Tag Archives: marriage equality

Homophobia and Gay Advocacy in the NFL

By Marc Williams

Chris Kluwe (left).

Chris Kluwe (left).

I’m a football fan. I never played the game in any organized leagues but when I was young, my father took me to college games at his alma mater. Many of my friends played football and followed their favorite teams on television. After college I became more interested in the professional game—the National Football League—and studying the game became a hobby. Football is a surprisingly complex game and the NFL has many fascinating layers beyond the game itself—player safety and head trauma is a major topic of the day. The league’s salary cap, the college draft, free agency, coaching personnel and schemes, and many other subjects provide intrigue throughout the year—not only during the seventeen-week season. One story I’ve followed over the past two years is the off-field advocacy work conducted by Chris Kluwe and Brendon Ayanbadejo.

Kluwe recently wrote an article for Deadspin.com detailing his account of how his employment with the Minnesota Vikings came to an end in 2013. As a member of the Vikings in 2012, Kluwe campaigned actively against Minnesota’s proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, which voters in the state defeated at the polls in November of that year. While Kluwe’s activism was widely praised in the media, he claims he was treated with hostility by his coaches. Head coach Leslie Frazier, Kluwe claims, twice urged Kluwe to stop speaking on the subject. Kluwe also claims the Vikings’ public relations department received requests to interview Kluwe but the team failed to relay these requests to the player in an apparent effort to silence him. Most shocking is Kluwe’s claim that special teams coordinator Mike Priefer—Kluwe’s immediate supervisor—once voiced his opposition to Kluwe’s activities by stating, “We should round up all the gays, send them to an island, and then nuke it until it glows.” Kluwe claims the Vikings organization terminated his contract following the 2012 season not because of his on-field performance but rather because of his marriage equality advocacy. Interestingly, Kluwe, who was an above-average punter in his last season with the Vikings, was unable to find a job with any team in the NFL in 2013.

emmett-burns

Emmett Burns.

Ayanbadejo’s team in 2012, the Baltimore Ravens, is also located in a state that voted on marriage equality that November. In Maryland, voters supported a constitutional amendment to allow same-sex marriage and in the months leading up to the vote, Ayanbadejo became a folk hero for amendment supporters after a state legislator urged Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti to silence the outspoken player. Delegate Emmett Burns’ letter read, in part:

Many of your fans are opposed to such a view [on same sex marriage] and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment and excitement. I believe Mr. Ayanbadejo should concentrate on football and steer clear of dividing the fan base.

I am requesting that you take the necessary action, as a National Football League Owner, to inhibit such expressions from your employees and that he be ordered to cease and desist such injurious actions. I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing.

Brendon Ayanbadejo.

Brendon Ayanbadejo.

Burns’ attempt to silence Ayanbadejo met stiff criticism from free speech and marriage equality advocates alike. One particularly memorable criticism came from none other than Chris Kluwe in an open letter to Burns posted on Deadspin.com. Following the 2012-2013 legislative session, Burns opted not to run for re-election in 2014.

During the 2012 NFL season, when Kluwe and Ayanbadejo spoke on marriage equality, they were often asked if the NFL is ready for an openly gay player. At the time, there had never been an active gay player in the NFL. For that matter, there had never been an openly gay player in any of the major professional American sports leagues—Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, or the National Hockey League. Kluwe hinted that he had spoken to gay players in the NFL and that one or more of those players was planning to come out to his teammates and the media. These players have not yet made their identities known—but the NFL will likely soon have its first openly gay player in 2014.

Michael Sam (#52).

Michael Sam (#52).

University of Missouri All-American defensive lineman Michael Sam, in an interview with the New York Times published last Sunday, February 9, announced that he is gay. Sam, a senior at Missouri, is preparing for the upcoming NFL draft, where a team might select him. While there will be much written between now and May about how Sam’s announcement will affect his career, many draft experts believe that Sam will indeed be drafted by an NFL team. If true, the hypothetical question that Chris Kluwe and Brendon Ayanbadejo were asked so often in 2012: “would teammates accept a gay player in the locker room?” will be answered this summer as Sam reports to NFL training camp.

One should note that Sam is not guaranteed to be selected in the NFL draft. While many draft experts project him as a mid-to-late round draft pick, some anonymous team officials and scouts suggest that Sam is an “overrated” player and may not be drafted at all. Or, if he is invited to a training camp, he may not have the physical skills to succeed in the NFL. If Sam fails to make an NFL roster, some critics may assume that Sam’s sexuality is the cause. However, Sam is no superstar and his professional potential is very much in question. If he wants to be an NFL player, he will first have to prove that he can play the game on a professional level.

Jonathan Martin

Jonathan Martin

There is good reason to believe Sam will face other difficulties as well. Just as Kluwe discovered that same-sex advocacy was viewed as a distraction (or worse) by his coaches, Sam’s future coaches may find the young player a magnet for media attention. His teammates will be asked for their thoughts on the locker room’s acceptance of Sam. And while Sam will no doubt have some supportive teammates, a number of NFL players have spoken out against the possibility of a gay teammate. Shortly before the 2013 Super Bowl, San Francisco 49ers defensive back Chris Culliver was asked if he would welcome a gay teammate. He responded, “Ain’t got no gay people on the team. They gotta get up outta here if they do. Can’t be with that sweet stuff…Can’t be…in the locker room, nah.” And just last Friday, special investigator Ted Wells released his report on bullying allegations made by Miami Dolphins player Jonathan Martin, specifically against his teammates Richie Incognito, John Jerry, and Mike Pouncey. Wells’ findings not only demonstrate a vicious culture of bullying amongst Miami players and coaches but also pervasive homophobia. Regarding an unnamed player, called “Player A” in the report, Wells states that:

Martin and other witnesses informed us that Player A was repeatedly called a “faggot” and subjected to other homophobic invective […].

Incognito and others acknowledged that Player A was routinely touched by Incognito, Jerry and Pouncey in a mockingly suggestive manner, including on his rear end, while being taunted about his supposed homosexuality. Incognito specifically admitted that he would grab Player A and ask for a hug as part of this “joke.”

Martin said that on one occasion, Pouncey physically restrained Player A and, in full view of other players, jokingly told Jerry to “come get some pussy,” and that Jerry responded by touching Player A’s buttocks in a way that simulated anal penetration. Pouncey and Jerry both denied this allegation […].

The evidence shows that [Offensive Line Coach Jim Turner] overheard and participated in this behavior toward Player A. During the 2012 Christmas season, Coach Turner gave all of the offensive linemen gift bags that included a variety of stocking stuffers. In each gift bag except for Player A’s, Turner included a female “blow-up” doll; Player A’s bag included a male doll.

Chris Culliver at The Trevor Project.

Chris Culliver at The Trevor Project.

The culture that evolved in Miami seems to be extreme, even by NFL standards, and a positive outcome for Michael Sam and other gay players is certainly possible. In the New York Times interview, Sam notes that he came out to his University of Missouri teammates during the summer of 2013, while the team was preparing for its season. The Missouri team and Sam individually received many accolades and much media attention—yet Sam’s teammates kept his secret the entire year. And his teammates clearly respect him—they voted him Most Valuable Player at the season’s end. The Missouri football team proved that a football locker room can indeed welcome and support a gay player. And in the NFL, many players who have publicly made homophobic remarks are responding to outreach groups hoping to educate those players. In fact, after Chris Culliver’s remarks sparked controversy in 2013, he not only apologized for his comments but also agreed to attend counseling with the Trevor Project so he could better understand why his comments were so widely criticized. Culliver not only followed through on that promise, but later spent a day volunteering at the Trevor Project. While a single day of volunteerism is a small step to be sure, if Culliver can make that step, who says the rest of the NFL isn’t ready? We may find out, if Michael Sam indeed begins his NFL career in May.

Macklemore, My Girlfriend, and Me

by Joyce Clapp

My girlfriend1 and I got into our first fight this week, over Macklemore.

I know, it sounds silly. But hear me out.

Macklemore

Macklemore on stage.

You know who Macklemore is; at this point, you’d likely have to be living under a rock not to know who he is. Macklemore has managed to get the issue of marriage equality on radio stations everywhere; I can’t turn on a pop/rock station around here in Greensboro and not hear “Same Love” playing at least once a day, if not more. The song has apparently become an anthem for the marriage equality fight, and I won’t lie; I went to the Macklemore show in Raleigh last fall (I am a fan, for sure). Hearing a stadium full of people singing along to “Same Love” (in a state that voted in Amendment One last year by a 61%-to-39% margin, with a 34% voter turnout, not that this is hardly the “overwhelming majority” many folks wanted to portray it as) had me sniffling as I sang too.

So, the issue of marriage equality is out in front of the entire country in a big way. In fact, in such a big way that same-sex couples2 were married on the Grammys recently. In addition, Macklemore seems to be a genuinely nice guy who cares about the issue of same-sex marriage. This is awesome, right? When even the straight white guy is making hip-hop music about how same-sex marriage should be legal, then it should be legal, right?

And therein lies the difficulty.

It is a sociological fact that minority groups need majority allies. Allies, after all, make laws; the very definition of a minority group is one that doesn’t have power in a society. If enough men hadn’t become convinced that women should be able to vote, we still wouldn’t be able to. If seven white men hadn’t looked at Loving v. Virginia and said…

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

…then we’d still live in a country that outlawed interracial marriage (and my girlfriend and I would be out of luck twice over).

The Supreme Court, [date].

The United States Supreme Court, 1967.

However, when a society only starts to pay attention to an issue when allies are the ones taking notice and pushing for social change, then we have a problem as minorities and as a society. When James Zwerg was beaten because of his participation in the Freedom Rides, people sat up and started paying attention—in other words, when a white guy got beaten up over racial civil rights. This is not to diminish the huge contributions that Zwerg and other white allies made to the Civil Rights Movement—but it does raise some problematic questions about power in society and why issues only seem “real” in society when majority group members join in. What does this do to the process of social change in a society? It can create a feeling of alienation among the very minorities the social movements are intended to help.

James Zwerg

James Zwerg in Alabama.

Which brings us back to Macklemore, my girlfriend, and me. My reaction to the Grammy event was, “Wow, that was sweet, and look, there’s same sex couples on TV. That’s pretty awesome. Maybe this is getting normalized, and where there’s normalcy, there’s social change” (I am, after all, first and foremost a sociology professor). Her reaction was, “Wow, what a publicity stunt designed to make CBS look good, and oh hey, who is this white straight dude making money off of same-sex marriage. I don’t want to be ‘normalized,’ I just want to get married.” My reaction to that was, “Yes, but until it’s legal everywhere, we don’t get to just get married, and who cares how this is getting done, as long as it’s getting done?” And we were off to the races.

Process versus product is a problem for any social movement. It’s easy for me to say, “by any means necessary”—in the end, I just want to be able marry my girlfriend, peacefully and legally. It is harder for her to say “by any means necessary” about a society that works to systematically marginalize her because of the groups she belongs to. Sociologists talk about intersectionality—the idea that all of our social identities interact to affect how society interacts with us, how we interact with society, and what kinds of inequalities we run into. In other words, it’s not just your race or gender orientation or sexual orientation that matter—all of these things matter when it comes to how we view the world, how it views us, and what hurdles we encounter. My race and social class and other identities added up to me going “Why does the process matter here, as long as it gets done and we get to get married in the end?”3

But process does matter. As social movements normalize and become more mainstream, those that are already marginalized in minority groups become even more marginalized. For example, Disney is releasing its first show featuring a same sex couple. Awesome, right?

Same-sex couple, per Disney.

Susan and Cheryl on Disney’s Good Luck Charlie.

Sure, there are blonde skinny white women who love women out there—and sometimes, they even hook up with each other, and they are as queer as anyone else; to say that white skinny blonde women can’t be queer would be missing the point.

But the more mainstream GLBTQIA2 issues get, the more the butch women and nelly queens and drag queens and trans* folks and genderqueer folks get marginalized (and forget people of color who are also queer—once you’re a minority within a minority within a minority, your voice gets drowned out). The more mainstream social change becomes, the more alienated the people at the edges of that change feel and are. After all, people who look straight aren’t as threatening to society, and it’s frustrating (at the least) to think that civil rights might be predicated on not appearing threatening. Nonetheless, that is how social change goes—after all, we don’t celebrate Malcolm X day. We do celebrate Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. day. One gentleman was seen as threatening, and the other, not so much (at least, the parts of Dr. King’s vision that we talk about; we talk about the “I have a dream” MLK, but not the anti-Vietnam MLK).

This post doesn’t have a nice neat ending. Social change never does. I was wrong to say that process doesn’t matter. This process is rapidly marginalizing many of the same people it was meant to help, and that does matter. It also matters that in talking about marriage, we’re ignoring other issues—trans* health care, the 40% of homeless youth in the U.S. that are GLBTQIA2, violence against trans* folks, or the fact that sexuality is not a federally protected employment class. We cannot marginalize large sections of our community in the quest for one (very important, but) issue. Process matters, and how we get to social changes matter. I was wrong to say that it didn’t, and in doing so, I pushed my future wife’s voice to the sideline.

We need allies. Allies are important to social change; they have power in society, and some of our allies care deeply and passionately about their minority friends, family, and loved ones (no matter what the issue in question is). However, we need to not have social movements where allies become the only faces on those social movements. We need a society where our culture encourages marginalized voices on the edges of marginalized communities to have a voice. How do we make that cultural change happen? I don’t know.

———

1. Sigh. Titles, when you’re queer, can get annoying. We’re engaged, and planning an August wedding. However, when I say “fiancé,” that erases the fact that we’re both women. Wife, on the other hand, will not have that issue. So right now, I still tend to refer to her as my girlfriend (even though, when we’re past the age of 35, that title also starts to feel silly).

2. Dear news media: we’re not all gay. Can we please stop referring to “gay couples”?

3. And we kind of can right now—we’ll be legally married in Maryland. That is both awesome and bittersweet.

On Sitting In, and Standing Up

by Jay Parr

I had a completely different blog entry ready to go this morning, but then I woke from a dream that got me thinking about something more important.

Woolworth's Sit-In

In the dream I was walking into a diner that was attached to a basic travel hotel. There were three or four young women — college athletes dressed in team sweatshirts or some such (you know how vague dreams can be) — sitting on the bench waiting to be seated. The host offered to seat me (and my companions?), when I pointed out that those young women had been there first.

That was when it came to my attention that the diner would not seat unaccompanied women.

I’m proud of my dream self, because I went ballistic. I started off ranting at the poor young host. He was, of course, just an employee, who could either do what he was told or find himself without even this subsistence-level job. In fact, as I pointed past him at the unoccupied counter seating, traditionally used by those who are eating “unaccompanied,” his face kind of looked like the the counter clerk’s in that famous image at the top of this post: Surely sympathetic (I mean, the guy in that picture couldn’t even eat at the counter where he worked), but in no position to even comment on the disparity, much less do anything about it.

Newt Gingrich being Very Important

Newt Gingrich being Very Important

 After a vague dream-transition I found myself talking to the man in charge. And a police officer. Both were white men. The manager/owner was older, white-haired, and reeked of privilege. Actually, looking back at the dream, he kind of reminds me of Newt Gingrich. He was spewing some nonsense about the morality of allowing unaccompanied young women to come into a family establishment and distract the poor unsuspecting fathers from their families. Because that’s obviously what these college athletes were up to, in their team sweatshirts, with no makeup on, hair pulled up in practical athletic ties, ignoring everyone else and talking shop amongst themselves. Surely it was all a ruse, and they were really there to steal me from my wife and daughter. Oh, and somehow it was their fault that I just might be too weak-willed to control myself? And of course, were I to have such a moment of weakness it would be inconceivable that they might, you know, reject my advances or something.

The cop had been called because some hothead was making a scene.

That’s about all I remember of the dream. That and something about large vehicles getting tangled up at highway speeds (anxiety much?). But as I was setting the coffee to brew this morning I started wondering what I really would have done, had I found myself in a similar situation, say, perhaps at that Woolworth’s counter down on Elm Street on that Monday afternoon in the winter of ’60. I like to think I would have pointed out those four scared but stoic freshmen and politely said, “They were here before me; I’ll wait until they’ve been served.” I mean, I know I wouldn’t have been among the hecklers shouting racist epithets (I’ve always been a little too Quaker for that), but would I have just quietly gotten my order and gone on with my day? Would I have gone home and mentioned the incident to my wife? Would I have been among the Woman’s College (UNCG) or Guilford College students who came downtown to clog the counters with white “customers” insisting that the the black protesters be served first? Or would I have been too busy supporting my family (or perhaps “too busy supporting my family”) to do much more than follow the articles in the newspaper?

pride_flag

The Pride Flag, because not all families are heteronormative.

I definitely connect that issue with North Carolina’s “Amendment One” vote last May. I was vocally against it, not just because I support same-sex marriage (which I do), but all the more so because its wording is so much broader and insidious that it affects any unmarried couple in the state, gay or straight. Oh, and their children.

I learned of the bill’s introduction in the state legislature shortly after an old coworker of mine lost his partner of thirty years and had to endure absurd legal challenges because the state considered my marriage — my second marriage, mind you, which was less than three years old at the time and had been performed in another state — more valid than his decades-long partnership, which had begun before my wife was even born. She and I have been flying a pride flag on our house since the referendum bill passed in the legislature. It’s a small gesture, but it’s how we feel about the issue.

UNCG students having fun at at a Muslim Student Association picnic.

UNCG students having fun at at a Muslim Student Association picnic.

The fact that those being denied service in my dream were women also points (albeit circuitously) to mainstream America’s complicated and uncomfortable relationship with Islamic nations, Muslim Americans, and Islam in general. I have a problem with any legal system or culture that limits the options of any group merely by virtue of their membership in that group. That goes for nations that curtail the rights of women — some of which do so on religious grounds, and some of which (not all the same ones) are Islamic nations — but it also goes for western nations and institutions that want to limit the rights of Muslim women to wear hijab, niqab, or even burqas. My wife has childhood friends, two sisters, who are Muslim. One of the sisters is divorced from an abusive husband — and the Muslim divorce was a lot simpler than the American legal divorce. The other sister once set aside the injunction against being alone with a man other than her husband, simply so that her sister’s childhood friend’s husband (i.e., yours truly) didn’t have to sit and wait alone. Brought me delicious cardamom tea and we had a delightful conversation amidst the din of playing children. Southern hospitality at its finest. These women are American born and raised. They are not oppressed by a misogynistic culture (well, that’s debatable, but that’s a whole different conversation). Their choice to wear hijab is not a symptom of their oppression, but an expression of their cultural identity. Yes, there are women who wear hijab (and niqab, and burqas) because they are legally bound to do so by oppressive theocratic legal systems. Yes, there are places in the world where unaccompanied women cannot be seated in a restaurant, or drive a car, or even walk down the street, because those in power have deemed it inappropriate. And yes, there are radical Muslim elements that view America(ns) as the godless enemy. But we can’t allow ourselves to conflate an expression of religious and cultural identity (wearing hijab) with sympathy for oppressive governments or violent radicals. Really. It makes as much sense to declare anyone with a crucifix or a rosary in league with the IRA bombers (and don’t get me started on how our media always point out the religious affiliation of “Islamic terrorists” but never that of Christian terrorists). But I digress.

I suppose this post could be an examination of my responsibilities as one who benefits from the privilege of the straight white male, or more broadly, the responsibilities of anyone who benefits from the privilege of majority status. Because I really do feel that whenever I encounter situations in which someone is being denied equal treatment or equal access to resources because of their gender — or their race, or their economic background, or their sexual identity, or their cultural identity, or their citizenship status — that it is my responsibility to call attention to the disparity, to voice my opposition to it, and to subvert it in any way that I can. And I guess that’s why, even in that dream that got me started on this rambling post, I caused enough of a ruckus that someone called the cops. Because really, it’s what I think any of us should do.

What bothers me most, though, is that it never occurred to me to simply say of those unaccompanied girls, “Oh, they’re with me.”