Skip to main content

View Diary: Update! Max Speaks! | ESPN’s Jared Max Comes Out. (80 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Doh! (7+ / 0-)

    That's me slapping my forehead on one aspect of this kind of news.

    I think we've all noted that the more likely it is you know someone who is gay, or know of someone who is gay, the more likely you are to accept gays and support gay rights. So yes, the more gays who are out - to their families, their work peers, their community, or to the more broadly visible sports/entertainment/political arenas - the better.

    So what's with the "doh"? This is a civil rights issue. It is similar, but not directly equivalent to, previous civil rights issues on race or gender. One of the biggest differences? Most black people being denied their rights were visibly black, it was pretty obvious who they were and how they were being marginalized. Women being denied their rights were visibly female, it was pretty obvious who they were and how they were being marginalized. GLBT folk? All colors, all genders, but not visibly "obvious" in being denied their rights and being marginalized.

    Big difference, requiring some big courage. Black persons didn't need to stand up and say - "you guys didn't know this about me, but...." Women didn't need to stand up and say "you guys didn't know this about me, but...."   - and knowing that such a statement could have extreme blow back from family, friends, employers, and more.

    All that to say people like Ellen, or Jared Max, or Rick Welts, or Don Lemon are pretty brave people.

    •  Think how many people already know (6+ / 0-)

      Jared Max and invite him into their lives everyday. Think about how much of his audience probably doesn't think a whole lot abot this issue. I am sure a few just got their minds blown today.

      He doesn't need to say much to swing the dialogue in a helpful direction.

      That marriage equality opposition is led primarily by Clergy is a confirmation present law is the establishment of religion.

      by Scott Wooledge on Thu May 19, 2011 at 06:09:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yet he still, bravely, takes a sizeable risk (3+ / 0-)

        Because many do think about this issue, and they may have strong enough opinions to negatively influence his career path.

        •  I think Max's risk is really minimal (6+ / 0-)

          and he may have come to that conclusion following the Sean Avery story. One homophobe spoke up and so many of the big names of the hockey world stepped up and told that homophobe to STFU. It was clear whose back got the cover in that story.

          Max has a substantial following in one of the most progressive cities in the country.

          Ten, twenty years ago, some Christian group might have targeted Max and ESPN might have freaked at the pressure.  

          But in a post King & Spalding world, I don't think so.

          If someone TRIES to make an issue of it, ESPN can't fire Max without the progressive and gay Hellfire raining down on them like no one's business. (And, of course, it would be illegal in New York state to fire him for coming out.) And they'd have a hard time finding anyone to speak in their defense.

          Max will be fine. The vast majority of his listeners will continue to tune in to him to listen to him talk sports like has been the case for years.

          He might lose some fans. I bet he just made a whole lot more.

          That marriage equality opposition is led primarily by Clergy is a confirmation present law is the establishment of religion.

          by Scott Wooledge on Thu May 19, 2011 at 06:44:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Just heard Don Lemon in an interview this (4+ / 0-)

          morning discussing this issue of coming out given the field he's in.  He indicated that while CNN has known for a long time that he was gay, and while they were very supportive of his decision to come out publicly,there were meetings with CNN execs, and the whole subject of what his coming out would potentially do to viewership was discussed in depth.  

          It was a "d'Oh" moment for me -- thinking to myself how much I take for granted that my sexual identity never has been and never will be an issue for my employer, or anything I have to tiptoe around or anything my employers would ever think they had to have a meeting to discuss, and thinking how outrageous and unfair it is that CNN felt the need to have a meeting about one of their employees publicly pronouncing his gender identity.

          I'd imagine Jared Max had to go through the same thing with his employer.  I think he is brave.

          "On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps...of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again."

          by middleagedhousewife on Thu May 19, 2011 at 09:09:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't know if Max did discuss it with ESPN (3+ / 0-)

            Or not. I haven't read that part.

            He wouldn't be obligated to.  In New York, sexual orientation is a protected class for employment. So they couldn't fire him. At least not without opening themselves up to an indefensible litigation action.

            Being in Georgia, I am guessing Lemon did not have the same luxury of non-discrimination protection.

            (Although I am rather certain Time Warner has a corporate policy of such. Of course, if a company breaks it's own policy, there is no one to hold them accountable.)

            That marriage equality opposition is led primarily by Clergy is a confirmation present law is the establishment of religion.

            by Scott Wooledge on Thu May 19, 2011 at 09:23:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Two sides (3+ / 0-)

              I think it less likely that Lemon was worried about being fired, and more about a "courtesy head's up" -- whether coming out SHOULD affect his job or not, in this day and age his action is going to make waves that will affect the network.   I don't find it odd to acknowledge that to the network and move forward.*

              *  After following the rape diary of a couple days ago, I think this is a valid position.  Does anyone have any input in that regard? (Diary in question crushed people who said, in effect:  "Rape is bad. Rape is wrong.  Women should be able to wear whatever they want, whenever they want, period.  BUT:  In this day and age, they should be aware that wearing certain things in certain places can be used to excuse violence and rape against them."  This turned into a blame-the-victim pie fight.).  

              My point here is, he SHOULD be able to come out without fear of his job.  But, as a syndicated anchor, does he have an obligation to give a heads up to his employer, knowing that there will likely be backlash of some kind?

              Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

              by lostboyjim on Fri May 20, 2011 at 05:57:25 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Does he have an obligation? (0+ / 0-)

                I say no. No more than a straight person might be obligated to give a head's up before they announce their engagement to be married.

                As a professional courtesy? Sure, it would be a professional and courteous thing to do. And a nice way to show respect to your superiors.

                If they tried to stop me I'd be inclined to say, "I am sorry to hear you say that, I hoped you'd be supportive. Regardless, I am doing it, and you can get onboard, or you can fight me. Your call."

                That marriage equality opposition is led primarily by Clergy is a confirmation present law is the establishment of religion.

                by Scott Wooledge on Fri May 20, 2011 at 06:08:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site