Frank Deford's commentary on NPR recently on Gay Athletes highlights the continuing problem of even what seems liberal, or even-handed consideration of opposition to gay marriage as a kind of "opinion" about "divisive issues". Which it isn't. It's continuing support for denial of civil rights. Wish NPR and Frank Deford could get that right.
Peter Vidmar, a gold-medal gymnast, felt obliged to resign a very prominent position with the American team in next year's Olympics because he was criticized for speaking out against same-sex marriage.
What is this? To serve our Olympic team, you can't have any personal opinions about divisive issues?
I was having dinner with several friends wednesday evening, with half the table being lawyers. Somehow the topic came up of of the Frank DeFord piece, and to my surprise, most of the people of the table found it a reasonably good article about the difficulties gays have coming out in sports.
Until I pointed out the problem that DeFord did not really speak about Vidmar's actions appropriately. Had Peter Vidmar spoken out about 'mixed color water fountains' - "Hey I have nothing against blacks or whites", you can imagine the revulsion against his opposition to granting people basic civil rights. Civil rights aren't an "issue", something that may or may not be granted depending on "feelings', it's an inalienable right. I couldn't care less about Vidmar's opinions on health of the economy, the charm of New Orleans in the spring, or who shot JR. But when he has an opinion that it's acceptable to deny me my civil rights, that's quite different.
Fascinatingly within literally 5 minutes, most of the lawyers were speechless, and then came back, and said that the discussion with Frank DeFord which sounds so positive, is so negative. That this was the most transparent time they saw media present gay marriage as a debate, of pro/anti gay marriage, when the real discussion is around denial of civil rights, which is harder to argue against, and keeps gay marriage in a kind of "special privileges" limbo.
No gays I know look at gay marriage as a great debate, opinions and feelings led. They look at it as either denial of rights of a citizen, or not.
It reminds me terribly of the 'debate' about global climate change. The Climate is changing, measurably, inexorably, due to CO2 concentrations. One may have an opinion whether climate change is real or not, but the opinion is irrelevant. Change is measurably happening.
And as for gay marriage, it's not a divisive issue. It's a civil right which is slowly being correctly granted to previously 2nd-class status citizens.
Am I the only one who heard the article and thought, "HUH? What did I hear"?