Dan Tobin argues that it’s time for a major league baseball player to come out.
I stumbled across the Jackie Robinson episode of Ken Burns’ Baseball recently. Most documentaries, as well as MLB’s own treatment of Jackie Robinson Day, goes an inch deep at best, so it was nice to see an unvarnished take and be reminded of what Robinson actually went through.
Especially during those first couple of years, Jackie Robinson was subjected to abuse and threats most of us couldn’t even imagine. It was 1947, nearly two decades before the civil rights legislation of the ’60s, sixteen years before “I Have a Dream,” eight before even Rosa Parks. Heck, the Emancipation Proclamation wasn’t even a hundred years old. By integrating in 1947, baseball truly was ahead of its time.
A few days later, I was reading about the Massachusetts federal judge who ruled the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. From his decision:
As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
So there it was: framing “defense of marriage” as amounting to “prejudice.” I happen to agree, but there’s not quite a broad consensus on that in this country. Though many are sickened by the idea that gay people don’t have equal rights in this country, many others are sickened by the idea they one day could. For those of us who see gay rights as a civil rights issue, it’s hard not to see parallels—both in the struggle, and in each side being absolutely convinced about the rightness of their beliefs.
And so as I read about the decision, all I could think of was the Ken Burns scene where the racist Cardinals team is giving absolute hell to Jackie. One of his Dodgers teammates had circulated a petition in spring training saying he didn’t want no Negros on the team, but now he stood up and told the Cards to buzz off—this guy’s a Dodger, and we look out for our own. His views had evolved. Those on the 1947 Dodgers who overcame their own racism did so by getting to know a real live black man and realizing, “Hey, this guy’s all right. Maybe black folk aren’t automatically inferior.”
I also thought about Pee Wee Reese putting his arm around Jackie in Cincinnati, signaling to the Kentuckyans in attendance that if this guy’s all right with me, he should be all right with you, too. It was a brave moment, an important moment, and I had to wonder: Who will be the Pee Wee Reese that one day puts his arm around Major League Baseball’s first openly gay player? And how long will we have to wait for it to happen?
♦♦♦
It’s a different situation, of course. No young phenom would need to be drafted to become the first gay major leaguer. There are gay baseball players right now. But we haven’t had any come out during their playing career. (In fact, we haven’t had a current player come out in the NFL, NBA, or NHL, either.) Part of the reason, I suspect, is that the first openly gay player would become a Jackie Robinson-type lightning rod. And that man would likely be given absolute hell by some players and fans.
Mainstream acceptance of gays is far from universal in 2010, just as mainstream acceptance of blacks was far from universal in 1947. No, gays are not prohibited from playing, which is a crucial difference. But a gay player can choose to stay closeted, collect endorsements, and receive accolades from fans who might suddenly turn their cheers to boos if they knew the truth. Wouldn’t some players circulate petitions (or, I don’t know, blog) to say they don’t want no faggots on their team?
But just like with Jackie Robinson, the experience might eventually bring out the best in people. Maybe a Jeter or Pujols or Ortiz or Mauer would put an arm around this brave player, show the world that if this guy’s all right with us, he should be all right with you. And maybe, if the player continued to hit or pitch at a high level, people would judge him based on what he did on the field instead of in the bedroom.
Someone in Major League Baseball has the chance to be the gay Jackie Robinson, but the best part is that he wouldn’t need to do it alone. If one brave soul broke down that door, there would be a lot more Jackie Robinsons out there, relieved not to have to keep hiding.
And it could happen as soon as today, with just a one press conference or an interview. It would take so little, but it would do so much. I don’t know that the culture is quite ready for it, but that’s why the Jackie Robinson comparison is apt—in 1947, the culture wasn’t ready for integration, either. But baseball said too bad, we’re doing it anyway because it’s the right thing to do. The culture caught up. It’ll catch up again. Someone just has to be the first.
♦♦♦
Some may argue that discrimination against blacks is not the same as discrimination against gays. I agree—it’s more like discrimination against Jews. I could hide my religion if I feared anti-semitism, just as many gay people can hide their sexuality if he or she fears homophobia.
Otherwise, I’m sorry, discrimination is discrimination. The bible says homosexuality is an abomination? It also says anyone working on the sabbath should be put to death, so until you execute the entire NFL, spare me the selective piety. The bible says a lot of things, including that A-Rod should be put to death for boning Madonna.
History has always defined marriage as between a man and a woman? Yes, and there was a time when you could say that history has always said that women can’t vote in America, and that’s okay to own slaves. Times change. On certain issues, we should too.
—Dan Tobin
A version of this piece first appeared on Bugs & Cranks.
About Dan Tobin
Vocalyze
For the record, many of us do not really care what the bible says about homosexuality or anything. As a gay atheist, the bible is irrelevant to me.
Loved the article! Hate the title! I realize that the intention of the article was pure and I absolutely agree with it’s content. But, to in any way imply that Jackie Robinson was gay (which the title does but the article does not) is completely disrespectful to the man you purport to respect.
This has long been sports’ (professional and otherwise) dirty little secret – the presence of gay athletes. If you do the math – what is it, one out of every 10 men is gay, or something like that – there has to be more than just an isolated case of a gay athlete pulling on the stirrup socks. Frankly, I find this attitude rather tedious in this day and age. Yet another reason to divert my attention away from sports to more enlightened activities. FYI, I’m with Michael. Whoever wrote the headline, could have given it a bit more thought.
I agree this title is misleading and implies something that is not to get people’s attention. However, I question why the implication he was gay is so completely disrespectful? If instead of “gay” another qualifier had been used (Jewish, Asian, Catholic, Female) would there still be the sense of “disrespect” regarding this article’s title?
The title is neither misleading nor disrespectful. Please grow a brain, then look up the word “analogy” in your nearest dictionary. Sheesh!
I don’t mind the title. Hey, a little discussion is never a bad thing. It’s sad that Gareth Thomas is the only openly gay player there is though. And he’s not even American now.
The Robinson analogy fails in one respect: there is nothing equivalent to the “color line” (an informal but openly known agreement among owners not to hire blacks, which Branch Rickey broke when he signed Robinson) keeping gays out of baseball. I’m pretty sure that if, say, Stephen Strasburg were gay, he’d still have been the #1 amateur pick and received an 8-figure signing bonus.
Are there any openly gay amateur players ready to be signed by the pros? I’ve never heard of one, and I follow baseball very closely.
Hey, it has only been 10 years since we have seen perfectly normal gay characters depicted on TV shows. The locker room culture is conservative and usually the last place you see a big social changes, so the public coming out of gay pro athlete may take some more time. Until then, maybe heterosexual men should look in the mirror and ask themselves how their attitudes, prejudices, and assumptions make it so difficult for gay jocks to be out and proud.
Sorry athletes, celebrities, musicians, actors, etc. but, I really don’t give a damn about your sexual orientation. Play well and entertain me. That is what you are paid to do and why I buy tickets to your games, concerts and events. I am not one of those people that read all the tabloids and magazines about your personal lives, who you’re sleeping with, where you eat and where you sleep. I’m not going to buy the things you were given for free as a marketing tool, eat at some over priced restaurant because you were there, or quote you.
I don’t really care. I don’t understand why you encourage the idiocracy. If you have talent, you don’t have to make a scene to get noticed.
I’m Jewish and I live in Manhattan. We Jews don’t look quite caucasian. We’re actually Middle Eastern. So to say that I could hide my Jewishness if I want to is not realistic.
There have already been gay Major Leauge Baseball players who have came out.
Such as Billy Bean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Bean
There’s also the gay black male NBA player John Amaechi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Amaechi
There have been football players in the NFL that have came out as gay men.
This “article” is pointless.
but the article is about coming out WHILE being an active sports player.
every name you listed are of ex-athletes
ie – they came out as gay AFTER they ended their sports careers.
not a single baseball player, nba player, or nfl player has come out as gay while still playing on their teams and being in the lockerrooms.
it is not the article that is pointless, it is your comment that it pointless.