First gay player drafted by NFL - Who cares?

I would not say that all races, religions, creeds, genders, and sexual preference are equal, but I do think that we as a nation are rather close to calling it equal opportunity for all. I do not believe in blanket equality, but I do believe in blanket equal opportunity. What a man or woman chooses to do with that opportunity is what makes America great, despite the bigotry. There will always be bigots (racists, sexists, *ists), but the fact that Michael Sam has the opportunity to cash in on his football skills "despite being gay" is something to be proud of. Do I care if he is gay? Not really. Do I think he is over-compensating for his predecessors that have been quietly gay? Yes, but with good reason. The first ones out of the gate are the ones that attract the most attention--positive and negative. If I were him, I would soak up all the attention so that the next gay football players can just focus on playing football and not have to carry the burden of being a gay athlete--they can just focus on being an athlete.

Good point there CPT Kilar.

but if you think equality hasn't increased because of the exposure you must be living in a different world! So a CPT says it and its a good point.

SGT Cortes, what you said and what CPT Kilar said are completely different things.

Oh, great! Now we're getting around to banning things we don't like. That's cool, because I have a long list, though it would probably be a lot different than some others'...

Very true sir. GREAT perspective. I had not considered the situation from a business/capitalist point of view.

MAJ LeCedre, your last comment is super spot on. Unfortunately, there are so many who don't understand that concept, and there are few who do. For example, I do NOT patronize certain businesses because of the things they donate to. I used to be a long-time NFL fan with season tickets to the Chiefs for 8 years. I gave them up a few years ago when I finally realized what they are truly about. I refuse to give my hard earned money to ANY entity or person who doesn't truly support this great country of ours. Peel the onion back and ye shall know the truth. Or as I like to say, stop thinking outside the box and start thinking outside the room.

I agree 110% wit you Major, I've been saying for years almost the same thing. It's similar to the issue in Washington State awhile back relating to the whole bakery not wanting to do a wedding cake for a gay couple. I believe the court system was wrong for making the bakery do it in the end. It is a privately owned business and they have / had every right to refuse service to those who they feel didn't deserve their service. They are in the business of making money, they are there to provide a service but it wasn't a violation of any constitutional rights to refuse service to the gay couple. If they were the only bakery in the world who made wedding cakes I could see an issue but there still was no constitutional rights violated in the refusal of service. ESPN is there for ratings and to make money. playing this thing over and over again is making them money and garnering ratings. When it dies down they will move on to something else that makes them money. Rights go both ways, it doesn't make one Anti-gay to not want to see that on TV, you can change the channel that is what a remote is for. It's not different than watching the Super Bowl with my children and seeing all the commercials with half dressed women with Big ummm Assets prancing around. While it may not offend me personally, it's not something I want my younger children to see and accept as the norm during a sporting event.

Don't make too much of these poles to prove a point. It all depends on who takes them and who they ask. take these two for example:





There is, however, large support for same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships. | AP Photo

Close

By JOSE DELREAL | 1/16/14 4:58 PM EST



Utah is split down the middle on the question of same-sex marriage, indicating a sharp decline in support for the state’s 2004 constitutional ban, according to a new poll.

A Salt Lake Tribune poll by Survey USA shows that Utahns are evenly split on the issue with 48 percent in favor of legalizing gay marriage and 48 percent against it. This marks a massive shift in opinion in the strongly conservative state, where 66 percent of voters who participated in the 2004 election approved of the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages in Utah.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/poll-utah-split-on-gay-marriage-102288.html#ixzz31XRA9tGL

SALT LAKE CITY — A majority of Utahns do not support same-sex marriage, believe the decision on marriage should rest with individual states, and say if gay marriage were legal, Utah should pass laws to protect places of worship from having to perform weddings for gay and lesbian couples.

But a new Deseret News/KSL poll also shows that attitudes have changed in the state during the past 10 years, fueled by younger people and an influx of new residents creating an increasingly diverse population, which follows national trends that show generational disparity in attitudes for or against gay marriage.

The poll found 57 percent of residents oppose same-sex marriage, while 36 percent support it and 6 percent are undecided, according to the survey conducted by longtime pollster Dan Jones & Associates/Cicero Group on Jan. 14-16. It has a plus or minus 3.6 percent margin of error.

Who are you going to believe? Same thing with all these other poles.

I concur!  Who cares?  He will be a an asset to the N.F.L.

SSG Spencer-

I hate to throw out the down-vote (I rarely do it), but your whole "common law = what the common person would do" comment was truly out of left field. Really? Common law has to do with precedent and past historical example. It has nothing to do with "the practice of determining what the common person would do or think." That would be called mob rule.

Also, the Constitution provides for and our Founders believed in protecting the minority from the "tyranny of the majority." Federalist #10. Read it.

Well Major, let me explain and I hope you retract it. This will also dispute earlier comments by others about the origination of Common Law.

I learned from my college professor, a law professor and practitioner for over 40 years, the history of common law.

Early English law was enforced by the royal court. The King’s court – the Curia Regis – was presided over by the King himself. Local courts were presided over by a lord or one of his stewards. Trials were by ordeal, where an accused was cruelly tested for innocence or guilt.

William II (1087-1100) eventually banned trial by ordeal and it was further condemned by the Church in 1216.

The king eventually saw fit to appoint trusted judges that would rule as he would. The very first judges were court officials who had particular experience in advising the King on the settlement of disputes. It was Henry II (1154-1189), who established a jury of 12 local knights to settle disputes. In 1178, the first common court was “to hear all the complaints of the realm and to do right.” This, supervised by the King and “wise men” of the realm, was the origin of the Court of Common Pleas. Since the King was held in honor, and his appointees were "wise men," it came to be held the adjudication of the wise is the practice of "common law."

This is the origination of the common law. So yes, although my earlier definition may have been over-simplistic, this is how it came to be.

Now to your comment about tyranny.

Because a majority can win a vote under majority rule, it has been commonly argued that majority rule can lead to the tyranny of the minority. However, we are a system of plurality, by which the majority is that which has the most votes.

The Constitution also guarantees unalienable rights which cannot be transgressed by a majority. Yet we see how that is also working in today's environment with attacks on our Bill of Rights.

The founders set out to create a political system that could accommodate a multitude of different groups and interests while producing collective agreements that commanded allegiance. Diversity implies disagreement and dissension, but it also implies a community within which there must be agreement and consensus.

We must remember that we are not a Democracy. We are a Republic. In Federalist #10, Madison also stated "A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union."