My photo
Poetry and snark blogger who also has a creative side (who knew?)

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

What a Puckhead!

image source
A big hug and thanks to Fireblossom for alerting me to this latest instance of moronic behavior by some bigoted jackwagon who professes to just be expressing his "personal moral stance." I'm sure Hitler and Bin Laden thought they were just expressing personal moral stances as well. Yesterday's case involves hockey, of which I'm generally uninterested. However, I became interested in NHL player Sean Avery when I heard that he made a video stating his support for gay marriage. In this country, athletes are often considered role models for young men, and having a masculine guy from a tough sport endorse gay rights is no small matter. Kudos to Avery! 

Then there's hockey agent Todd Reynold's unsolicited reaction to Avery's video, which he posted on Twitter: "Very sad to read Sean Avery's misguided support of same-gender 'marriage'. Legal or not, it will always be wrong." Apparently, Mr. Reynolds received a flood of negative responses from his Tweet, so he decided to defend himself by adding "To clarify. This is not hatred or bigotry towards gays. It is not intolerance in any way shape or form. I believe we are all equal...But I believe in the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman. This is my personal viewpoint. I Do not hate anyone."

Oh, I see now. Mr. Reynolds is not intolerant or bigoted. He just believes that gay people should not have the same civil rights as heterosexuals. And that their basic human feelings are "wrong." But other than being denied some fairly important rights, such as adoption, power of attorney, medical powers, etc., gay people are equal to heterosexuals.  Now I get it. He's a dickhead.

It should be noted that Todd Reynolds is Vice-President of Uptown Sports Management, which "...represents Professional Hockey players such as Chris Neil, Cody McCormick and Mike Fisher." I wonder whether the President of Uptown Sports Management holds the same views on gay marriage as Reynolds, as Reynolds chose to post his opinions on the company's Twitter. I also wonder about their clients. Who will have the cajones to publicly denounce this outrageous blather? Anyone?

Yes, Mr. Reynolds does have the right to hold personal opinions about gay marriage and about homosexuality in general. He does not, however, have the right to force his opinions on the rest of society. Nor does anyone else. This issue is not about what Mr. Reynolds believes or even what a majority of the country believes. At one time, a majority of the country believed that blacks and white shouldn't be allowed to marry. Or Jews and Gentiles. Some still believe this, just ask my mother-in-law! This is about civil rights and in this country, everyone has them. If you believe differently, you're just wrong.


  1. My fave response to all this (on Twitter) was quite simply "Oh, Puck Off."

    Well said.

  2. I am so sick of hearing people say things like, "I'm not bigoted or racist... it's just that I think what those people want is wrong, so they shouldn't have that right." Uhm... that is the definition of racist people. Non-racist, non-bigoted = I don't agree with them, but they're people and they deserve the same rights as me. Maybe you and I should get together and beam the folks that still don't understand that with hockey pucks. You in? :)

  3. You are pretty feisty for a Mouse! ;-)

    Very cool that you posted about this.

    btw, the term "jackwagon" cracks me up.

  4. Fireblossom-
    Thanks for the heads up! I don't follow sports news at all, but that was interesting! I love the term "jackwagon" myself! Can't claim credit, though. Ever see the Geico commercial?

  5. YES!!!! "Does a drill sergeant make a lousy therapist?" It cracks me up every single time.

  6. Ahh! The vanity of ignorance. Great rant and ears, lolamouse

  7. Yes, everyone has civil rights, including Todd Reynolds. That includes freedom of speech, as in the First Amendment to the Constitution. You have the civil right to disagree with him, but please do so civilly.

    Reynolds's response may have been unsolicited, but so, I assume, was Avery's video. And speaking of unsolicited comments, I believe your rant was unsolicited as well. Why is solicitation relevant only when you disagree with the person?

  8. Gee, I'd swear I commented on this before!

    Very cool post, m'dear.

  9. You did but Blogger lost it in the Blogpocolypse. I found it in my stash in my Inbox and cut and pasted. I guess I'll have to do this with all the comments Blogger lost, but I was hoping they would restore them. UGH.

    (Fireblossom)YES!!!! "Does a drill sergeant make a lousy therapist?" It cracks me up every single time.

  10. Truth Seeker: No one is denying Todd Reynolds his civil rights. He is free to express his personal opinion, as am I. He, however, did so on a company site, while I did so on MY PERSONAL site. I did not use the site of a workplace to express my personal opinion. Additionally, Mr. Reynolds believes that gay couples should be denied their civil rights. He may certainly hold that opinion, but expect myself and others to point out his hypocrisy when he then claims he's not a bigot.

  11. Actually, before you claim that he wants to deny gays their civil rights, you have to establish that what you're talking about is a civil right. (I know, ranting doesn't usually take so much work.) Without speaking to Todd Reynolds, I assume he doesn't believe one has a civil right to marry a person of the same sex.

    Let's assume a Muslim wants to marry more than one woman. He and his prospective second wife apply for a marriage license and their application is denied. "But we love each other," they both claim. "How can you deny me the right to marry the man I love?" the woman says. Ah, but polygamy is illegal in the US. Is this a violation of civil rights? Even if you say it's not a violation of his rights because each person only has the right to one spouse at a time, is it a violation of her civil rights? After all, she isn't married to anyone else.

    And no, I'm not in favor of polygamy. I'm simply pointing out the other side of the argument (which does exist, whether you like it or not). Polygamy is illegal because people believe it is morally wrong. Those who are opposed to gay marriage believe it is morally wrong and should therefore be illegal as well.

  12. Truth Seeker: Using the if it's immoral, it should be illegal argument, then I suppose if someone believes extramarital affairs are immoral, then that should also be illegal? What is the fine? Punishment? What about certain sexual acts that some people find immoral? Do we go back to making those illegal as well, even for married couples? I think the problem is mixing morality with law. If marriage were just a religious designation and didn't carry certain legal and civic rights with it, such as adoption, medical power, insurance, etc. then it wouldn't be an issue for many people. The polygamy issue is a head scratcher, though. I'll give you that one!

  13. I'm not saying that everything immoral should be illegal. For instance, it may be immoral to lie to your mother, but I don't think the law should get involved there. However, we DO pass laws against immoral acts. For instance, murder is illegal because it is immoral. It doesn't matter that terrorists think it is not only moral but praiseworthy to murder babies for the cause. It's illegal because it is immoral no matter what they say.

    The question is what marriage is. Is it a social convention intended as public recognition of a committed relationship? Is it a sacrament encouraged by God, who has told us that homosexual acts are wrong? You and Sean Avery presumably believe something akin to the former, so you see nothing wrong with gay marriage. Todd Reynolds presumably believes some variant of the latter, in which case gay "marriage" is a farce and legitimizes immoral acts (attraction is not at issue here).

    As for the "civil rights" associated with marriage, gay couples For instance, many

  14. Truth Seeker: Where did you go?
    Readers: Tune in tomorrow for the continuation of "Marriage: It's SO Gay!"

  15. (nene said) Ahh! The vanity of ignorance. Great rant and ears, lolamouse

  16. Actually, I think I had decided to stop there and forgot to delete the last half sentence.

    What I had started to say was that, in my opinion, many of the "civil rights" associated with marriage should be left up to the individual. Some of them can be. For instance, you can give power of attorney to anyone you choose. You can leave your belongings to anyone you choose. Sure, you have to go to the trouble of doing it, but planning a wedding also involves a bit of work.

    Recently, my husband had surgery and it was expected that I would be in the hospital with him. All I had to say was that I was his wife. I don't know what would have happened if I had said I was a friend. Gay couples aren't the only ones affected here. What about someone who isn't married, or who is separated, or whose spouse is away or incapacitated? Shouldn't such people be able to have someone with them, too? So some of these issues are much broader than gay marriage.

    Quite simply, if gay marriage is wrong, then it is not the solution. It's not a matter of bigotry.


Rant with me. Come on, you know you want to!