Marriage Equality and the Myth of "Gay Apartheid"
Last week's successful repeal of Maine's same-sex marriage laws was a painful reminder that the United States remains far from a "perfect union". Yet as disappointing as the Maine defeat was, the real disappointment actually resulted from the reactionary tactics employed by many in the Marriage Equality movement. Tinged with racial overtones and dolled up with dubious numerical data, self-appointed same-sex leaders reached new highs in their low-down blame game.
Among the lowest was David Mixner, the longtime civil rights activist and author for whom an "expanding system of Gay Apartheid in America" must now be resisted by any means necessary. Positing the need for civil disobedience and fearful of "surviving more of the same", Mixner dramatically implored his blog's readers to rise up, fight back and remember that "Freedom, Liberty, Justice are not mere words".
Mixner's clever use of identity politics would certainly be admirable if it weren't so deplorable. The accusation of Apartheid and appropriation of its liberation struggle demonstrate Mixner's obvious indifference to both historical sensitivities and the power of his own prose.
Smugly confident as he preaches to the converted, Mixner is all metaphor and analogy -- with little meat to back him up. Gay Apartheid, he laments, is becoming an established "way of life and everyone is beginning to adjust to it". Yet while LGBTs certainly contend with inequitable political protections, there is (thankfully) no Gay Apartheid in these United States of America.
A quick history lesson: Apartheid refers to a South African political system brutally enforced from 1948 to 1994 and anchored around government engineered racial and ethnic segregation. At its best, Apartheid rendered its victims vote-less, citizenship-less, land-less entities within their own nation. At its worst, arrest, torture, imprisonment, exile and death awaited South Africans (of all colors) who rallied against the Apartheid regime. South Africa's majority Black, Indian and Colored populations were forced to carry identity cards, barred from city-center living and required permits to move within society. There were virtually no legal mechanisms to resist the Apartheid leadership, let alone elections to challenge it.
Yet here is Mixner crying Apartheid -- along with fellow LGBT talking head Herb Hamsher in a post on this site from the same day. Cloaking their language in anger and outrage, Mixner and Hamsher conveniently confuse political defeat with wholesale political disenfranchisement. They invoke the legacy of Apartheid as a shock tactic, a wake-up call, a rallying to arms; all the while dishonoring the brave thousands who literally took to arms -- beaten, imprisoned and killed as part of the anti-Apartheid movement.
The most worrisome element of this historical neglect isn't its lack of tact -- but rather its lack of fact. Voters have struck down same-sex marriage laws in all 31 states where it has been put on the ballot and this is indeed disheartening. But the resulting legislation has not caused gay people to lose their jobs, their homes, their passports -- their very freedom of movement. There are no gay identity cards or impoverished townships, segregated public services or forced relocation. Gay ghettos may exist in many urban centers, but Chelsea, West Hollywood and Boystown could hardly be classified as Gay District 9s let alone Gay Sowetos.
Laced with historical inaccuracies and steeped in elitism and entitlement, the term Gay Apartheid is deeply offensive and unnecessarily divisive. "It insults not just every person who lived under Apartheid, but the future generations that will have to deal with its consequences," observes South African AIDS activist and Nobel Prize Nominee Zackie Achmat, who notes that 20 million South Africans were imprisoned during the Aparhteid period. "This language reflects a self-obsessed commodificaton of identity politics by American LGBT leaders," adds Achmat, who founded the Treatment Action Campaign in 1998. "They fail to recognize connections to broader social justice issues both in the US and abroad."
Along with Gay Apartheid, phrases such as "Gay Jim Crow", "Gay is the New Black" and "back of the bus" are additional examples of the race-baiting rhetoric clearly aimed at the Oval Office. Sure, these homo-hysterics may make for good headlines. But their true intent is clear, their prejudice no longer deniable and their use totally unacceptable in any civil Civil Rights movement.
As it hogs the media spotlight in tandem with the Marriage Equality debate, homo-hysteria also denies important pro-LGBT advances the oxygen they deserve. The signing of the Matthew Shepard Act, ending the travel ban on HIV-positive foreigners and the recent election of openly gay mayors in cities like Chapel Hill, NC are hardly footnotes -- particularly to the grassroots activists who championed them. They may lack Mixner's heft or Hamsher's Hollywood connections -- but their causes are no less valid (or vital) to the LGBT masses. Nor are other battles still in play, including an end to workplace discrimination, Don't Ask/Don't Tell and the scourge of HIV.
Barely a week after the Maine defeat, LGBT leaders are calling for an economic boycott -- or "time out" -- of the White House and Obama. Unsurprisingly, Mixner is right behind them, exercising his myopic might and demonizing the very Democratic White House that could actually advance his agenda. Obama certainly has yet to fulfill the campaign commitments made to LGBT voters, but there remains every reason to believe he will make those promises whole.
There will be no promises, however, from Obama's Republican replacement -- elected in 2012 as a result of Left Wing reactionary recklessness. Far Righter than Reagan, more backward than Bush, this is the regime Mixner should actually be attacking -- a regime that could truly usher in the era of Gay Apartheid in America.
I asked Mr. Mixner to comment for this story, to explain his claim of Gay Apartheid and justify its continued (ab)use in his battle for Marriage Equally. He politely declined in favor of "agreeing to disagree", an unusually passive ploy for a man with such a commendable track record of public activism.
Mixner's diss was as surprising as it was disappointing. After all, as rioters raged and prisoners rotted, even Mandela managed to meet Botha during the height of Apartheid's tyranny. But Gay Apartheid or no Gay Apartheid, I'm hardly some P.W. Botha. And as for David Mixner -- well, he's certainly no Nelson Mandela.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
This is really disappointing to see all the stereotyping and name-calling going on in the comments here. I am a white, bisexual student attending a university. I was shocked and disgusted to see the backlash against the black community after prop 8 was passed. However, there were also many of my peers who were just as quick as I was to reject these accusations. As long as we continue fighting amongst ourselves and dividing ourselves along racial lines and stereotypes, the movement for gay rights will be crippled.
OBVIOUSLY Mixner's "Gay Apartheid" angle is counter-productive and offensive. I think that Marriage Equality activists should avoid such reliance on this loaded rhetoric that compares the fight for marriage to the civil rights movement. At the same time, I think that there ARE undeniable similarities between the two, because the fight for Marriage Equality is also a fight for civil rights.
This post has disturbed me, and I have thought about it quite a bit.
i suppose that I personally feel that there is a tone in both this post as well as some comments expressed which is quite ugly and divisive (that is just how it seems to me, you may not agree and that is ok.)
For me, this is not helpful.
All the best to you,
PhilipB
truth is disturbibg
"Yet as disappointing as the Maine defeat was, the real disappointment actually resulted from the reactionary tactics employed by many in the Marriage Equality movement. "
_______________
No, the real disappointment was the Maine marriage defeat. The next disappointment is having black commentators try to claim the struggle for gay civil rights is dissiimilar for the struggle that blacks went through trying to get full equality in America.
So you think your wealthy, white gay ghettos in Castro, W.Hollywood, Chelsea where good old white gay boy/girl networks operate and hoard power have it as bad as black and colored townships of South Africa??
White gays do not need to undermine the sacrifices of milllions of colored folks who fought slavery and "real" apartheid, not some imagined one by vocal wealthy white gay men, and that is the point of this article. Also, before you use oppression of people of color to explain your fight , white gay leaders and their white gay orgs need to undertake an analysis of racism in gay community and find ways to address it....how ironic that you use the oppression of people of color while ignoring, denying the existence of racism that LGBT people of color suffer at the hands of white gays.
Obama, our first Black President, owes nothing to white gay community; he won without the support of white gays but still has done far more then white gays are willing to give credit -- these boycotts wont really get white gays anywhere --Obama will win again without your dollars or support which went to Hillary anyways.
Stop with the white gay bashing and get some help.
You are so right about the good ole white gay boy networks.
It's really sort of like dealing with the Borg collective.
"Obama, our first Black President, owes nothing to white gay community; he won without the support of white gays"
Oh really? That doesn't mesh with any of my first-hand knowledge of the 2008 campaign. But your theory will get put to the test in less than a year at the midterm elections and then again in 2012.
Racism is JUST as bad as homophobia. You aren't doing anyone a favor by espousing your hatred of fellow gays.
coloresqueer I am behind u 1000%
In other words, shut up and take it. Never mind that MLK's tactics worked because Malcom X and Black Panthers were waiting in the wings.
Right below this article, tactfully situated, is a insightful commentary on the State of Rhode Island, forbidding Gay couples from being able to make "Funeral Arrangements" for their spouses!
This of course is the "Myth of Gay Apartheid"!!
I agree that the comparison to apartheid is historically inaccurate, inappropriate, and even belittles the struggle of those that lived through apartheid. Moreover, this comparison serves no purpose but to further alienate the African American community from our struggle.
That said, I fully support the effort boycott to the White House. You say: "There will be no promises, however, from Obama's Republican replacement -- elected in 2012 as a result of Left Wing reactionary recklessness." I suppose then we should sit on our hands and wait patiently hoping that Obama will at some point maybe do something. Unless we hold the President's feet to the fire, you can bet that he will continue to disappoint the gay community. Unfulfilled campaign promises from a Democrat are just as useless as no action from a Republican replacement.
No you should do what you are doing, something. I think the boycott is a bad idea but now that it has started as a straight guy who believes in the cause I feel honor bound to support it. It isn't my place to tell you you can or can not do things, this is your struggle. I don't think it will work but I will send my receipts to the DNC, I will sign petitions, I will ask of my friends most of whom are straight, to stop giving immediately to give this a chance to push through the system. What has been tried before hasn't worked but it only take once to change the dynamic. You can't play hearts till hearts are broken. Maybe this pushes it through maybe it doesn't. Thoughts and prayers for your success.
eb34 please explain to us how that comparison is belittling? Because you think gay people are inferior? You don't think thousands of years of discrimination is enough suffering? What?
If anyone here understands nothing about apartheid, know that the United States of America was quite active in its support for the apartheid regimes of South Africa. Indeed, it was from the peculiar American institution called the reservation that the South Africans got the idea for the bantustan.
On election night last year, as the results came in for both the national and congressional races, and then Prop 8 and the similar ballot measures in Florida, Arizona and Arkansas, my immediate thought after the initial punched-in-the-gut shock was, "This is the beginning of the end of the Democratic coalition." So far this year, events seem to be proving my first hunch correct. The Maine results and David Kaufman's column are just more evidence.
What the DNC, the Obama White House (especially Rahm Emmanuel, from what I hear) and the African-American community don't seem to have a clue about is that this is all about betrayal. Getting sucker-punched by the people you thought were your allies hurts a hundred times worse than getting hit by the people you already knew were your enemies. There is going to be a very heavy price paid by the Democrats in 2010 and 2012 and going forward.
Wow. I hadn't thought of it that way but you are right. Betrayed is how I feel and leaving is what I am doing. You know I don't even care about what it means for two reasons. First, say what you want, Obama is not all that different than Bush. Second, I can't stay. I am not welcome. I do not feel like I belong.
If it was President Kucinich were doing this, then you could claim betrayal. Obama and Biden would betray their supporters if they suddenly supported same-sex marriage.
Are you kidding me? Talk about revisionist history. The LGBT community picked Hillary. She lost and instead of being able to come on board the Obama campaign, because of Hilary's decision to keep running a losing campaign until mid june and the LGBT community supported her till the end, the LGBT community got shut out of the Obama side of the equation. Let me be more specific. The convention was at the end of August. Because of the way the campaign was run, the two sides weren't even speaking to each other until the first week of August. It was too late to meld what was a great grassroots LGBT arm of Hilary's campaign into the Obama campaign. Or rather, the workers and the money were accepted but there was no simultaneous inclusion of LGBT in the inner circle of the Obama campaign. The inner circle was super tight, but the length of the campaign made it worse. In March Hilary should have bowed out. Her campaign and things like her LGBT outreach, would have been folded into the Obama campaign... especially because hers was so much better than his. But you can't add people like that in August, it is too late. You dance with them that brung you and the LGBT community didn't bring Obama.
And with good reason. Obama was my least favorite of all the candidates for the Democratic nomination from the beginning because he made it clear early on how cozy he was with the evangelicals. I voted for him, by the way. I don't think I've ever regretted any of my votes so much.
So then jcwtts1 what your saying is that Obama is a political opportunist who is only president of the people who gave him the most money? Nice.
Maine is not the Presidents fault. Maine was not anyone's fault. You lost because Maine wasn't ready. But you were close. So close that the next time you'll get them. It is a slow process, the assigning of blame solves nothing here.
Maine was a state that Obama carried handily in 2008, same as California. The same voters who revoked marriage equality in Maine approved medical marijuana and new taxes (even in this economy). The same voters who approved Prop 8 in California gave Obama an overwhelming majority in California, rejected a parental notification law for abortions by minors, and approved a law requiring larger cages for chickens. Chickens! Those are not the actions of a conservative electorate.
What I'm saying is what has become obvious over the last few years to the LGBT community. Our "friends" are not really our friends. We are the always the first ones thrown under the bus (and women's reproductive rights are usually the second). It's not necessarily the Republicans that have been voting against us.
Our rights got voted away last week in a total travesty of constitutional protections... And in your view, the person who most merits criticism in this situation is some dude who used a metaphor you didn't like?!
Grow a pair. And then go after the real enemy instead of PC nit-picking about minutiae.
And you also understand that David Mixner is not me? Mixner speaks for himself, and his views, his modes of expression, his metaphors do not represent the views of all gay people, any more than the views of Kanye West would represent all black people. Ridiculous.
In 1969, in what would become silicon valley in California, my Sister would marry a black man...
My Parents, up to that time lifelong Catholics, went to the local church and were to begin
making the arrangements with the Priest in charge of that church. They were somewhat shocked to find that this priest, and his bishop, would not allow a black man and a white woman to be married in their church...and then they promptly cut of all ties to the church that said their Daughter and her Husband to be were not welcome....only years later did I realize just how brave my folks were to do this. And how proud I was of them to take such a stand. The marriage went ahead, we had to have the reception at home for the same reasons....
Now I read that the Catholic church is threatening to cut of aid to the homeless in DC if the city allows Gays to marry....
What is the difference? If one is rank bigotry, then is the other not the same?
If the same exact language that was used to defend racism in the 60's is used in 2009
to deny Gays their civil rights, God, "sanctity" of Marriage, Children etc. etc.
Then what is the difference? Only the target...not the message.
"Yet as disappointing as the Maine defeat was, the real disappointment actually resulted from the reactionary tactics employed by many in the Marriage Equality movement"
Really? The real disapointment was not the denial of the civil right of marriage to gays but the reaction of some of the supporters. Really?
I don't even have to agree with the tactics of Mixner (which I don't) to find this statement offensive and callous.
In 1969, in what would become silicon valley in California, my Sister would marry a black man...
My Parents, up to that time lifelong Catholics, went to the local church and were to begin
making the arrangements with the Priest in charge of that church. They were somewhat shocked to find that this priest, and his bishop, would not allow a black man and a white woman to be married in their church...and then promptly cut of all ties to the church that said their Daughter and her Husband to be were not welcome....only years later did I realize just how brave my folks were to do this. And how proud I was of them to take such a stand. The marriage went ahead, we had to have the reception at home for the same reasons....
Now I read that the Catholic church is threatening to cut of aid to the homeless in DC if the city allows Gays to marry....
What is the difference? If one is rank bigotry, then is the other not the same?
If the same exact language that was used to defend racism in the 60's is used in 2009
to deny Gays their civil rights, God, Marriage, Children etc. etc.
Then what is the difference? Only the target...not the message.
I just wish that the gay community could find/create its own heroes instead of globbing onto those of other groups. Ghandi led the Indian nationalist movement. MLK worked for civil rights for African-Americans. They were transformational and charismatic leaders. It would be great if the gay movement could produce its own transformational figure; someone who is a great speaker and who can inspire gays and non-gays alike. It is important to win support of non-gays. Without a charismatic leader of its own I fear the gay marriage movement is dommed to disappointment.
I'm inspired every day by Harvey Milk. We do need additional heroes.
However, a great leader for social justice speaks to people of all segments of humanity.
Gandhi, MLK, Mother Teresa, are HUMAN heroes who's achievements and consciousness inspires all of humanity for all ages.
You have stumbled onto yet another way that the gay civil rights movement mirrors the black civil rights movement. In both cases one of our greatest heros and spokesman for the movement, MLK and HM, were assassinated and did not get to see the end of what they had started.
I agree the "apartheid" language is overblown and not helpful.
Look, here's the deal: same-sex marriage has been voted down 31 times, Obama won't speak up for it, you can hardly find a mainstream politician to go along with it. People aren't ready for same sex marriage.
But--many of the votes have been very close despite massive funding for the opposition, and younger demographics are for same sex marriage. And civil partnership laws tend to pass. I understand, separate but equal civil unions aren't going to work, and same-sex marriage is inevitable, but the time is just not quite ripe. I'm not telling anyone they have to wait; I suppose the struggle is gong to continue for a while, but same sex marriage and full equality is only a matter of time, and not too long at that.
"I'm not telling anyone they have to wait"
Actually that's exactly what you're saying. The time wasn't "rights" for the Civil Rights Act or interracial marriage as well. We do not wait for public opinion to dole out rights, they are inherent.
"you can hardly find a mainstream politician to go along with it. ."
Governors of New York, New Jersey and Maine aren't mainstream? The legislatures of Vermont and Maine? Mayors, governors, senators, representatives... too many to mention, but there are many.
I have a feeling you're using a tautological definition of "mainstream"... If a politician supports gay marriage, they're no longer mainstream.
I guess people have to use whatever methods and rhetoric come naturally to them. Historically, rights struggles have never generated unified strategies nor synchronized effort - but with the weight of history on their side, they inevitably - if unevenly, succeed.
In my own heavily Republican and heavily Mormon state, our legislature not only passed a domestic partner law, but overturned the governor's veto do to so. My gut tells me this is the way this issue will ultimately progress - incrementally, and with wins here and losses there.
It will never be easy in a county where over half of the populace are not only deeply and viscerally prejudiced from the outset, but who also believe that "God's" word is final, thus rendering the wants, needs and rights of mere humans of little consequence against the Grand Plan that the great bigot in the sky has for this most "Christian" of nations.
I enjoyed the irony in a recent Mad Men episode when Betty says to her black house keeper Carla "I think that maybe its just not time yet" with regard to the civil rights movement.
There is never a good time for a civil rights movement.
As a queer of color I find that Kaufman's excellent article just hightlights widespread racism in gay community which was kept hidden by white gays until the prop 8 saga exposed it although white gays have kept on using the historical oppression faced by communities of color while their white orgs actively and systematically exclude participation of people of color who hold a different perspective then them regarding gay rights.
There have been so much anecdotal evidence as well as formal reports by National Lesbian and Gay Task Force regarding racism faced by LGBT people of color from white gays so this issue of racism in gay community should not come as a surprise to its white gay leaders and white gay orgs. Infact the problem of racism has gotten worse in gay community then hetros. It would take a lot of work to address this deapseated racism in gay community and first step for white gay leaders is to acknowledge racism in their own ranks, take concrete steps to address it and form coalitions to work with, not against, communities of color.
To white gays: Please do not compare your wealthy, white gay ghettos (W.Hollywood, Castro, Chelsea..) to black & colored townships of S.Africa. You may chose to ignore the privilege of being white but at least do not insult or undermine the sacrifices of millions of colored folks who fought slavery and apartheid (real one you know).
"As a queer of color I find that Kaufman's excellent article just hightlights widespread racism in gay community"
Please explain this "widespread racism" in the gay community. No one denies there are gay racists, just as there are straight racists, Asian racists, and black racists. Racism is not bound to any one community, it infects them all. So stop with this nonsense that gays are virulently racist, because it's bs.
On a side note, almost ANY time I hear a gay person of color start talking about this "rampant racism" in the GLBT community, it's because they read white guys posting ads for hookups online stating a racial preference, and assume it to be racism. It is not for the record. I myself have no attraction to Asians, that does not make me racist towards Asians. I just don't find them attractive.
This is exactly the problem that you only speak from the position of privlege as a gay white man and have such a limited view of racism faced by LGBT people of color -- you only see it as a sexual rejection issue. Likewise, straights do not share your pain of discrimination as you do not share the pain of racism faced by LGBT people of color let alone racism faced by straight people of color. Think about your analysis, take a closer look at your WHITE national gay orgs which are defining gay agenda for the entire LGBT community including people of color and ask questions why LGBT people of color are not part of all this; where are their voices and how do we effectively connect to straight communities of color.
See beyond your sexual hookups and you hopefully would understand that racism extends beyond your romantic preferences. By the way there are many blks, latins, asians who DO NOT sleep with white gays and no it does not make them racist either.
But how good are those in the gay community at calling out the few who are racists? Are those people shunned the same way that we suggest those tea party folks should shun the racists who are in their group?
I personally cannot state that I've experienced "racism" from gay whites. I haven't really experienced much of anything from them...and I don't think that's a good thing.
And per your side note:
You don't think it's a problem to state on any sort of profile that you aren't interested in a particular RACE of people? Really? The WHOLE race? And you don't think there's anything to that? Not everyone who goes to these sites are looking for sex. Some are looking for companionship, or friendship...or heck, just someone to talk about their sexuality with.
From Graham in Canada:
"The Apartheid Regime in South Africa was a thoroughly homophobic regime that persecuted gays and lesbians with the same fervor and deadly intent as it persecuted various races; the gay rights movement in South Africa was an integral part of the Anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa and throughout the world; the defeat of the Apartheid Regime in South Africa resulted in the first constitution in the world that explicitely recognized gay rights and as a result of the Anti-Apartheid success, South Africa now allows gay marriage."
----------
You don't even know that we were part of the anti-apartheid movement.
you know you should really read graham from canadas statement below. I think you are obfuscating and confusing points with the purpose of creating a divide that really is non-existent. I am sorry that you have had personal experiences of racism in your gay community. I would love for you to cite a source or provide a link showing increased racism in gay communities as opposed to the nation at large. I think that such studies do not exist. There is of course racism amongst white gays just as there is homophobia amongst straight blacks. To try to state that this is pervasive in the gay community to discriminate against blacks is simply not true. Your last statement is kind of misleading also. There seems to be a racist overtone to it. Your wealthy white gay ghettos? It just comes off as hateful and angry. I think this fierce division is not necessary or helpful. I am sorry that prominent african american civil rights leaders are not working as hard as Gay rights advocates to hold Obama and the DNCs feet to the fire in order to further the many REAL issues of discrimination against black people in this country. I wish you much luck in your struggle for equality.
I guess I am one of the "white gays" you address. However I have not and never will live in W. Hollywood or Castro or Chelsea or any other gay ghetto. I resent the stereotype.
Am I to take it that as a "queer of color" you wish to distingusih yourself from "white gays". Who is the racist here?
Also, how does linking our struggle for human rights with the civil rights movement or Apartheid undermine the sacrifices of millions of colored folks? Please explain that.
Absent an understanding of the real reason behind the objection of our linking our civil rights movement with that of black folks, I am left with the feeling that it is only because of your dislike or disdain of homosexuals (or maybe just white gays) and therefore the knee jerk reaction to want them off of your turf, so to speak. That is how all of this comes off.
I am a white gay man. I am not a dirty sodomite condemned by "God" who seeks to abuse your children and warp your society and its institution of marriage. If you see me as anything other than just a white gay man, I will never see equal rights.
You display a complete miscomprehension of coloredqueer's claim. Your response is completely disengenuous, and is precisely what he talking about. The thing is that you need not link anything. You ought to try and be original. Black people are still fighting, quiet as it is kept, for civil and human rights. Our struggle is far from over. De facto has not caught up with de jure, and this is the core of the matter for Black people.
Any failure to comprehend that simple fact is part and parcel of the failure of the gay white establishment to address genuinely the needs of its constituents, if it in fact considers Black gay men and women its constituents.
I think that coloredqueer is saying exactly that.
As aftershock, says: yes, there is racism in the gay community. But why do you stereotype all gays as W. hollywood, Castro, wealthy clones?!?
We are every race, every color, every creed, every class, every socio-economic level. And in my opinion, and in the opinion of nearly every gay person I know, we WELCOME that. Our diversity is part of our strength, part of who we are.
No, it's not always easy. But I think there is LESS racism in the gay community than in the straight. Which is not to say it doesn't exist or isn't abhorrent. But as a resident of a small town in a red state, I can say that black people are welcome in the gay club, gay organizations, etc whereas they would not be at straight white bars and straight white clubs.
We have a long way to go, but this idea that gays are more racist than straight people is laughable. And it's almost ALWAYS accompanied by the stupid, mean, ugly stereotype of the wealthy, white ghetto gay. Which just shows the speciousness of the whole claim.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
