An End to Hypocricy?

[Uncle Al]

This is one of our local sports casters, tellin' it like it is,

Dale Hansen Unplugged:Celebrating Our Differences.......

This segment took Dale to The Ellen Show
Hero Reporter Dale Hansen On The Ellen Show Full Interview HD

This can and MUST be applied to Men in skirts
Bring an end to ALL double standards in what people wear

Uncle Al

[dillon]

That was fantastic, Al...what America needs to hear more often!

[BobM]

How insecure do you have to be to crave public approval for your lifestyle choices?

So the player is gay. So what? Who gives a damn? Why is his orientation news? And why is it worthy of an appearance on Ellen as if this sportscaster was some kind of folk hero. He is nothing of the kind. He is an apologist, and nothing more. But then, given Ellen's own personal life, I can see why she wanted this guy on to blow the trumpet.

[skirtyscot]

That is probably the most unpleasant comment I have read on SkirtCafe.

You've no idea whether the player craves public approval or not. There could be all sorts of reasons for him to come out. Maybe he was forced into it.

If American sportsmen and sports fans are anything like British ones, I think you'll find that a lot of people give a damn. Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Fashanu and tell me that things are so different now in the USA.

Ellen Degeneres' career nosedived after she came out. It took her years to get back to where she had been. I reckon she was right to say that the gay rights movement needs heterosexual advocates like Dale Hansen to help to reduce homophobia. (I paraphrase.) They have no vested interest.

[crfriend]

That is probably the most unpleasant comment I have read on SkirtCafe.

Part of the issue there is, I believe, that the mere concept of homosexuality remains a "hot-button" issue, even more-so than that of race -- and, sadly, the USA seems to be somewhat stuck in the Dark Ages about the matter.

Personally, I look at the deeds of an individual and his accomplishments as being the body of his character, for it is his (or her) actions that leave a lasting impact on the world and society. What an individual does in their "downtime" is their business and their business alone. Whither privacy?

If a guy shows up someplace with another guy on his arm (or a gal with another gal), so be it -- it actually turns out that those of us who wear skirts are much less common (and possibly more likely to cause a ruckus) than homosexual folks. We stick out.

I don't know the precise details of what happened that prompted the guy to "come out", and I honestly don't much care because that's his business, not mine. If he's an ace football (US) player, then that's what counts -- recall that it's the actions that carry weight and meaning. If this makes the other blokes in the locker-room wonder about things, then that's their problem.

I quite liked the sportscaster's commentary. Why is it that we put up with some really horrific behavior patterns with these people and then draw a bright line at which sex somebody fancies? Rather queer, no?

[dillon]

So the player is gay. So what? Who gives a damn? Why is his orientation news?

Bob, apparently people do give a damn, since the immediate reaction within the league was that "coming out" hurt Sam's position in the draft. I think the Hansen commentary made the rest of the reason pretty apparent with regard to how this news was received compared to the various crimes and abhorrent behavior of so many other pro athletes. I applaud Sam because he chose not to live a lie, when keeping his silence might have netted him another million dollars in his future career. And yes, it is hardly a surprise that Hansen was interviewed and cheered on Ellen, and loudly berated on Fox and Limbaugh.

A better question might be why anyone should give a damn about a bunch of coddled, overpaid thugs just because they can run with a football and graduate college functionally illiterate. Personally, I don't plan to get to the end of my life saying "Oh, if only I could watch one more hour of football and the twenty-two minutes of beer,razor blade, and car insurance ads contained in it..." Nor do I plan to reach that moment feeling as though I stood on the sidelines when I could have made at least a small difference in furthering a just cause that WILL ultimately prevail.

Regardless of all the scoffing on Fox News tunnel-vision, one thing is undeniable: gay, and gender-identity rights are, along with gerrymandering and voter suppression, the preeminent civil rights issues of this decade. I'll take my stand on the side of enhancing liberty and tolerance in this country, both socially and legally, and will oppose theocrats at every juncture I can. It is, for me, a matter that affects both old friends and younger members of my own family.

Frankly, I cannot fathom how anyone can support, morally or intellectually, the idea that two citizens should pay the same taxes, live under the same laws, and yet not be accorded the same rights, protections, and privileges, just because of whom one of those citizens NATURALLY loves.

Yes, Michael Sam will be drafted at some level, and play in the NFL, and make lots of money. And Dale Hansen will be remembered for a well composed and delivered commentary that touched the national conscience, and will probably go on to write a best-seller. They both will be just fine.

But what of the millions who cannot truly breath freedom because of states like ours where bigotry is institutionalized by unethical tactics of pandering politicians? Case in point is how our Republican-controlled legislature put the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage on the 2012 PRIMARY ballot, instead of the general election, because they knew that, with only a GOP presidential contest on that ballot, more Republicans would be drawn out than Democrats, assuring passage of that repugnant and shameful amendment. Down east, we have a two-word name for such tactics, and the first word is "chicken"; need I say the second?

[BobM]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, me included. If some find my comment "unpleasant", c'est la vie. I am also keenly aware that a great many people think there should be no rejection of anything that can be wrapped in the cloak of 'civil rights' even though doing that has more to do with perceived self righteous "tolerance" than it does with real civil rights. I could not possibly care less what that young man does with himself; it is his business. What I do care about is the presumption that since he may have to deal with the consequences of his choices there is somehow injustice waiting in the wings.

Dillon, I agree with your comments on football and gerrymandering. But by "voter suppression" I bet you don't mean the Black Panthers with truncheons outside polling places intimidating opposing voters, but rather an I.D. requirement. Have you noticed that even the NAACP requires picture I.D. at their events? Ask yourself why the Left does not want voters identified. There is only one answer, and it it not "suppression".

Carl, if this is too political please just take it down.

[dillon]

As I indicated, I am not overly concerned about Michael Sam's future. He did the right thing by not withholding his orientation until it became a scandal, as it eventually would have. What does concern me is the disparate treatment of NC citizens in the state-granted institution of lawful marriage, with restrictions based solely on sexual orientation. It smacks of theocracy and old-school bigotry. Can you actually find anything admirable about either of those?

Personally, I have not seen any evidence of a revival of the Black Panthers, and this is the first time I have heard it suggested that they did such things in NC; I will have to research further to verify this claim. But I have personally encountered so-called "poll-watchers" stationed to "observe" (discourage) would-be voters. Since documented fraud is extremely rare, I feel that anyone who makes the effort to participate in our elections shouldn't have to face hostile scrutiny, whether via enforced law or merely implied threat. In fact the most likely case of election abuse in recent US history resulted in the election of George W. Bush, when armed thugs prevented FL election workers in the process of making determinations on the votes cast on punch-card ballots.

As one you clearly intend to label "Left" I can only ask why the "Right" is so fearful of minority participation in elections that they must make the voting process increasingly difficult for those with limited resources or transportation, or immigrant citizens who may not be confident with English, let alone legalese? It seems to imply something about deeply held racial feelings that I suspect they might find unflattering under self-reflection.

In NC, the ID requirement is but one of the onerous efforts to reduce minority participation in elections. The legislature ended same-day registrations, now requiring two separate efforts by voters to exercise their democratic rights. The next was reducing the number of days of early voting; early voting being conducive to increased participation of poor and minorities, since flexibility in voting benefits those with service industry work schedules. In my county, there was only one location for early voting; the cost of staffing was negligible; this was not a cost-saving measure. Then the legislature totally eliminated early voting on Sundays; this move was clearly intended to prevent African-American churches from organizing large groups of voters after church services on Sunday afternoons and helping them get to the polling places.

The next effort on the GOP horizon will be to attempt what Florida attempted, that is a purge of voter lists, knowing that many who are challenged, justly or unjustly, will simply say "F--- it" and not even attempt to jump all the hurdles placed before them. This is the tactic of using bureaucracy to make the process of registration so inconvenient or incomprehensible that voters of limited literacy, or limited resources, or limited time, simply give up trying and accept disenfranchisement as their lot in life.

We both know the name of the game this legislature is playing, Bob. Why pretend it is anything other than what it obviously is? As for the "cloak of civil rights", certainly voting rights are among our most fundamental civil rights, are they not? No, this is not Mississippi, ca. 1963...but today's voter suppression is far more insidious than the flagrant hatred of that era. There were, after all, no billionaires providing 24/7 high-tech applause over airwaves and internet for the KKK in 1963. I will continue to work against those who want to turn back the clock on voting rights, and will also be waiting to see how many white voters are turned away for not providing an ID...

But, to get to the point, yes, I certainly do class the right for a competent adult to freely marry another competent adult of either sex as a VERY FUNDAMENTAL civil rights issue. Such prejudice will not long withstand our national conscience or our evolving sense of justice. NC's prohibition of same-sex marriage is as wrong as our old miscegenation laws, struck down by courts for decades now. On this matter, at least, theocrats will not long prevail.

[crfriend]

Gentlemen,

I do not want to throw water on this, but it's now way off-topic for the forum and is veering into space that has shown high probabilities of inciting flame-wars in the past. Please cool it on the politics.

From a practical perspective, my personal style is to use the prohibition on politics and religion as a guideline rather than a hard-and-fast rule. This allows occasional forays into the matter where it's more or less relevant to the mission of the forum -- or there is direct connection to that mission. However, the mission of the forum isn't about voters' rights, nor is it about the proposal of universality of marriage irrespective of sexual alignment; those topics are already quite well covered elsewhere, nor are those topics universal amongst the countries of the world (the USA is only one of many, recall).

Thanks.

[Sinned]

Well said. You were right to put out a cautionary note. Religion, politics and guns are a few of the topics to stay clear from. The tone of the posts was getting increasingly vehement and personally as a non-USA resident I don't want to know about such things in NC thousands of miles way. The issue of voting rights in NC pales in comparison to trying to get MOH to accept my skirts!