Sep 19, 2012, 9:12 AM EST
Chip Buck writes for the Red Sox blog Fire Brand of the American League. He’s also gay, and this morning he has a lengthy contemplation about the Yunel Escobar business.
While Chip notes that Escobar is perfectly within his rights to believe what he wants to believe, he also notes that Escobar’s actions are not harmless:
In making his remark, which is translated as “You’re a faggot,” he is making a prejudicial judgment on my life. He is denigrating the life I’ve created; criticizing me for the man I am; claiming homosexuality makes one weak or less than a man; and belittling my (and every other gay man and woman’s) struggles with coming to term with their sexuality and finding a place within society … It’s bad enough having my personal liberties and rights being debated daily by Presidential, Congressional, state, and local politicians over my right to marry, adopt, or receive equal employment protections under the law. The last place I would hope or want to see this is on the baseball field, a place I go to escape reality.
I’m sure there are gay Blue Jays fans, maybe even some who were fans of Yunel Escobar specifically, who feel the same way.
- My Imaginary Hall of Fame Ballot 64
- Phil Hughes signs a three-year extension with the Twins 22
- The Padres have talked to the Phillies about Cole Hamels 23
- Why is John Smoltz a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame? 63
- Phillies GM told Ryan Howard they’d be better off “not with him but without him” 85
- Trea Turner’s agent is unhappy his client is in limbo after trade to Nationals 48
- Nexen Heroes accept Jung-Ho Kang posting fee from unidentified MLB team 37
- Giants acquire Casey McGehee from the Marlins 16
- Bud Selig will get a $6 million a year pension. Which is obscene. (145)
- The United States will seek to normalize relations with Cuba (144)
- Rays, Padres, Nationals agree to 11-player trade (97)
- St. Petersburg City Council votes down deal to allow Rays to look for new stadium site (90)
- Phillies GM told Ryan Howard they’d be better off “not with him but without him” (85)