Stampede Blue has an excellent post on the subject of Tony Dungy’s speech endorsing the Indiana Family Institute and their efforts on behalf of SJR 7 which bans gay marriage and limits the potential rights of unmarried couples.
Stampede Blue is a site which is resolutely non-political. In fact, when I put a link to the site up here at Masson’s Blog, the proprietor, “Big Blue Shoe” dropped me a note thanking me for the courtesy but apologetically advising that he could not reciprocate because the political nature of my site might alienate some Colts fans. I understood completely. Stampede Blue was about NFL football generally, and die hard love of the Colts specifically. Full stop. But, since the coach of the Colts has waded into the political arena, Stampede Blue’s ability to remain aloof from crass politics was ended.
Here is what I take to be the jist of the post:
I could care what Dungy believes in, or what anyone else believes. What I am angry with is Dungy shaming and marginalizing other Colts fans, making them feel like crap. Yes folks, there are many Colts fans who happen to be gay. Shocking, I know. They cheer just as loud as straight fans. They paint their faces blue and white, watch every game on Direct TV, and cried their eyes dry when Dungy was hoisted up on the shoulders of his players after Indy won Super Bowl 41. They shell out good money for game tickets, stadium concessions, and parking. It’s these loyal fans that Tony Dungy just kicked in the nuts, and that is just plain wrong folks.
. . .
(quoting Skins Patrol) Tony Dungy inserted himself into a controversial discussion. He has an absolute 1st Amendment right to do so, but that doesn’t mean it was the correct thing to do. . . . You want to make this about free speech when it isn’t; it’s about good judgment.
Well I for one do not care what Skin Patrol thinks.Tony Dungy is a good and decent man.he has a right to his opinion and if people do not like his opinion or choose not to go to Colt games because of what he believes so be it but they are not going to get this man to apologize for his comments like a lot of groups,large newspapers and media outlets try to shame people into apologizing for their comments or what they believe.
Whether he is right is a matter of one’s opinion isn’t it?Maybe he shouldn’t have inserted himself into the argument but if someone feels strongly one way or another about a subject and they have a platform to speakout they should feel free to do so.
He has a right to his opinion. He has a right to voice the opinion. I don’t think he is going to apologize for what he said — which is fine, I don’t think he regrets what he said. However, I disagree that he should have felt free to voice his opinion. He’s alienated a good number of Colts fans. Once again, that’s his right, but I question his wisdom both in believing as he does and in deciding to inject his opinions into the public debate.
It’s frustrating to me, simply because I like to enjoy my football, politics free. I want to embrace the Colts whole-heartedly. Dungy has made that more difficult. Again, he had a legal right to do it — nobody questions that — but I don’t have to like it.
Now that he has decided to step into the debate, however, I wish he would answer this question for me — why the Biblical prohibition on homosexuality is so much more urgent that Jesus’ condemnation of ostentatious prayer (Sermon on the Mount) or the Biblical condemnation of working on Sundays, for that matter. (Exodus, I believe.)
Let’s be picky, you’re not supposed to work on the sabbath, the last day of the week, which is Saturday. Christians took the liberty of moving the Sabbath to Sunday to match it with the Resurrection.
The message here is that if you oppose — or even have reservations about — SJR 7, then enjoying Colts football is not for you.
You’re one of THEM.
I look forward to the “security” practices at Lucas Oil stadium including a check of one’s Christian Coalition membership card.
If someone chooses to disagree with Tony Dungy and do not like him speaking out on this subject that’s fine.If he has alienated some Colt’s fans then they do not have to go to games or support the team that’s their right.However I believe the stadium will be full next season.Just a hunch anyway.
Doug,
You may question his wisdom in believing what he does but I’m sure he and many people like him may question you in believing what you believe and may not think what you believe is right.My point is everyone is entitled to their opinion and each side probably thinks their point of view is correct.
As for my beliefs on this subject I am not a really religious person but I am a confirmed Catholic.I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman but that gay people should be allowed to have civil unions and have all rights married people have.In the end though I really do not care if gay people are allowed to be married it’s really none of my business.
I would venture to say though that the majority opinion in Indiana would be on Tony Dungys side.
I do not like the fact that the church is constantly in the middle of politics and policy on this matter along with my church the Catholic church who is constantly lobbying Capitol Hill for a amnesty for illegal aliens and trying to allow millions more Mexicans into my country to drive wages down for lower income Americans and strain local and state resources all for the cause of the Catholic church increasing their flock and putting people in the pews to get more money in the collection plate.At least the opinion of Cardinal Mahoney is not the opinion of all Catholic churches and their leadership.The last time I checked chuch and state are supposed to be seperate and if the churches want to lobby public policy against gay marriage or amnesty for illegal immigration then they should lose their tax exempt status.
Phillip,
You wrote:
I heard that!
OK, on a purely policy note, SJR7 would not allow for ANY of the things you mentioned, Phillip. It not only defines marriage as one man one woman– Section A. It takes away the legislature’s ability to provide any benefits for the “unmarried couple” i.e. civil unions or anything less. In addition it seriously challenges all benefits afforded unmarried couples now, including domestic battery charges if the couple is unmarried. That’s HETEROSEXUAL couples, or 46% of all current domestic battery cases. This Section B is the most odious part of the amendment as it seeks to tie the hands of courts in interpreting law as well as future legislatures.
SO, this is what Tony Dungy supported, whether he understands all of that or not. In addition he raised over $70,000 for a group — Indiana Family Institute– which has a decidedly anti-gay bent in all of it’s actions. Is Tony Dungy anti-gay or does he just support groups who are? What about his significant gay and lesbian base of fans? I guess making their lives more difficult doesn’t matter to Tony.
Idunno,
I know very little about this bill so I will not debate it.It’s not important to me personally so that’s probably why I haven’t read much about it.I’m sure it is to some though.If Dungy supports the bill and speaks on it’s behalf that’s his right as a American but it is also everyone else’s right who do not agree with him to be critical of him.
My biggest problem is with the church in general always sticking their nose in public policy and some on the left can’t have it both ways you can’t be critical of the church lobbying for a amendment to the U.S. constitiution banning gay marriage but support them when they go to Capitol hill to lobby for amnesty for illegal aliens.Both matters are public policy and therefore political by nature and the church should not be involved in either in my opinion.If they want to participate in politics then they need to lose tax exempt status.Like I said I really do not care if they allow gay people to get married someday. What people do in their homes in their private lives within the law is none of my business!I do not really agree with it(the marriage part) but it doesn’t really bother me either.
I’m glad you have the luxury of not being personally involved. My own family and friends are intimately wrapped up in these items, as well as ANY unmarried couple in Indiana. And since Constitutional Amendments are VERY difficult to change, the very reason they are pushing this route, it will affect thousands of Hoosiers for the foreseeable future. I wish people cared about the 10,000+ same-sex households in Indiana as much as they do about football.