by Jeff Pearlman
I wrote the following piece recently as a freelance assignment, but it never made print. Hence, I offer it below.
Obviously, the whole gay rights issue is one I feel very strongly about. I wish I had been alive for the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s, because I like to think (though one never knows for sure) I’d be out there marching and speaking up.
As I’ve said before, the gay rights movement is our civil rights moment.
Hence, this column …
I hope you are reading this.
You, the scared, closeted sufferer.
You, the potential trailblazer.
You, the gay major league baseball player.
No doubt, this dilemma has plagued your soul: Do I come out? Do I continue to hide? You have weighed the pros and cons of walking forth from the shadows, and they are, to understate, daunting. There will be heckles and catcalls; death threats and protests. You will be branded an outcast and a cancer; will be called “queer,” “fag” and 8,000 more heinous slurs. Teams that once craved your production will shy away. Fans once anxious to purchase your jersey will look elsewhere. Little boys and girls will snicker. Parents will warn their offspring who not to be like. The clubhouse, normally a sanctuary, will turn into a torture chamber. Teammates will avoid the shower in your presence. The team chaplain will thunderously cite Leviticus 18:22 (“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”) You will no longer be invited to dinner; to bars; to family barbeques; to the offseason caravan. Many within the sport will speak of you in the manner Tim Hardaway spoke of John Amaechi, the former Orlando Magic center who came out two years ago. “If he was on my team, I would really distance myself from him because, I don’t think that’s right,” Hardaway said. “And you know I don’t think he should be in the locker room while we’re in the locker room.”
So why bother coming out of the closet? Why should you subject yourself to certain torture?
Why?
Because right now, at this precise moment in 2009, there is a desperate need for leaders in the gay-rights movement; a desperate need for high-profile people to make a Rosa Parks-esque statement. Just last week, the California Supreme Court came to a jarringly narrow conclusion, voting to uphold Proposition 8, which limits marriage to only between heterosexual couples. The decision serves as Exhibit 1A on how far this country has to go when it comes to accepting gays and lesbians as equals. It also serves as Exhibit 1A on why you are being called to action.
Baseball, as you know, represents something that the other major sports do not. It is Americana—a symbol of all that is good and righteous about who we are and what we stand for. It is a warm day in the sun; a beer and a hotdog; red, white, and blue bunting and the national anthem before every first pitch. It’s a beloved blue-eyed, sandy-haired boy chasing down a long fly into the gap.
Now what if that beloved blue-eyed, sandy-haired boy happens to be … gay? How will Americans—especially those in the heartland—handle the juxtaposition? How will they respond?
Answer: I’m not sure. It could be horrific. Worse than horrific. That said, Americans have been known to surprise. Maybe, just maybe, instead of heckles and catcalls, there will be cheers and standing ovations; curtain calls and sellouts. Maybe you will be branded a groundbreaker and a hero; will be referred to as “the Jackie Robinson of gay rights.” Maybe teams that once craved your production might shy away at first—until they realize you’re baseball’s biggest draw. Maybe fans will purchase your jerseys in droves. Maybe little boys and girls will sing your name. Maybe parents will urge their offspring to be just like you. Maybe the clubhouse, normally a sanctuary, will serve this role more than ever. Maybe teammates will stand up for your right to be yourself. Maybe your manager will say, “Gay or straight, he’s my guy.” Maybe the team chaplain will thunderously cite John 13:23 (“One of his disciples, the one whom Jesus kept loving, had been sitting very close to him.”) Maybe you will still be invited to dinner; to bars; to family barbeques; to the offseason caravan. Maybe many within the sport will speak of you in the manner Ken Griffey, Jr. spoke of Joe Valentine, a former Reds pitcher who was raised by lesbian parents. “I salute his mothers, and anything negative he’s gone through because of that is garbage,” Griffey said. “I would embrace a gay teammates just like I embrace straight teammates. Some of my closest friends are gay. It makes no difference to me. People are people.”
People are people.
We find ourselves at a riveting crossroads. For the first time ever, five states allow gay marriage, and in a recent New York Times/CBS poll, 57 percent of Americans under age 40 support same-sex nuptials. When a man like Dennis Prager appears on Larry King Live and says, “I would like children to be raised to believe that when they grow up they will get married. And that they are not asked when they are six or seven years old, ‘Will you marry a boy or a girl?’” he brings to mind the soundbites of George Wallace from four decades ago.
And yet, there are still miles to go. Living in the liberal Mecca of New York, it is easy to forget that, to millions of Americans, gays are alien creatures, no less scary than Wes Craven’s latest invention. People fear the idea of gay teachers and gay neighbors; literally fear catching “The Gay”—as if it were a strand of swine flu. This is especially true in the sheltered world of professional baseball, where most competitors have devoted their lives to the singular, non-thought-provoking tasks of seeing-ball, throwing-ball, hitting-ball, catching-ball. The major leagues are the domain of Maxim and strip clubs; of long-legged, large-breasted girlfriends and “Check out the blonde eight rows up …” mid-game commentaries. In the mid-1990s, an American League superstar confided in a small number of peers that he was gay, but insisted the information never be released. His reason? Fear of banishment. “Baseball just doesn’t lend itself to accepting gays,” says Billy Bean, the former major league journeyman who came out of the closet after retiring. “There’s very little empathy for people like me.”
Indeed, it has been 10 years since Bean announced that he was gay, and any initial hopes of change within the sport have been largely dashed. Bean has waited and waited and waited for an active player to stand up and say, “I’m a homosexual. So what?” but he no longer holds his breath. “There’s just so much to lose,” he says. “Your contract, your teammates’ trust, your place. Do I wish I came out when I was active? Yes, I do. But I wanted to be accepted, just like everyone else. Who would have accepted me if they knew I was gay?”
Yet here’s the mild shocker: In the aftermath of Bean’s announcement, a handful of high-profile big leaguers—Trevor Hoffman and Brad Ausmus among them—not only embraced Bean’s words, but spoke out on his behalf. “It wouldn’t have made a difference to me [when we were teammates],” said Ausmus, “and it doesn’t bother me now.” Brian Johnson, Bean’s Triple A roommate and a future Padres catcher, called his old chum and said, “I wish you had told me back then. I would have supported you 100 percent.”
Now, a decade after Bean’s courageous step, the time is at hand. You have the opportunity to be more than a ballplayer; more than just another blah notation buried deep within the pages of the Baseball Encyclopedia. For every 10,000 Bill Brutons and Joe Sambitos, there’s a Curt Flood. For every 10,000 Paul Blairs and Jack Clarks, there’s a Robinson. The country’s ever-dwindling holdouts to logic are ready to see that homosexual doesn’t mean weird or strange or frightening. They are ready to see that the most pure and wholesome and revered among us—our baseball players—can be pure, wholesome, revered … and gay.
It is time to step out of the closet.
It is time to shine.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Another Shrug from Obama
by Jennifer Vanasco
First published in the Chicago Free Press on June 10, 2009
Illinois's civil unions bill, after passing a state House committee, was left to languish at the end of the session.
The bill is still alive, if barely: it can be passed by the state legislature anytime in the next two years.
It doesn't really surprise me that the bill hasn't moved this year. Despite neighboring Iowa's fantastic move to full marriage equality, Illinois's state legislature had other things to worry about, thanks to the corruption scandal surrounding Rod Blagojevich. It’s also, despite it’s tentative blue status, fairly conservative — note that the bill was for civil unions in a year when marriage is the biggest player at the table.
But that should have been its advantage.
Let's pause for a moment to consider this: Illinois is President Barack Obama's home state (at least as an adult). Obama has said — emphatically — that he is for civil unions, not marriage. And that he wants equal legal rights for gay and lesbian couples.
Why didn't Obama lobby for the bill?
Why didn't he say in a speech something like: "My own great state of Illinois is working now to further the equal rights of gay couples. I hope they pass the current civil unions bill."
Why didn't he call his former friends in the legislature, where he was a state senator, after all, and encourage them to do the right thing?
"Promises of ‘change’ are not enough. We supported Obama with our dollars and our labor, and it is time he supports us in return."If he's not for equal marriage — and he's not (he prefers gays and lesbians to have "separate but equal" status instead) — why isn't he trumpeting the recent passage of domestic partnerships in Nevada, or partnerships in Washington state?
Easy. It's the same reason he hasn't moved on the Defense of Marriage Act, and the Don't Ask, Don't Tell military ban (which the majority of Americans support) and why he didn’t issue a supportive statement on the Uniting American Families Act when it was being debated in Congress last week.
Gays and lesbians are not his priority. Which is why the only "accomplishment" his administration could claim in proclaiming the White House's support for Gay Pride month was this:
"I am proud to be the first President to appoint openly LGBT candidates to Senate—confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration."
Except — ooops — the Advocate reported that this isn't true. President Clinton nominated Roberta Achtenberg as Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity and Bruce Lehman as Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, both within his first hundred days.
The White House's response?
"President Obama remains the first president to have openly LGBT candidates confirmed by the Senate during the first 100 days of an Administration."
Call me crazy, but that doesn't seem like "fierce" advocacy to me. Things got worse this week when the Supreme Court turned down the opportunity to review Don't Ask, Don’t Tell — partly because the Obama Administration argued that it was a "rational" policy.
Obama has been mostly silent on our issues since taking office. Insiders tell us that he will keep his promises. They tell us to be patient. They tell us to wait.
Maybe they're right. Maybe not. Maybe the Obama Administration really is working like crazy behind the scenes to dismantle DOMA and Don’t Ask, to support the Employment Non—Discrimination Act and the Uniting American Families Act. Maybe they're just hoping if they placate us enough, we’ll go away.
All we know for sure when it comes to this Administration is that hope is not enough. Promises of "change" are not enough. We supported Obama with our dollars and our labor, and it is time he supports us in return.
But until he does, the good people of Illinois — like good people all over the country — have to wait for their rights.
by Jennifer Vanasco
First published in the Chicago Free Press on June 10, 2009
Illinois's civil unions bill, after passing a state House committee, was left to languish at the end of the session.
The bill is still alive, if barely: it can be passed by the state legislature anytime in the next two years.
It doesn't really surprise me that the bill hasn't moved this year. Despite neighboring Iowa's fantastic move to full marriage equality, Illinois's state legislature had other things to worry about, thanks to the corruption scandal surrounding Rod Blagojevich. It’s also, despite it’s tentative blue status, fairly conservative — note that the bill was for civil unions in a year when marriage is the biggest player at the table.
But that should have been its advantage.
Let's pause for a moment to consider this: Illinois is President Barack Obama's home state (at least as an adult). Obama has said — emphatically — that he is for civil unions, not marriage. And that he wants equal legal rights for gay and lesbian couples.
Why didn't Obama lobby for the bill?
Why didn't he say in a speech something like: "My own great state of Illinois is working now to further the equal rights of gay couples. I hope they pass the current civil unions bill."
Why didn't he call his former friends in the legislature, where he was a state senator, after all, and encourage them to do the right thing?
"Promises of ‘change’ are not enough. We supported Obama with our dollars and our labor, and it is time he supports us in return."If he's not for equal marriage — and he's not (he prefers gays and lesbians to have "separate but equal" status instead) — why isn't he trumpeting the recent passage of domestic partnerships in Nevada, or partnerships in Washington state?
Easy. It's the same reason he hasn't moved on the Defense of Marriage Act, and the Don't Ask, Don't Tell military ban (which the majority of Americans support) and why he didn’t issue a supportive statement on the Uniting American Families Act when it was being debated in Congress last week.
Gays and lesbians are not his priority. Which is why the only "accomplishment" his administration could claim in proclaiming the White House's support for Gay Pride month was this:
"I am proud to be the first President to appoint openly LGBT candidates to Senate—confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration."
Except — ooops — the Advocate reported that this isn't true. President Clinton nominated Roberta Achtenberg as Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity and Bruce Lehman as Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, both within his first hundred days.
The White House's response?
"President Obama remains the first president to have openly LGBT candidates confirmed by the Senate during the first 100 days of an Administration."
Call me crazy, but that doesn't seem like "fierce" advocacy to me. Things got worse this week when the Supreme Court turned down the opportunity to review Don't Ask, Don’t Tell — partly because the Obama Administration argued that it was a "rational" policy.
Obama has been mostly silent on our issues since taking office. Insiders tell us that he will keep his promises. They tell us to be patient. They tell us to wait.
Maybe they're right. Maybe not. Maybe the Obama Administration really is working like crazy behind the scenes to dismantle DOMA and Don’t Ask, to support the Employment Non—Discrimination Act and the Uniting American Families Act. Maybe they're just hoping if they placate us enough, we’ll go away.
All we know for sure when it comes to this Administration is that hope is not enough. Promises of "change" are not enough. We supported Obama with our dollars and our labor, and it is time he supports us in return.
But until he does, the good people of Illinois — like good people all over the country — have to wait for their rights.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
I am not sure if anyone even reads this blog. But for the one or two people that might I just wanted to let ya know that I have not been posting as much lately because of a few things. First I had to go to Nebraska to attend the funeral of my great aunt. She was the last of my grandmas siblings to pass away. It is sad to realize that many from my grandparents generation are no longer with us. I just hope that many of the traditions they started will continue. I also feel very fortunate to have been so close, not only to my grandparents but to many of their brothers and sisters.
The other thing going on in my life is I had surgery on my shoulder Monday. I had a small lump on my right shoulder that has been there for about 3 years. It never really bothered me much so I never really took the time to get it removed. However, in the last few months I have been hitting the gym pretty hard and my workout partner (and great friend) kept bugging me to go to the Doctor and get it removed. So, I did. The doctor told me the surgery would take about 15 minutes and it would require just a very small cut etc. However that is not what happened. Without going into all the details the surgery took about 1 1/2 hours. According to the doctor the lump was "bigger and more established than we thought and it was big enough that we should have had you sedated" Yep, I was awake for the entire thing. There was really no pain but it sure was an odd thing to be awake for.
I must also add that it made me feel a lot better that my friend Doug was there for me the entire day. I could not have done it without him - nor would I have wanted to. Thanks Doug!
The other thing going on in my life is I had surgery on my shoulder Monday. I had a small lump on my right shoulder that has been there for about 3 years. It never really bothered me much so I never really took the time to get it removed. However, in the last few months I have been hitting the gym pretty hard and my workout partner (and great friend) kept bugging me to go to the Doctor and get it removed. So, I did. The doctor told me the surgery would take about 15 minutes and it would require just a very small cut etc. However that is not what happened. Without going into all the details the surgery took about 1 1/2 hours. According to the doctor the lump was "bigger and more established than we thought and it was big enough that we should have had you sedated" Yep, I was awake for the entire thing. There was really no pain but it sure was an odd thing to be awake for.
I must also add that it made me feel a lot better that my friend Doug was there for me the entire day. I could not have done it without him - nor would I have wanted to. Thanks Doug!
Sunday, June 7, 2009
The Spark We Needed
I think the best thing we can do to move this issue forward even more is to be OUT and to tell our story!
by Jennifer Vanasco
First published in the Chicago Free Press on June 3, 2009
Years from now, Proposition 8 is going to be thought of as the tragedy that sparked a revolution.
We’ve seen it before. Stonewall, 40 years ago this month. AIDS 25 years ago. It has always been the case that our greatest community successes were built on the backs of what at first seemed like disasters.
Our strength is that setbacks prod us to work together even more closely.
Before last November, most gays and lesbians who wanted equal marriage weren’t very active about it. We might talk to each other about inequality, but except for our activist wing, we weren’t taking to the streets.
Marriage across the United States seemed like a pipe dream. When New England’s Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders launched their 6 X ’12 campaign — pressing for gay marriage in all New England states by 2012 — I almost laughed. No way, I thought.
At the time, only Connecticut and Massachusetts had equal marriage. California was taking it away. And New York, while it recognized marriages performed elsewhere, looked blockaded by religious Democrats in the state senate.
But after the November vote for Proposition 8, gays, lesbians and our allies started marching in the street. We started boycotting. We started writing letters. We started telling our stories. And it became clear: there are ramifications if citizens and legislators vote against us. We are paying attention. And we will act.
"After the November vote for Proposition 8, gays, lesbians and our allies started marching in the street. We started boycotting. We started writing letters. We started telling our stories. And it became clear: there are ramifications if citizens and legislators vote against us."Then we started to see states jump forward with equal marriage. Iowa. Maine. Vermont. Soon New Hampshire. The District of Columbia started recognizing marriages performed elsewhere — and Maryland might go the same way in a few weeks. The Nevada state legislature overturned the governor’s veto of domestic partnership rights. Pennsylvania is taking up a marriage bill.
Some insiders are even predicting that New York may vote for equal marriage before Pride.
What felt like a Sisyphean struggle a year ago now feels like a landslide. Even last week’s California state Supreme Court decision felt something like a victory. The judges, in upholding Prop 8, ruled as narrowly as they could. Minority rights can’t be taken away, they said. They can only be called something else.
Said the opinion:
"Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term marriage for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple's state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
"Among the various constitutional protections recognized in the Marriage Cases as available to same-sex couples, it is only the designation of marriage - albeit significant - that has been removed by this initiative measure."
They didn’t overturn the 18,000 marriages. And they didn’t overturn gay rights. Gays and lesbians have all the rights of married couples, they said. Just not the word “marriage.”
And yes, that’s “separate but equal.” But — good news! — that’s SEPARATE BUT EQUAL. And in our country we have a 50-year understanding that separate but equal is not equal at all. Which means that the decision is even more likely to be overturned the next time voters head to the polls.
June is Pride month, and we have a lot to celebrate. We still have to fight. We still have to do the difficult personal and political work of reaching our to communities of faith and of color to reassure them that by supporting us, they don’t lose anything.
Forty years ago this month, we had Stonewall. Now we have Prop H8. It is exactly what our movement nee
by Jennifer Vanasco
First published in the Chicago Free Press on June 3, 2009
Years from now, Proposition 8 is going to be thought of as the tragedy that sparked a revolution.
We’ve seen it before. Stonewall, 40 years ago this month. AIDS 25 years ago. It has always been the case that our greatest community successes were built on the backs of what at first seemed like disasters.
Our strength is that setbacks prod us to work together even more closely.
Before last November, most gays and lesbians who wanted equal marriage weren’t very active about it. We might talk to each other about inequality, but except for our activist wing, we weren’t taking to the streets.
Marriage across the United States seemed like a pipe dream. When New England’s Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders launched their 6 X ’12 campaign — pressing for gay marriage in all New England states by 2012 — I almost laughed. No way, I thought.
At the time, only Connecticut and Massachusetts had equal marriage. California was taking it away. And New York, while it recognized marriages performed elsewhere, looked blockaded by religious Democrats in the state senate.
But after the November vote for Proposition 8, gays, lesbians and our allies started marching in the street. We started boycotting. We started writing letters. We started telling our stories. And it became clear: there are ramifications if citizens and legislators vote against us. We are paying attention. And we will act.
"After the November vote for Proposition 8, gays, lesbians and our allies started marching in the street. We started boycotting. We started writing letters. We started telling our stories. And it became clear: there are ramifications if citizens and legislators vote against us."Then we started to see states jump forward with equal marriage. Iowa. Maine. Vermont. Soon New Hampshire. The District of Columbia started recognizing marriages performed elsewhere — and Maryland might go the same way in a few weeks. The Nevada state legislature overturned the governor’s veto of domestic partnership rights. Pennsylvania is taking up a marriage bill.
Some insiders are even predicting that New York may vote for equal marriage before Pride.
What felt like a Sisyphean struggle a year ago now feels like a landslide. Even last week’s California state Supreme Court decision felt something like a victory. The judges, in upholding Prop 8, ruled as narrowly as they could. Minority rights can’t be taken away, they said. They can only be called something else.
Said the opinion:
"Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term marriage for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple's state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
"Among the various constitutional protections recognized in the Marriage Cases as available to same-sex couples, it is only the designation of marriage - albeit significant - that has been removed by this initiative measure."
They didn’t overturn the 18,000 marriages. And they didn’t overturn gay rights. Gays and lesbians have all the rights of married couples, they said. Just not the word “marriage.”
And yes, that’s “separate but equal.” But — good news! — that’s SEPARATE BUT EQUAL. And in our country we have a 50-year understanding that separate but equal is not equal at all. Which means that the decision is even more likely to be overturned the next time voters head to the polls.
June is Pride month, and we have a lot to celebrate. We still have to fight. We still have to do the difficult personal and political work of reaching our to communities of faith and of color to reassure them that by supporting us, they don’t lose anything.
Forty years ago this month, we had Stonewall. Now we have Prop H8. It is exactly what our movement nee
How about just being pleased that he has addressed the issue?
Former Vice President Cheney recently said he was in favor of leaving Marriage up to the states. I also think he said "freedom is freedom for everyone" of course I am no fan of Mr. Cheney. But lets be honest, would it not have been better to highlight his support (and the fact he even talked about the issue - UNLIKE our current President) We must support ALL those that are willing to stand up and speak out on this issue -even if we don't like the person or other positions they have taken on other issues.
The Washington Post's "God in Government" blog takes note of the dismissive response from LGBT activists to former VP Dick Cheney's recently voiced support for same-sex marriage:
The Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, welcomed Cheney's comments through gritted teeth.
"It is unfortunate that it took the former vice president two terms in office, two terms that were the most anti-LGBT in history, before he decided to stand up for equality," said Joe Solmonese, president of the HRC. "That being said, we welcome his voice to the table on this issue and hope the remaining right-wing opponents of marriage equality see how completely out of touch they have become."
Of course, it might have been a more effective response in terms of swaying "remaining right-wing opponents" if Solmonese had been able to restrain himself from denigrating Cheney while welcoming his support.
And by the way, was the Bush-Cheney administration really the "most anti-LGBT in history?" Bush supported a federal amendment against gay marriage that failed to pass (Cheney broke with Bush and didn't support the amendment). But Bill Clinton signed the odious Defense of Marriage Act and bragged about it in campaign ads that ran in the South. Clinton also signed legislation to ban gays from openly serving in the military ("don't ask, don't tell"); previously, the ban on homosexuals had been military policy but not federal law.
The Washington Post's "God in Government" blog takes note of the dismissive response from LGBT activists to former VP Dick Cheney's recently voiced support for same-sex marriage:
The Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, welcomed Cheney's comments through gritted teeth.
"It is unfortunate that it took the former vice president two terms in office, two terms that were the most anti-LGBT in history, before he decided to stand up for equality," said Joe Solmonese, president of the HRC. "That being said, we welcome his voice to the table on this issue and hope the remaining right-wing opponents of marriage equality see how completely out of touch they have become."
Of course, it might have been a more effective response in terms of swaying "remaining right-wing opponents" if Solmonese had been able to restrain himself from denigrating Cheney while welcoming his support.
And by the way, was the Bush-Cheney administration really the "most anti-LGBT in history?" Bush supported a federal amendment against gay marriage that failed to pass (Cheney broke with Bush and didn't support the amendment). But Bill Clinton signed the odious Defense of Marriage Act and bragged about it in campaign ads that ran in the South. Clinton also signed legislation to ban gays from openly serving in the military ("don't ask, don't tell"); previously, the ban on homosexuals had been military policy but not federal law.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
One more is one to many!
And counting... Per the Washington Examiner, by one report, 218 gay service members have been discharged under the "don't ask, don't tell" (lie and hide) policy since Obama and the overwhelmingly Democratic Congress took office. But if they end the ban, what would they promise LGBT activists — again — in 2010...and 2012?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)