Friday, September 21, 2012

Vikings Punter Chris Kluwe and Same-Sex Marriage

(Warning: Language)
According to

Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo has spoken out in favor of a Maryland ballot initiative that would legalize gay marriage. Yahoo has published a letter that Maryland state delegate Emmett C. Burns Jr. wrote last week to Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti, urging him to "inhibit such expressions from your employee." This is Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe's response to Burns.

Dear Emmett C. Burns Jr.,

I find it inconceivable that you are an elected official of Maryland's state government. Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level. The views you espouse neglect to consider several fundamental key points, which I will outline in great detail (you may want to hire an intern to help you with the longer words):

Hold it right there, you arrogant schmuck.  I can't stand when people flex their grammatical skills and lexicon as if that somehows lends added weight to their argument. So at this point of Kluwe's letter, you know that  what follows is going to be a garbled mess of purposefully pompous verbiage that the author uses to express how much smarter he is than you. But let's read on:

1. As I suspect you have not read the Constitution, I would like to remind you that the very first, the VERY FIRST Amendment in this founding document deals with the freedom of speech, particularly the abridgment of said freedom. By using your position as an elected official (when referring to your constituents so as to implicitly threaten the Ravens organization) to state that the Ravens should "inhibit such expressions from your employees," more specifically Brendon Ayanbadejo, not only are you clearly violating the First Amendment, you also come across as a narcissistic fromunda stain...

2. "Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment, and excitement." Holy fucking shitballs. Did you seriously just say that, as someone who's "deeply involved in government task forces on the legacy of slavery in Maryland"? Have you not heard of Kenny Washington? Jackie Robinson? As recently as 1962 the NFL still had segregation, which was only done away with by brave athletes and coaches daring to speak their mind and do the right thing, and you're going to say that political views have "no place in a sport"? I can't even begin to fathom the cognitive dissonance that must be coursing through your rapidly addled mind right now; the mental gymnastics your brain has to tortuously contort itself through to make such a preposterous statement are surely worthy of an Olympic gold medal (the Russian judge gives you a 10 for "beautiful oppressionism").

3. This is more a personal quibble of mine, but why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the fact that other people want a chance to live their lives and be happy, even though they may believe in something different than you, or act different than you? How does gay marriage, in any way shape or form, affect your life? If gay marriage becomes legal, are you worried that all of a sudden you'll start thinking about penis? "Oh shit. Gay marriage just passed. Gotta get me some of that hot dong action!" Will all of your friends suddenly turn gay and refuse to come to your Sunday Ticket grill-outs? (Unlikely, since gay people enjoy watching football too.)

I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero effect on your life. They won't come into your house and steal your children. They won't magically turn you into a lustful cockmonster. They won't even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90 percent of our population—rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children. You know what having these rights will make gays? Full-fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails. Do the civil-rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing to you?

In closing, I would like to say that I hope this letter, in some small way, causes you to reflect upon the magnitude of the colossal foot in mouth clusterfuck you so brazenly unleashed on a man whose only crime was speaking out for something he believed in. Best of luck in the next election; I'm fairly certain you might need it.

Chris Kluwe

P.S. I've also been vocal as hell about the issue of gay marriage so you can take your "I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing" and shove it in your close-minded, totally lacking in empathy piehole and choke on it. Asshole.

All fine and good, Chris. You spoke your mind, flexed your lexicon and all that, so I imagine you feel pretty good about yourself. But it doesn't change the fact that in your "personal quibble," you falsely assume that gay marriage opposition is about hate and bigotry. So for all the philosophical prowess and wit you tried to exhibit in this letter, it could have just as well been, "Dear Representative. You're a dickhead homophobe. Fuck off. Sincerely, Chris Kluwe"

No, he should not have admonished Ayanbadejo for speaking his opinion. Being a fan of this "freedom" thing America touts, I will never be against your right to express your opinion.  You and he are for gay marriage. Fine. Dandy. I'm not, and have legitimate reasons for it, and in publication I've laid out Constitutionally viable reasons why the federal government has no right to legislate on the matter of gay marriage. (Ex: []) But despite my legal and reasonable opposition to it, I'm sure you'll assume that I'm some homophobic hatemonger bent on suppressing freedom.

It'd be one thing if you were simply expressing your opinion that gay marriage should be legal in Minnesota- it's another that you say anyone who disagrees with you is a hate-filled asshole and their desires should be suppressed in favor of your cultural opinion that is in no way representative of the majority of Americans.  If, you know, popular state voting on the issue, i.e., quantifiable data, is important to you.

You've obviously read a book or two, so I shouldn't need to tell you that legislating gay marriage in spite of broad opposition to it would rightfully be called "fascism." 

I hope that you will read this, and that, in some small way, you can comprehend the silliness in your assumption that anyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot.  As I have written, the issue is not about hate or homophobia.  The real issue "is that Americans have a problem accepting a political mandate that they must fall in line with a cultural agenda that they, for the most part, disagree with. And that, in a land of liberty, should be entirely reasonable."

William Sullivan

P.S. You're no Jackie Robinson, guy. You're a Rosie O'Donnell that happens to be able to kick a football.


  1. "I can't stand when people flex their grammatical skills and lexicon as if that somehows lends added weight to their argument."

    How about this then? You, sir (and I use the term in the loosest imaginable definition,) are indeed a bigoted homophobe who, by the way, are not even bright enough to proofread your own work. Provided this drivel can can be considered "work" as opposed to its more fitting description as lexiconic diarrhea. The last I was taught, "somehows" is in no way, shape or form a word. Try again, genius.

    "...your cultural opinion that is in no way representative of the majority of Americans."

    Guess again, sunshine. Numerous polls have shown that the majority of Americans do indeed support marriage equality. The ones who don't are backward, neanderthal, bigoted homophobes such as yourself.

    " could have just as well been, 'Dear Representative. You're a dickhead homophobe. Fuck off. Sincerely, Chris Kluwe'"

    Dear "blogger" (read, halfwit someone was foolish enough to give access to a computer instead of something more appropriate, such as a windowless, doorless room with four concrete walls and a handgun with at least 50 rounds so that sooner or later you'd blow your brains out, by accident or design,) you're a dickhead homophobe. Fuck off.

    Goodnight, Irene.

  2. Thank you for the laugh, and for proving my point.

    More than anything, I find it hilarious to know that you undoubtedly think you've expressed some kind of intellectualism by doing nothing more than making a child's argument. It is plain to see, once you filter through the self-glorifying and accusatory language, that your argument boils down to calling me a bigot and pointing out a typo. The one fact that you do cite is spectacularly wrong. At best, pollsters (the ever-hateful bastards at Gallup, for example, that have the audacity to disagree with your preferred "facts")show an even split on the issue of same-sex marriage, and most recently, with a slight opposition to it. And at the actual polls, it hasn't been even close. Gay-marriage legalization, when offered as popular state ballot initiatives, is now 0 for 32. Thanks for playing.

    See, your problem is that you are not a rational person capable of discussing this issue on the merits- you are an emotional animal that would remove the obstacles to its desires rather than apply reason and negotiate. While I don't hold much hope you can process it like a human being, I offer you this fact. America is a constitutional republic founded upon democratic principles. As that constitution does not specifically grant the federal government a right to produce legislation regarding gay marriage, the burden of such ruling falls to the states per the tenth amendment. Now, I realize that's all just inconvenient to you, who would just have your vision enacted absent any such safeguards, but in this country, we call it "law." If we just cast it aside because this group or that thinks that the law is stupid, the people are no longer reasonably represented. I know this will probably sting, but even left-of-left President Obama AGREES with my position on this, believing the states alone have a right to legislate on this matter. You call me a bigot, but if my state were to legislate gay marriage, I would accept it as the will of my state and its people. You on the other hand, are a fascist that will have it no other way than your own.

    A Christian fundamentalist might tell a gay person that he's just a heathen, hell-bound queer who should just go kill himself. You would condemn that, and rightfully so. Yet your accusation against me is nothing more than the inverse to that hatred, and equally unfounded. And sad to think that you think so highly of yourself for it.

  3. You forgot that tolerance is ONLY for the persecuted. You cannot reason with the unreasonable...

  4. Kluwe was arrogant, no doubt, but that doesn't change the fact many of us out in the noise have no idea why non-religious conservatives are in opposition to gay marriage (especially at the state level). I have to admit, I left the Republican Party over this issue because ultimately I thought it hypocritical that Republicans, in principle, wanted government out of people's lives but they wanted to legislate what was going on in the bedroom (or in the personal life of two consenting adults), that and the Patriot Act are pretty damn Big Government. I do think there will be a lot of people (much like those in the 50s and 60s) that will feel very foolish in the years to come for their position on gay rights but time will tell. I don't think all who oppose gay marriage are bigots or homophobes. But I do think many are ignorant or ill informed. I do find it odd that those who follow the teachings of the Bible are the first to try and press its rules upon everyone else (no matter their religious affiliation). If they were honest with themselves, gay people wouldn't be a threat because in Christian dogma gays will ultimately be judged for their sin by the one and only who is qualified to judge. I do think this is a state rights issue and the fight will, and should be, conducted state by state.

  5. @Clinton. I appreciate the civil response, and the rational thought therein. Refreshing after the first. Remember the back and forth on Twitter, thanks for visiting my blog.

    I obviously do not oppose the issue on religious grounds, as you seem to be aware, but I do not support disenfranchisement of those who do. Their position, however archaic to some, should be represented.
    The issue is more cultural than religious, though. Many don't see it as an affront to religious sensibilities, but rather an assault upon the traditional family. I expand on this premise here, in case you didn't click the link in the article.

    To be honest, I don't comment on the subject often, as the issue is not a top priority for me. What is, however, is the fact that those who push for federal mandates allowing gay marriage are outside of consitutional bounds and the notion of limited federal government authority. I am not against government having a role in our lives, you see. Local governance is more pliable and better representative of the public will than federal edicts. It seems you and I agree on that. But I would be against a federal mandate for or AGAINST gay marriage. The question is, if a federal mandate allowing gay marriage were adopted, would you be against it?

    In my mind, I believe I am being rather consistent and reasonable. Again, thank you for your comment.