Take me out to the bi game!

Over a year ago, I wrote a post about the nixing of bisexual baseball players by a gay team which apparently believes that bisexual is “not gay enough.”  Sure, people have a right to discriminate in the free association sense, but it has long baffled me why people care so passionately about the sex lives of others — especially those who have been historically the target of people who cared enough about the sex lives of others to persecute and even imprison them. It strikes me as reverse discrimination, as “getting even,” and as childish. Moreover, in the case of mainstream gay activism (most likely the driving force behind this gay baseball league), there is deep prejudice against bisexuals, whose existence is considered a threat to the gay straight dichotomy and who therefore are systematically targeted for erasure.

Anyway, the case is back in the news, with a federal court ruling that it may proceed to trial on the merits:

SEATTLE — A gay softball organization can keep its rule limiting the number of heterosexual players on each team, but allegations by three players who say they were disqualified from a tournament because they weren’t gay enough can proceed to trial, a federal judge said.

The North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance oversees gay softball leagues in dozens of U.S. cities and runs an annual tournament called the Gay Softball World Series. Three men claim in a lawsuit filed last year that their team’s second-place finish in the 2008 tournament in Washington state was nullified because they are bisexual, not gay, and thus their team exceeded the limit of two non-gay players.

U.S. District Judge John Coughenour ruled Tuesday that the organization has a First Amendment right to limit the number of heterosexual players, much as the Boy Scouts have a constitutional right to exclude gays.

I see some interesting proof problems ahead.

Anyway, while the Alliance may have the legal right not to keep not-gay-enough players from being on its teams, I think they could run into a bit of trouble in light of their stated purpose:

Created in 1977, the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance (NAGAAA) is a 501c(3) organization that promotes amateur sports competition, particularly softball, for all persons regardless of age, sexual orientation or preference, with special emphasis on the participation of members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) community: and to otherwise foster national and international sports competition by planning, promoting and carrying out amateur sports competition.

“Heterosexual” is not listed, but “bisexual” is. So unless they can show that the players they want to kick out are exclusively heterosexuals who have lied their way onto the team by claiming to be gay or bi they may find themselves being at odds with their own, er, “principles.”

Fascinatingly, the organization seems to take the position that bisexuals really do not exist, while also maintaining it has a First Amendment right (presumably under Boy Scouts of America v. Dale) to practice First Amendment discrimination against them:

The organization says it has always considered bisexuals to meet the definition of “gay” for roster purposes, but the minutes also note that one official involved in the decision to disqualify D2 commented that “this is not a bisexual world series. This is a gay world series.”

“Plaintiff’s allegations about defendant’s treatment of bisexuality remain of central importance to this case,” the judge said. “Defendant could still be liable for its actions.”

Chris Stoll, a spokesman for the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco, which is representing the three men, said Friday its lawyers were reviewing the opinion and legal options.

“We think that the law is clear; NAGAAA doesn’t have a First Amendment right to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation,” he said.

Unless I am reading this wrong, the NCLR position would seem to be that the team has no right to discriminate at all, even against exclusive heterosexuals. Not only would that mean an end to gay baseball (horror of horrors), but it would also render the organization’s principles null and void. I think a better tactic might be to simply insist that the Alliance stand by its principles or lose its  501c(3) status, but I suspect politics is involved. Probably, some activists consider it unseemly for a gay organization to seek refuge under BSA v. Dale.

No matter how the case “comes out,” I see potential damage to the traditional gay identity politics narrative, so I expect it will remain as a local news item.

Activists of all stripes don’t want the general public to get confused.

After all, sex is politics!


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

3 responses to “Take me out to the bi game!”

  1. John Henry Avatar
    John Henry

    I was trying to find some financial info on them. I suspect that someone makes a nice living from this.

    I did not find what I was looking for but did find their “Instruments of Governance”. It has a definitions section which reads:

    1.15 Gay – includes gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GBLT or LGBT) individuals

    1.18 Heterosexual – (also referred to as straight, non-GLBT, non-LGBT or non-gay) means not gay, lesbian,
    bisexual, or transgender.

    By their own bylaws then, bi-sexuals are defined as “gay”. Seems like they either need to change the bylaws or abide by them.

    I am also curious about transgendered people. Are they gay? Suppose I am a man and I like men. I am gay, right? But then suppose I become a woman and still like men.

    Am I still gay or am I now disqualified.

    It’s all very confusing to me.

    John Henry

  2. Kathy K Avatar
    Kathy K

    Nah, if you become a woman and still like men, you are now A (GASP) heterosexual. (At least unless you worship Phred Phelp, who will damn you ro hell for disareeing with HIS agebda.. And, hate to mention it, but you also then
    become supremel uninteresting to the MSM.

  3. […] Via Eric at Classical Values, who has a longer post where he takes this much more seriously than I can. […]