Road Apples by Tim Sanders
May 10, 2010

A league of their own... sort of
Share |

There are times when the world no longer makes any sense to me. Those times include all of my waking hours and a good percentage of my sleeping hours. That is due either to the nasal spray I’ve been using to clear my Eustachian tubes, or to the widespread application of Political Correctness (I have a sneaking suspicion it is the latter). By definition, Political Correctness is not necessarily “correct,” only “politically correct,” which, if you think about it, is one of the most oxymoronic terms in the English language. You know, like “deviously honest” or “gracefully spastic.” The only rules to Political Correctness are arbitrary ones, which makes it very difficult for humorists to know how to handle a variety of topics.

Like this week’s topic, for example. When I first read the April 21 MSNBC article entitled “Not gay enough for softball team?” I immediately recognized that there were important human rights issues involved here which deserved serious and sober investigation. Of course I’m only kidding. What I immediately recognized was that I’d laughed so hard I’d blown most of my nasal spray down the front of my shirt. It was funny stuff, but how could I write about it and still be Politically Correct?

The MSNBC report chronicles how three men, Steven Apilado, LaRon Charles, and Jon Russ, have filed a lawsuit contending that the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance discriminated against them during the August, 2008 Gay Softball World Series in Seattle. According to the article:


The three California men were on a softball team called D2 that advanced to the championship game in Seattle. During the game, play was stopped several times after the team that lost to them in the semifinals protested that D2 was in violation of a league rule permitting no more than “two heterosexual players” on a team.


At any rate, following the championship game, which D2 lost, the three men were each interviewed separately in a conference room by more than 25 members of the Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance to determine their degree, if any, of gayness. Again, quoting the MSNBC article:


At one point during the proceedings, the lawsuit alleges, one of the plaintiffs [who apparently claimed he was only a part-time homosexual] was told: “This is the Gay World Series, not the Bisexual World Series.”


And the result? Well, the inquisitors studied the three men’s answers and took a vote:


The alliance ruled the three men were “nongay,” stripped D2 of its second-place finish and recommended that the three players be suspended from participating in the Gay Softball World Series for a year, according to the lawsuit ... The men are seeking $75,000 each for emotional distress. They’re also seeking to invalidate the alliance’s findings on the men’s sexual orientations and to reinstate D2's second-place finish.


And if all of the fine distinctions between “gay” and “bisexual” aren’t confusing enough, the three plaintiffs in the pending U.S. District Court lawsuit are being represented by attorneys from the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

It is a difficult task, trying to write about such a monumentally important case as the Gay Softball Suit and remain Politically Correct. The best I can do is to suggest a few questions that some readers might want to ponder. To avoid offending anyone, regardless of which of the several recognized varieties of sexual orientation they identify themselves with, here are some non-judgemental, Politically Correct, carbon neutral questions:


1. What was it about those three players that tipped the other team off? Was it something in the way they rounded third base, or in their throwing style, or what? Was chewing tobacco involved?


2. Were they read their Miranda rights before being questioned by the Gay Police?


3. Is an emotionally distressed softball player more likely to be gay, or was the old emotional distress suit just a legal ploy to ensure a larger settlement?


4. What about appearance? That article carried a team photo, and I honestly couldn’t tell who was gay and who wasn’t. All of their uniforms appeared to be tastefully coordinated and appropriately accessorized, and their caps were neat and matched their shirts perfectly.


5. Oh sure, there was that one guy wearing those garish lavender leotards and yellow ballet slippers, but I think he was only the equipment manager.


6. Whatever happened to “Don’t ask, don’t tell?”
 

7. On a purely statistical basis, wouldn’t three bisexual players count as only 1.5 purely heterosexual players.


8. What does the National Center for Lesbian Rights have to do with a gay men’s softball team? More to the point, if a powerful lesbian with a good arm and nimble feet were to sign on with a gay men’s league team as a utility infielder and help that team win the semifinals, would the losing team go into a royal snit and scream “FOUL!”


9. Is going into a royal snit and screaming “FOUL” anything like going into a crowded theater and screaming “FIRE?”


And lastly:


10. Aren’t you just pleased as punch that the Federal District Court in Seattle will soon be hard at work on this case instead of wasting its time with one of those frivolous lawsuits we're always hearing so much about?