of those being killed while in the service are from poor or underprivileged families. Before we do something about gays in the service lets equalize the kill rate between the haves and have-nots.
Posted by Bob Rusbasan on 04/18/2009 @ 05:31PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It is not a competition about who should be killed the most. The point is that some human beings die for a country that does not treat them legally like everyone else. The poor end up in the service more often because of the incentives the government provides. That and poverty are also important issues. But if a country can't multitask in order to solve issues, we would be like a giant turtle with tunnel vision and we would be unable to function.
Posted by Beth Woodson on 04/18/2009 @ 06:56PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Yes, it does "Sound like Apartheid" when LGBT people are not given the same rights to serve our country, allowed to marry, and the list goes on of our denied rights.
President Obama and Congress should see that every LGBT person in America are allowed to have the rights given to the so called "Straight American's".
We are a power in America that should not be taken for granted, and if we are we can showing our feelings at the voting booth.
Posted by Ray Dearman on 04/15/2009 @ 02:20AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I love Charlize Theron!
she couldn't have put it in better words
Posted by Yashua Robledo on 04/15/2009 @ 06:44AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I like that Theron quote. Except for the "caveman" sentence. "Caveman"? No. Apartheid is the result of civilization, not of precivilization.
Posted by Luella - on 04/15/2009 @ 05:51PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I believe it's more of an allusion to stupidity/ridiculousness.
(Going further, neanderthals vs sapiens, neanderthals being the cavemen)
Posted by Mattz HL on 04/18/2009 @ 04:08PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It is very caveman. Its the result of a caveman mentality running civilization. What is under the mask of civilization? Competition, control and fear..=caveman.
Posted by Beth Woodson on 04/18/2009 @ 07:03PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
What we call "isms and schisms" have no place in a progressive and compassionate society. To deny someone the right to see their loved ones in a hospital for ANY reason is just plain callous and we need to put ourselves in the place of someone who would be denied this basic need, to decide what should be done about it.
Posted by Jamaka Petzak on 04/17/2009 @ 01:06PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Hopefully there won't be any swiss-cheese map of townships in this country for LGBT people, or anybody else. When Carter used this term to describe the swiss-cheese map proposed by Camp David/Oslo as an 'independent' state, it really blew up and the opposition used it against him. Very strong term. With what is happening in this country with Fox News and our media pandering to a scared and scary Right-wing, good luck bringing it up because they are reactionary!
Of course, the townships in SAfrica are still sad places even with the new government, so we can't deny that.
At least in this case, there are strong, articulate, educated and empowered people speaking out for many causes who have some access to media figures like Theron. At least for this generation...
Posted by Brett Barndt on 04/17/2009 @ 08:42PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I think you have to be a little careful when using the word "apartheid" lest it lose its meaning. Apartheid happened in South Africa and *is* happening in Palestine. While we have a "separate but equal" situation happening in America (and by the way, when the hell is someone going to file suit in federal court for violation of the 14th Amendment on this issue??), it's not apartheid. Still, the clustering of LGBTQQIA people mostly in cities kinda does look like swiss cheese, but it's not legally mandated....at least yet.
Posted by Mike Grigsby on 04/18/2009 @ 06:18AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Primarily, Apartheid constituted a legal framework for discriminating against sectors of the population in specific ways. For example, South Africa’s Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, passed in 1949, forbade marriages between whites and non-whites Apartheid by stating that two people of different races may not marry.[1]
The point Theron and others are making, is that stating in law that two people of the same gender may not marry, is very reminiscent of this. The discrimination in the latter case is based on the property of gender rather than race, and opposes those who share the same property (e.g. are both the same gender) from marrying, rather than opposing the marriage of those whose properties are different; but in all other significant respects, it is similar.
Apartheid laws, in banning marriage between whites and non-whites, restrained the expression of love for part of the adult population, while keeping it available for another part. (It's true that not everyone who is in love wants to get married, but in a fair society, all unmarried adults in love would have the option.) Laws like California's Proposition 8, like the Apartheid laws on marriage, restrict the expression of love for part of the adult population.
On a related note, readers of these comments may find the following video amusing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiQJ9Xp0xxU
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws#South_Africa_under_Apartheid
Posted by Sam Kuper on 04/19/2009 @ 06:24AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
In every studied animal population homosexuality exists. In some animal populations, like wolves, it is the homosexuals who end up raising the pups that are orphaned. I believe that there is purpose in having some members of society who do not reproduce, so they can be there for the offspring that need parenting. Thus the reason my gay son would be a better more nurturing parent than my straight sons. Ironic that in our ignorance we humans have put up barriers to this natural order through anti-gay adoption laws and that science now has allowed gays to use artificial means to fulfill their purpose in raising children. I pray that my gay son will find that special someone and settle down and adopt those unwanted offspring of heterosexuals he was created to raise. This is also his desire.
Posted by Wendy Wartes on 04/18/2009 @ 10:42AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
That is very true. This is one hypothesis I've read about as to the purpose of homosexuality through our evolution.
Posted by Beth Woodson on 04/18/2009 @ 07:06PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Edward, I think you could benefit yourself and your community slightly more by learning about LGBT issues - among humans and other animals - than by making such transparently uninformed statements.
Posted by Sam Kuper on 04/19/2009 @ 04:45PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I have many Gay friends and relatives that are as well. I have no problem with them being with people of the same sex.
What is not mentioned in this article is that in the bible, God says "You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, it is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)
In California and in many other states, the people voted against gay marriage. If the people are not for it, why try and force it on them? It is not apartheid at all. To think so is just ridiculous.
Posted by Lee Hernly on 04/18/2009 @ 11:19AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Lee, I recommend that you read -- really read -- Leviticus. Would you prefer to live under the laws it puts forth?
The law you cited was written by a warlike group of people who perceived homosexuality as a practice which would lessen the number of soldiers to fight in its wars.
Athens, Rhodes, Sparta, among others, on the other hand, used homosexuality as a method to increase the effectiveness of their armies.
As a matter of fact, in Athens, NOT loving [and having sex with] another man was seen by their society as a not-very-nice affliction which was not spoken of in polite company.
Posted by two crows on 04/18/2009 @ 11:59AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I, like many Californians, missed the Prop 8 vote because I was focused on the presidential race and hadn't yet had time to learn what Prop 8 was. I rarely miss a ballot and am very sorry that I missed that one.
I'm not convinced that the result of the Prop 8 vote was based on the representative opinion of an informed population.
Posted by Sam Kuper on 04/18/2009 @ 12:37PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"What is not mentioned in this article is that in the bible, God says 'You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, it is an abomination.' (Leviticus 18:22)
Your god, what you think it said, and your religion have no presidence over my rights according to our Constitution. You're also not suopposed to eat shrimp according to your god. And stone people. It's all archaic and has no place in determining laws of the land.
"In California and in many other states, the people voted against gay marriage."
They were misinformed and lied to. Ignorance must be bliss to the religious.
"If the people are not for it, why try and force it on them? It is not apartheid at all. To think so is just ridiculous."
People were at one time for segregation, against inter-racial marriage, against a woman's right to vote, for slavery, the list is endless. None of those things were good, accurate, fair, caring, loving, helpful or just. Times change. People become educated (hopefully). Equality is shared with all, eventually, if my agenda gets its way, and I'm doing everything I can to make that so. Your agenda sounds discriminatory, exclusive, bigotted and elitist. You say that if we don't believe in your god and interpret what it says the way you do, too bad for us. Never again. I can't imagine your gay family and gay friends accepting your position for one second.
Posted by Steve Ryan on 04/18/2009 @ 01:47PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
'What is not mentioned in this article is that in the bible, God says "You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, it is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)'
So, according to your logic, we should take the rules listed in Leviticus literally and abide by them throughout our lives. Before you use this scripture as "proof" that homosexuality is "an abomination," please refer to the other rules in the Bible that ALL OF US break on a daily basis, including you I'm sure. Here's a few for example, look them up if you don't believe me: Do not touch the skin of a dead pig (football, anyone?). A woman cannot leave her home while she is on her period (I've broken that one, oops). Do not plant different crops side by side (we've kinda done that before...). Do not wear any garment made from two different threads (guilty). Do not consume any animal with cloven hooves (oops!).
Now can you tell me why the rule about homosexuality is valid while all the others have long been discredited? Do you abide by these rules? Do you realize the absolute hypocrisy of your implication of this scripture?
"In California and in many other states, the people voted against gay marriage. If the people are not for it, why try and force it on them? It is not apartheid at all. To think so is just ridiculous."
First of all, far too many citizens have been "duped" by the hate-inspiring propaganda slung around the United States for decades. Ignorance and fear of the unfamiliar have been exploited on a mass scale before, and it was exploited in California last November.
Secondly, the vote really should have never taken place. We cannot VOTE ON CIVIL RIGHTS in a DEMOCRACY. ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, remember? Every single consenting adult citizen in this country should be afforded the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as everyone else, regardless of race, sex, faith, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, or socioeconomic background. This is not a matter of public opinion. This is a matter of being true to who we are - a DEMOCRATIC society.
Posted by D W on 04/18/2009 @ 05:13PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I have to respond to this. While I agree wholeheartedly with you against the use of force, I would respectfully point out that in the southern United States, the majority of those empowered to influence legislative matters long opposed equality for African-american and Indigenous people. Because they opposed equality, would you argue that they should never have had progressive change legislated to apply in that part of the nation?
Posted by Jamaka Petzak on 04/19/2009 @ 06:03PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Unless you are of a group discriminated against, it is more difficult for you to identify and understand the impact that discrimination has on their lives.
On the apartheid comparison, it is always the nature of any comparison that they are never completely equal because each situation has its own unique personality if you will. The comparison made between apartheid and gay rights is made in efforts to help people understand that it is serious, unjust and has a similar fuelling mentality that aims to restrict, control and legally somehow separate a group perceived as inferior. Apartheid was an embarrassing era of discrimination that is much, much more widely agreed on now as to its injustice. The major difference is time and time trends towards the progression of equal rights. So just think about how the argument against gays rights will probably be looked upon 50 years from now. An illogical pecking order, whether it is gays or blacks, doesn't mesh with our constitution. If you get caught up in the details of difference between these 2 struggles, you will see the trees but not the forrest. There are differences, but if you really think about it, you can't deny the similarities.
Posted by Beth Woodson on 04/20/2009 @ 03:03AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Why do gays insist that their union must be called marriage. Let's reserve "marriage" as being a union between a man and woman whether they have sex or not. A "civil union" would be a ceremony between "whatever" whether they have sex or not. I'm also getting tired of their claims of being denied accessibility to their partners because gay marriage is not recognized. What would be the problem if "civil unions" allowed partners the same rights as those married. And by the way a "whatever" union could also include heterosexuals, bachelor sisters and brothers, etc.
Posted by Bob Rusbasan on 04/18/2009 @ 05:25PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Bob, not all gay people insist that their "unions" (by which I think you mean committed relationships) must be called marriage. Neither do all heterosexual people.
The objection is that those gay people who do want their unions to be recognised as marriages are sometimes prevented from this a priori, whereas the same is never true of straight people.
Posted by Sam Kuper on 04/19/2009 @ 06:29AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The point people forget is that gay people already get married all the time - to members of the opposite sex, for the sake of convenience. For gay troops, it's a convenient facade that also nets them higher pay. Gay college students whose parents disapprove of them get married to recieve financial aid as indepentent adults. The sanctity of marriage is a joke.
As for the caveman part, though, let me agree that prehistoric people were no less intelligent, and consistantly MUCH MORE egalatarian, than civilized people. Anthropologists have documented how impressively gracious, respectful, and accepting hunter-gatherer cultures tend to be, and that extends to people with minority sexual preferences.
The attitude of getting all up in the business of people we don't know and trying to force them to act a certain way comes more with the eras of armies and empires.
Posted by Amanda Zabohne on 04/18/2009 @ 09:35PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Comparing appartheid with gay marriages??
For someone who lived in appartheid, just like me, she should know better than comparing the two.
To all the people who always go on about appartheid, yes it was wrong, i still fight for human rights on a daily basis but for crying a river, did America not have their own appartheid? What about the British? and Holland? So it was ok for them to do it?
Why is one nation's one fault being constantly thrown against them?
To go off the topic, Genocide, Germany is constantly reminded of what they did but does anyone talk about what the british did to the Boers? NO
For some reason America and Britain is excluded when it comes to doing wrong against the human race.
Talk about countries against human rights.
Posted by Cobus Fourie on 04/22/2009 @ 12:24PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
a.) As for the democratic society NOT being able to vote on this issue: I think the point of a TRULY democratic society is that we all get a voice in how laws are made. While I think it is not pleasant what happened in CA with prop. 8, I do think that the voice of the people said no. Unfortunately, majority rules in ALL votes, not just the ones we want to agree with. b.) Trying to negate The Bible's dictate by saying that it is "outdated" or somehow irrelevant to today's world is not really addressing the issue. Christians believe that The Bible is applicable in today's world. It gives them guidance and advice on how to live their lives. On average, there are revocations and repeals cited in the New Testament that correct behavior admonished in the Old Testament. However, no where in the Bible is this particular Leviticus passage EVER altered. That truly says something. God said no to homosexuality as he did to adultery, lying and stealing. You say we still commit these sins-- this is true, but we do our best. God still says no, don't do it. So its very hard to reason away what God tells us to do by saying that it "doesn't apply" to modern times.
c.) I dislike it when someone who disagrees with a Christian point of view tells someone that they should "really read" whatever bible passage is being quoted. It is just as narrow-minded and disrespectful to insinuate that the person demonstrating his reasoning (by scripture) is some how not intelligent or able to see what the passage means. I invite anyone who disagrees with the scripture to attend an intensive bible study and behave as they believe we should (Christians) and "really read" the bible. You criticize Christians for tell you that you should behave as we do and yet you, yourselves don't heed your own advice. If you would like us to "truly read" (whatever that means exactly) the bible. We invite you to do the same. Good, honest christians will do their best to have an indepth discussion about scripture.
d.) I am getting married soon. I don't feel that it is my right or duty to pass judgement on Gay Marriage. However, I leave it up to God to decide. It seems, however, that he has already passed judgement on the issue. It says so right in the bible, so I am not sure that we (christians) are the people denying to the homosexual community. Yes, we vote. We are allowed to vote as we please, & using any reasoning/justification we please. This is our right just as it is your right to vote on the opposition using any reasoning you please. Should the vote turn out the other way at any point in the future I believe that we too should see it as the will of the people. The vote of the people should be law. At this point too many people disagree with the ideas that you support. It is unfair, and unjust to ask any one population to change their viewpoints just because you say so. Doing so would violate their rights just as much as you claim they are violating yours. That being said, peace be upon you all & goodnight.
Posted by Paris Lafleur on 05/07/2009 @ 09:13PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.