Here's a different take on the Sandy Koufax brouhaha (see my
March 2 posting), from Bob Conrad of Chicago. His full letter is
now in the IGF Mailbag,
but he writes in part:
Perhaps because of your sensitivity to gay issues, I think you're really missing the main points of the New York Post/Sandy Koufax story. The blind item to which Koufax responded by leaving the Dodgers did not suggest that he was gay. It suggested that he was a gay coward, succumbing to political blackmail, agreeing to cooperate with a biographer lest she reveal a personal secret.
Sure, Koufax is known as a heterosexual, but he is better known as a man of heroic principle, historically able to stand up for his rights as a minority against even the strongest pressures of the times. The implication of cowardice is an insult, even where the insinuation of gayness is not. ".
By all accounts, he was prepared to [respond] with all the grace and dignity of a silent protest. He did not, like [Mets catcher Mike] Piazza, find it necessary to hold a press conference reconfirming his heterosexuality, thereby perpetuating the slur against homosexuals that such an action implies. --
I"d still argue that since the press did blow this story up, the lack of even a perfunctory "not that there's anything wrong with that" from Koufax indicates, as might be expected from a man of his generation, he was reacting to the accusation of being gay rather than merely to the insinuation that he was closeted and thus unprincipled.
By the way, if you're in New York or traveling there soon, I recommend the new play "Take My Out" by Richard Greenberg, which I enjoyed during its pre-Broadway run. It's about a major league star who comes out -- and the repercussions. It couldn't be more timely.
Court of Law, or People's Court?
I have also been asked how I can argue (as in my earlier posting, below) that anti-gay media personalities are best countered through public debate rather than advertising boycotts and other censorship-like tactics meant to cut off discussion, while, on the other hand, insisting that courts should grant gays the right to marry by judicial decree, as opposed to winning that right in the court of public opinion and through legislative action. Isn't that being inconsistent?
I'll respond by saying that while the role of courts should be
limited in many regards, guaranteeing basic constitutional
liberties to minorities is, in fact, one of their core roles. And
the right to wed (now before
a Massachusetts court), as well as the right to adopt (now
before a
Florida court), is premised on the guarantee of equal treatment
under the law, without government discrimination. It's true that
public opinion can't be ignored or else, as I've noted, we could
face anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendments that could set
back the cause of equality for years. But I don't think our
constitutional system was intended to allow the majority to
withhold equal rights to a minority solely on the basis of popular
prejudice. And if so, what was that fighting in the 1860s (and
marching in the 1960s) all about?