OT - NBA Player Jason Collins - "I'm a 34-year-old NBA center. I'm black. And I'm gay." [Locked]
Here's the SI article where NBA Center Jason Collins comes out.
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/magazine/news/20130429/jason-collins-gay-nba-player/#ixzz2Rrq92saZ
EDIT: Mods feel free to delete if this is too political. If you've come to discuss the merits of gay rights and such, please just stop here. There are plenty of other message boards where that can be done.
Mod edit: The relevant sports related stuff seemed to get hashed out earlier, but the latest comments are starting to sound more political, so I'm shutting it down before it gets too far out of hand. After 200+ comments there probably isn't much more to say anyway, at least not enough to make any potential headaches worthwhile. JGB.
April 29th, 2013 at 11:46 AM ^
This might get removed on politics grounds but I hope it doesn't - this is a momentous day.
April 29th, 2013 at 11:47 AM ^
I hope this doesn't turn into a debate on gay rights and such. Just thought it was interesting to the world of sports. Not to mention, pretty grounbreaking.
April 29th, 2013 at 12:00 PM ^
I seriously wonder if MGoBlog was around during Jackie Robinson's days, would they have removed any thread pertaining to him breaking the color barrier on "no politics" grounds?
April 29th, 2013 at 12:43 PM ^
They were still playing baseball. People could talk about baseball.
Then again, it might not have been so offtopic; Jackie Robinson was a very good halfback for UCLA.
And it fell into the realm of "Michigan Alumni News," since Branch Rickey was a U-M law grad and our baseball coach for a while.
April 29th, 2013 at 11:57 AM ^
Some things are above politics. I haven't seen a single, educated person of importance denounce this. And something tells me we won't.
Hopefully the days of this being a political issue are in the past.
April 29th, 2013 at 12:46 PM ^
If you've come to discuss the merits of gay rights and such, please just stop here.
What else was the point of posting the story? In the largest sense, it is a gay rights story, isn't it? I've never even heard of the guy as a player, although I confess to not following the NBA much.
It's a news story. It wasn't posted to get people's thoughts on why, for example, gay marriage should be legalized.
It was about Senator Carl Levin's decision to retire at the end of his term. I posted it because I wondered if Dave Brandon could be a candidate for that office. This was within a couple of hours of the news. There was no reporting on it at that point. I posted the Levin story, with a caution to all that it not be turned into a partisan political argument. I didn't think that it was even possible at that early point to debate anything. There was no election, and there weren't even any candidates, much less any political positions.
My thread was taken down by the MGoMods as violative of the "No politics" rule.
But it was news. And potentially a sea-change for the Michigan Athletics Department. I had been right; Brandon considered it:
Then, days later, some newspaper in Detroit says that Brandon has ruled it out. Okay.
My "political" story was taken down in the midst of a potential history-making change for the very subject matter of this blog, Michigan athletics.
Meanwhile, this current political story about Jason Collins seems to be staying up.
Mind you, it is not as though I would campaign to have this thread taken down. I just have to wonder what standard would require the removal of my earlier thread but not this one.
Please stop making this about you. Thanks.
Do you have any better examples of what may be permitted and prohibited under the apparently-fluid "no politics" rule(s)?
That's kind of the issue here. That a pro-gay human interest story is presumed way beyond the realm of political.
Copy and pasting Jason Collins' statement of sexual orientation is not an endorsement, nor a condemnation.
...Just as I posted the news of Levin's retirement, the possible Democratic candidates to replace him, the possible Republican candidates to replace him, and the inclusion of Dave Brandon in the latter group. It wasn't an endorsement or a condemnation of anything.
According to you: "I wondered if Dave Brandon could be a candidate for that office."
That's not news, thats you wondering, speculating. You don't cite any facts, sources, etc.
Only after the fact as a kind of justification for your hunch. Even then, it's a pretty shallow item.
Was your thread focus about Dave Brandon possibly needing to be replaced? or was it about the race itself.? (I have no idea, I didn't read it)
The obvious answer for today is that Jason Collin's news is Sports News with a barrier-breaking cultural aspect to it.
Your beloved Brandon story was a political story with (possible) general Michigan athletic dept. ramifications.
If you can afford section1 tickets, you should be smart enough to see the difference.
The obvious answer for today is that Jason Collin's news is Sports News with a barrier-breaking cultural aspect to it.
Your beloved Brandon story was a political story with (possible) general Michigan athletic dept. ramifications.
Since you didn't read my Brandon/Senate thread, I can tell you; it didn't contain any personal editorializing by me. Not even any judgment pro or con, political or non-political, about Brandon's apolitical job as AD. And, as I said, I cautioned against any political argument. It was about Dave Brandon's future avocation. I recall the mods actually regarded my OP in that case as a very close call. One said that they'd allow it to be revived if events/news/reporting merited it.
And yes, my own wondering about Brandon as a Senate candidate wasn't any sort of news reporting by me. Since when did we limit the Board to news reporting by members, with or without two corroborated sources? It turned out to be news just a few days later. I was prescient in that regard.
The fact that Jason Collins' personal column has a "barrier-breaking cultural aspect," apparently intended to provoke (and clearly successful in provoking) a wide scale celebration/pos bang says to me that this was less about hard news and more about a kind of groupthink affirmation of all of the blog's members with similar politics. Just look at a general sample of the posts, well more than a hundred now. They are mostly in the nature of "Yay! Victory for gay rights!" Isn't that pretty plain? Is that somehow unclear? Again, you didn't see me demanding that the thread be taken down. Just me asking, how is this not political?
April 29th, 2013 at 11:46 AM ^
I might be risking Bolivia by posting what amounts to a political statement on this, but I'm so happy this day has finally come, and I'm hopeful that Collins is met by nothing but love and support by his teammates when next season starts.
April 29th, 2013 at 12:09 PM ^
April 29th, 2013 at 12:42 PM ^
In today's society, making any statement in support of or opposing a gay person or gay people in general has the potential to be seen as a political statement. Homosexuality is a divisive issue.
How is it not?
I'll give you $5 if you can explain how 2 consenting adults deciding to bang each other is in any way political.
Or money order?
Cash, check, money order, paypal, tulips, pogs, or shrutebucks, your choice if you can meet the requirements.
Monica Lewinsky...
but I only accept payment in Bitcoin.
April 29th, 2013 at 12:24 PM ^
and not meant to be a slight in anyway, it's just really about my lack of knowledge surrounding the subject. Is this the first guy to come out in the NBA or something? I mean, in hockey there have a few players who came out (and some quite long ago, Stephane Richer (sp?) for one who played back in the late 80's if I remember correctly) with little fanfare and even less controversy.
I guess since in my little world where the thought of someone being gay stopped being surprising 25 years ago, it makes me wonder why this is such big news now? Maybe we are just really progressive here (I seriously doubt it but...) or something but I just figured professional sport was on the same level (in terms of acceptance and understanding) where homosexuality was concerned.
Again, I could be completely wrong here as I just never gave it much of a thought, but the idea that this happening is anywhere near Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier just seems off to me. Is this a big deal in 2013 (I mean to the public at large and professional sport, obviously it is a very big deal for this gentleman and his family).
April 29th, 2013 at 12:40 PM ^
I might be wrong, but I think he is the first active athlete to openly come out as gay.
April 29th, 2013 at 12:52 PM ^
Did she come out while she was still actively playing? (And close to the top of her game....not the seniors tour or whatever)
I didn't know the answer. But according to her Wikipedia page, she came out in 1981. Her last Grand Slam title was in 1975, but she continued to play singles until 1983 and doubles until 1990. So, it looks like she was definitely past her prime when she came out.
Actually, it says she was outed due to the palimony suit, which forced her back to playing for financial reasons.
Not sure about that, but the first openly gay, "active" athlete in the NBA at least. I say "active" because he's unsigned at the moment and is getting up there in age, so it's entirely possible retirement is the next step.
My understanding is that he is the first active, "big name" sport athlete to come out. So yeah, not necessarily the first one in a Big 4 sport, but the first to technically still be employed as a professional athlete when he came out.
but I think it is the first in the USA. As I said in my post, Stephane Richer (who was an NHL hockey player in the late 80's I believe) came out while still playing. I am pretty sure there is another NHLer who did as well, but since I don't know for certain I won't mention who I thought it was.
He's the first active *team* athlete. The team part is critical, because the whole "locker room mentality" is one thing that has kept LGBT athletes in the closet for so long.
April 29th, 2013 at 12:40 PM ^
It's huge that it's a big deal, but it's also huge in that we have to ask "is this a big deal?" Society has come a long ways in just 10 years, when this would be unthinkable. Maybe most of us are accepting and tolerating of this kind of act these days, but there are still pockets of people who are absolutely reviled by what Jason Collins did today. And the more exposure something like this gets, the more those pockets gradually disappear.
April 29th, 2013 at 12:49 PM ^
We live in a country where a Supreme Court Justice can put homosexuality and murder on the same scale of moral turpitude and not be censured for jeopardizing his impartiality.
We live in a country where the pervading notion is that homosexuality is either a personal choice or a disease and millions of dollars are poured into "gay therapy" that's demonstrably less effective than abstinence-only sex education in its goal.
We live in a country where it was barely 30 years ago when Anita Bryant attempted to get all gay teachers in California fired and came incredibly close to realizing this goal.
We live in a country where homosexuals had to mask themselves to serve in the military until a year and a half ago.
We live in a country where the very RUMOR that a potential professional athlete (Te'o) could be gay led to a bunch of NFL franchises investigating the sexual orientation of all their potential draftees.
So yes, this is a pretty big deal.
April 29th, 2013 at 12:57 PM ^
a big deal for gay rights and acceptance of homosexuality in sports, but for me, it is just further proof that there is actually nothing in the world that can make me care about the NBA anymore. Nothing. Amazing.
April 29th, 2013 at 12:57 PM ^
We live in a country where a Supreme Court Justice can put homosexuality and murder on the same scale of moral turpitude and not be censured for jeopardizing his impartiality.
I'm a lawyer, and that's news to me. I was hoping that you could give us a cite, if it is from an opinion, or a quote, if it is from a book or a speech.
Do you want me to give you the cite for Justice Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas? It won't help you.
King of Westeros, believes it "a perversion worthy of execution." That should precedent enough for anybody.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/11/nation/la-na-nn-scalia-laws-homosexuality-murder-20121211
Scalia said this to a Princeton student during a speech. The student referenced Lawrence v. Texas, but also referenced the more relevant Romer v. Evans.
know you are stretching. He is basically saying you cannot have a discussion of the morality of something without at least stipulating that the issue in question poses a moral question, however big or small.
The gist of what you posted is fine, but when you go ahead and use stupid-ass examples like homosexuality (which shouldn't be involved in moral discussions) and murder (which should most definitely be involved in moral discussions), you do yourself no favors. When you look at Scalia's track record, it's pretty clear where he stands.
You could just quote him.
Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one’s fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’s views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts–or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them–than I would forbid it to do so.
Lawrence v Texas, 539 U.S. 558 at 604; 123 S.Ct. 2472 at 2497 (2003).
Take out the first paragraph of my big post. Doesn't change much. Screw off.
I knew that you would run back to the Lawrence dissent, and Scalia's self-defense of that dissent.
Scalia, assuredly, made no value judgment about homosexuality, in either Lawrence or Romer. Legislators made value judgments, but that is what legislators do. About a wide variety of social acts, social wrongs, etc. Courts review those laws based on rules of Constitutional interpretation. Not on the basis of what is "right" or "wrong" or "progressive." And in the case of Romer, it wasn't even a legislative initiative. It was a popular vote by the elecorate of an entire state.
Read ALL of Scalia's Lawrence dissent. Read ALL of Romer. I have seen video of Scalia's speech at Pinceton.
You misquoted him. The LA Times probably would have loved to misquote him too, if they could get away with it. But their bare adherence to some semblance of standards demanded that they quote Scalia's larger discussion in Lawrence, and even then they scarcely did it any justice.
So here we are in what a lot of people might call "a political debate." Which you initiated.
A blatant lie, a mischaracterization, and then blame for something I DID NOT start. I was answering a honest question.
If this isn't trolling, I don't know what is.
You brought up the subject of a "Supreme Court justice."
You did so, in the process of advancing your own sociopolitical view on the general subject matter of gay rights.
I quoted Scalia, when you failed to.
You didn't have to respond.
Funny, you accused me of misquoting Scalia when I never actually quoted him.
Also, if you look at that big post (with the first paragraph redacted), it's just a list of facts. The guy who asked the question wanted to know more about stigma towards homosexuality in this country, and I provided some answers.
I would argue that being a giant dick on a thread where being a giant dick is unwarranted and unrelated to the OP is infinitely more blame-worthy for this.
But did it in a completely political way. Even if one agrees with your point, you turned this thread into exactly what was requested it not be, and violates the board rules, and quite possibly risked it being taken off the board entirely. In the process, you left bait for the trolls.
Yeah, I'm not going to get too deep into this debate because it feels like it is veering off the goal of the post, but I have to agree that railing against Scalia in this instance is unnecessary. I am not a fan of his particular view on jurisprudence, but the dissent in Lawrence was more an attack on the Court's circuitous route to invalidating the law than any great stated distaste for homosexuality. As is often said, bad facts made bad law, and in this case it was a difficult series of facts that forced a decision that felt right despite it creating a difficult precedence.
I think the bigger issue with Scalia's Lawrence dissent is that he repeatedly alludes to this menacing behemoth of "the homosexual agenda." Maybe characterizing the LGBT community as politically powerful and insidiously effective doesn't seem like such a big deal, but imagine if it had been "the Jewish agenda" or "the Latino agenda."
(But I'm just a second-year law student so I'm basically talking out of my ass here.)