Back in August, a Maryland state delegate wrote a letter to the Baltimore Ravens owner about comments Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo ha made in favor of a Maryland ballot initiative that would legalize gay marriage.
Delegate Emmett C. Burns, Jr. stated in his letter that the Ravens owner should "inhibit such expressions from your employee." That comment urges a gagging of Ayanbadejo's freedom of speech and his letter was taken to task by Kluwe.
I have long admired Kluwe for his punting skills and I also admire him for having such conviction when it comes to a cause. I can definitely relate. What I do not admire him for is, the way he addressed the Delegate in his letter to him. He wrote Delegate Burns a scathing letter (OK so far) that was so profanity-laced as to make it lose all credibility. Kluwe is obviously a well-educated man who writes quite well, but his use of profanity caused me to almost ignore the points he was trying to make...and they were not without merit.
Below this story, in the comments section, was a well-written response from a Catholic Conservative who tried to explain why he was against gay marriage without being at all anti-gay. He had commented that Kluwe's letter, with all of its profanity, actually came across as more hateful than the delegate's letter had. He told of how he raises his children to respect everyone and not bully or call names, etc. He focused on his teaching his children about marriage between a woman and a man and why he considered that the only proper marriage. Again, it was well-written, respectful, and asked for Kluwe's response.
The immediate response, from a gay man, was the only time I had ever seen a respectfully written response to a traditional marriage view. He kindly and clearly gave his counter to the post.
Unfortunately, the next response given was the usual, hatred filled degrading of the gentleman. In response to the Catholic Conservative's post, he said that "hate is defined only as a failure to embrace progressive values, and that tone or language is irrelevant as long as you're on the right-minded side of an issue." Well, I guess that eliminates other points of view then. I guess we are all expected to think alike and not have differing opinions. By his statement, I guess I am a hateful person because I do not prescribe to a lot of progressive views. That will make some of my former, liberal friends happy to hear. Maybe, instead, liberals are hatefilled since I do not think they are on the "right-minded side of an issue". Of course, that is crazy thinking.
I reflected on the anger and name calling involved in these letters and posts and in conversations I have had in the past where I have been called these types of names. I concluded that the difference between me, or someone like me, and the liberal person, is that I have no real dog in the fight. Let me narrow this a bit though. The liberal person, or the progressive, must be homosexual for my conclusion to work. You cannot just support the liberal view.
I am married, I have all the legal rights, etc. I am not being told my love for someone is not valid in the state's eyes. I have no emotional attachment to the argument I make for traditional marriage, at least not to the level that a gay man or woman may have. I truly do understand the position taken in support of gay-marriage, but that doesn't mean I don't still feel strongly that traditional marriage should be protected and something other than same-sex marriage should be considered. It simply means that I better understand why I, and folks like me, are attacked with such ferocity when we share and defend our views. I still think that behavior is childish and self-defeating, but I understand why it happens.
If only that anger could be calmed so as not to shut my ears or cause me to focus on something other than the issue at hand, such as Kluwe's letter had, then maybe my peers and I would be more willing to listen. Hard to do when your view is under childish attack.
No comments:
Post a Comment