IS THERE ANY SAFE HAVEN FROM POLITICAL CORECTNESS?

It was only a matter of time before the Super Bowl became yet another battle ground for "politically correct" social causes. Apparently no aspect of American Life is immune from the political correctness crowd's guerrilla antics.  NewsBusters cites New York Times columnist Frank Bruni's story about Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo's desire to promote gay marriage at sport's biggest venue--the Super Bowl.  Super Bowl XLVII may become another soapbox for gay marriage. Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo wants to celebrate a Ravens victory in the Super Bowl by dancing with Ellen DeGeneres on her daytime talk show. 

 

      According to Bruni, Ayanbadejo’s support for gay rights comes from childhood connections to a diverse group that included many that were openly gay or lesbian. He once lived in an LGBT dorm at the University of California, Santa Cruz, where his stepfather was the resident director.  “I was raised around gay people in a very liberal society,” Ayanbadejo told Bruni during an interview in September. “Discrimination was never allowed” (NN comment: except when practiced by Libs against Conservatives or Christians.)

 

      Full disclosure:  In mid-1980s, I lived in a diverse neighborhood called University Heights in San Diego near the Hillcrest district of San Diego, which is analogous to  the "Castro District" of San Francisco, California. I called my neighborhood "Baja Hillcrest" because it had a diverse population that included Gays, Blacks, Latinos, and Whites.  I got along very well with my gay next-door neighbors and frequently socialized with them. While I didn't endorse their chosen lifestyle, I didn't judge it or them either. It simply was none of my business.  My current opposition to gay marriage stems from not wanting to bestow valuable economic rights--e.g., tax filing status--to a group because of whom they prefer as sexual partners. This is opposed to validating the grant of such valuable economic rights because of an immutable genetic imperative, e.g., race or gender. For all you Libs looking for more tax revenue, Gay marriage isn't it.

 

     The Supreme Court has recognized race, national origin, religion and alienage as suspect classifications; and it therefore analyzes any government action that discriminates against these classes under a strict scrutiny standard.  The Supreme Court has established standards for determining whether a statute or policy's classification requires the use of strict scrutiny. The class must have experienced a history of discrimination, must be definable as a group based on "obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics," is a minority of "politically powerless," and its characteristics must have little relationship to the government's policy aims or the ability of the group's members to contribute to society.
 

     Gays have been wrongly discriminated and subject to unjustified violence for years. I believe in prosecution to the full extent of the law for such discrimination and wrongdoing.  But I am waiting for scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic. At that point, I will be at the front of the line advocating for gay marriage. Civil unions have substantially accomplished much of what the Gay community has been seeking in terms of equality of  treatment.  But there are dissenters to this view.

 

     However you might feel about the subject, marriage has been traditionally defined as being between a man and a woman involving extended family and children. Marriage was designed to afford legal protection to the wives and children of a union between a man and a woman against a wastrel husband and father. Once children come into the picture, the man and the woman are forever bound to each other and there needs to be a protective legal paradigm for the children of such a union.

 

 

___________________________ 

 

 

     The NFL is not immune from the pressures of the PC crowd's zealotry on any issue.  In what has been cynically described by some as a marketing scheme to appeal to women, the NFL began promoting breast cancer awareness. Three hundred pound players and coaches wore pink shoes, pink hats, pink gloves, and pink ribbons to show their "concern" over breast cancer. Never mind that prostate cancer kills more men than breast cancer kills everyone. Don't be surprised, breast cancer affects men also although there is not as many victims as women. Notable male celebrities that suffered breast cancer include Shaft star, Richard Roundtree and The Price is Right announcer Rod Roddy.  Yet, because of marketing concerns and a slavish adherence to following the political correctness fad of the day, the NFL is trying to become a "politically correct" sport. But the NFL's descent into political correctness and becoming an arm of the political Left has been evolving in recent years.

 

 

     In 2009, Roger Goodell and Indianapolis Colts owner, Jim Irsey  were vocal in their opposition to Rush Limbaugh approval as a potential owner of the St. Louis Rams NFL football club. Never mind that Left wing antagonistic George Soros was part of the group seeking to purchase the Rams.  So Left wing nuts are okay as owners with NFL, but not Conservatives? Absolutely no way is that right! But Goodell's anti-conservative stance might stem from the fact that his father, U.S. Senator Charles Goodell was defeated by Conservative Party candidate James Buckley for the New York Senate seat in 1970.  Now Goodell seems be leading with the campaign to make football more "civilized" (see below).
 

     There may also be legal considerations by the NFL inasmuch as several lawsuits have been filed against the NFL. The suits sound in tone as the litigation against big tobacco.  For example, the lawsuit by the Seau family against the NFL for the wrongful death of suicide victim Junior Seau mirrors the "I didn't know it was bad for me" assertion that was common in the Big Tobacco lawsuits.  But there is a concept in the law called "assumption of the risk." One popular legal resource  defines assumption of the risk as:

(1) An affirmative defense in a negligence case, in which the defendant claims that the situation (taking a ski-lift, climbing a steep cliff) was so inherently or obviously hazardous that the injured plaintiff must have known of the risk, but took the chance of being injured. (2) The act of contracting to take over a risk, such as buying the right to a shipment and accepting the danger that it could be damaged or prove unprofitable.

I played high school football during the Neolithic (Neanderthal to some) period of football in the late 1960s. I knew and assumed the injury risks associated with the game of football. Back then the rules were looser. There were crack back blocks, chop blocks, and physical intimidation, i.e., physical contact, e.g., until the ball was in the air, receivers were subject to physical contact.  I still have residual injuries from playing high school football 40 years ago. And every once in a while my lower back locks up, my Achilles tendon hurts, or my ribs ache, but it goes away with aspirin and/or Salonpas patches. But I got more severe injuries, including two concussions, while playing the "politically correct" non-contact game of soccer.  Yet, I wouldn't trade a minute of any of my sports participation experiences  for a gold ingot.
 

 

     Team sports teach people to work together successfully under a plan  (read the mission statement) while cooperating with people that you may not like (read crappy co-workers) and your coach (read a crappy boss).  They may have not realized back then, but our coaches were teaching us valuable life lessons. And maybe back then, we were much more practical  than today's sensitive new age ball players.  Today's leftist ball players seem to be a bunch of whinny candy asses, (a favorite term of endearment used by my JV football defensive coach).  So please just shut up and play the game. I really don't want to hear about your politics at the Super Bowl.  If you have a grievance, then write your Congressperson or Senator instead.  Read Out of Their League on your own time, not mine.  I'm interested in watching pro football, not watching some 1960s style teach-in.