On Tuesday, three bisexual men filed suit in Seattle against the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance (NAGAAA) because the organization ruled that they were not gay enough to participate in the NAGAAA's Gay Softball World Series.
In particular, "During the championship, D2 (the team with the players in question) learned that another team challenged their eligibility to play based on a tournament rule that each team could have no more than two straight players."
In a way, the story is hilarous. As a member of my junior high school's semi-fictitious "society to perpetuate harmful stereotypes" (which was in fact populated by a small number of such geeks as me who would in reality be the last people to do such a thing), it's very hard for me not to imagine a baseball game of the biggest "queens" in town. You can paint your own picture; I'm probably causing enough trouble for myself already.
And the idea that if someone likes girls some of the time but guys some of the time, he's just not quite "gay enough" is also knee-slappingly funny (at least to someone of undiluted heterosexual persuasion.) Really, if you ask your average straight guy whether a guy who likes sex with both men and women is basically gay, I bet 3/4 will say yes. As for "gay enough", well, that's a concept I can't even say I really understand. Anyway, NAGAAA said the bisexual men were "nongay" and therefore ineligible to play.
Can you imagine the questioning of those guys? "How many times have you _____ with a woman?" "When was the last time you ___ _____?" Again, I better stop...
And I don't know what to make of the fact that the plaintiffs are being represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights. Let's think about this...since the guys also like girls some of the time, they have enough in common with lesbians that the lesbian rights law firm wants to represent them? Give me a break.
But the story has some serious implications for what our society has become.
If there were a black softball league and Barack Obama wanted to play, would they kick him out for not being black enough (since his mother was white)?
If there were a white softball league, how many seconds would it be until lawyers and the media destroyed it (an action which I might not totally object to even though I do believe that private organizations should have the right to "discriminate" against people for any reason they want)?
Given the intellectual pretzels one's mind must twist into to try to understand the mentalities behind this case, it probably comes as no surprise that the lawyers for the nongay guys who like to have sex with other guys are also claiming the decision was racist! (That's part of the story you probably won't find reported in the few other outlets for this story.) Yes, the three guys filing the lawsuit are...ummm..."nonwhite" and most -- but not all -- of the panel that made the decision was white. They're really throwing the whole PC panoply at NAGAAA. "Do you hate us because we think chicks are hot too or because we're not white?" It's the victim group equivalent of "have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
According to Fox News, the men are suing for $75,000 each for emotional distress.
So, if I were Judge Ross with my own afternoon TV show, here's how the ruling would go:
If NAGAAA's rules specify that bisexual is indeed "nongay", then the plaintiffs lose and have to pay NAGAAA's attorney's fees. I would also tell them to stop being such crybabies and to go start their own league where a team is only allowed to have two players who have not put their mouths on both....yeah, I really better stop.
If NAGAAA's rules don't define bisexual as "nongay", then I rule that if a guy has had sex with another guy, even once -- and yes, even if he was drunk, then he's gay enough to play in that league and the league needs to replay the championship game but would be free to modify their rules for the following season to exclude the guys who aren't gay enough. A club can set its own rules just as the Catholic church can say nuns can't become Pope. NAGAAA would not have to pay any money to the plaintiffs other than court costs (but not attorney's fees.)
Also, if I were convinced that race had something to do with the decision, I would say "Well, you deserve what you're getting for working so hard to set up a society where every person can be part of a narrowly defined minority victim group. If you want to be able to discriminate against people for being straight (even if you're straight three days a week), you have no right to say you shouldn't be discriminated against for being black (or gay or nongay or someone who likes to play backgammon, etc.)
Actually, I just had a flash of inspiration and I think I know the answer: If these men really did suffer emotional distress because of not being able to play in a softball game, then they clearly are gay and should be allowed to play.
So ruled. Case closed.
|<< <||> >>|