 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
The Time Has Come
Last week's unseemly developments involving St. Louis Blues center Mike Danton, his agent, a young women, the FBI and an alleged murder-for-hire plot seem to have prompted a bit of discussion about a topic that some sports people really, really don't want to deal with: the gay athlete.
At this point (Thursday, April 22) it is unclear (to me, at least, because I haven't done all that much looking into it) whether Danton is gay, and whether he had a relationship with the man whom he allegedly wanted killed (it may or may not have been his agent, David Frost). What IS clear is that the concept of a professional athlete who may be willing to have someone killed in order to avoid being outed seems to be one of the less surprising aspects of this story.
Again, I have no earthly idea what's going on between Danton and Frost, having never heard of either man until I read about them in "Sports Illustrated" on Wednesday. From what I've read about the relationship between the two, be it a gay or a straight one, it's pretty ugly business and it doesn't really concern me.
What does concern me is the notion that the current athletic climate may not be ready to accept an out-of-the-closet homosexual in one of the four major sports. Not being a professional athlete myself or knowing any personally, it's difficult for me to get a sense of how a gay player would be received by teammates. I do have a good idea how he would be received by fans; he'd be okay, actually. Relative to what he might expect, at least. I think that the over-sensitive, namby-pamby, political-correctness-above-all-else culture we now inhabit would finally be of some use, as any drunken lout who feels the need to harass a gay player verbally or otherwise would be forcefully dissuaded by ballpark/arena security and by fellow fans alike.
I'm not saying it would be any picnic; things would be written about him and shouted at him that he wouldn't like. Hell, I'd make fun of him on this website (that's what I do. You don't get a pass because you're gay. It's a sign of respect, really. Just because you didn't choose to be gay doesn't mean you're off the hook; Ryan Leaf didn't choose to suck, and you don't see me going easy on him. I've got to come up with six ideas every week, and it's not as easy as it sounds). But the public at large would be in his corner should he face any adversity. Remember how crazy everybody went -- and rightly so -- over Matthew Shepard? Even if someone happens to hate gay people, who needs that?
[incidentally, this is where the comparison between a gay ballplayer and Jackie Robinson falls apart. Robinson's debut with the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1947 predated -- and maybe even hastened -- the full force of the modern civil rights movement. Gays are not a persecuted minority in this country; they're better educated than straight people and they make more money. Sure, a gay person is persecuted from time to time, and that's terrible. But gays, as a minority group, are about as unpersecuted as unpersecuted gets.
Also, and this is so obvious that I almost feel silly pointing it out: everyone can tell you're black just by looking at you. Jeff Garcia notwithstanding, the same is not true of gay people. You can decide not to let people know you're gay; black people don't have that option.
So. The idea that it's like Jackie Robinson is, to me, an invalid one. That's really apropos of nothing, but nobody's said that before (or, I haven't read where anybody said that before; I'm sure SOMEBODY said it somewhere), and I wanted to]
The other question is: is it really a big deal? Certain former athletes, such as football player Esera Tuaolo and baseball player Billy Bean, have come out since they retired, and have been met with respect and approval by the public. Many suspect, all kidding aside, that the aforementioned Jeff Garcia may be gay -- many have suspected as such for some time -- and he became a Pro Bowler (that is, a football player selected to the Pro Bowl; not someone who earns his living by competing in bowling tournaments. Different thing). John Rocker made insensitive comments about gays; look what happened to him. Suspended, demoted, vilified (and not a tear shed for him). Is it really a big deal to have an out, active player? Aren't we doing fine as it is?
Yes. No. Yes, it's a big deal. No, we're not doing fine as it is. Tuaolo and Bean say, in so many words, that they feared for their careers and possibly for their personal safety while they were active players. The idea that a gay athlete has anything to be afraid of beyond sexually explicit but well-intended jibes from teammates, a few shouts from rowdy fans and the occasional distasteful missive from a homophobic writer is downright tragic. Years from now, our grandchildren will marvel at the barbarism of an early 21st century sports culture that would actually cause a gay man to fear for his safety.
The banner of tolerance is large enough to encompass a wide spectrum of personal beliefs; I happen to be against the idea of state sanctioned same-sex marriage. I also find it baffling that anybody, including my wife, could possibly, under any circumstances, ever want to have sex with a man. But a gay person can be a good person, and anyone who tells you differently quite obviously has a serious problem.
The time for the gay professional athlete has come, but, in my opinion, the responsibility is not his. It's the straight athletes'. American culture has become accepting enough of homosexuals -- if not homosexuality -- that gay entertainers, businessmen and politicians can be out and be successful. Young gay athletes need to be made to feel that the same is true of the world of sports. How much crap do you think a gay athlete would get from his fellow players if a team leader like Brett Favre or Derek Jeter make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that such behavior would be considered unacceptable?
It's up to sports itself to make that happen.
The sooner the better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
